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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

Ends

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

I was a young policeman in Auckland back in the eighties, a uniform officer. It was a time when women were being brought into the Police in greater numbers; some had progressed into CIB, which was new territory. When it came to night shift, young uniform staff would drive for a detective. It was a good opportunity to see the promotional prospects and the challenges of criminal investigation. Every nightshift one or two uniform officers would be posted with CIB. Our section at the time had a female detective. My turn came around and I was assigned as a CIB driver. Someone had warned me that she had a propensity for hitting on her driver. If you know the Auckland Central Police Station, at the bottom of Vincent street, well we hadn’t even hit the top of Vincent street and she started, “I know your married…….(yes), but would you still have sex with other women…..(I’m not interested)” I thought that might have been a big enough hint that I wasn’t interested in sex on shift, but no, she kept at it for about 2 -3 hours, till finally she instructed me to drive to her house on the pretext that she needed to pick something up. When we got to her address she insisted that I come inside, and I insisted I would stay in the car. When she realised I was not budging the temperature dropped a few degrees, and she got out slammed the door and went inside. She had already logged us off air at her place, so I waited till she was out of sight and used the radio so the operator knew I was still in the car. She came back a short while later, and talk about a women scorned….. I was instructed not to initiate any preventative police work, not to do anything without consulting her, and to drive where instructed, I even had to ask to go to the toilet. It was a long night, a long, long night. We got to the end of the shift and I went off to my sergeant and told him what had happened, and to find someone else, because I was going to be back in uniform next shift. We took a trip up to the Detective sergeants’ office, to explain what was going on, and that was the end of my week as CIB driver. Next night she bailed me up outside the shift room to find out if I had made a written complaint. I wasn’t overly concerned that she had hit on me, but she had an expectation that she was going to get sex on shift, and she took it out me when it didn’t happen. What really pissed me off though was that she stopped me being a policeman for a whole night. We didn’t do any police work that night, and from a professional point of view, she was just a waste of space in a CIB car. When I reflect back now I wish I had made a written complaint because a short time afterwards a new recruit told me about what had happened to him on night shift CIB. What he was really asking me though; is this what happens in the police? The answer was, no it isn’t, and you’ve just got the wrong impression from one person. The bad apples aren’t always male.

Jail semen

Well the women picked the man. Hell this government is all for the women, what’s the problem. Oh, of course, no child support from the jail boy.

Is a smack an assault or cruelty?

Assault on a child,

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who—

(a)Assaults any child under the age of 14 years; or

Cruelty to a child.

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, having the custody, control, or charge of any child under the age of 16 years, wilfully ill-treats or neglects the child, or wilfully causes or permits the child to be ill-treated, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering, actual bodily harm, injury to health, or any mental disorder or disability.

At what point does a smack become any; unnecessary suffering, actual bodily harm, injury to health, or any mental disorder or disability.

It is no wonder other countries have come to grief over this stupidity. How will parents cope under the constant scrutiny of the state, while their friends and relatives become front page news for inappropriate child discipline?