Essay on Role of Pressure Groups

A pressure group is an organisation with an aim to influence political decision making and legislation. This is often achieved through the use of public campaigning, donations to political parties and ‘lobbying:’ an attempt by organised groups to try and impact political situations. 

An example of a pressure group currently active in UK politics is Fathers4Justice. Since their creation in 2001, the group strive ‘To end fatherlessness and the cancer of family breakdown’. The organisation is a high profile, militant outsider pressure group, meaning they rely on their guerilla campaigns and public stunts to draw attention to their cause.  

Founded in 2001 by Matt O’Connor, members of Fathers4Justice are often, like Matt, denied visitation rights and ordered to pay child support they deem excessive. It is part of their fundamental beliefs that the UK government and court systems discriminate against fathers when deciding on matters such as visitation rights and child support. Undeniably, men were discriminated against when deciding on the living arrangements for a child in the early 2000s. Whilst there still is unconscious bias today about how well a man can take on that loving, nurturing role, the situation surrounding prejudice against fathers has dramatically improved these last 20 years. However, the group supports their claims that fatherlessness is extremely relevant with statistics such as ‘3.8 million children are fatherless in the UK’1 and ‘200 children lose contact with their fathers every day in secret courts’2 on the front page of their website. The group also mentions in their mission statement their aim to end demonisation and denigration against men and young boys, referring to this concept as ‘reverse sexism’.  

The group have used very theatrical and performative campaigns in the past, most noticeably Jason Hatch’s 2004 public protest against the treatment of fathers in UK courts. The stunt saw Hatch run past armed guards at Buckingham Palace, scale a wall and hang a sign bearing the slogan ‘Super dads of Fathers4Justice’ all whilst dressed as Batman. In a similar fashion, David Chick, a member of the pressure group, brought areas of Central London to a standstill after he hijacked a 36-meter-tall crane, refusing to surrender his protest for 6 days. Chick was subsequently arrested and charged with aggravated trespass, public nuisance, and criminal damage. These incidents led to Fathers4Justice rebranding themselves; proud of the breeches of security and acts of trespassing committed in their name. A noticeable part of their campaign is to victimise fathers, presenting them as heroes for going up against the evils of the court system and their ex-wives.  

Fathers4Justice, it must be said, are not a politically sophisticated group. Being an outsider pressure group, they have no direct access to policy makers. Therefore, they rely on the shock factor of their demonstrations and campaigning to gain publicity and solicit the attention they need from the public and press. Spokespeople for the group play up the controversial nature of the organisation to seek any reaction, good or bad.  

Even with the most noble of causes, the group still seems to have lost their way in recent years. Members often degrade mothers and wives, and by extension women, to seemingly ‘get back at them’ for their perceived hatred of all fathers. Recently, the founder of Fathers4Justice Matt O’Connor made headlines after branding Cheryl Cole a ‘sperm bandit’ after she announced she wanted two more children using a sperm donor. The group claim that women like Cheryl are bad role models to young women, teaching them that it is ok and even desirable to raise children without a father. Unsurprisingly, the group was proud of the attention the offensive comment got, posting news clippings on to their website. 

However, these tactics have proved to be effective. To date, the group has around 80,000 members, consistent newspaper coverage of their crusade and, whether good or bad, most people know of and have an opinion on their work. Public awareness of the group is high, even those not affected by the issues they campaign against have a grasp of what the organisation stands for.  

When evaluating the success of the group, opinions tend to differ. The group was, in the beginning, addressing an issue that was disgustingly prevalent in society and needed public and media outcry to make a change. However, over recent years the group’s focus seems to have shifted from pressuring policy makers to tackle gender inequality in child visitation rights to purposefully being hateful and outlandish to gain attention. Overall, access rights for fathers have improved drastically over the two decades Fathers4Justice have been active. A 2015 study concluded that there was virtually no gender inequality in court hearings over child custody, referring to the fact there is a similar success rate for both mothers and fathers applying to have children live with them.3  I do not think this achievement can be accredited to the actions of the group but rather to evolving social attitudes and the recognition that men can be just as nurturing and supportive as women. The group offers an apparent oasis for frustrated, single fathers who love and miss their children, promising them support and a role in helping to further their cause. However, these emotionally drained men are vulnerable to the group's militant and often violent protests and campaigns. The result of playing a role in the group’s activities includes a damaged reputation and perhaps even a criminal record. In the end, these fathers may become bad role models for the children they are trying so hard to get back. The sad irony is that in trying to play an active role in regaining visitation rights, fathers associated with the group often negatively impact their chances. It is therefore my conclusion that the pressing issue of allowing men equal rights to their children has been a success, but unfortunately it has not been aided by Fathers4Justice.