Injustice

Matty appeal dead on arrival

In June of this year, Men’s Rights Edmonton, GirlWritesWhat, A Voice for Men Radio and Tom Matty reached out to the public and the men’s rights community to help fund an appeal which, if successful, would get the high court of Canada to consider gender bias in the lower court. This was to be the first step in a sequence of actions aimed at correcting our broken family courts.

The elements of the original case were simple. Essentially, Matty and his former life partner, a citizen of Thailand, had previously started a relationship and had three children. Upon their breakup he was awarded visitation and ordered to pay child support. She returned to Thailand with children against his wishes and he tried to get them back to Canada.

The Canadian Court said, ‘Screw you, Tom.’

Like many exploited fathers. Matty ended up with financial problems. He returned to the courts, saying, essentially, “Look, it’s cheap to live in Thailand. With what you are awarding her she is living like a queen over there while I’m barely scraping by. Can you lower the payments?”

The Canadian Court said, ‘Screw you, Tom.’

So, the mother absconds with Matty’s children, moves to another country, robbing them of a relationship with their father, to live a much better life on the exchange rate between Canadian and Thai currency. All at Matty’s expense, while he is relegated to life in poverty.

He appealed the courts decision, citing the systematic gender based bias in favor of the mother.

‘Screw you, Tom,’ came the reply.[1]

That appeal, on which we pinned so much hope, was killed on Tuesday with one swift blow from a Canadian court. Actually, it would be more accurate to say this appeal was dead prior to arrival. The opposition (a cabal of about 6 feminists representing Tom’s abusive ex-) didn’t even have to make their case. What looked like an open and shut decision was chivalrously waved away with the magic wand of “judicial discretion.”

The judges presiding over this appeal gave a couple ridiculous token “arguments” to justify why these rulings were made, and then took ten minutes to unanimously agreed that they would read from a pre-written decision to strike down the claim of bias in the lower courts. They actually demonstrated more gender bias in this court room than anything Matty had seen before.

Possibly the strongest argument we had going into this, was the clear evidence of bias, not just against Tom, but against all men in similar circumstances. Canadian courts repeatedly favor women’s interests over the interests of children as well as men, and rule against what is obviously fair and just. In this case it was the destruction of the children’s relationship with their father, something known to be highly deleterious to the well-being of children.

The appeal argued that even though one biased decision is not evidence of malpractice, a series of clearly slanted rulings, in spite of evidence a “reasonable person” would consider to be valid, is clearly demonstrable bias. The court dismissed this argument on the grounds that over a period of a few days, as a judge is hearing both sides of a case, it is only natural that they would start to lean towards one side over the other and rule in their favor.

This does absolutely nothing to address the fact that these judges chronically and systematically lean to one sex over the other. What the court said, in essence, is that reasonable judges listen to the evidence and consistently conclude the man is wrong, the woman is right, that the man must be sheared and that children do not need their fathers. It’s “only natural.”

Judges are supposed to rule based on evidence, according to the law, and in the best interests of children. On that note, the court failed at every opportunity, and did so because of a gender bias against men. They repeatedly blocked evidence from Matty’s side which proved: 1) his ex was actually the perpetrator of abuse and therefore should not be granted sole guardianship of underage children, 2) these kids were better off staying in Canada as opposed to being forcefully moved to Thailand, and 3) that Tom’s ex (who is not even a citizen of Canada) is not entitled to the taxpayer funded legal aid that was funding her side of this dispute.

There were many other infuriating and despicable aspects of this appeal, but Matty will tell you about them himself via some footage taken yesterday evening, which will be available after processing.

To the MRM community:

As frustrating as this is, we refuse to throw in the towel. If anything, we’re more motivated than ever to fight this insanity. We thank you all for chipping in to help and we hope we can count on your support again in the future. We wanted very much to report good news to you all, that together we had effected real substantive changes and struck a serious blow to feminist governance. But I’m afraid we just aren’t able to do that. Not this time around anyway. But, let us not forget that we managed to rally together and produce an amazing amount of money in a very short period of time We showed up and give this thing a shot, and we learned a great deal from the experience.

If we can continue to cooperate together in these ways, this movement will see major victories. It is inescapable.

To the feminists who might be reading:

You might think your side has “won” here, but in truth, you haven’t won anything. In fact nobody has; there are only losers in this result. Most notably, the children. All that establishment feminism has managed to accomplish here is to keep children out of the arms of a loving father. They have been placed in the custody of an abusive, negligent, and violent woman. Even if you do not accept that assessment of the mother, there is no dispute that the absence of their father places them at higher risk for a multitude of life problems, ranging from drug abuse, to suicide, school failure, teen pregnancy, truancy, delinquency, depression and criminality.

That is what we call a feminist victory.

If you think we’re going to take this thing in stride and disappear quietly you can think again. We’re just getting warmed up. We are part of a growing army of activists who are fed up with your ideas of victory and we are coming to Fuck Your Shit Up™. The feminist stranglehold on our society, on our families and our children will not stand.

~Raz
Mens Rights Edmonton

Editor’s note: feature image by jason ilagan. –PW

[1]Matty Appeal Decision

About Men's RIghts Edmonton

Men's Rights Edmonton, famous for its postering campaigns and other work that's attracted attention all over Canada, works tirelessly to fight against systematic discrimination in parenting, domestic violence policies, education, criminal sentencing, paternity, forced labor, military conscription, public health policies, genital integrity, false accusations, reproductive rights, and portrayal by the media of men and boys.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • OzzieMatt

    Thanks for posting the follow-up.
    I’m a little confused. The judgment seems to say Matty met his ex-wife in Thailand and that the children were born there and the family moved to Canada when the children were between the ages of 5 and 9. But the AVFM article says Matty met his now ex-wife in Canada?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Good question. Checking on this.

      Edit: It was an editing error on my part and has been corrected. Thanks.

  • Nightwing1029

    Another possible error:
    “The opposition (a cabal of about 6 feminists representing Tom’s abusive)”

    Should that say abusive ex?

    That aside, I am glad to hear about the update.
    Just another reason to keep fighting the good fight.

    • Matthew Lane

      Actually it shouldn’t say “a cabal of about 6 feminists” unless we can prove that they were in fact all feminists. Because lets be fair here, someone oppossing one of us doesn’t immediately make them a feminist… Kind of like how a law that hits someone who happens to be black isn’t done because he is black & it doesn’t immediately make the court of law the KKK.

      Personally this article comes off as too hyperbolic & sophmorish.

  • RossT

    As long as one continues to THROW money at this system the corrupt Family Court will always rule in the favor that will keep the money coming! There will be no justice if one keeps willingly feeding the system! >:I

    All that money raised was WASTED! >:I In my opinion, I was against this fundraiser from the start, ’cause I knew not much would come from it. Nothing comes from feeding the beast except the hunger fpr more!

    What to do? My opinion, don’t deal with the beast as an outsider, get INTO the beast by being a lawyer, a judge, a politician. Have a seat at the table and start making laws instead of being just subject to the law!

    • http://www.mensrightsedmonton.com/ Men’s RIghts Edmonton

      I agree, then dissagree, then dissagree some more.

      You are correct in that we need to stop feeding this beast. It’s clear now that the “from within” approach is foolhardy and ultimately futile. If a case as biased as THIS fails in appeal, then there clearly is no hope in hell of using the system to correct itself. It can’t be done. Anybody who comes to me with another strategy like this is going to get a link to this article.

      But I wouldn’t go so far as to say this was “wasted”. It’s never a waste to try. This is how activism works. Especially at the beginning. We’re going to lose the odd fight. Some of them are going to really hurt or cost us dearly. But the important thing is you learn from it, adjust your strategy and try again. And again. And again. Until you get the result you want. As an example, we spent a lot of our own money, time and effort postering our city only to see those posters torn down the very next day, sometimes the very next hour. It would have been easy to get discouraged and say it was all “wasted” effort, but we kept at it anyways and then look what happened. You can’t quit is the point. If you only count the misses, you aren’t going to get anywhere.

      Next point you made is…

      “…don’t deal with the beast as an outsider, get INTO the beast by being a lawyer, a judge, a politician. Have a seat at the table and start making laws instead of being just subject to the law!”

      Again, I disagree because of largely the very reason this appeal failed in the first place. No judge or lawyer is going to allow anything to upset the great thing they all have going for themselves. If any one of them tried, the others would sweep in and correct that “oversight”. It’s like you said, Family Court will always rule in the favor that will keep the money coming! They will fight furiously to maintain the status quo. That is what I’m taking from this, as well as the Marry Kellett fiasco.

      Change clearly has to come from outside.

      The system is simply too corrupted to be corrected from within. There has to be consequences for acting in the biased manner these fuckers do on a daily basis. Consequences which far outweigh their incentives to ALWAYS side with “poor helpless women”, irregardless of what is just and fair. From my experience there’s only two ways to motivate people: provide them an incentive, or punish them for not doing what you want them to do. We can’t afford to bribe them to do what is right, so the only other option is to make them feel the pain of their actions. The question becomes, how does a non violent movement like the MRM accomplish this?

      ~Razlo
      MR-E

    • OzzieMatt

      You’re right about changing the Family Court from the inside.
      The problem is, the Feminists are at least three decades ahead of you. They control the Family Court or at least have a lot of power to influence everything that happens there.
      It all starts with the control of universities and particularly the law schools of universities. They are a feminist hornet’s nest and have been for a while now.
      A lot of clever maneuvering but they’ve done it.

  • RossT

    And another thing. How and WHY is Tom Matty paying any form of child-support or spousal support to NON-RESIDENTS?
    As for tax-payer funded legal representation for his ex-wife. Not so. Tom Matty will be handed that bill! Guaranteed!

    • http://www.mensrightsedmonton.com/ Men’s RIghts Edmonton

      Tom isn’t just paying child & spousal support to a non-resident, he’s paying it to somebody who isn’t even his spouse & never was. The two were never married.
      The actor/comedian Dove Foley from the popular Canadian TV show “kids in the Hall” is living the exact same scenario. If he so much as sets foot in Canada, they will arrest him for unpaid spousal support. Why? Because those payments were determined at the height of his career. He isn’t making anywhere near as much today.

      If Tom’s ex were to come back to Canada, the support he would be forced to pay her would mean he would have to literally flee Canada or ultimately, end up in jail.

      Erin Pizzey wasn’t kidding when she called Canada the most frightening place in the world to be if you’re a man.

  • Billy

    This is what happens when you try and fight to change something that’s been around for a long time. You have to expect some disappointed in the beginning. You just have to keep your frustration low and keep fighting. Eventually they’ll start listening. This is a start and we just have to keep going.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    I honestly don’t know anymore why anyone has any faith at all in the judiciary, or how anyone can believe in our court system anymore. In Canada or the US.

    Undermining the integrity of the system is the first step towards people just embracing anarchy.It’s astounding more don’t see that.

    There is no reason to believe any justice comes out of the justice system, or that the civil courts will do anything but line their own pockets and that of the lawyers.

    I cannot say that I think outright mass revolt would even upset me. I don’t advocate it, but when you have people who no longer have any accountability to the governed, or anything at all except others in the same elite circles they brown nose their way into, why should the people believe in it at all anymore, or have any care what happens to it?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Thanks for explaining the rationale for my jury nullification stance. hyuck-yuck. :)

  • Mortarmouth

    One further correction: the Alberta Court of Appeal is not “the high court of Canada”. There is no such court – the ABCA is just one of many provincial courts of appeal. The highest court in Canada is the Supreme Court of Canada. It’s one step above the ABCA.

    • http://www.mensrightsedmonton.com/ Men’s RIghts Edmonton

      You’re probably right about that. This isn’t Paul’s fault, he’s relaying the information I provided him, and I’m relaying information as it was explained to me.
      Tom and MR-E will be collaborating on further articles to hopefully clarify such things as well as shed more light into just how egregious biased his case actually is.
      Thanks for catching this.

    • http://Yahoo lugger2010

      Yeah, The Supreme Court of Canada- Lets; see, Rosalie “Abella the Hun” (my words) Abella, and Chief Feminist, err Chief Justice Beverley McGlauqulin (poss. misspell), and God knows how many of the rest of these liberal activists either believe/support feminism, or have political guns pointed at their heads…..

  • Alessandro

    Italian judges have been sued at the European Court for Human Right because they systematically discriminate against fathers, violating the joint custody law and even causing child abuse. In many courts, judges have a pre-compiled form that establishes that children stay with the mother and that the only choice is how much fathers have to pay.

  • http://sportsdroppingsusa.blogspot.com Ty Henry

    My apologies in advance for being a little late on this topic, if my questions have already been covered. I just need a little more information.

    OzzieMatt’s confusion is similar to mine. The ruling itself says that they met in Thailand in 1996, all three children were born there, and they did not return to Canada until 2010, making the kids Thai in both citizenship and cultural identity. Courts are not above lying (I’ve been there), so I need to know this baseline information, as well on the Court’s assertion that “Matty would not be willing to sponsor his ex-wife’s petition for citizenship,” or if there’s more to it that the ruling is not saying. Thanks!

    • http://www.mensrightsedmonton.com/ Men’s RIghts Edmonton

      I’ll shed some light on this as best I can.

      Tom & his ex did meet in Thailand, and they did have the 3 kids there. However, the kids were raised “western style”. So their cultural identity is more western than thai. The kids were taught to speak english quite fluently, and they all attended international schools.
      Tom never married his ex because she had an affair. Eventually, the two of them agreed Canada would be a better place to raise the kids. When they arrived in Canada, in 2010, the kids all obtained Canadian citizenship. Tom’s ex however, didn’t.
      As for Tom not sponsoring his ex for a work permit, the court never recognizes that he couldn’t do this. Canada does not allow you to sponsor a non-resident whom you are not in a relationship with, (married). Tom & his ex knew this before they made the move to Canada. It was agreed before they moved that Tom’s ex would obtain the permits she required and find work entirely on her own merits. Despite the fact she holds a masters degree (in nursing I think), she never did any of this. The courts don’t care about any of that. They ruled that he is to pay her $12,000 in spousal support, despite the fact they were never even married. They actually told him he’s “getting off lucky with having to pay only 12K for a 15 year relationship” (they were only together 12 years).
      12 thousand dollars for what exactly?! During those 12 years, she contributed fuck all to the family income, she was regularly psychologically and physically abusive, and on one occasion, she even attacked Tom with a knife right in front of the children. For that she gets 12 thousand dollars and primary custody of three kids whom she can move anywhere she wants to.

      Hope this clarifies things a bit. These are just a few details to this sick and disgusting case. We will work with Tom to get his full story out there for you guys, hopefully in the near future. It’s one that needs to be told.

      ~Razlo
      MR-E

      • http://sportsdroppingsusa.blogspot.com Ty Henry

        12,000 per month?? That’s insane!!

        And thanks for clearing a few things up.

        By the way, did he document the attack via a call to the police, as well as some of the agreements? Spinning forward, the lesson to men is “always be recording and documenting.” Otherwise, courts can hide behind “heresay” when it comes to men.

  • sethster

    Good luck with that. I hope you have a lot of money, because your opposition has infinite funds. You can’t beat the system, until the system completely collapses.

    It is coming soon, but don’t expect the future system to be any better. I suspect it will be far worse. That is why I don’t bother myself with fighting the system.

  • http://strategicmisanthropy@blogspot.com S. Misanthrope

    Ok, taking a risk here. I fully support Men’s Rights, so please understand that this comes from a place of sincerely wanting to help and is in no way a criticism of the general principles involved in this case or others.

    But.

    Are there no lawyers in the MRM? Any decent civil lawyer could have told you that this is not what the appeals process is for. Appeals are about the process, not the decision. Yes, the appeal was DOA, but that’s because it was not a valid appeal.

    The only relevant evidence of bias presented in the appeal comes from the judge’s response to Matty questioning a witness directly. “How to behave in court rule #1″ is never, ever, ever represent yourself. Every judge hates dealing with non-lawyers, and for good reason: they don’t know what they’re doing in a courtroom. A judge reacting poorly to someone breaking this basic rule is not going to amount to evidence of gender-bias.

    The first judge may have made a bad decision (or several), but the appellate court made the right call under the law. I’m sorry, because a lot about this situation is deeply unfair, but getting what you wanted out of this appeal would have amounted to a dismantling of some very fundamental aspects of the court system (which are, in my opinion, mostly valid).

    Judges have to apply the law, so if you want change, *change the law.* Petition representatives, introduce bills, write propositions, promote legislative reform, etc. Don’t ask judges to ignore the law, because they shouldn’t and they won’t.

    My Sig. Other is a lawyer (US), and he’s willing to jump in here and help explain how to more successfully navigate the system. I really hope AVfM will take him up on his offer, because it will not only help individuals struggling to understand and navigate these systems, it will also make your activism more effective (more bang for your buck, or more change for your change, you might say). Most of the unjust *results* that we see affecting men are caused by the proper application of unjust laws. I know judges put a face to the injustice, but it’s the law that’s your enemy in most cases, not the judge. Don’t fight the law: change it.

    • http://Yahoo lugger2010

      If I may, you state “Judges have to apply the law….”
      While this is true- In theory, but in reality, especially in Canada, judges write/made/create “law” from the bench, based entirely on the mood they’re in that day, the people/ circumstances involved (man vs.woman, white male vs. minority, gay vs. hetero, etc.), and their decisions are made based on whats Politically Correct, not what is Legally Correct !
      What is needed, (I can only speak for Canada), is for the Prime Minister to use his authority to FORCE the Courts (all levels) to start ruling based on written law, and to eliminate this “legislating from the Bench” epidemic that has eroded any faith in our courts.
      This will take PRESSURE on the PMO, Attorney Generals, and MPs across the land.
      Judges routinely disregard the law, and rule according to their personal bias and political leanings, then hide behind the “Charter of (liberal) Rights”. The letter of the law be damned!
      Remember Rosalie “Abella the Hun” Abella, who told McLean’s Magazine a few years ago (Quote)
      “Yes, as judges, we are Godlike…..”
      If that doesn’t say it all, and scare the Hell out of you, nothing else will!