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

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.
(more…)

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.
(more…)

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.
(more…)

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

Hans

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.
(more…)

“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.

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.

Or

I smack of Love
Bradford smacks of
Left wing lunancy.

Or

I’m a Criminal Parent.

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

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.

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.”

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.

Hans

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 Ina Kara-France 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.

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.