The same applies in international politics to which Hans writes, reasonably and accurately. The Palestinians have fair reasons to complain. The ongoing violence that is taken to extreme exists because there is no affective dialogue entered that can disengage an authority from a control that is cruel and disaffecting. The most extreme and debated topis to example this is that we know the Israel have and stock nuclear weapons. To protect this we have an escalation procees that implements division between views and the stronger is societally protected and enforced. France for example has stated that the world should prepare to be in war if Iran build nuclear capability. The power that is, is justified for no other reason than it is the power. Thousands of ballbearings and shrapnel ripping though human tissue of soldiers, children or other innocents used as nothing more than an excuse to consolidate the authority in its justification to employ any tactics it sees as fit to counter the horror of any such event.

What Hans writes may seem repugnant. And he does not withdraw from his comments and in fact consolidates them best to inform the critics that the abhorence of the act is being employed as the oversight to the established practices in its conception. His critics in reply will discount his views on the same grounds of the original ctiticism, as there are no new grounds to traverse and therefore overlook his point. This is if you want to go there and continue to debate the points of the argument for the sake alone of debating in a circle.

So why go there? It makes no sense.

A Family Group Conference before the problem occured, run to the jurisdiction of a social bank of knowledge, separating domestic problems out from those that could be criminal, recognising the necessary functions and rights by association between son and daughter and mother and father and applying relevant funding to support social health in dealing with these problems doesn’t exist. Instead we have at an end of the social problem a Family Group conference which two key people cannot attend. The mother isn’t there because she is dead, and the father isn’t there because it appears he has run away after killing the mother.

Obviously the damage done is horrendous and to be eradicated from society, but just as obviously as ignored are the problems that end with such violence needing to be met before they get to extreme - and no matter what the critics may say, these provisions to interfere with the violence before it becomes extreme are not accessible simply because we have not researched and had them tested.

So how can any argue with Hans’ point? How can any say that the family in question (and there are thousands of them around the country)who are reacting to domestic violecne with domestic violence are supported, evenly and fairly out of this horrendous condition.

What we are doing is spending lots of money on advertisements to say “it’s not OK”. Of course it is OK. The domestic violence industry depends on domestic vioence - it is obvious.

What men are saying is that there is another kind of violence that lies under the human skin that is hurting everyone in the extreme that most people just seem to want to ignore.

For my poart I point out that FGC’s may well interfere with these facts of violence from getting to a place where there is serious violence, death or infanticide. Paul Catton, for his case showed that we have problems at our border relevant to domestic vioelence, well before Mr.Xue succesfully left the country. You fight what we tell you, whether in ignorance, for want or other I am not sure, but the longer the points we disaffected men bring to these circumstances of national violece are ignored, direspected or considered vioelent, the longer the violence we all deplore will be ignored.

It isn’t us who has to change what we say. We ask you to listen more to what is being said.

You claim that the current posting and comments promoted “misleading, false information” about a case we don’t know much about. In reading through my post and all of the comments I was unable to find any false or misleading information at all. Little was actually mentioned by anyone about the Xue case. The only comment that could be construed as such was my reference to “the violence done to him by the DVA and Ms Xue”, by which I meant that the DVA is inherently violent, aside from any other possible actions by Ms Xue that might have been experienced by Mr Xue as violent. Contrary to the feminist formulation underlying the DVA, both of NZ’s longitudinal studies have shown that most domestic violence is characterized by contributions from both partners.

We don’t know anything about the source or veracity of your claims about the Xue case. However, if it is true that Mr Xue has long been violent towards his wife then it is also true that his violence was less serious for a long time before the DVA was applied than it became soon after, and it follows that the case stands as another failure of the DVA. The current post and comments describe how and why the DVA in its current form is likely to provoke more serious violence than it might discourage. If you are genuinely interested in reducing risk of domestic violence then you might wish to consider carefully the analysis presented.

A prime example of where a society is dysfunctional and not cohesive to the citizenship’s demand to be protected from domestic violence, is more profound if you consider the data gathering and its assessment of our system as it stands, even without the interference of knowledge from a social bank of knowledge. Paul Catton’s case raised a significant and notable circumstance of people improperly leaving the country with children where there were considerations necessary to be given on the spousal partner. Paul’s case is extreme where the behaviour of the professionals involved can be measured to their willingness to accept, where Paul had a protection order out against him, that that protection order entitled the mother to act as she so wanted. Paul proved quite reasonably otherwise.

If the administration is not of the mind that it should change the laws to protect women to escape domestic violence from their husbands, as in Paul’s case it should have been flagged to an order, then it is most unlikely that will recognise the need to alter their practices better to reply to social knowledge development in the light of the murder.

They need murders to occur in order for the administrators to affect change. Basically, I think this identifies ignorance rather than skill. Essentially I figure it says these people who go through school and get jobs that pay well making and reviewing law are still pretty stupid.

They should have listened to Paul. They should have talked to him like he is human rather than judging him and alienating him into the pile of deadbeat dads. They should have listened to me, and my suggestions of mediation through Family Group Conferences before you get to the Family Court - building up social knowledge. But no, they won’t listen. They want murders to fill their papers and theri stomachs for food on the table as paid for from the domestic violence industry. We are organised by people who demand violence from their communities in order for them to get paid.

Dear Madam / Sir,

re: Pumpkin Case.

The question that should be addressed in this case is why the father was prevented from having contact with his daughter by the Family Court in the first place.
Its no good saying that the decision was justified by the fact that the father ended up harming his wife and child when none of this might have happened if he hadn’t been treated with such cruel disregard in the first place.

Empowering one parent to abuse a child’s other parent in this way can and does create massive distress which sometimes can push an excluded parent over the edge.

The solution to all family law disputes is to protect the children from being used as a weapon by one parent and their solicitors. No doubt this tragic case will be used to argue for even more brutal treatment of parents who find them selves excluded from their children, resulting in more desperation, misery and money for the divorce industry practitioners.

Yours faithfully
Simon Hunt
8 Terrylyn Dr.
Takapuna
(09) 444 7206