Since the launch of Campaign for Merit in Business in early 2012, and the launch of J4MB in early 2013, our repeated attempts (and those of others interested in men’s and boys’ human rights) to engage with politicians, including government ministers, as well as government departments, have proven fruitless, other than to alert our followers and others to the extent to which the state has no interest in men’s and boys’ human rights, other than to assault them, usually to privilege women and girls.
We cannot think of one area in which individuals or organizations have had any success in rolling back the state’s anti-male assaults, or privileging of females.
When we’ve formally engaged with government, such as giving oral evidence to a House of Commons inquiry on ‘Women in the Workplace’ in 2012 – video (56:49) here – our factual evidence has been ignored, or rejected without explanation. This simply reinforces our conviction that we must make as large an impact as possible ‘on the ground’, and just before Xmas I’ll be starting three and a half years of campaigning in Theresa May’s constituency, Maidenhead, in preparation for the May 2020 general election.
We keep devoting time and effort to attempting engagement, because we’re building up an ever-growing database of evidence of the government’s hostility towards men’s and boys’ human rights. An example happened today.
Last Monday – four days ago – I mailed a letter to Bob Neill MP (C, Bromley & Chislehurst), who’s the Chairman of the Justice Committee. He’s also a barrister – who could be in a better position to engage with the point about MGM being illegal? His short dismissive response is here. The key extract:
You claim the practice is unlawful, but I am neither a judge nor a legal adviser and cannot comment on correct interpretation of the law.
This is remarkable. The ‘correct interpretation of the law’ would be obvious to a first-year law student. MGM is illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and (I am reliably informed) earlier Common Law. So, is Bob Neill MP, Chair, Justice Committee:
(a) unaware of the legal position, or
(b) unaware and unwilling to find out, or
(c) aware, but refuses to admit it?
I cannot think of other alternatives, please send a comment if you can. All the alternatives show him in a poor light, in increasing degrees of seriousness. There is certainly not the slightest sign of concern about the mutilation of male minors’ genitals.
In my letter I wrote of our protests in Luton, Golders Green, and elsewhere, and:
We are prepared to risk violence and even death in pursuit of an end to MGM in the UK.
Any right-minded reader would surely interpret the statement as meaning that protestors, not those who oppose us, will be at risk of violence and even death. Yet Bob Neill disingenuously replied to the point with the following, uses it as part of his reason for declining a meeting:
I note with great concern your willingness ‘to risk violence and even death in pursuit of an end to MGM in the UK’. I hope this is merely an accident of language, but such expressions could be interpreted as threatening: I urge you to take greater care in how you convey your position.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
