High Commissioner for Human Rights

 Contact information

Contents

A submission under the "1503" procedure

This is a submission to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and addresses violations of Articles 23 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by the United Kingdom (UK). It describes, using recently published material from The Cheltenham Group and elsewhere, a "consistent pattern of violations", and so is appropriate for submission under the "1503" procedure.

ICCPR Articles addressed

The report addresses the Article 23 provisions about the right to marry and to found a family. It especially addresses what such rights mean in the UK in the 1990s, and specifically from a man’s perspective. A central topic, among a number of relevant topics, is identified as the definition of marriage.

It is our belief that those who drafted Article 23, and those who on 16 December 1966 subsequently adopted and opened for signature the ICCPR, inclusive of Article 23, did so on the understanding that marriage would be a distinguishable state from being unmarried. Further, that within each state signatory, there should be legal, social or financial provisions in support of marriage and the family. Further, that the individual who openly and publicly committed himself to marriage, and who has done no substantive wrong in matrimonial and family matters, in other words is unimpeachable, would have his investment in children, home, assets and future earnings, protected by legal and social provisions. This implies that marriage would give rights and protection, and would not be more damaging than cohabitation, and that this principle should apply particularly when a family had been founded, and especially with respect to rights over the children.

We present evidence that for very many unimpeachable men, marriage in the UK is now more damaging than cohabitation. We also describe the history of changes to UK laws, both by Parliament, and by the Judiciary without Parliamentary or public approval, and supported by serious professional malpractices by those involved in the interpretation of matrimonial law, primarily by solicitors, barristers, and court welfare officers. The combination of these corruptions to Parliament’s principles as stated in the written law, has caused for many unimpeachable men great damage to their lives. It follows that for these men the legal basis for marriage in the UK has been redefined to such an extent that marriage is meaningless within the terms of Article 23(2).

There is a state in the UK called ‘marriage’, but it is not compatible with that assumed by those who drafted and signed Article 23. The primary issue is that the UK has violated Article 23(2) as men are not now able ‘to marry’ in terms which are compatible with Article 23(2).

There are other principles which we wish the High Commissioner to address, two of which we mention here.

The first is that those who marry should understand their rights and responsibilities in marriage, including the responsibilities enforced on them in the event of dissolution of a marriage.

The second is that the rights and responsibilities which are understood, and which the individual accepts at the time of marriage should not be changed during that marriage.

We compare the consequences for men and women of cohabiting and entering marriage, for those with and without children.

We therefore show in this report and in the supporting evidence, that not only has marriage for men been destroyed in the UK as a legal, social or financial institution, but that the state of being married is, in the average case, actually more damaging to an unimpeachable man’s life than cohabitation.

We present statistical evidence of the scale of this in the UK, in terms of numbers of cases per year, and in terms of the effects on individuals.

We conclude that the UK has violated Articles 23(2) and 23(4), and that the scope of this violation is very great, both in terms of the effect on individual men, and in terms of the numbers of cases affected each year.

We provide evidence of very serious damage done to the fabric of the lives of unimpeachable men involved in divorce. We show that these men affected have usually done no substantive wrong, without any criminal or matrimonial offences, and so each has faced deep seated injustice. We also provide evidence of corruption and degrading treatment of men in the divorce process. We further provide evidence of the scale of these effects, with about 100,000 men affected each year. We conclude that Article 7 is being violated with respect to the ‘degrading treatment’ which these men receive.

We further conclude that there has been no more serious human rights issue within the UK since the United Nations international human rights instruments were introduced over 30 years ago, and ask the High Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate the separate aspects of this situation which we identify in section 5.

Brevity of this submission and the References

The report has been written with as much brevity as possible, while identifying the key issues we believe are relevant to bring these matters to the attention of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. We provide much of our evidence in supporting publications, and a copy of all the essential publications is supplied with this report, and a few of which are given as references only. The ‘References’ section highlights, in bold, those provided with this report.

It is essential that the High Commissioner for Human Rights is familiar with the information we submit in the References. Of particular relevance we mention :

• The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence [1] : pages 3-40 on how this situation came about; pages 41-52 on the consequences of divorce for men; pages 55-257 for a number of first-hand case studies; pages 259-320 for statistics;

• The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies [3], together with [4, 5, 6] on the lack of control by authorities in the UK;

• Divorce Law Practice : The Invisible Engine of a Matrilineal Society [7] and The Fight for the Family : the adults behind children’s rights [9] on the background situation about minority groups in the UK who have influenced matrimonial and family law.

Major changes to matrimonial law

The rate of change in matrimonial law

 Changes to social benefits in support of marriage

Collection of the evidence for this submission

Information collected on separation and divorce

The Cheltenham Group has therefore studied the effects of separation and divorce on men and women in the UK. As well as being in receipt of a large amount of anecdotal evidence, the Group conducted a survey during 1995 of men following separation and divorce. Information from a sample of 346 individual cases were collected and are described in The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process & Consequence [1].

Much of the information has never been collected by the UK Government. In particular :

Statistics on family life in the UK

It is useful to describe the social effects of the changes to the law and social provisions presented above.

With regard to marriage and founding a family, the statistics from the UK Government show :

• divorce cases per year : 6,092 in 1938, 162,579 in 1993 (Judicial Statistics Annual Report 1993);

• proportion of divorces granted by gender : to women 112,000 (71%), and men 45,000 (29%), in 1994 (Population Trends No. 84, Summer 1996);

• proportion of children brought up in lone-parent households : 7% in 1972, and 21% in 1994-95 (Social Trends 26, 1996);

• proportion of all households of lone-parents : women 19%, men 2% in 1993 (Key Data - UK Social and Economic Statistics, 1995-96 Edition);

• births outside marriage : 4% up to 1961, 38% in 1997 (Key Data - UK Social and Economic Statistics, 1995-96 Edition);

• proportion of single person households i.e. choosing to live alone : 14% in 1961, 27% in 1994-95 (Key Data - UK Social and Economic Statistics, 1995-96 Edition).

These figures show clearly that many people in the UK are choosing not to marry, and that founding a family is increasingly done outside of the usual legal and social framework.

The rights and responsibilities of marriage and founding a family - information provided to the public

In the UK, no definition of the rights and responsibilities in marriage and parenthood is given to those intending this. Neither is there any information given about the process and consequence of separation and divorce. The most significant rights and responsibilities in marriage and founding a family are only discovered, in most cases, at the time of separation. Until that time they are not a factor in determining the organisation of the day to day lives of the individuals.

While a couple remain together they may organise their lives very much as they wish. Earning an income for the family and daily care of the children are organised between the couple. Decisions on investing family assets, their home etc, are all left up to the couple. However, at separation and divorce, the laws on matrimonial and family matters then take effect. The legal system then determines the outcomes of the issues about children, home, assets and maintenance from future earnings.

Introduction of laws on matrimonial and family issues

During 1967 to 1996 the UK Government has passed 36 laws on matrimonial and family issues [1, pages 33-34]. Few if any of these have been introduced by ordinary members of the public making demands through their Member of Parliament (MP). The consequences are almost unknown to the general public whose lives these laws affect. Some are misleadingly named e.g. the Marriage Act 1995 deals only with the issue of ceremonies and allows non-traditional places to be used i.e. outside of churches and register offices, thus reducing the seriousness of the occasion.

Meanwhile, most bodies which the Government have asked to advise about new laws, including the Law Commission, are heavily influenced by minority interest groups including radical feminists, and their supporters, including the children’s rights and homosexual lobby groups. This situation is well described in Divorce Law Practice : The Invisible Engine of a Matrilineal Society [7] and The Fight for the Family [9].

One outstanding example is taken from the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto of 1979 [quoted in 9] :

"We, along with the women’s movement, must fight for something more than reform. We must aim at the abolition of the family so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there. The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family, consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models … The end of the sexist culture and of the family will benefit all women and gay people."

Another outstanding example of one such individual with a specific agenda is Brenda Hoggett. Previously an academic in law at Manchester University, later a member of the Law Commission, an unaccountable and unelected body which proposes and develops new laws, and more recently appointed a senior judge in the Court of Appeal dealing with family cases and titled Mrs Justice Hale. In an influential paper published in 1980 [10] she wrote :

"Family law no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage or any other union. It has adopted principles for the protection of children and dependent spouses which could be made equally to the unmarried. In such circumstances, the piecemeal erosion of the distinction between marriage and non-married cohabitation may be expected to continue. Logically we have already reached a point at which, rather than discussing which remedies should now be extended to the unmarried, we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose."

Legal and social support for marriage in the UK

The development of the legal and social framework, which governs marriage, appears to have greatly reduced the support for marriage, as defined by the UK judiciary in 1868, and in particular men’s rights within marriage.

A comparison of cohabitation and marriage

We now demonstrate how far these developments have progressed by comparing marriage with cohabitation, and the effects of this for men and women.

To do this, we consider a man and woman living together, and compare the legal and social provisions for cohabitation with those for marriage. We present only those legal and social provisions which are different for cohabitation and marriage, and where differences of treatment between men and women exist.

The rates of marriage and divorce in the UK in 1993 were : marriage 5.9 per 1,000 of population, divorce 3.1 per 1,000 of population. This gives a ratio of 52.5% as many divorces as marriages. The expectation of those marrying must now be that about 50% of marriages will end in divorce.

Because of this 50% divorce rate, we present the comparison for those couples remaining together and those separating, which involves the process of divorce for those couples who had married.

Because the situation for those with and without children is also significantly different, we present information for those with and without children separately.

Because men and women are not treated equally, we also compare the effects on men and women.

The comparisons are made in table form for the outcomes of a man and a woman living as a couple.

Each table includes a summary, and comparisons of :

• cohabitation with marriage

• treatment of women with that of men.

Comparison of the benefits/damages of marriage for women and men

Only those aspects of the situation which are different for cohabitation and marriage are described. We have also assumed the situation after April 2000, when tax allowances will be equalised between married and cohabiting couples.

Summary of comparison of benefits/damages for women and men

Only differences for women and men are shown.

Overview

Of the three outcomes of marriage identified above, none provide any benefit to a man, and two of the outcomes usually cause serious damage to his life.

All three outcomes provide benefits to women.

Public kept in ignorance

Most members of the public are not aware of the information we present in this submission.

While the UK Government may be allowed to change the laws regulating the rights and responsibilities in marriage, we do not believe the Government or judges should :

• change matrimonial law to such an extent that marriage is indistinguishable from cohabitation;

• change the laws to such an extent that marriage is most likely to be damaging to men;

• allow the law to damage the lives of unimpeachable men who are not guilty of any matrimonial offence;

• change the law in fundamental issues during a marriage, such that the individual in the marriage finds that what was accepted at marriage is no longer applicable;

• apply or allow any of these changes without the public’s approval and permission, or that of those individuals in ongoing marriages.

Two principles are relevant here, that those who marry should :

• know and understand the rights and responsibilities conferred by the married state;

• be assured that the rights and responsibilities accepted at marriage shall not be altered by Government or authorities, particularly without public approval, during the marriage.

‘No-fault’ divorce

The history we present of the changes, both by Government, and by judges in case law, represents the introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce. This is the determination of the outcomes of divorce without consideration of the behaviour of the parties.

Few if any of the changes we describe have been introduced by public demand. The changes have been introduced with case law decisions of the senior judges, without the public being consulted or even informed. That is, a ‘stealth’ process has effectively been used in the introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce.

We describe the realities of ‘no-fault’ divorce in The Emperor’s New Clothes [1]. We note that this situation allows a woman to use trivial and fabricated reasons to dissolve a marriage, and yet retain most of the benefits of the marriage, and also to gain from the marriage and divorce process, and to thereby obtain a higher standard of living than a normal family. We further describe the legal helplessness of men in this situation.

The public therefore are generally unaware that ‘no-fault’ divorce has been introduced, and still less of the realities we present for men. This explains the shock and stress suffered by men at divorce.

A man contemplating marriage now must consider these facts before committing himself.

3. Conclusions and Articles violated

Conclusions on the comparison of cohabitation with marriage

For a married man who continues to live with a partner, marriage is not a distinguishable state, as there are no benefits over cohabitation.

For a married woman who continues to live with a partner there are benefits, but only on the death of the man.

For a married man whose marriage ends in divorce, there is invariably more serious damage to his life than if he had cohabited. For those married fathers with children, the damage is very serious. Marriage for men therefore constitutes a more damaging state than cohabitation, whether children are involved or not, but is especially damaging for the man with children.

For a married woman whose marriage ends in divorce, there are considerable benefits compared with cohabitation, and these benefits are obtained due to damage to a man’s life.

Approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce in the UK in the 1990s, and the man contemplating marriage must base his decisions on this fact and the likelihood of damage to his life.

We provide our estimates of the statistical probabilities of various damaging outcomes of marriage for men [1, pages 313-320] and a copy of a paper Derivation of Statistical Probabilities in The Emperor’s New Clothes Annex 3 - pages 313-320 [14] which gives the derivations of the probabilities.

Marriage in the UK incompatible with the provisions of Article 23(2)

Those who drafted the ICCPR including Article 23(2), granting that the ‘right of men and women to marry shall be recognized’ did so on the understanding that the step ‘to marry’ would incorporate two principles :

• result in the individual being in a distinguishable state from being unmarried;

• and that it would provide the individual with certain rights and protections not available in unmarried cohabitation.

In particular, the second principle should apply, and an unimpeachable person should be protected by matrimonial law from the behaviour of the other spouse.

If either of these principles is not met in the UK, then there is no rationale for adoption of Article 23(2) of ICCPR.

Violations of Article 23(2) of ICCPR

The laws governing the right to marry in the UK have been changed over the last 50 years, so that ‘marriage’ is, for the individual man, either not a distinguishable state from cohabitation, or is likely to be damaging for that man. ‘Marriage’ as it is known in the UK is therefore not compatible with the provisions of Article 23(2).

Men who marry in the UK are not entering into any state which is compatible with that understood by those who drafted Article 23(2). There are about 360,000 marriages per year.

Article 23(2), with the meaning of marriage defined in that Article, has been violated in the UK, and is being violated in 360,000 cases each year.

Violations of Article 23(4) of ICCPR

For men in an on-going marriage, there is no equality of treatment with that of women. This applies to all currently married men in the UK.

There are about 14,000,000 currently married men in the UK with an on-going violation of Article 23(4).

For those men involved in divorce proceedings, we provide an overview of the massive inequality in this submission. Of particular relevance is that women are allowed to commit perjury and contempt of court [1, pages 7-9, and the case studies referenced there] and are often effectively rewarded for such behaviour.

There are about 180,000 divorces each year in the UK, and our information is that there are about 100,000 cases in which men are treated in a manner which is not only unequal to the woman, but is in fact seriously degrading for the man.

Article 23(4) is further being violated, and to a very serious extent, in about 100,000 cases per year in the UK.

Violations of Article 7 of ICCPR

The process and consequence of divorce, especially for those men of unimpeachable character, is degrading.

During the process, verbal abuse of men by lawyers and judges is reported regularly. Court welfare reports regularly cause outrage in the men whose case is damaged by an inaccurate report. Judges are ignoring evidence and the written law.

The consequences for men are very severe. Many men are perceived by their family, friends, colleagues, doctors, etc as having a degraded quality life, but which could have been avoided had the courts operated correctly. Many have the humiliation of being required to pay all the costs of child contact, of paying monies into another family which is as a consequence better off than an ordinary family, of not knowing if that money is being spent for the benefit of their children, and seeing their children being raised often by another man. Many men suffer fear and apprehension concerning the actions against them. These actions are being taken by an ex-wife assisted by the authorities and a court, particularly concerning :

• being denied contact with children altogether, for which there is usually no remedy;

• demanding more and unreasonable levels of maintenance, while the man is trying to re-establish his life.

Many men suffer health problems under the stress, problems with employment, and murder and suicide are regularly reported [1, pages 293-295].

As illustration of this situation, we provide a copy of an extract from a newsletter of the National Association for Child Support Action (NACSA) which gives three reports of cases of suicide, and lists a total of 48 names of suicide cases known to be caused by matrimonial and family law [13].

Meanwhile many ex-wives of divorced men have their lives enhanced, with an increase in income from unearned sources, so it cannot be said that the degrading treatment of men is unavoidable or necessary to ensure that the children’s welfare is protected.

The treatment of men in these situations is clearly degrading, and this constitutes violations of Article 7 of ICCPR, in terms of degrading treatment, in about 100,000 cases per year in the UK.

4. Domestic remedies and Purpose of this petition

Domestic remedies

Remedies for those in an on-going marriage

There are no laws which men may use to provide benefits in an on-going marriage.

Remedies for unimpeachable men subjected to divorce against their wishes

Those unimpeachable men who have attempted to obtain a remedy about their own cases by going to the Court of Appeal usually obtain no remedy.

Most men give up without even an appeal, because of overwhelming difficulties, lack of support from solicitors and barristers, and because of the prohibitive costs.

If domestic remedies were readily available to most men, then we would not experience the effects, the case histories, and the statistics collected and reported in The Emperor’s New Clothes [1].

Those men who have attempted to present information about the general situation have received deliberate obstructions. The best example of this is the submissions made to all the relevant authorities to the policies of court welfare officers [3, 6]. A copy of the Cheltenham Group report [3] on this issue is provided with this submission.

Purpose of this petition

The purpose of this petition is to obtain a remedy to the violations of Articles 23(2), 23(4) and 7 in terms of :

• the introduction of radical changes to the laws governing marriage in the UK;

• that measures should be put in place to ensure that repetition of the present situation may not be re-established;

• that financial compensation be given to those men whose rights under Articles 23(2), Article 23(4), and particularly Article 7 have been violated.

5. Requests of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

We request that the High Commissioner for Human Rights investigate each of the following issues, and consider for each whether a separate human rights violation exists. We identify the ICCPR Articles which are compromised in each separate issue.

1. There is nothing which distinguishes marriage from cohabitation for those men who continue to live, in a couple, with their wife : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2).

2. There is, on average, greater damage done by separation/divorce to unimpeachable, in the matrimonial sense, married men compared with cohabiting men : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2).

3. Many men who are unimpeachable in the matrimonial sense, and who have not committed, and have not proven guilty of, any matrimonial offence, are being divorced against their wishes using trivial and fabricated divorce petitions, and subsequently have their lives seriously damaged : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2).

4. For the 50% of married men who continue to live with their wives, there is nothing which distinguishes marriage from cohabitation; for the 50% of married men who will divorce there is serious damage to their lives; therefore, for the group of men who commit themselves to marriage, taking an average outcome, or considering the collective outcome, marriage overall is damaging : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2).

5. The statistical probability of a marriage ending in divorce is about 0.5 or 50% of cases, and may be higher for particular groups or ages or dates for marriage : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2).

6. Most of those who intend marriage in the UK do not know or understand their rights and responsibilities in marriage : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2).

7. Those who are currently married may find that the rights and responsibilities they accepted at marriage may be changed during the marriage without giving their permission or even being consulted : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2).

8. A ‘no-fault’ divorce system, in which the consequences of divorce are not based on the behaviour of the parties, and which we describe in this submission and in The Emperor’s New Clothes [1], operates in the UK : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2) and with Article 23(4).

9. Many women are allowed by the UK courts to commit perjury in divorce, child and financial cases; they are also allowed to be in contempt of court, particularly over child contact arrangements; as they are arbitrarily given priority over children and assets they are effectively rewarded for this : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2) and with Article 23(4).

10. A significant number of men are cut off completely from their children, without any contact at all, while nothing is proven against these men, so that this is done on the sole reason that the mother does not want them to have any contact; and judges refuse to apply any sanctions against the mother : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2) and with Article 23(4).

11. When a woman remarries after divorce, she continues to receive child maintenance; the income of her new family as a result usually exceeds that of her previous family, and that of a woman living in a normal (non-divorced) family; divorce therefore improves her life with unearned income typically for the following 10-15 years that child maintenance is paid : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2) and with Article 23(4).

12. It is clear that the court welfare service provides biased reports in many cases, and is operated without appropriate controls applied [3, 4, 5, 6], while this is a central component of matrimonial law : whether this is compatible with Article 23(2) and with Article 23(4).

13. Taking average outcomes for divorce, there are benefits of marriage, realised at the time of divorce, for women, while there is damage done to men : whether this is compatible with Article 23(4).

14. Many men involved in divorce are being subjected to degrading treatment both during and as a consequence of divorce proceedings, which we describe in section 3 under ‘Violations of Article 7’ and in our references : whether this is compatible with Article 7.

1. The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence, 2^nd Edition, The Cheltenham Group, February 1998, ISBN 1 900080 03 6.

2. Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men, 2^nd Edition, The Cheltenham Group, 1998, ISBN 1 900080 05 2.

3. The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, The Cheltenham Group, 11 June 1998.

4. Equal Rights / Anti-sexism, National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), 4 Chivalry Road, London, SW11 1HT, September 1996. [Facsimile supplied].

5. Letter, from Gaenor Kyffin of NAPO Administration, 4 Chivalry Road, London SW11 1HT, 23 April 1997.

6. Letter, from the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman to Mr Gary Streeter MP, 23 July 1998.

7. Divorce Law Practice : The Invisible Engine of a Matrilineal Society, Dr John Campion, The Cheltenham Group, 31 January 1998.

8. Farewell to the Family ?, Patricia Morgan, Institute of Economic Affairs, January 1995, ISBN 0 255 363 56 7.

9. The Fight for the Family : the adults behind children’s rights, Lynette Burrows, Family Education Trust, ISBN 0 906229 14 6.

10. Ends and Means : the utility of Marriage as a Legal Institution, Brenda Hoggett in Eekalaar and Catz (eds), Marriage and Cohabitation in Contemporary Societies, p.101, Butterworth, 1980.

11. Understanding Your Tax Calculation, ref P800(Notes)(New)(1998-99), UK Inland Revenue, April 1998.

12. Social security benefit rates, ref NI196 from April 1998, UK Benefits Agency, April 1998.

13. NACSA News 1998/Issue 3, National Association for Child Support Action, PO Box 3195, Fishermead, Milton Keynes, MK6 2YB. [Extract supplied]

14. Derivation of Statistical Probabilities in The Emperor’s New Clothes Annex 3 - pages 313-320, The Cheltenham Group.

A copy of those items in bold are supplied with this submission.

For further information you may contact :

The Cheltenham Group

PO Box 205

Cheltenham

Gloucestershire

GL51 0YL

UNITED KINGDOM

Director : Barry Worrall BSc MSc MBCS CEng