There is no shame in being a father unjustly separated from his children. But there is danger is speaking out about it. Courts, politicians, and judges do not like to be challenged in public and to have bias, prejudice, and abuse of authority pointed out for all to see. Fathers who have been identified as activists or who speak out publicly about their family court experiences have invariably found themselves pilloried for it at every subsequent court appearance. It is not uncommon for the mother's attorney or an embarrassed judge to claim that the father's public statements or activism have 'embarrassed the child'.

Thus, the World Fathers Union has adopted as fundamental policy the complete anonymity of all members. Upon joining the Union, all members assume the name of John or Jane Smith. The Union keeps no records of members' personal information other than an e-mail contact address.

Unfortunately, many people are suspicious of those who must protect their identities, so it becomes necessary to justify this decision in order to maintain the credibility which is essential to effective public commentary. It is important to understand that anonymity has a long and honourable history in political activism and judicial criticism. This is recognised both by the Bar and the courts:

• The American Bar Association, in its Black Letter Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance (February 2005), addressed the importance of anonymity in connection with judicial evaluation surveys. Guideline 6-4 states "The evaluation process must ensure the anonymity of individual respondents." The commentary to this Guideline states, in part, as follows: "Regardless of the intended use of the performance evaluation, the program must ensure the anonymity of respondents to performance questionnaires and of members of the public who submit narrative comments. The reliability of the evaluation process depends on the willingness of evaluators to provide candid and honest feedback without fear of reprisal. ... Protecting the anonymity of respondents is of particular concern in smaller jurisdictions and in jurisdictions where prosecutors and/or public defenders are assigned to particular courts...." (emphasis added)
• The importance of anonymity in speech has also been addressed by the United States Supreme Court on more than one occasion.
  • In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, (514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511 (1995)) as follows: "[a]nonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Id. at 341-341. The "decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.""[A]nonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent." Id. at 357. "The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse." Id. (emphasis added)
  • In Reno v. ACLU, (521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997)), the court said that "the First Amendment's protection extends to the Internet." "Through the use of web pages, mail exploders and newsgroups, [any person] can become a pamphleteer." Id.

World Fathers Union is an all-volunteer research and outreach NGO. We work to foster cooperation and unity amongst fathers-aid groups worldwide working for equity in the family courts of all nations. We do statistical research, compilation, and analysis of trends in social and legislative policy affecting fathers and children, and we provide outreach programs to fathers and children in distress worldwide. Membership in the Union is free, anonymous, and open to everyone.

World Fathers Union, P.O. Box 278, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia B5A 4B2. www.worldfathersunion.com