- 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

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

Mon 4th September 2006

Turner calls for cool heads over Family Court

Filed under: Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 7:03 pm

United Future NZ media release – Family Court Protests

United Future deputy leader Judy Turner has today asked for restraint from future Family Court protestors in the wake of the noisy demonstration outside Helen Clark’s Auckland home on Saturday.

“While I share many of the concerns of the father’s rights activists who stage these protests, I do not condone the threatening and aggressive nature of such action,” said Mrs Turner.

In the past there have been similar demonstrations outside the homes of Family Court judges and barristers.

“Although I believe the actions of some protestors are a little over the top, they must be brought into context. These men feel as though they are being let down by the Family Court system.

“Many men see these types of protests as the only way that their stories and concerns can be heard within a cultural environment where they feel forgotten.

“I am committed to helping to change this situation. I am aware of many cases where men have complained of unfair treatment because of a gender bias that exists in the Family Court.

“The fact that men often feel on the backfoot in the Family Court environment is of real concern and it is not helpful when people are dismissive of the concerns of fathers.

“Even the fact that fathers choose to protest in this way demonstrates the desperation men feel for support and mediation when facing Court proceedings,” concluded Mrs Turner.

ends

13 Responses to “Turner calls for cool heads over Family Court”

  1. Jim Bailey says:

    Judy,

    I for one appreciate your sentiments re our **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** efforts

    However my story http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz and the many others included in the 300,000+ NZKids without their own DADS every night in New Zealand would suggest your call to cool down is a bit naive

    JimBWarrior

  2. Bevan Berg says:

    Out comes the deputy leader of United Future. So what happened to Peter Pinocchio Dunne. He went into hiding pretty quick when the little IRD scam was exposed.
    Its cool heads that is required is it. Well we are damn lucky the cool heads organised these protests, otherwise we have some dead lawyers instead of ruffled feathers. Ms Turner thinks the actions of peaceful protestors is over the top. Why don’t we have that enquiry into the family court and see how many family court barristers face criminal charges and how many loose their practicing certificates, and how many family court registrars can still look their families in the eye when there are disclosures about their behaviour and misconduct. This is not a call for support and mediation, this is a call for the rule of law to apply to the family court thugs that decided they were above the law.

  3. Kobus Abrie says:

    In my own Family Court case of Injustice, my ex’s lawyer, Christine Forbes and the Psychologist, Sarah Calvert were lovers at one stage! Sarah Calvert admitted this openly before witnesses in the final hearing of our case. My McKenzie friend can testify to this. To have them working together on the same Family Court case is a travesty of justice.

    With many attempts, I was unsuccessful to have Sarah Calvert removed from the case. My letters to Margaret Wilson (who was the Minister of Justice at the time) were to no avail. Only afterwards did I find out (credit to Investigate Magazine) that Sarah Calvert and Margaret Wilson was neighbours in Tauranga and close friends!

    Would you be cool about that Judy Turner?

  4. civil dissident says:

    COOL BANANA’S JUDY
    We request a copy of the coroners report to show that Helen Clark is guilty of an accessory to murder/manslaughter by way of her uncompassionate comments on TV 3 news five hours before a 20 year old male killed himself. (re: child access issues)

  5. Bevan Berg says:

    Off the United Future Website.

    4.1. The key principles that United Future is based on are:
    4.1.1. A fair, democratic and open society, founded on the rule of law, integrity and justice, committed to the fundamental values of respect for life, liberty, equality and community, including:
    4.1.1.1. Freedom of political choice through free elections;
    4.1.1.2. Freedom of speech, information and assembly;
    4.1.1.3. Freedom of belief and religious expression;
    4.1.1.4. Integrity and truth as essential to all relationships between individuals, communities and Government.

    There appears to be an unassailable gulf between the principles of the United Future Party and the position that the leader Peter Dunne is supporting. Someone gave the man a red party hat with a big white “M” on it and he sold his party principles for his personal political endeavours.

  6. wendy says:

    I always thought that protest was a normal ‘thing’ to get the point of the citizens across to the ppl upstairs (sorry I didnt take much notice in social studies class at school, kinda wish I did now though :). Everyone protests, they protest over the farm dog chipping, the feminism movement did their thing. So I can’t really understand what the difference is about the FC protests. It is our right as the public. And why not outside judges homes, they are the ones doing the damage. I say keep it up. I agree with Bevan comments too.

  7. Paul Catton says:

    Dear Judy

    Judy Turner has today asked for restraint from future Family Court protestors in the wake of the noisy demonstration outside Helen Clark’s Auckland home on Saturday.

    The Protest was not noisy as megaphone level was certified as appropriate by the Senior Police Officer in attendance

    I do not condone the threatening and aggressive nature of such action,” said Mrs Turner.

    There was nothing aggresive or threatening about the protest as can be testified by the response of the many Police at Cromwell Street.
    It was held with far more decorum than the parliamentarians show in the beehive.

    Judy please cease the Spin for Political mileage and accompany the Coalition on its next outing.

    Regards
    Paul

  8. PaulM says:

    I’ve been on many protests in my life, including those in 1981 against the Springbok tour. This was the least threatening or aggressive of them all. There was even a Bible reading for goodness sake and a brief silence to remember the dead. By far the most aggression came from Helen Clark’s neighbour who started up a chainsaw.

    Judy Turner is misinformed, and her media release again bizarrely illustrates the powerful prejudices that are out there against fathers.

  9. Luke says:

    I have been reading the posts in regard to Judy Turner MP over the past two days and thought a response may be appropriate.

    First of all, the media release referred to was written for one reason – to continue to try and bring attention (both media and political) to the issue of family court and its dissidents. Three quarters of the release was talking about the fathers that have had problems with the family court. The entire second half reads…

    “Many men see these types of protests as the only way that their stories and concerns can be heard within a cultural environment where they feel forgotten.

    “I am committed to helping to change this situation. I am aware of many cases where men have complained of unfair treatment because of a gender bias that exists in the Family Court.
    “The fact that men often feel on the back foot in the Family Court environment is of real concern and it is not helpful when people are dismissive of the concerns of fathers.

    “Even the fact that fathers choose to protest in this way demonstrates the desperation men feel for support and mediation when facing Court proceedings,” concluded Mrs Turner.

    However, rather than look at the tone and reason for the release, some members on this site chose to focus solely on the section that said she doesn’t condone targeting individuals homes like the PM. Well this could be treated like a disclaimer, and I think the objections to this highlight a lack of awareness surrounding the political reality of parliament. Of course an MP cannot come out in support of targeting other MPs houses – Mrs Turner has to actually REMAIN in parliament in order to actually change anything, and work with MPs on a day to day basis. While others like members in this forum have the luxury (term used loosely) of expressing their views loudly and uncensored, this is simply not possible from any MP if they wish to be able to stick around long enough to effect any changes to the family court or similar areas.

    The release was not put out to speak against ‘botherers’ but rather to voice support for the goal of effecting change in the family court. Mrs Turner referred to the ‘bothering’ of the PM’s home, to try to add a little momentum to a small story that existed because of Jim and his crew – to try to build on it.

    While Mrs Turner’s media release was attempting to support the same cause and goal, distancing herself from the method taken on this occasion is a political necessity. For some to cut and paste the ‘disclaimer’ part, taking it out of context to the tone and purpose of the release and ignoring the point and guts of the release is achieving nothing for themselves, and is unlikely to help further changes that need to happen in government.

    One post mentioned Rodney Hide saying that supporting fathers is political suicide. Well Mrs Turner is supporting fathers, and calling for changes in the family court which is not always a popular move with groups on the other side of the spectrum to yourselves – however it needs to be done. But to then get criticism and bagged by the people that she is working for and trying to help is a little hard to understand. Some people need to think about how best changes can start to happen to help fathers in NZ. I don’t think that attacking the only MP that is trying to bring change in the family court, CYF and paternity testing rights for the good of fathers, children and families in general is a helpful nor thoughtful move. If workers bagged those who supported Unions, I can assure you, nobody would be supporting Unions for very long, and the workers would suffer. This is a political reality.

  10. Bevan Berg says:

    That’s your political reality, and you may consider that what ever approach MP’s take holds the moral high ground. There is a political reality on our side of the fence and if I might make a general comment for those who feel bothered it would be this. We have been in this position before with Muriel Newman and Act, why should we simply let United future create the same position again, which I might add is worse, because Judy Turner is not playing the white lady, she is doing a damn site worse by covering Dunne’s back. Dunne wanted to wear a ministers hat, but the reality is, he is not the minister and that gross misrepresentation is holding together an illegitimate parliament. If Turner thinks a few platitudes and bit of sympathy for the guys is enough to cover Dunne’s Back, well you that one wrong.

  11. PaulM says:

    I take your point Luke, and I appreciate that there was a media relaease at all, even if it was factually incorrect in describing the protest as “threatening and agressive” in nature.
    Please could anyone who writes these statements in future try to avoid adding to already existing blind assumptions and prejudices that parents struggling to reclaim the value of fatherhood are necessarily “aggressive”, “angry”,. “disgruntled”, etc. We may be all those things at times, but we are also caring and loving. To fight to preserve family ties and for children’s right to stability and security in their relationships is ultimately a peaceful and loving thing to do. Which is why it was so appropriate when one of Helen Clark’s neighbours played Edith Piaf’s “Chanson D’ Amour” loudly on their stereo. Very in keeping with the spirit of the protest.

    And all credit to Mrs Turner for her latest media release criticising Judge Boshier’s cynical attempt to put spin on Famil;y Court bias. In this case her words are true, emphatic and unambiguous, and dare I say it, I think I see a glimpse of a politician showing some moral courage;

    “For Judge Boshier to say that this mirrors social reality is completely erroneous, and is a slight on the importance of fatherhood.

    “What the statistics do show is that after the Family Court process only 23 per cent of fathers are left with a day-to-day caring role with their children.

    “As far as I am concerned that does not mirror social reality, and God forbid if it ever did,” concluded Mrs Turner”

  12. Deborah Coddington says:

    ACHTUNG!!! ACHTUNG!!! ACHTUNG!!!
    heil Boshier
    heil Boshier
    heil Boshier
    heil Boshier

  13. Stephen says:

    Ziek Hiel!!
    Herre Obergruppenfeurer Coddington SS.
    Dasch Uber Feminazzun fantastieche, Yah!

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar