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

I am hoping that readers were able to watch the first documentary of four episodes being televised by ‘Inside New Zealand’, TV3, Thursday nights.

I found the first to be a laugh and was happy ‘Kim and Corbett’ were a part. Alot of discussion is happening about Genders on many radio stations presently.

But it is not just New Zealand who is questioning our roles and feminism.

Support for feminism took another hit this summer with the airing of a Swedish television documentary called “The Gender War.” A wrenching debate was set off by the film, which showed militant feminism to be widespread, reaching into official circles: Ireen von Wachenfeldt, the chairman of Roks, Sweden’s largest women’s shelter organization, for one, was shown asserting that “men are animals.”

Suddenly the belief that politics, business, even private life should be reformed to allow a more equal society – a belief that has permeated Swedish politics for several decades – is being openly questioned.

“This could be a backlash,” said Yvonne Hirdman, a professor of history at Stockholm University, adding that she believed many people were glad.

There is also a feminist political party that seemed to be in a position to take 25 percent of the votes for the next election but have dropped to a meager 1.3 percent. This might be what is behind Labor’s push for state funding. ????

The party wanted to ban marriage altogether and make all children have neutral names only.

Sweden and New Zealand as well as many other western countries are following an International feminist movement. Everything New Zealand is doing, Sweden has done including the allegations of abuse on the police force.

We are to shortly see the feminist plan to give 20 hours a week free childcare from July 1st which they intend to increase full-time and have paid for by the state. Sweden has already fulfilled this and has free full time child care for children from age one.

The No Smacking Bill is just a tool to help get New Zealand to where Sweden is.

What comes next for feminism and equality in Sweden is an open question. Some observers believe that the recent wave of criticism and introspection will die down. But others think that social reforms will start to be rolled back, and that even the belief in equality that has been the pride of many Swedes for years may be in jeopardy.

“Testing times have arrived,” said Hirdman, a history professor. “Now we’ll see how deeply rooted this really is.”

International Herald Tribune

In his speech to the Salvation Army yesterday, Mr Key told how he sees domestic violence…

� “The trials (Louise Nicholas) throw light on a pattern of behaviour and an attitude towards women which persists in this country.

Domestic violence is the disgraceful secret of some otherwise successful men, and is the sorry burden of their partners…

There remains a dark side to the experiences of too many New Zealand women and children at the hands of too many New Zealand men. The evidence can be seen partly in the disturbing crime statistics relating to domestic violence…

It goes without saying that the perpetrators of violence are usually men, and their victims are women and children. These are the reported figures, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. All crime is subject to under-reporting, but violence against women and children is one of those crimes least likely to come to police notice.

For some of these women and children, violence occurs only rarely. For others, however, violence is so common as to be virtually a normal part of everyday life. This strips the dignity, self-confidence and hope away from those who are subjected to it.

It is a judge’s job to measure one crime against another, and to set a sentence accordingly. To me, however, domestic violence, which encompasses the injuring, bullying and oppression of women and children, is always sickening.”

�

Does Mr Key also find the injuring, bullying and oppression of men sickening?� Is he aware of the stats regarding the sex of the perpetrators of domestic violence against children?

� I would think statements like “patterns of behaviour and attitudes”, “oppression” and the ignorant phrase, “It goes without saying that the perpetrators of violence are usually men, and their victims are women and children,”� would clearly show Mr Key’s thinking on the topic.

So the leaders of both our major parties choose to ignore violence by women against men, children or other women.

This article, whilst written about the USA I believe fits NZ to a tee. Come to think of it it really applies to all western nations.
It’s the most precise, comprehensive and cogent piece of literature about the culture of divorce and the impact on men I’ve seen in ages.

To take a look go HERE

Please disseminate far and wide.

Thanks

This caught my eye today.

Given how I was punched, kicked, scalded with hot water, regularly screamed at, verbally insulted daily, attacked with a knife, cuckolded, falsely accused and maliciously smeered with debasing lies by my ex-wife, yet subsequently treated like I was the perpetrator of violence by our esteemed family caught system (none of whom have sought to so much as apologise let alone offer any form of reparation) I take a keen interest in the question being asked in the article below….

I walked on and saw three Dads leaning against a tree watching over their kids, and a second later I just busted out laughing. No, the Dads or kids hadn’t done anything funny. I was just thinking about that Family Violence Prevention Fund’s mentoring program where men are encouraged to Coach Boys into Men. It sounds like a really good program initially, until we see that women are doing nothing to coach little girls into women who don’t batter and abuse men.

* There is one Men’s Commission currently operating in
New Hampshire.

The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill is open for submissions.

This is an important bill for Fathers as there are serious implications for paternity registration buried in the bill.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are of particular interest as is 84A

To Sum Up

The first is in relation to the part of the bill which places a statutory obligation on both parents of a child to jointly notify a Registrar of the birth of a child. If

The only exceptions are when there is only one parent at law – this happens with some procedures for assisted reproduction, or where one parent is “unavailable”, or where requiring the other parent to sign the form would cause so-called “undue distress” to one of the parents.

This changes the position from the current law, where the obligation to notify a Registrar rests only with people who are legally guardians of the child at the time of the birth.

If this bill goes through there will therefore be a statutory obligation on fathers of children to make the notification, and an obligation on mothers to jointly make the notification with the father – whether they choose to or not.

If the father does not agree to having his name on the Birth Certificate the registrar can use extensive investigation powers to place a fathers name on the birth certificate.

Section 89(e) of the Act makes it a criminal offence to “having had the relevant provision of this Act drawn to the person’s attention, fails or refuses to give any information required by this Act to be given”.

Please have a look at the bill and please make a submission to the select committee.

Remember a child has a right to know both of his parents and while it is easy to identify the mother the only conclusive evidence that a man is a child’s father is a DNA test. Please stress the need for FREE DNA testing if requested by a Father as a requirement for birth registration.

The certificate of birth is the primary document used for establishing proof of paternity for child support (tax) recovery and if it is wrong it is currently and will under this bill will be very difficult and expensive for a father to gain redress against the injustice.

Remember the solution is simple FREE DNA tests,without the mother acting as a gatekeeper, if requested as this will protect the child and the father and provide honesty and truth in parenthood.

Finally lets not forget the kids, they have the right to be sure that dad is dad and not an unrelated stranger.

Regards

Scrap

Does anyone here have experience dealing with either of these two feminazi lawyers in Wellington?
Want to get together over a coffee to share experiences?

They appear to have a prescriptive path of malicious allegations they like to throw into Family Court procedings, and whilst I can guess what the next two allegations against me will be, I’d like to compare notes to other victims.

I have already been accused of
- ‘maybe’ sexually abusing my daughter – Judge ruled “no evidence”
- ‘might’ emotionally harm her – No eveidence provided
- ‘am’ abusing my daughter by making inappropriate comments to her – specifically that I am building up an expectation – unsupervised Contact – that is not in my power to control. The judge has already ruled a path towards the same.

I have also had all the usual other vague allegations thrown at me, ie controlling, manipulative, intimidating etc.

I have already documented what I believe the next two allegations will be, placed these in sealed envelopes that include the date and stamp of a JP. It will be interesting if i prove right!

Email me at franklyearnest@hotmail.com

ps – if you’re reading this, Ms Powell, greetings!

Many people don’t seem to think that they have access to this appeal. I am not sure how this could be so, in a modern democracy?
Please think through what is happening here and judge whether this is acceptable?
What should be done about the familycaught?

K v C [appeal: relocation]

————— (2001) 21 FRNZ 686 —————

High Court, Auckland (AP147-SW00)

6 December; 19 December 2001

Priestley J

Custody and access — Appeal — Children in mother’s legal custody — Protection order in place against father — Father had been granted order preventing removal of children from New Zealand — Mother sought to revoke order and sought permission to relocate with children overseas — Allegations of gang affiliations and threats to kill untested — Applications granted on ex parte basis — Father sought to set aside Family Court’s decision — Whether Family Court had made a mistake in fact and law — Family Court’s duty to take critical approach to evidence in ex parte proceedings — Paramountcy principle — Guardianship Act 1968, ss 11, 13, 23(2), 28; Family Proceedings Rules 1981, r 8.

Due to length – this is continued as a comment…….

Filed under: General — MurrayBacon @ 7:26 am
This was irrelevantly previously posted under Lets Prosecute Child Abductors?
THE FAMILY AS PILLAR OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL MODEL
“““““““““““““““““`
An example of what we miss when we edit our lives to focus on one aspect of good work toward to Re-Building the **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY**
Many NZ Men and some Women will be embarrased when real change for the good of Family comes from Europe, America and across the ditch while we pontificate – isolate, tribalise, intellectualise and repeat the mistakes of the past.
Yes I know some are aware of so called progress in OZY but most are reading that from the Spin Doctored press not the Men and their Families groups.
Enjoy but one example of HandsOnEqualParent-NEWS

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HandsOnEqualParent-News

Due to length – continued in comments

Below, I attach two papers by judge jan doogue, presented in 2003 and 2004, one supporting that judges should give (almost illegal?) support to mother abductors and the other suggesting that maybe father’s relationships with their children are being damaged without reason by familycaught.
When reading these papers, keep in mind the quality and skills for “weighing evidence” in familycaught! When you consider the absence of reliable evidence in most cases, then the ideas propounded by judge doogue can be seen to be highly hazardous to family relationships (I would suggest family vandalism?)
Lets apply common sense to obtain a working familycaught.
Best regards,
MurrayBacon
Notes:
2003(6) mother abductors are about 85%, not 70% as stated.
2003(7) read this carefully and make your own judgement.
>
>
2003
>
SECTION 13(1)(c) DEFENCES UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP
AMENDMENT ACT 1991
The Climate following DP v Commonwealth Central Authority; Re S
(Abduction: Custody Rights); E.S. v Secretary for Justice.
Judge Jan Doogue, Family Court, Auckland
INTRODUCTION
1. This paper deals with those cases where it is asserted by an abducting parent
that a child’s return to the country of habitual residence will either expose the
child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an
intolerable situation because of domestic violence.
2. Social developments and recent legal developments in Australia, United
Kingdom and New Zealand have converged to make this an extremely
problematic and challenging area of the law for practitioners advising clients,
and for Judges determining cases. Some legal commentators argue that The
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980
(the abduction convention) convention now puts at risk some children in
abduction cases involving domestic violence.
3. In this paper, I will review recent decisions where the difficult tension
between the abduction convention and the changing demographic of
abductors and reasons for abductions has been grappled with by Courts, with
particular emphasis on the trans-tasman situation in New Zealand and
Australia.
BACKGROUND
4. When the abduction convention was first formulated, the usual abductor was
a non-custodial parent and a father. Since then, there has been a significant
change in the profile of the “abductor”. Lowe and Perry (1) did a comparison
between the profiles of abductors between 1987 and 1996. They found a
considerable shift in the ratio of mother to father abductors. This was
confirmed by the statistical analysis of applications made in 1999 and
presented by Lowe (2) for the attention of the Special Commission at The
Hague in March 2001.
5. On the basis of that analysis Lowe found that globally 70 percent of abductors
were now mothers.
6. Judicial recognition of this change was given recently in TB v JB
(Abductions: Grave Risk of Harm) (3) by Hale LJ wherein she stated:
LexisNexis Professional Development Child Law Conference 2003 – Judge Jan Doogue Paper Page 2
“Now, however, in 70 percent of cases, the abductor is the
primary carer: the parent who has always looked after the
children, upon whom the children rely for all their basic needs,
and with whom their main security lies. The other parent is
using the Hague Convention essentially to protect his rights of
access”.
7. Whilst not all primary carer abductions have a history of violence or abuse
against the mother or child, it would appear that very many do. In a
significant number of such cases, the eventual outcome will be that the child,
if returned to the state of habitual residence, will legally be allowed to leave
that country with the primary carer. If the relocation is not sanctioned by the
Court, custody is most often granted to the primary carer in any event.

This paper continues in the comments section……..

Hi all,
I want to copy Boshier in on a peice of correspondence; can anyone tell me where to address mail so that it will get through to him? Or an email address?