Our submission on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union

This submission is concerned with the definition of 'marriage' within human rights codes

Submission to Members of the Convention

with respect to the draft

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

from The Cheltenham Group, 10 September 2000

The Cheltenham Group is primarily concerned with matrimonial and family law, especially the significance of these laws for men. We therefore make this submission with respect to this issue within the draft Charter.

Our studies of matrimonial and family issues within the law in the United Kingdom (UK) show that law and order has effectively broken down in this area. Further, our experience in dealing with the authorities in the UK is such that we believe there is no democracy and almost no control by the authorities.

There does not seem to be any articles that address this issue within the Charter. An article or articles providing the individual with the ability to influence the authorities and government is required.

We fully support the concept of responsibility, a concept which appears to have disappeared in the UK so far as women are concerned in matrimonial and family matters.

This article should be strengthened to include specific reference to dignity within the family and before the law.

This article should be strengthened to include specific reference to degrading treatment within matrimonial and family law.

This article should be strengthened to include specific reference to maintenance of spouses after divorce. When the man who has done no wrong in matrimonial matters is forced to pay maintenance, and when the woman profits from the situation (i.e. is better off then other women), we regard this as a form of slavery of the man.

Reference should be made to family life, that if a person commits no wrong in matrimonial matters, then that person’s family life should be protected.

This article is drafted so inadequately that it is meaningless. The reason for this is simply that there is no definition of the terms ‘to marry’ or ‘marriage’.

It will be necessary for us to describe the situation in the UK so that the Members of the Convention may understand the full significance of this vital issue. We do this very briefly here, and give reference to our website which contains comprehensive information on this subject.

Our studies in the UK show that the institution of ‘marriage’ has effectively been destroyed by a sustained and deliberate attack by feminist and allied groups who have wished to destroy men’s rights in the family. But this has also been supported with corruption and degeneracy in the system of matrimonial law.

Because of this, about 100,000 men in the UK, who have done no substantive wrong, are having their lives wrecked by badly behaving women and a corrupt law system which does not provide these men with protection of their rights within the family. These men suffer removal of children, home, life savings, and future income, without protection of law. This renders the right to marry as dangerous for innocent men.

Hence, the laws on matrimonial and family matters, as interpreted in the UK courts, do not provide protection for a man who is innocent in terms of his matrimonial behaviour. This means that what is referred to as ‘marriage’ is in fact meaningless.

We have described the situation in our published reports, and made a submission Violations of Articles 23 & 7 of ICCPR by the UK regarding these issues, to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. While this UN submission has been referred by the UN Human Rights Commission to the UK Government last year i.e. in 1999, we at this time see no remedies taken by the UK Government. The full text of our UN submission is available on our website www.c-g.org.uk (click on ‘campaigns’ then ‘human rights for men’ then ‘UN submission’). Also on the site, and referenced in the UN submission is our major report The Emperor’s New Clothes, which describes the situation in the UK and its effects (click on ‘Publications’ then ‘The Bookshelf’ then ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes - read report online now’).

Given the fundamental position in any society of the family unit and marriage, and the need for standards of behaviour to be regulated within marriage, it is essential that ‘marriage’ has significance in law. If human rights laws are to be meaningful, we therefore need to define what the terms ‘to marry’ and ‘marriage’ actually mean in terms of rights and responsibilities under the law.

A ‘marriage’, and the act ‘to marry’, must, if they are to have any significance, place the person who marries into a state which is distinguishable from not being married, and in which they will be protected in law from actions of the other spouse. That is, ‘marriage’ must provide some benefits and protections for well-behaved spouses, and this protection should be readily available in law.

In the UK, no such protection exists for men. But the existing human rights articles e.g. Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and Article 23 of UN ICCPR, also give no remedy, as there is no definition of marriage within them.

Article 9, which refers to the ‘national laws governing the exercise of this right’ does not define any fundamental principles which are required in these laws. The national laws must protect innocent men, and regulate standards of behaviour within a marriage.

The article should be greatly augmented to include clauses defining some fundamental principles which the laws on ‘marriage’ should include. We give examples of possible clauses here :

As presently drafted, this Article 9 is extremely brief, particularly for such a fundamental issue as marriage and the family, and there is every reason to augment it in order to make it meaningful.

There is no equality between men and women in matrimonial law. Specific reference should be made to matrimonial law, as rights and responsibilities within the family unit are so fundamental to any society.

It should be made clear that the child’s interests is not the only consideration within matrimonial law, as the rights of parents are equally important.

The article should be amended to include paternity leave. As it is currently drafted, it is incompatible with articles 21 and 22.