- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -

MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Mon 27th February 2006

Judge worried by increase in boys’ violent crimes

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General,Law & Courts — Downunder @ 1:43 pm

Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft is becoming increasingly worried by a surge in serious violent offences by teenagers.

Stuff Link.

Judge Andrew Becroft has previously linked violent crimes to fatherless homes, however that is not mentioned in this article.

Sun 26th February 2006

The Care of Children Act 2005

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 8:21 pm


By James Bagnall

Having been a McKenzie Friend 86 times appearing both before and after the new Act came in force, how if at all has the Family Court changed?

Strangely, under the Act a pilot scheme has been set up in the North Shore Family Court. Publications and DVDs also have been widely distributed, the central theme of which is how parents should consider their childrens lives and futures.

Obvious questions are:

  1. Were parents using the Courts to not consider their Childrens lives under the Guardianship Act 1968? And why?
  2. Were the Family Courts not considering the more than 80,000 childrens lives they processed under the Guardianship Act 1968? And why?
  3. Why was the pilot scheme set up in the North Shore Court?
  4. If things were fine under the Guardianship Act 1968 why the need for a pilot scheme and why the propaganda distributed nation wide?

Even under a pilot scheme the same lawyers and to some extent the same judges are involved in all the Courts in Auckland. So do the judges and lawyers behave differently in different Courts according to whether it is a pilot scheme or not? And are children marginalised from their fathers more in one court than another?

The lawyers especially and the judges to some extent still have the same financial adversarial interest in the Domestic Violence industry and they therefore retain the same femi-dollar agendas, the same legal intelligence to that end, the same lack of child development qualifications and a new Act that allows them to follow the same agendas as under the old Act. They inflame situations as before.

Example 1. Some prominent North Shore law firms still use allegations of sexual molestation, with no evidence, of children by their fathers to marginalise and alienate their children from them. All done legally under section 59-62 of the new Act with no criminal charges but with the same results as if there were.

Extended enriching litigation ensues. For who? GREED? ANTI CHID? ABSOLUTELY!

Example 2. Some Counsels for Child deliberately promote the child they represent to stay in an abusive relationship with their mother in spite of the child’s dad applying for custody. When things get worse after 2 years or more of abuse they then recommend a Care and Protection order in favour of CYFS. Some of these Counsels for Child end up working exclusively for CYFS. CORRUPTION? ABSOLUTELY!

Example 3. In other Court jurisdictions, for example Henderson, self litigants are refused McKenzie friends in Judge led mediation, whilst both the child and the mother are represented by lawyers. GENDER BIAS? ABSOLUTELY!

The pilot North Shore scheme however does put pressure on both sides to think of their children. Judge Ryan in Judge led mediation conferences does his best not to discriminate and further more the North Shore Family Court office has developed into an efficient friendly machine for self litigants, male and female.

The Human Rights Of Children

Sections 59-62 of the new Act allows violations of children’s human rights to continue. These rights violations are perpetrated by ruthless greedy lawyers some of whom can be found right here in TAKAPUNA.

A Constitution

We need a constitution that enshrines childrens human rights. The right to have two biological parents. The right not to lose one parent through false allegations.

The Care of Children Act 2005 still allows these HUMAN RIGHTS abuses to CONTINUE.

Sun 19th February 2006

International Men’s Rights Think Tank

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 1:46 pm

Dear Menz Members & Visitors,
I would like to thank John. P for this opportunity to place this on his notice board. I’m a Canadian that has, like countless other men, suffered under the unjust laws found in many western countries toward average men.

I’d like to have a call out for New Zealand & Australian men, who are part of a men’s organization or just committed to the cause, to take part in a very large men’s rights think tank that will be run over the Internet? This will begin later this year, and will involve as wide an element of men organizations from around the anglosphere as possible. Already word has gotten around and the list is going. This is not an exercise for some project at a university.

Mon 13th February 2006

Call for Submissions on Child Support Amendment Bill ( No. 4) – Your Children Need You!

Filed under: Child Support,General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 8:29 pm

Submissions to the Social Services Comitte on the Child Support Amendment Bill (no. 4) close on the 27 Feb (see here) I know how busy people are, so below is a one page submission for you to use.

Send your submission to
Clerk of the Committee
Social Services Select Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings

by 27 Feb

Please take the time send a submission. The more submissions the better! Get your friends and family to send one. Get as many people as you can to send a submission.

If the committee received 1000 of these submissions !

Sat 11th February 2006

Two Governments, Two Ministers, One Question, No Answer.

Filed under: Child Support,General,Men's Health — Downunder @ 10:31 pm

During the term of the last Government, associate revenue minister Mr Cunliffe, was asked the same question we have asked of the Revenue Minister in the current Government, Mr Dunne, but still we receive no answer.

We know how much child support debt has been written off because it cannot be recovered from the estates of dead men. We have those figures for the past 6 years.

The question we have asked is how much money has the IRD recovered from the deceased estates of how many men in the past 6 years.

Why have two ministers in two governments refused to release this information?

NZ Republicans come out in support of the biological family.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 10:08 pm

The Republic of New Zealand Party (The Republicans) will repeal the Care of Children Act and abolish the Family Court, the Party’s spokesperson on Family Affairs, Jim Bailey said.

Link to news.

The Power of the Child.

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General,Law & Courts — Downunder @ 12:35 am

Someone once said “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” Hitler was less subtle, “your child belongs to us already” Socialism has always realised the power of the child and the need to destroy the family, the church, and to control education and values. The destruction of the family in New Zealand has been a remarkable success over the last 30 years, and men have been removed from schools at an equally alarming rate.

In our legislation we still have one major legal stumbling block. Legal ownership of the child remains with parents as long as we retain section 59. Loose it and we loose not only ownership and authority over the child, but ownership and authority of the Childs information.

You may be left with possession and responsibilities toward the child, but legally you will have lost the power to say what information the child may collect and store. The state in authority will have no legal obligation to tell you its decisions on behalf of the child. What information is stored, where it is stored, who has access to it, and how much of that stored information you are allowed to see.

So many people do not realise the political and legal significance of the section 59 debate. At first it was masked as a smacking debate – then it was use of a weapon for discipline debate. It is not hard to simply alter section 59, so why do those antagonists demand compete repeal.

The real debate is should parents have ownership and autonomous authority over their child, subject to the laws of our country, or should the state have ownership of the child and the parent be subject to the responsibilities the state dictates.

One of the major changes in the care of children bill is that the best interests of the child is now a responsibility in the administration of this act. Who is going to determine what are “the best interests of the child”, and who is involved in the administration of the act.

Teachers, The police, CYPS. The Family Court.

This contrasts with the concept contained within section 59, that parents have authority, unless they appoint another person in their absences, and teachers automatically have authority when the child is in their care.

You will pass on, your descendants however may not enjoy the freedom and community that your parents left you. It is at this point many women will realise that they never gained liberation, they just became a pawn of the state.

Thu 9th February 2006

The Michigan Man

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General — Downunder @ 8:55 am

Will the real New Zealand journalists please step up to the plate and write the New Zealand stories.

Michigan man lingers in prison on questionable rape conviction.

By Phyllis Schlafly

Feb 6, 2006

William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for more than 20 years for having sex with his wife Linda. In 1986, he became the first man in Genesee County convicted of the new Michigan crime called spousal rape.

Linda was not a battered wife; she testified at the trial that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage. Hetherington was honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force, received a National Defense Service Medal, and had no police record of any sort.

The sentencing guideline for this new offense was 12 months to 10 years. But, without showing cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years (twice the time served by the average convicted rapist in Michigan). Twenty years later, despite an exemplary prison record, the parole board routinely refuses to parole him, giving as its sole reason “prisoner denies the offense.”

Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. It was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he said it was consensual sex, she said it was rape. The judge used Michigan’s new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.

Wed 8th February 2006

Christchurch study shows woman equally violent

Filed under: Domestic Violence — JohnPotter @ 11:07 am

A new publication calls into question the generally held view that casts males as the perpetrators of domestic violence and females as the victims. The study found that in most couples, men and women are about equally violent.

Lead researcher David Fergusson said agencies dealing with domestic violence should not assume men were the perpetrators or that women hit out only in self-defence.

“In fact, women initiate violence more than men.”

He said domestic violence typically involved both parties.

“If one partner was violent, so was the other one. This contrasts quite sharply with the dominant popular view that domestic violence is largely perpetrated by men on women.”

Professor Ferguson told TV3 News [download 5,421 KB wmv video], that our response to domestic violence has been shaped by a small amount of extreme violence.

“In those extreme incidents we find a predominance of males. But when we move away from the extreme to the more commonplace, both men and woman behave badly in the home.”

Darrell Carlin - TV3 News
MENZ activist Darrell Carlin told TV3 News that he is not surprised by the findings:

“There is a big industry out there, a violence industry. It’s all based on men being the bad guys.”

At the end of the interview Prof Ferguson said:

“There should be broader recognition of the wider issue of couple violence, and services there to assist people to deal with couple violence and its implications.”

Ferguson told the NZ Herald that those who dished out the violence were generally victims too.

“It’s mutual conflict, so they are violent households.”

The study may be seen to contradict the view that men are more violent in relationships.

“It is the case that severe assaults, the kind you see in women’s refuges, are probably committed by males, but most of the family violence that goes on involves mutual conflict between couples,” Professor Fergusson said.

“This study should reshape what we think about gender and violence …

“These are black-and-white stereotypes – males are brutes and females are victims – that dominate our thinking. The evidence doesn’t suggest that, but changing that view is going to take a lot of work. Anybody who challenges that view is likely to be criticised.”

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar