Shooting Ourselves in the Foot
Here’s an example of how as men, in the very stressing times of a relationship break-up, we sometimes lead with our hearts and not our heads. I am not condemning the actions of this poor chap. In fact I have considerable sympathy for him. The teacher appears to have acted inappropriately in teaching the children of a woman he was having an affair with. But I wasn’t there and don’t know the circumstances. All I am saying his actions played into the hands of the opposite side and he found himself in jail for slapping his rival on the back and is now facing an assualt charge. Hopefully, he will plead not guilty and rely on the jury’s common sense.
What it does illustrate is how we as men often lose the moral high ground by leading with our hearts and not our heads. I know it is easy for me to talk, but perhaps if he had a good friend who could have gone to the school for him, or with him, this incident would not have happened. I suggest we ‘buddy’ up with a friend and in situation likes these act for our buddy when emotions are running high.
A father has been charged with assaulting one of his son’s primary school teachers after the teacher had an affair with his wife. He says the Auckland school failed to act after the affair, which started when the pupil’s mother began work there as a teacher aide. He has been battling for almost two years to keep the teacher away from his eight-year-old son, but the school allowed the teacher to take some of the boy’s lessons. Police say the woman’s 42-year-old husband went to the school earlier this year to retrieve his son’s file, but ran into the teacher. He allegedly patted the teacher’s back “forcefully”, causing him to spill his coffee.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4739970a11.html
Posts RSS 2.0
I would support making it a criminal offence to have a sexual relationship with someone else’s wedded partner, unless there is a signed agreement by all parties. The teacher in this story had the audacity to make a police complaint about a minor assault from the man whose children’s family and lives the teacher was in the process of wrecking. The law here deliberately protects immorality, and child abuse in the form of family wrecking.
There is also an issue here concerning the fact that a higher-status qualified teacher has commenced a sexual relationship with a subordinate in the form of a teacher’s aide working in his class. Did the school show any interest in this, and is there any process in place to ensure that staff relationships are not exploitative?
This case highlights the extremes to which we have allowed our society to be dominated by feminist ideology, in this case the labelling of “violence” as evil regardless of the circumstances, and as more evil than all other behaviour. The same ideology now sees people prosecuted for defending their property and person against violent thieves, for defending their streets against burglars and thugs, for defending their children and communities against sex offenders, and for using effective forms of punishment in developing their own children’s behaviour patterns. Violence is evil, yeah right, unless state agents do it, and until the feminists need male violence in the next war to defend them and their interests.
I agree with blamemenforall. I am constantly amazed how the police will sometimes take action on such trival matters. Surely this was a case of the good old fashioned cop (now long gone regrettably) just talking quietly to both men to just cool things down a bit. I have considerable sympathy for a former high profile sportscaster being charged with throwing a glass of water over his partner! For crying out loud, this particular charge is pathetic but in the long may help his case because it is so lame.
The real point here is that a teacher, who sees children more than their parents do, is setting this sort of example. Its absolutely unacceptable that this can be tolerated. THe guy should have gone straight to the Principles office and demanded to know what was going to be done about it. THis is the moral fabric decaying before our eyes …
The Principal has an office. Unfortunately in our schools principles don’t exist much: it is about NZCF (NZ curriculum framework), NAGS (National academic guidelines) and NEGS (National education guidelines) and ERO (Education Review Office).
In this day and age probably what would have happebed with a trip to Principals Office; Let me think.
Immediate Tresspass order on Father from School, Mum called in to be given sympathy and support, Lawyer called and Protection Order against Dad whi is clearly threatening and controlling and interfereing in Mum’s right to have relationships with whoever she pleases.
Anon your word “demanded” would only get the result I predict above.
A comment on Trespass Orders. Challenge them in Court. This can be done, they are not automatically enforcable if challenged. At least in NZ the principle of Natural Justice applies. The issuance can often be argued as subjective and vindictive, especially in a public place like a school. So self-litigate to the District Court and put up a counter argument. You achieve two things. You cause the person who issued it grief because they now have to defend it in Court, even if you lose, you’ve won something back. Secondly you might actually win if the Judge has sympathy for your case. Trespass Pass orders are a bit like the Privacy Act, people automatically assume they give blanket cover. The rule of thumb guys is challenge everything, you may make the judge a bit grumpy at times, but they have an obligation to be dispassionate. Argue Natural Justice everytime, it is a very simple but effective principle – even with a school principal who might think he/she is God in the school grounds.
I would be interested in more detail here Gerry,
School Principal acts for the Board of Trustees and in schools that is akin to God. They control!. Yes, you would have right to write to the school Board and appeal a Trespass Order but that is all I am aware of.
Schools cannot trespass a current student as they have obligations there but as a parent I think you have no right of appeal against the trespass order itself.
Now if you wish to defy the order and go their despite it’s existence you may have a good chance of successfully defending that in court BUT it isn’t going to make the order itself go away.
Under what section of what act can a judge set aside a trespass order?
No reason is needed for a trespass order. Technically a “Trespass Order” is just a written warning but under s3-5 of the Trespass Act it works like an order and to breach it there are possible consequences.
I do accept that the act says their need to be reasonable grounds for such an “order” but in practice courts have ruled; it is their property, they don’t want you there, that is reasonable.
I would be very interested if you have cases where the findings were different.
You can send me details directly to allan@uof.org.nz that I would love to read if you have different experience.
Allan
The law allows for a defence for trespass to be that the trespass was in fact necessary. With a school situation this is much easier to argue than in a less public place, especially a family home. Case law supports this.
I suggest a defendant who has children at the school argues lawful purpose – that is there was a need or is a need for the trespass to be committed, for example he (because it is always a he) was or is concerned for his children’s welfare or safety and needed to ensure this or there was an emergency.
You can also always argue as Allen correctly points out there has to be reasonable grounds for the order, unless there was an actual assault or threat of assault a judge may be open to persuasion – especially in case where you may be able to argue the action was vindictive rather than protective.
The secret is always to think about it before you act and get your ducks in a row first and keep your emotions under control.