I do not want for you to get into trouble. If you were to be banned it would be like having one of the fingers cut off the hand. I think we have a really good team in this and I know we have all become close.

You are a very passionate person and have taken on a very big issue.

I do get what you are saying. I really do. And I think most people you discuss it with get it. (toning down would be letting it go after they get it and don’t want to join in, I would think)

It is so tough that people are backing away from it. The leaders are lesbians themselves and they are going to do everything in their power to shut you down and anyone else who touches this issue. And what makes it even harder is that the law already exists. You are trying to change a law back to something. That is a radical change. Like bringing the Privy Council back.

I will lose everything to touch this issue and I doubt any politician in their right mind would go near it either. It is a death sentence today. I do not want to destroy my group over this issue. Because that is what will happen. I could speak up but nothing will come from it. You have been at it 7 years and have not been able to even get a politician to speak of it in the house. Not a radio station nor a newspaper.

You are asking too much from me. That is the bottom line. I hear you go on about it constantly and ask every member who is active to do something about it. Can you understand why they can’t? Can you understand that everyone including me is trying to do something that we think we can change.

You ask for me to do something about this and I am saying ‘No’. ‘No’ for today, ‘no’ for next week and ‘no’ for next month. And ‘no’ up to the elections at least.

Whether you throw all the reasons in the world why I should be responsible to say ‘yes’ I am not going to do that. When Family First does it then I will do it. And that is all there is to it.

A little bit of respect for my stand would be appreciated. Having my energy out there is better than not have my energy out there.

Before you come on and tell me that it doesn’t matter what anyone is doing on any subject in the interest of men, women and children or families, I want to say first that I don’t care. I don’t care if my work seems pointless because this law is in the way. I still at this stage will NOT touch it.

The Care of Children Bill is not constiyuted properly and it is a direct abuse for its discrimination of children, indirectly discriminating against childhood. That’s a fact - worthy of a novel or two, or more from the future on New Zealand history.

That there are people who might close their eyes, ears and minds to their abuse and watch it advance on them wondering how and why suddenly whole generations and populaces are consumed by its erosion, I never thought could possibly be the problem for the whistle blower. Especially when the curruption and erosion in New Zealand at least, is proved to be of men and I am ostracised for making such comments on a site dedicated to masculinity and its protection.

And there is a question about keeping on topic. We are marching for democracy again. Well until we get rid of this restrictive dimension that is directly curtailing the freedom of speech at its own will and pace, then yes - we are, in unity and in the step of goose.

I am pleased that you are not talking for blokes. Our young men do not need support for a Minstry of Men’s affairs - unless that it could be proved that such a need for discriminative policies are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, which is simply ridiculous - thank you.

I do believe that our young men need to be coaxed into adulthood and freedom through the use of “their” plan where between the ages of 16 and 18 they will be assisted by the State to get their lives into an independent order. I believe this is an issue for youth rather than simply for young men, but if you should comment on this independently as a woman, where the idea might be alienating for women, then I should recognise that I would be being presumptive, turning such difficult gender decisions over to your natural by gender experience.

You said you support the single parent, as recognised by your NGO policy, constituting a family and that this by 100% is not child abuse. You said you know what I am saying. You say I am telling you what to do. I tell you that legally it will be deemed to be unlawful as indirect discrimination against fatherhood when a complaint (should it - may in perpertuity it never have to be tabled) is upheld against the Care of Children Act 2004 which directly authorises a single woman to have a child demandingly removing from the child a protection of a developmental association with their natural dad as abuse. I say this is fact and you are in breach. You say I am terlling you what to do. I say in reply have you seen the advertisments on television:

IT IS NOT OK.

Apparently it is by your policy, and apparently you still want to think that you think children need their dads. I say you need more education if you think you really think that children need dads and that singularly is why I am telling you what to do. That is because you say one thing but you cannot demonstrate that statement with the facts as consistent with your policies.

You are simply not listening. It is either OK by your trust for a woman to have a baby deliberately removing dad, as consistent with your Trust’s policy or it is not OK for a woman to have a baby removing the dad.

I retract: I will ask you to do something rather than tell you. Julie, please wake up. You are asleep at the wheel. It has nothing to do with me. I don’t want it to have anything to do with me. It is about you. You are dreaming.

Asides this, your energy is exemplary. It seems to me from the perspective of a father’s coalition that you should keep up those energy levels because if noone in society exercises at that level then everyone else would simply fade away to apathy - wouldn’t they?

With respect,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) father’s coalition.

I want you to support them by recognising they have difficulties not that their circumstances are tolerable.

And again

If you want to support single parents by being nice to them then do it by being nice to them and not by being political.

And again

In your last post you said children don’t need dads plain and simple. If you didn’t say that then go back to school or back off.

I never said children don’t need fathers. And no I will not go back to school. And no I will not back off. It is not your site Benjamin.

While you do not work in this area you can damage single parents.

All seeing Benjamin, you don’t even know what we do.

but don’t for a second think you are an advocate for blokes.

All I asked was for you to stop telling me what to do and now this. So it must be that as long as I do what you want all is sweet but as soon as I stop doing what you want the whole country should ignore me.

Sorry Benjamin, I have never spoken up for blokes. They have their own voice. My whole talk when I represented a part at a meeting was on how it was for our community group and what I had read off sites. That’s all I ever do. I only pass the word on. I don’t make the words. The blokes make the words.

He was talking to me.

You say you support single parents - then support them.

I want you to support them by recognising they have difficulties not that their circumstances are tolerable.

While you do not work in this area you can damage single parents.

If you want to support single parents by being nice to them then do it by being nice to them and not by being political.

If you want to be political when you don’t know how to be policitical because you don’t understand politics: where our discussions end with you saying you simply don’t care, using my family circumstances and my philispophical direction as reason to justify you being right - then I ask you respectfully - back off.

In your last post you said children don’t need dads plain and simple. If you didn’t say that then go back to school or back off.

Otherwise, you energy is fantastic, you are boisterous and encouraging but don’t for a second think you are an advocate for blokes.

With respect,
Benjamin.

I get what he is saying. I agree with him.

My problem is that he is “suggesting how I should do things and what I should do”. He sees that I have a single parent trust and that this is a good think for him to get his message across. He sees Family First has a good group and can get the message across also.

I understand that. And I don’t mind seeing a politician. But I kow it doesn’t end there because this has been going on for ages. Benjamin would like for me and my group to be at his side in all that he does. One day it is writing to leaders, politicians etc, next it is to contact groups, next is council, next is … and the list goes on.

I have my own goals and our group has it’s own goals. And did I mention kids to finish raising and jobs to attend.

I would like for Benjamin to back off. I have done heaps already that he has asked for and I also do things Family First asks for and I did things Jim asked for.

I would like to put a post up on this site and make a comment without Benjamin telling me what to do. Is this too much to ask for? And besides, It is impossible for me to please Benjamin anyhow. I did not have him as a speaker. I do not make appointments for him.

My turn is over. Benjamin needs to find someone else to direct for a while. I need a break from his work.

Hope the IRD went well - sorry I didn’t make it. As you will have read, you know how busy things are. Just been offered a massive fully holiday at the end of all this so something to look forward to I’ll warrant. Stop off on my way up - sometime.

Benjamin.

Very very few get what you say when you write your thoughts out.
Simple words in simple sentence, treat all as an eight year old.

Kindest as always,
Paul