- 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.

Wed 28th March 2007

Judith Collins – What does this mean?

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 2:11 pm

We have to accept that dads are important, it does take two to tango, after all. They should be encouraged to take more responsibility for child-raising. A survey by the Ministry of Social Development showed that around 30,000 children have no other parent contributing towards their development. Fathers must be responsible for their children and we will require liable parents to meet their financial obligations.

Recognising all Kiwis’ potential
Address to Auckland Rotary Club
Judith Collins – 26 March

Mon 26th March 2007

Is Helen Clark Taking the Piss?

Filed under: General — Rob Case @ 6:55 pm

What’s up with Helen Clark these days? Before she announces yet another of her personal opinions, she’s taken to first saying “Any reasonable person would agree that …” (insert personal opinion here).

The implication is that:

a) reasonable people don’t differ

b) she is a reasonable person.

In the real world, someone who suggests that reasonable people don’t have differing views is not a reasonable person.

It’s clear she thinks group sex is disgusting. There will be plenty who agree. I suspect that most reasonable people find all sorts of sexual behaviour disgusting, particularly if they don’t practise it themselves. And most reasonable people probably don’t much care what other consenting adults get up to, so long as they keep it private.

But now that Helen is speaking on behalf of all of us, and has the profile to pressure the police, I’d apprecate it if she would make clear all sexual practises that she thinks are ok. A list published in the Herald would do fine.
In the meantime, maybe we should all just desist altogether.

Tue 20th March 2007

Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law – March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

Filed under: General — watchingcyfs @ 2:19 pm


Wellington peaceful protest march details


Against Anti Smacking Bill


Then do something about it BEFORE it’s too late!

Join us in a PEACEFUL protest

Wednesday 28th March 2007

Beginning at Civic Square at 12pm then

advancing to Parliament

*This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.


For more information, see

http://smackingback.blogspot.com/ or e-mail

Mitch Lees
Phone: 027 243 1676




March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill
Monday, 19 March 2007, 12:39 pm
Press Release: Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law
Anti Smacking Bill

Public March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of politicians in a free society. Yet with polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders in opposition to Sue Bradford’s proposed anti-smacking bill, it is clear that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of a free society, freedom of speech and freedom to dissent, Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law (CANSAL) will be staging a peaceful march on Parliament to remind our politicians just whom they are elected to serve.

Sue Bradford’s bill, proposing to remove the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, will turn loving parents into criminals. The bill strikes at the very foundations of the family structure. Will parents who choose to smack be ‘ratted out,’ Soviet-style, by teachers or neighbours? The proposed law would compel the police to get involved in cases where they have no place – wasting valuable time and resources — and give them no discretion, as they themselves have said, as to whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of MPs when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger — hardly what they need.

I, like many other New Zealanders, was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me for their actions in correcting me is incomprehensible. What we have now is government of the people, by the Politically Correct, for the Politically Correct. The bureaucrats have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It’s time to push back. The present law allowing “reasonable force” should be left intact.

The protest march will start at Civic Square at noon on Wednesday 28 March.


Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law

Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 12:21 pm

Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Like all Aunties know what’s best for you!
So remember at the end of the Day
It’s the Aunties who have all the power and say

Aunties always know what’s best;
You can’t smack a child in the family nest!
Because Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Want power and control of your parenting too.

Aunties are a dangerous breed,
For them logic and reason are not a need,
When they speak their views are clear
Reason and logic not required here!
Its arrogance that only aunties display,
Maybe it because their friends are gay?

Aunties always know what’s best
You can’t smack a child in the family nest!
Because Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Want power and control of your parenting too.

Aunties are always telling you
What they demand you will do.
Political Aunties are the worst
It’s like New Zealand has been cursed!
Aunties always miss root cause,
Because they can they tinker making un-required laws
That strip away your parenting rights
It’s a worry being in the Aunties sights.

Aunties always know what’s best
You can’t smack a child in the family nest!
Because Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Want power and control of your parenting too.

And when the Aunties have had their day,
It the kids that suffer from what they do and say,
So when you vote in 2008
You have the choice to change their fate.
Remember Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
And what they have done to you.


Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:00 pm

With all due empathy towards those unfortunate women diagnosed with breast cancer, the process of feminist pressure on Pharmac, the health system, and on (and from) the feminist government keen to promote female interests has been selfish and callous towards men. Pharmac has already recommended a short course of Herceptin therapy for early breast cancer, and the $6 million cost of this to District Health Boards will result in resources being unavailable to treat diseases affecting both genders. However, breast cancer spokeswoman Libby Burgess expresses her gratitude for this contribution from our society by complaining that it is “cheap, unethical and throwing NZ women a few crumbs”. She and feminist lobbyists continue to demand that a long course of this expensive drug be approved, amounting to over $70,000 per breast cancer patient in order to “reduce the chance of breast cancer returning”, in addition to existing, expensive treatments and in addition to the expensive programme to make screening free for women and to encourage them to use screening.

Men continue to die more than women from most of the leading causes of death and they continue to live about five years fewer than women. These facts don’t seem to merit a mention by the feminist state. Men continue to provide the majority of our nation’s economic wealth through their industry and initiative, and in the process they continue to suffer around 100% of workplace deaths and the vast majority of serious workplace injuries and maimings, not to mention the long-term health damage inevitable in many male occupations. Surely they are entitled to a fair share of the health budget? Surely the impact of expensive initiatives for women’s health should consider the impact on men’s death rates? Surely at least we can expect some gratitude from women who disproportionately benefit already from the health budget?

Note that Pharmac seeks feedback from the public concerning this matter by April 12. They are one body I think that would take into account people’s submissions, unlike most parliamentary select committees that are shams to push through predetermined policy. Most of us males are chivalrous and would be reluctant to argue against help for suffering women, but I think it important to remind the health authorities that men are here, are dying and that any new funding exclusive to women’s needs will remove resources for men’s needs.


See Herceptin article

Carol May Clayton

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:37 am

This woman was yesterday convicted of murder. She manipulated her two male boarders to throw the molotov cocktails that killed 71-year-old Joan Betti, through which she also hoped to murder the woman’s daughter and granddaughter out of jealousy. Aside from this being another case of a violent femme, it’s notable as an example of that proportion of violent crimes committed by men but caused by women. I have come across quite a few cases where a male is the one who actually assaults someone in domestic or general community violence, but the action was out of misguided chivalry resulting from a woman’s claims to him about the victim and encouragement that he defend the woman’s honour or exact retribution on her behalf. The Clayton case is unusual only in that the woman was held accountable on this occasion for her role. Usually that doesn’t happen and the offences merely contribute to statistics of male violence. Although the men who commit such violence need to be responsible for their own actions (and foolishness), we also need to acknowledge women’s violence in manipulating of age-old male social instincts to protect women, and the frequency with which this and other male instincts provides women with abusive power over men.

(Similar instincts I think are at play in police reactions to domestic violence by women against men. The police are inclined to protect the woman from the consequences of her actions and the woman encourages this in various ways.)


From: www.stuff.co.nz

Tuesday, 20 Mar 2007

Woman guilty of killing great-grandmother
A woman has been found guilty of murdering an Upper Hutt
great-grandmother in an arson attack while the two men who
threw the molotov cocktails for her were found guilty only
of manslaughter.

A High Court jury in Wellington yesterday found Carol May
Clayton, 57, guilty of murdering Joan Betti, 71, while
Richard Steven Pearce, 21, and Nicholas Andrew Edgarton, 19,
were found guilty of manslaughter, but not guilty of murder.

Clayton was also found guilty of attempting to kill Mrs
Betti’s daughter and granddaughter , Judith Betti and
Latisha Owens, both of whom she suspected of having sexual
relationships with her boyfriend, David Betti.

The Crown alleged Clayton orchestrated the attack out of
jealousy, and that the two young men, who were boarders at
her house, threw a molotov cocktail each, in the early hours
of that Saturday morning…

Mon 19th March 2007


Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:39 am

I heard an interview the other day about NCEA, how schools were increasingly losing faith in this qualifications system and increasingly paying to bring in the Cambridge examination system based on external standards, i.e. able to measure objectively one student’s performance against others of the same age in the wider population (… basically the system we used to have that was thrown out at great expense). Although I’m not an expert in this area, my understanding is that the changes resulted in large measure from beliefs that competition was simply another male evil that should largely be removed from education and replaced by a warmer, fuzzier, “standards” system complying better with feminist ideas. Science, statistics and objective grading of performance were seen as male ideology and therefore undesirable, by an education system that had already squeezed out most men. NCEA stands as another failure resulting from feminist ideology.

Sun 18th March 2007

The March on Section 59.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 1:54 pm

Even at 80 — 90 percent opinion is no defence to subjugation, you actually have to fight, not for freedom, but for that part of freedom you are not willing to sacrifice.

Will nzers takes to the streets or have they been snzers (snoozers) for too long.

From Saturdays Herald, it looks like Bob McCoskrie from family first and other like minded people are about to wake the sleeping giant. I see a date for a nationwide march of 28th March being proposed.

Maybe parliamentary services will provide a big screen in house so MP’s can watch the public march in centres all over NZ, while they debate how they intend to ignore us.

Fri 16th March 2007

Where is this leading?

Filed under: General — Rob Case @ 3:16 pm

To get to the thinking behind the anti-smacking legislation, it’s useful to look back at the last census, in particular three questions. The questions asked if you cooked your own meals, gardened or cared for children. There may be many reasons why the state wants to know this, but what these three occupations have in common is that, done by you, they are untaxed, and probably not done in “an expert and safe” manner. Answering these questions truthfully gives a measure of the last significant freedoms we have that are not yet subject to supervision and regulation. An active progressive government, like ours and all other western administrations, is distinctly uncomfortable with such omissions of control. The state’s intrusion upon citizens isn’t driven by an Orwellian craving for power for its own sake, however, but by a sincere belief that it is acting in a reasoned and compassionate way to benefit a significant majority. The method is to deliver a steady flow of legislative changes that deprive individuals of influence in all but their chosen field of expertise. A beautiful future for humanity is one in which every decison of consequence to any person is made by experts for the benefit of all. Nothing could be more unsurprising after a century of political rivalry between capitalists and socialists than an orthodoxy that owes as much to Adam Smith as to Marx.

Fe-Cullen-t Economics.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 11:27 am

One might pose the question: is our economic strategy a sum of reason, or a product of externality? There is a reason we put “no exit” at the bottom of a street sign so I would favour the latter. There is a parallel here between the politics of section 59, and the politics of our economics.

Another Violent Femme

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 11:11 am

Article below from Stuff, preceded by my comments. Worth recording here I think.

Golly, aren’t men violent. We definitely need some more expensive anti-domestic-violence campaigns to stop male violence against children.

Seriously though, this woman’s violence was not only terrible physical and emotional violence against a very young child, but it appeared to be serious violence against her partner by hurting the baby in front of him as part of some relationship dispute. It is hard to imagine a worse kind of partner violence. Still, no doubt that won’t be considered because who cares about women’s emotional violence towards males? If the genders had been reversed, the woman’s distress and abusive experience would be acknowledged, we would be told that she was referred to Victim Support and/or one of the numerous support services funded exclusively for women. She would be encouraged to take out a protection order and the Family Court would grant one on the spot without notice. But of course in this case when the woman is the domestic violence perpetrator the man’s victimization is not even considered worth a mention.

Thu 15th March 2007

Jigsaw: Another government-funded agency in the service of feminism

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 7:34 pm

FYI: The reply from government-funded “Jigsaw”, a patronizing letter typical of feminists when challenged for telling fibs. My original letter (previously posted) below


Greetings Hans

Thank you for taking the time to write to me and express your concerns
about my statements on national radio last week.

I appreciate that you have a different view about the patterns of
domestic violence within New Zealand families and about the proposed
amendment to Section 59 of the Crimes Act that those I expressed.

Hypocrite Helen.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 5:41 pm

“They do not trot a harassed mother in a supermarket off to court. They will not under Sue Bradford’s change. What they will be able to do is successfully prosecute people who beat children.”

Oh the Devil, she walks in hypocrite shoes.

Wed 14th March 2007

Section 59 Therapy

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 3:47 pm

Support your local economy and by a New Zealand made t shirt,
with a Section 59 Theme.

T shirt suggestions

I smack
So lock me up.


I smack of Love
Bradford smacks of
Left wing lunancy.


I’m a Criminal Parent.

Please feel free to add your own candid T Shirt suggestions in the comments.

Russian Retreat

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 12:25 pm

Any of us that have advocated reform of child support are well aware that the methodology of the tax is to attack the isolated and vulnerable recently separated father. The ideology of the tax is if I have your child, you have my income. The essence of father is reduced to a puerile and degrading farce of the state family. Increasing invasive mechanisms will not only garnish wages, collect money from bank accounts, but will also divert financial transactions in the name of expediency for the child. The crippling financial effect not only undermines the individual, but a society’s future potential. If you don’t leave the country you probably won’t aspire to much more than Joe 6 pack. In essence the state has traded the future potential of the individual for cash up front, but here’s the mockery: others can’t see the same game being played with them, with just a different form of the same abuse. Middle New Zealand’s aspiring young parents pay by a different method. As the Government controls the ocr it dictates interest rates. This brings overseas money into our investment banks, which in turn is leant to the community. It also raises the value of our dollar, which as we know lowers export productivity. This makes our imports cheaper, which is good for the retail sector. Banks have got to lend this money somewhere and they lower the threshold for property ownership and credit. Plenty of money and plenty of demand and this fuels our property market, and retail markets. The interest rates we pay are not staying New Zealand, only the margin is, the balance is being taken out of the country by foreign cash investors. Banks are not going to be inclined to invest in export oriented business, while there is a high dollar, they have a higher risk. By stimulating the retail sector, it does something else. With all due respect to our retailers the reality is it is generally a low wage, low skill, industry. You think you’re not just handing over money to a growing underclass, then look at it this way. Your high interest rate makes imports cheaper and money available to lend, and raises the spending power of low income earners. The Government has also signed up to Kyoto. What this means is that someone has to be taxed to create a carbon balance of payments. Rather than tax the man in the street it has tried to impose the tax first on agriculture which didn’t work, and now on forestry, which is an equally unwelcome move. In all three situations above the same principle is being applied, and is not only to seize current income or wealth, but future income and wealth. In terms of an economic strategy this is now creating serious uncertainty in future investment in New Zealand by its own citizens both productively and financialy with limited outcomes for the Government.

Wealth redistribution
Low unemployment
Voter capture.

But it has many more negatives.

Low skill work force.
Encourages high skill departure.
Indebted consumer society.
Excessive investment in property.
Low productivity from primary produce and exports.
Undermines Kiwimade products.
Undermines wealth retention, and reinvestment in New Zealand.
Undermines our economic independence.
Which all adds up to social degradation.

I liken Mr Cullen’s financial strategy to something along the lines of a Russian Retreat. After having mounted an economic offensive against his own country he is walking backwards leaving a trail of destruction as he goes. Rape and pillage always starts with the vulnerable. We care about Rape but not about Pillage. The inevitable result is that one day those that do bother to stay will inherit a hell of a mess to clean up if we continue to run our country this way.

Mostly this website is dedicated to the social outcomes for fathers and children. Economically we to tend to talk about child support in isolation, rather than in the context of the economic strategy of the country. For high income earners child support is either avoidable or affordable, but for Joe 6 pack, you don’t care about him, chances are his kids won’t care about you either.

Section 59 going Awol.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 9:27 am

We didn’t say you could do this…..

The guidelines for dealing with complaints under the new law are likely to be delivered to police officers as soon as it comes into effect, which will be days after its final vote, as early as a fortnight from now.

Police headquarters said yesterday it could not comment on the final shape of the guidelines because they were still in draft form and dependent on the final shape of the law.

But Police Association president Greg O’Connor said police guidelines in their current form made it clear they would have no choice but to act on smacking complaints.

“We believe that under the policy as it exists it will be referred to as domestic violence.”

Unless there was a change to the guidelines once the law was passed, police would have no discretion.

“If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested.

“That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint.”

Tue 13th March 2007

What They Are Saying…

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 3:39 pm

FYI: I found this in a newsletter of the “Women’s Health Action Trust”, Dec 2006.

Note that it claims women are overwhelmingly the victims of violence. It doesn’t mention that overall in society men are more often victims of violence, and of course it fails to mention at all the many cases of domestic violence victimizing men.

Violence Against Women

As the headlines become swamped with more harrowing tales of violence across all aspects of society it appears that we have lost the focus on violence against women. Father’s rights groups grab attention by blaring music, honking horns, protesting against judges and tell us that they are the victims.

Meanwhile the policy discussion has shifted from domestic violence to family violence taking in an even greater array of violence issues including child and elder abuse. Television and media focus attention on the women who lash out in violence. Violence against women is no longer seen as an issue of power and control but is framed in the discourse of relationships. Fixing the relationship will also fix the violence. It’s time to refocus on the violence perpetrated against women.

Are women no longer victims?

The data shows that women are still overwhelmingly the victims in situations of violence. More than 90% of applicants for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 are women and most respondents are men. A recent survey of 2674 ever-partnered New Zealand women revealed that 33-39% have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from their male partner in their life-time. A third of New Zealand men admitted to using at least one form of violence against their female partner at some time in their lifetime. This is supported by overseas data such as the extensive US National Violence Against Women Survey which found that women reported significantly more intimate partner violence than men. Twenty-five percent of women had experienced rape and/or physical assault during their lifetime as contrasted with 8% of men.

Personally and anecdotally those involved in all aspect of the domestic violence field know this to be true. Judge Peter Boshier, principal family court judge, noted that ‘family court judges know that violence is first of all perpetrated by men against women’. The level of violence between partners is stark, it is most often women who are killed. The critical incidents’ reporting that comes through the courts overwhelmingly shows that more severe violence is performed at the hands of men. About half of all murders in New Zealand are domestically related.

Public Perceptions

Relying on media reporting alone however you may question men’s violence. The media seems to feel the need to mention at every turn that women are capable of being violent towards men. Although we have no doubt that this may occur and that all forms of violence should be condemned, it shifts the dynamic of the debate and makes it more difficult for a woman to receive the protection she needs.

In recent local press coverage of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (White ribbon day) almost all of the coverage came with the caveat that ‘top health researchers accused the Families Commission of ‘being ideologically driven’. This included a full article on David Fergusson and Richie Poulton’s accusations. It appears nearly impossible to mention violence against women without being accused of bias. In the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006 a sharp dialogue erupted in the New Zealand Medical Journal over Janice Giles examination on research claiming women’s violence is equivalent to men’s, prompting a series of replies to the journal.

Ferguson and Richie cowed Families Commission chief executive Paul Curry to back down from his statement on White Ribbon Day in 2005 that ‘almost all family violence is carried out by men on women and children’. His office now says he made a mistake and they have limited the statement by drawing attention simply to the fact that the worst domestic violence is perpetrated by men. It is absolutely shameful if we are not allowed to state the obvious.

The rise of fathers rights groups

Part of the public pressure that diminished the focus on violence against women comes from men’s rights or fathers’ rights groups. Groups such as Jim Bagnall’s Union of Concerned Fathers protest outside of the courts and conferences and turn up at judges homes hounding them and harassing their families to respect ‘father’s rights’. Anne Morris of the University of Adelaide quite rightly points out that these tactics reflect the tyrannical behaviour that many of these same men are accused of domestically. Charlotte Cummings, wife of a family barrister who had the protesters at her house earlier this year commented that they behave like playground bullies. The success of this bullying behaviour is sobering. If an individual’s response to accusations of threatening or harming their partner is to immediately threaten and harass those responsible in the courts it should tell us quite a lot about their modus operandi.

In an attempt to influence court outcomes men have been encouraged to affix blue dots (small stickers) onto all of their court documents so that everyone handling them is aware that they are members of the Union of Concerned Fathers. The September 2001 MENZ newsletter says: ‘We urge all fathers filing anything with the Family Court to place a blue dot on each page which signals that you are not alone and that you are working with others and the court’s handling of your case will be observed.’

Internationally fathers’ rights movements have been successful in capturing media attention through dramatic stunts such as the UK’s Father’s 4 Justice who dress as superheroes and climb prominent sites like Buckingham Palace. The father’s rights movement often accuse the courts and the media of bias in favour of women. The harassment of members of the family court has become a common occurrence in New Zealand. In November [a lawyer’s wife] was charged with assault after spraying the protesters at her home with a hose and throwing rocks at them. In press release she said ‘you left me hugging my sons, and they me, in shock, fear, tears and disbelief. You all have no idea how much pain and ruin the above mentioned had impacted on our lives’

Impact on the courts

Wendy Davis, a family lawyer, has examined the influence of fathers’ rights groups on the Family Court. She contends that these groups have exerted undue influence with frequently unfounded claims. Davis observes that between 1998 and 2004 it became increasingly difficult for women to obtain protection orders without notice.

This reflects the increased pressure and presence of father rights groups since the turn of the millennium. Despite the argument that women use the family courts as a way to extract revenge, Davis notes that very few applications for protection orders fail because of lack of credibility. The claim that large numbers of fathers are being denied access to their children is completely inaccurate. Loss of access after protection orders are generally temporary and very few completely suspend access.

In 2003 the Law Commission suggested that the threshold for the provision of temporary protection orders be raised from ‘harm’ and ‘undue hardship’ to involve ‘substantial harm’ and further that protection orders be put on notice ‘whenever possible’. Davis raises concern that this may result in fewer applications for protection orders. The number of without notice applications which were changed to proceed on notice doubled from 12% to 24% between 1998 and 2001.

In Towns and Scott’s research participants noted the increased influence of fathers’ rights groups on the courts. One men’s programme provider commented ‘I would say that the kind of men’s rights movement has influenced the judiciary, how they look at the orders’. In their interviews with key informants Towns and Scott find that women requesting protection orders are positioned differently then in the past. The request for a protection order is an issue of safety. However, in response to the discourse that has depicted these women as simply vindictive, consideration of protection orders now examines the woman’s motivation.

Much of the slippage in women’s access to protection has been in the shift in discourse from one of power and control to the discussion of relationships. The changing attitude toward protection orders is one by which men have argued that the key issue is the break down of a relationship rather than the abuse of power within that relationship.

In a presentation to the Taking Action to Overcome Violence Conference, Peter Bosher expounded on the benefits of Family Group Conferences. These are meetings that include the perpetrator, the victim and the family or community members thought to be able to influence them. Presumably this would work because the family or community exert peer pressure or shame the perpetrator into better behaviour. Heather Henare, of the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, quickly responded to this idea saying that such a meeting serves to further victimise the woman.

Putting violence in the context of relationship ‘difficulties’, takes the focus off the issues of power, control and violence against women. Too often, it introduces unrelated issues such as the mother’s parenting or domestic abilities.

Where to now

The focus must be brought back to gendered nature of this violence. If we fail to recognise the dynamics of power behind domestic violence we have little chance of addressing the root causes and turning the tide on the 63,000 domestic violence incidents recorded in New Zealand a year.

Sorry I’m off Duty.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 1:28 pm

Police management are suggesting off duty officers should not act but should call back to base if they come across a crime.

What utter stupidity.

Any sensible police officer who sees a crime he can’t handle would call for assistance whether on or off duty, however when off duty we expect a police officer to be part of the community. What this government is telling the police is you are going to be our little state soldiers, forget your community. You can imagine the conflict for police officers when confronted by section 59 episodes in public; how they would respond if they are expected to uphold the law. Imagine the office duty police officer out for jog, and finds a rape in progress. You’re being raped madam, just hold on there while I find a telephone.
This adequately highlights the deficiency in the thinking left wing academics. We are being governed by a bunch of dolts.

They want us to descend to their level of thinking — think not.

The Maori Party Dilemma.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 11:44 am

With Bradford’s section 59 Bill hanging on the support of the Maori party, they have been delivered a test of credibility. They must decide whether or not they will allow their members a conscience vote, but more important their opening statement is about to be tested. At the formation of the Maori party they told New Zealand, that their party was not just for Maori, but for all New Zealanders. Clark dropped the Bill in the first place because she didn’t want labour facing off against 80 percent of the population. She left that to silly Sue. Inadvertently the numbers have put the Maori party in the Dock for Labours crime. If the Maori party wants to claim the position of true representation they have no choice but to support the obvious public position. If they vote for Bradford’s Bill, they are voting for Labour, a party that operates without conscience or mandate — Isn’t that what they walked away from in the first place. Tomorrows a big day not only in politics and the future direction of our country, but also for the future of the Maori Party.

Mon 12th March 2007

Boshier will not meet Fathers Coalition

Filed under: General — UF @ 1:48 pm

So Judge Boshier will not meet with interest groups ie parents, despite medaition from the Families Commission?

Perhaps the Court needs to see itself more as the servant of the people, not the other way around?

Fri 9th March 2007

Femme de la Femme.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 9:08 am

Femme de la Femme.

Start with Theresa Gattung, in this mornings Herald, bemoaning the representation of women in the New Zealand commercial sector, in fact she even suggests they are going backwards in percentage representation. “The reality is, in the bigger picture women have lost ground,” she says. How could this happen when schools are oriented to the female brain, universities are over represented with females in graduate qualification, and most of the major political and government positions are occupied by women. where are they going wrong? We got more than a glimpse of that last night, when a bunch of hyped up kids confronted the police in “the rape protest”
And the leader announced her complaint. She with her friends had been standing outside a police station waiting for their arrested friend to be released. They got a back handed warning from a police officer about taking responsibility their own safety; “don’t come complaining to us when you get raped”. That translates in this girls mind to the police won’t investigate your complaint properly if you do get raped. What we have here is a product of the pampered “me me generation”. Instead of chanting at the girls in the front line, they might as well have been singing “won’t you be my body guard.” I only saw one comment from a politician, and that was from long time anti police protester Sue Bradford, she herself a rape victim, demanding an apology from the police. When exactly did this me me generation of women start, and is it the progressive attitude required to create a professional environment or succeed in one. If any one should know Gattung should. Perhaps she should cast her critical eye a little further into the bigger picture, and have a realistic encounter with the realities of life on the street. She’ll be waiting a long time in her office chair, if all she can do is bitch about opportunity, when this is next generation of girls lining up for a job at her place.

Wed 7th March 2007

What you’ve Dunne.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 12:46 pm

I don’t know how much longer Mr Dunne, your party will tolerate your skin deep credibility, and the lies and duplicity behind your facade of decency. Dunne has clearly left his party behind, both in principle and purpose, as the compurgator of a desperate and crumbling regime. You have turned your back on our country and our democracy. Let’s be clear what this Government is up to. Many people are now getting a better understanding of the meaning and implications of section 59, and what the consequences will be in society from this law change, and I think that has really panicked the cogs of this political machine. Don’t be fooled by the Rape cries of the girl’s brigade, as they have another meaning just like smacking children did. Of course you’re sympathetic to rape victims, but let’s assure these people that gullibility is still in the dictionary and we know what it means.
We have two courts systems in New Zealand, our common law courts and the family court. These courts operate of different burdens of proof. The criminal courts as we know are beyond reasonable doubt, and the family court on the balance of probabilities. The latter being a much lower burden of proof and a lower standard of evidence. Public Sympathy for rape victims is being used to undermine the standard of proof in our criminal courts. Just feed us the fertiliser a bit at time and you think we want notice. Heads up girls and boys or we loose another piece of freedom and independence to the socialist state. You can see how ruthless these people will be when they will take a bunch of young girls and twist their minds and print anti police posters, and Annette says how terrible this is. That’s what you’ve joined up to Dunne.

Herr Confusion

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 10:14 am

Herr Confusion

The hour glass of credibility is running low. Nobody did anything wrong, and don’t worry your selves about what has happened, I will fix it. Well you can’t get any higher than the top for another quick fix. Nobody did anything wrong, so everyone did everything right. Of course, it was an act of God, an act of God, an act of God, an act of God. Time and time again, when the same mistake is made, individually it is stupidity, but socially its irresponsibility. If there is no consequence to failure, there is no inclination to succeed. You don’t have to get it right if you collect your pay cheque either way, whether it is on the dole or as dollish office holder. Society may expect to disintegrate and fall into servitude when men ignore these realities and their transcendent obligations. For someone who promotes people past their level of competence for their own political ends they must accept their responsibilities and their failures alike, and at who’s expense will it continue to be, ours or hers

Feminist Justice

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:02 am

FYI, my email to National Radio today:

The feminist lynch mob wants Mr Rickard convicted on the basis of inadequate evidence. They appear to want any man accused by any woman to be considered guilty regardless of due process. When a man is acquitted in a fair trial by a jury that closely inspects the case against him, the armchair zealots steadfastly ensure he is still punished in every way possible as if guilty, and they demand changes to fundamental legal principles but of course only for male crimes. We even hear shrill cries insisting he is punished for exercising his right to free speech; in effect calling to remove that right also. Feminist ideology has so captured our society that even media and spokespersons who should know better have jumped on the bandwagon that treats men much as black slaves in America not so many years ago, when all that was required to prove guilt was an accusation from a white landowner. Such vengeful abandonment of fairness for accused men is the result of a feminist ideology largely based on erroneous assumptions. When the fundamentals are wrong no good outcome is likely.

Tue 6th March 2007

Greens Support Women’s Choice to De-Father Children.

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 8:26 pm

Media Release

Parents for Children.
6 March 2007

For Immediate Release

Parents Group Condemns Greens Support of “Women’s Choice” to De-Father Children.

“It’s a sad day for Kiwi Kids when the Greens are espousing that it is a women’s choice to deny a child the right to know his or her biological father.” Commented Mark Shipman, of Parents for Children. Responding to Sue Bradford’s speech for the Greens during the first reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill.

“Ms Bradford is clear in her speech that it is a reasonable choice for women to decide to exclude a child’s biological father from the child’s life. This is a clear breach of a child’s right to know and maintain a relationship with their father and can place a child at considerable risk.

Let’s be clear the proposed exemptions in the bill protect women from being required to declare the father where issues of “safety” are involved so what the Greens are advocating is a women’s choice to de-father a child and obviously this is accepted by Ms Bradford as an appropriate position to take.”
Observed Mark on the content of Ms Bradford’s speech.

Research clearly shows that kids achieve the best outcomes when both mum and dad parent them. The Greens should be promoting equal parental rights and responsibilities instead they are advocating de-fathering children as a women’s choice. Whether parents are separated or together Kids need both mum and dad. Concluded Mark


For Further Comment Contact
Mark Shipman (021) 982222
Jim Nicolle (021) 800-586

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar