Founder of Fathers 4 Justice, Matt O’Connor, on broken promises and his hunger strike

Jim McConalogue speaks to the founding father of Fathers 4 Justice, Matt O'Connor, who at the time is on his fourth day of the hunger strike outside the home of Prime Minister David Cameron.

I caught up with founding father of Fathers 4 Justice, 44-year-old father-of-three, Matt O'Connor, who at the time is on his fourth day of the hunger strike outside the home of Prime Minister David Cameron in Witney, Oxfordshire.  

Why a hunger strike? For O'Connor, it is all about achieving equal parenting rights on behalf of fathers and grandparents and it is the 10th anniversary of Fathers 4 Justice.

After first meeting the leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young, on Saturday 9th July to discuss the hunger strike and demanding the Prime Minister fulfils his pre-election promises to the group, O’Connor delivered a personal letter to David Cameron’s home the morning after at 9am, as the strike began.

Then followed a morning service at St Mary's Church in Witney, a candlelit vigil outside Mr Cameron's home (at which O'Connor and his supporters wore wear black suits and black ties), followed by a small encampment with a shrine for the children who have lost their fathers during the last 10 years with thousands of photographs on display, followed by a daily delivery of personal letters from fathers, mothers and grandparents to Mr Cameron’s house.

As the group’s website makes clear, the protest is a direct response to the broken promises made to Fathers 4 Justice last year by the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister’s recent comments made on Fathers' Day which, they feel, vilified fathers.

On the fourth day, when I am more than aware O’Connor may not be on his best form, I asked him why he was on this hunger strike. He was adamant that it was necessary and vital, “I am on hunger strike for two reasons. The first was David Cameron's appalling comments made about fathers on Father’s Day describing fathers as 'runaways'. This is the latest in a long line of prejudicial, stereotypical comments by the PM. Father’s Day should be a day to celebrate fatherhood, not demonise and denigrate fathers. He didn't seek to separate good fathers out or the tens of thousands of fathers struggling to see their children through secret family courts. Further this stereotyping is grossly inaccurate both in reality and empirically. Many, many fathers were angry and upset on Father’s Day as a result.”

He then goes on, “Secondly, the Conservative Party made a series of commitments to Fathers 4 Justice last year which they have broken, not least to begin urgently needed reforms to family law. Instead they are trying to kick the ball into the long grass by hiding behind the Labour instigated Family Justice Review – a review the Conservatives described as 'not genuine, not wide ranging enough and lacking credibility.' If they had no faith in the review, why should we?” He points me to his blog at Hunger4Justice and his letter to Mr Cameron which is on the site that answers my question in considerable more detail.

On the issue of putting pressure on the Prime Minister and the Coalition, I suggest to him that there will be some people who say, well, the problem with Coalition Government is they had to give up their pre-election promises and manifesto pledges and the country has to deal with that – and promises over our secret family courts, parental rights and recognising marriage in the tax system were just part of that situation. What did he have to say about that? O’Connor’s view was “that is an incorrect assumption – both Nick Clegg and David Cameron gave pledges. The government has failed to answer the questions put to it by Fathers4Justice as to why they have reneged on them. Our children and families deserve better.”

I was also taken by something O’Connor had put in his 14-page letter to David Cameron at the beginning of the strike. In that letter, he wrote “The idea behind this protest is highly personal, rooted as it is in my Irish heritage and the tradition of Troscadh or Cealachan. This tradition was detailed in traditional civic codes, and had specific rules by which it could be used. Fasting was often used as a method of highlighting an injustice and was traditionally carried out on the doorstep of the home of the person responsible.” So, when I asked him whether he thought think the tradition of Troscadh or Cealachan will appeal to a Prime Minister who is at home with the compromises necessary for Coalition Government, I should have expected his frank and candid response “Do I care? No.” He went on, “This protest is the antithesis of the protests we became infamous for. And this is a very, very personal protest, from one home to another, father to father. It sends a strong message that my commitment to equality for parents and reforming family law runs very deep. my small sacrifice is a big ask for me when all we are asking of Mr Cameron is for him to honour his pledges.”

I also found it necessary to return to what he had clearly objected to in David Cameron’s comments in a national newspaper on Father’s Day. The Prime Minister had written “We need to make Britain a genuinely hostile place for fathers who go AWOL. It's high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale.” It made headlines in a few of the newspapers at the time.

What in particular did he not like about David Cameron’s Fathers Day comments? And whilst we are on this issue, in these circumstances, did he think it is likely that the Prime Minister will retract his remarks. His response was clear, “Fathers have been reduced to the status of sperm banks and cashpoints. Under Cameron's Britain, you can abandon our child tomorrow, provided you pay. It is unimaginable that a Prime Minister would say on Mother’s Day that mothers denying children access to their fathers should be publicly pilloried, so why is it acceptable for him to denigrate tens of thousands of Dad’s fighting through secret family courts to see their children? It is utterly unacceptable to make cheap political capital on a day we use to celebrate fatherhood.”

O’Connor’s direct honesty is coupled with a great deal of humility and whose campaign seeks very straightforward objectives. I prod him light-heartedly about the history of his campaign asking him when he started up Fathers 4 Justice 10 years ago, is this where he thought he would end up – on a hunger strike? “No”, he responds, “I thought this was a no brained campaign. Who could possibly argue with the idea of equality between parents. After all, all we are asking is for is that children retain the love and care of both parents after separation and that we have a family justice system based on reconciliation not predicated on conflict. Is that such a big ask? As a father of three boys I have a duty of care to them to try and ensure that when they become dads they do not suffer the horrific experience I went through at the hands of the family justice system.”

As for the long term goals of the campaign, I ask O’Connor what he sees as the best way of reversing what he has previously referred to as “the catastrophic breakdown in family life driven by the removal of fathers from families and the lives of their children”. His answer is “Simple.” He points me to his proposals outlined in their Blueprint for Family Law, but also points out that “… we would like to see a bill of rights for the family, a right in law for parents and grandparents to see their children and grandchildren and rights intertwined with responsibilities. The law and the child support system will never work until we change the lexicon and mentality towards family breakdown and that will be at huge social and economic cost to this country. I fear, given the resistance we face, the family as we knew it is being torn apart under a Conservative Party that penalises traditional families through the tax system and pursues the demonisation of fathers at its own peril. We must never forget that the next fathers are our children and what message did David Cameron send them?” He may have a point.

O'Connor is due to forgo all food until the Prime Minister retracts his remarks, apologises and adheres to written pre-election commitments made to Fathers 4 Justice to reform Britain’s secret Family Courts, which the group says he has reneged on. This is a definitely a battle worth watching, given what various other think tanks, groups and individuals in Westminster have said about Cameron and the Coalition’s poor record-so-far on family breakdown, despite having made it a key part of the Conservative General Election message just over one year ago.