Comment on Protest
I found this Editorial in a provincial News paper. While the specifics are irrelevant to the Mens moovement, the principal is. We have among us who have and probabally will again revert to protest action. I encourace them to read and consider this view of a protest and comments about the 1991 Springbok tour.
It’s always a shame when legitimate causes are hijacked by idiots.
It’s always a shame when legitimate causes are hijacked by idiots. Time and time again, passionate people determined to effect change or right a perceived wrong employ tactics that help defeat their cause, not further it.
The occupation of the Horowhenua Sailing Club by a group of Maori who have lodged a claim on the land with the Waitangi Tribunal is a case in point.
As reported in yesterday’s Standard, a group of squatters was evicted by police this week and issued with trespass notices. They abused police, who allegedly found evidence the occupiers some of them gang associates had been doing drugs on the premises, and threatened to chain the gates at the Lake Horowhenua entrance and begin another occupation.
One woman involved in the occupation said her grandmother was one of the 81 original Muaupoko iwi members given ownership of the lake bed and surrounding land.
The iwi leaders pursuing a legitimate claim to the land through the proper channels must be furious with the gang of clowns who have set up camp at the Sailing Club. What seems clear is these people are more concerned with having rent-free accommodation where they can get high, intimidate the legal owners of the building and lock horns with police.
They fail to understand one of history’s great lessons: the battle of ideas is rarely won with belligerence. No matter how just the cause, it will never gain the support it needs to succeed if it is pursued with thuggery and intimidation.
When such tactics are employed, the debate inevitably shifts from the issue to how the issue is being pursued. Those who protested the 1981 Springbok tour walked a similar misguided path, alienating people sympathetic to their cause but disapproving of the anarchy they unleashed in pursuing it.
The quiet dignity of civil disobedience can rally the hearts and minds of a nation; the expression of dissatisfaction through threats and violence inspires only more conflict. The squatters at the Horowhenua Sailing Club have attracted attention to their cause, but it is attention of the worst kind.
Members of Muaupoko are pursuing their land claim through the Waitangi Tribunal. Whether it wins or loses is a matter for the tribunal, but, whatever the outcome, in the battle of public opinion they have already defeated themselves.
Is this what this is about? I don’t think what the Maori did and what the men’s movement are doing is the same thing. Do we have thugs?
Comment by julie — Mon 1st June 2009 @ 8:09 pm
We oppose thugs who sit behind benches in the sinister de family court.
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 2nd June 2009 @ 8:16 am
Unfortunately some protests have looked like a bunch of thugs. Banners with swastikas are also a bad look and have done us no favours.
Comment by allan harvey — Tue 2nd June 2009 @ 9:56 am
I found the ‘mens movement’ concept a bizarre idea, one that tries to mimic women’s movement in its most modern erratic cliches.
Women had to organize and unite to gain legitimate rights, like a right to vote, equal pay for equal competency and other rights to control their own self destiny. Many a man landed a hand and a voice.
Men do not need a movement. It is an absurd concept.
Women today via the protection orders and family courts are used by men to control men and
their cents.
A court and its army of providers can not easily manipulate a man to break his family but a woman is an easy , frail and week target.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Tue 2nd June 2009 @ 2:21 pm
no yous dont have thugs because yous are a bunch of moaning old women
for god sake put your past behind you and get on with life instead of obsessing
pointlessly… talk gets you no were if it is such a big issue then
do what men threw out history have done organize yourselfs take up arms against
and over throw the government or die trying. It is the only way any really change will
happen. If yous dont have the balls to do that then let go and move on
Comment by Jason — Tue 2nd June 2009 @ 3:04 pm
I’m sorry that you find a mens movement an absurd idea, but I can assure you that it is a symptom of our modern society. Are you saying that women do not abuse men ? Are you suggesting that men have the same rights over their children as women ?
Yes; women have struggled to gain the rights that they have, but in some areas they now have more rights than men.
The mess that is the family court is just one such example. The protection orders that you also mention is a classic. If a male assaults female then police will justifiably come down hard on the male. However, if it is female attacks male then the same is not the case. And god forbid, if there are children involved, CYFS will automatically be brought in with the latter but not with the former.
Personally I struggle with the concept that a woman wants equality but also likes the traditional male/female role. In my opinion, it’s like having your cake and eating it.
Women still lack pay parity and thus struggle to gain recognition for their efforts.
Men have feelings too. We love our children just as much but do not get the recognition for their efforts.
I would love to see equality occurring in our society but at this moment it is not present.
Comment by John — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 12:11 am
Allan Harvey is part of the establishment, beware of this guy, he is a traitor to the men’s cause
Comment by Ian — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 9:00 am
Charming. What evidence does Ian have for this? My pay check didn’t arrive from the establishment last week so maybe I have been fired? The only Ian I have been helping recently seems very pleased with my work.
On an important point I can say Allan Harvey is primarily interested in parenting and fatherhood. However I don’t see that as being incompatible with what many consider to be the “men’s cause”.
Perhaps Ian should write to Allan directly [email protected] or go and crawl back under the rock he has crawled from. Anonymous comments like this do you no credit Ian. I give significantly of my time and resouces. Do you do anything?
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 9:50 am
This kind of personal attack is not acceptable on MENZ Ian – especially when it is not accompanied by any evidence.
If I were to list a dozen of the most dedicated supporters of other men in NZ, Alan’s name would be included.
If you have ever done anything to assist the “men’s cause” in this country, please enlighten us.
If you wish to be allowed to continue commenting without moderation I think an apology is in order.
Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 10:28 am
Tren,
I cannot follow your logic. Maybe some facts, The vote came to include females over 100 years ago. Woman have since the dawn of time had a voice. Equally in my own field I in over 40 years of experience have NEVER seen a differing rate for woman.
You mention protection orders. Men (Myself included) are unable to obtain protection orders. Oh I know the DVA is totally neutral. If an application even makes it to a Judge, they are frequently disallowed. Lawers give bad advice and generally hinder mens applications (My situation) Police even though they see and have evidence of injuries, tefuse to prosecute due to a “Lack of Evidence”
Me do need a movement. Unfortunately we are still to fragmented to speak with a united voice.
Unfortunately our protest wing presented our case badly. You don’t make gains shouting abuse through a megaphone at an empty house. It upsets the neighbours.
Contrary to your assertion the family court is so biased it has become a dangerous place for a male.
The best way to resolve our differences is talk. Isn’t it strange that the Womens movement refuses to even admit men to their premises, yet in among men women are common and are there supporting them. For examply. You can post here. I can’t post on “Female” sites.
Another difference and reason for higher wages. I have yet to see a female maimed for life or killed in an industrial accident. Men have for centuaries died to protect women and their homes. Look at the gender imbalance in the death toll of the Titanic. Females dominated the survivors list in the lifeboats. Men dominated the death list. This is not atypical.
I suggest men are far more interested in gaining equality than the Lesbian left.
Comment by Alastair — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 10:41 am
Full supoport John. Allan does so much, not just for men, but for people. I wonder if you (Ian) could stand the scrutiny Allan Harvey does.
Comment by Alastair — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 10:45 am
I’m one of the many guys Allan has helped over the years. From the help Allan gave me I have been able to go on and help others.
So Ian your comment is totally out of order: one as a personal attack and two using the family court whilst we may not like it’s history is the best and most effective way to help guys progress thier parenting when faced with an obstructive ex.
The knowledge and experience Allan has shared with me has helped me and other’s help other fathers progress their parenting.
Comment by Ken — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Allan helped me heaps. He and the others at UoF have been wonderful and I now have shared care. Allan travels all around NZ at his own expense helping people. In my view he is a hero and champion of fatherhood.
Comment by Gavin — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 1:21 pm
@Alastair and John,
Don’t get me wrong guys, I have been served with a protection order and my four children
removed from me. I did absolutely nothing apart discipline my children for their own education and training. Unlike others here I do not believe my wife wanted the family court intervention but she was threatened with removal of children if she did not seek to involve them.
Their violence (Family Court) has no bounds and is perfectly legal.
They broke my family, traumatized my children.
For me DVA, Family Court are evil. There is no other description.
All what I wanted to say that men need an other way to fight and resist this tyranny
and the Label ‘Men’s movement men’s rights does not cut it’. Go to a guy who does not know what is the family court is all about, a guy who is still happily married and talk about men’s rights or movement. he would not understand. Just as I did not.
You want me to tell you what I think: Men are treated like sheep. One by one they come to get us when the slaughter date is nigh. The trouble is we behave like sheep.
The family Court will not succeed in removing children from women. Because women will fight, cry, breach orders and even kill a judge or 2, but us men we go around judges houses and make noise
we accept that they remove our children from us, we attend violence courses and co-operate with psychologists and lawyers. We use reason. right?
We do not tell people about our problems, we keep working etc etc.
…and when the judges after five years of trauma, they decide to remove the protection order and give us back our traumatized children we thank them like slaves and think common sens has
prevailed.
I never said that women do not abuse men. In fact if if you allow me to use women’s refuge semantics around the word abuse than men are abused at all times.
Women are angry every month during their periods and you will hardly find a man accusing his woman of abuse. But for womens’ refuge everything is abuse. Did you suspect your woman of flirting that is abuse because you are jealous, Did you tell her it is not the way to do something? That is abuse because you are controlling her and putting her down.. man I want to puke.
…and for being, jealous, for raising your voice, for putting her down, with the help of women’s refuge, the family court will send you papers (without seeing you or know a thing about you)
requesting you to leave your home, hire a lawyer if you can and invites you to attend a violence program, refusal of witch will land you in jail, a jail that will start your new
life as a potential and patented criminal.
There is no them and us. But her and you. you are alone.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 2:29 pm
I’m divided on the issue of how extreme a protest should be. I think the actions of the protestors are seen in the context of the time. The actions of certain radical Maori protests in recent years certainly support your argument. These people have many avenues open to them and an awful lot has been done to address their grievances. Their protest actions are thus seen as inappropriate and cause a backlash against their cause.
On the other hand I think the ’81 Springbok tour example undermines your argument. Not only was the tour cut short but future policy was changed so it could never happen again until apartheid ended in SA. In addition, world wide coverage meant that everyone around the world was aware what NZ thought about apartheid. In other words the protest could not have been more successful in it’s aims.
In our case (fathers) I am forced to observe that every conceivable peaceful avenue has already been tried and all we got was the C of C Act. Not what you’d call success. When protests were taken to private homes a lot of commentators were either sympathetic or at least unwilling to criticise fathers’ groups. Largely because they knew fathers issues about the family court were muzzled by law. This created some controversy within fathers’ groups yet it was in fact the most successful action they have taken. Some groups viewed it as a bit radical and a risk to public sympathy.
However what actually happened was (a) a tendency to polarise people (b) generated general awareness and discussion (c) caused concern in the divorce industry. It sent a lot of ripples through the divorce industry. The reaction of the family court to these protests was ineffective which was a new and unwelcome experience for the family court industry. The family court felt very threatened and powerless by these protests. If it had gone on and expanded I think significant change may eventually have occurred.
Comment by Dave — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Call to arms
all men should take up arms and over throw the government[Advocating law-breaking is not permitted on this site – JohnP]let it be the start of a new order
I say lets War nz the new middle east
Comment by call to arms — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 4:28 pm
I have two arms. One to care for my children and one to protect myself and other fathers.
Hopefully NZ never becomes the new middle east.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 3rd June 2009 @ 6:29 pm
I can’t believe the rubbish that is being thrown up against Allan.
He has done more to help those in need than most, yet there are cowards here that won’t give their full names but are happy to heap unjustified insults at him.
Thankfully Allan is bigger than this nonsense.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Thu 4th June 2009 @ 11:46 pm
A protest should have a clear and measurable objective and should be strategically planned to achieve this outcome.
Otherwise it is not a real protest but a public wank.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Thu 4th June 2009 @ 11:49 pm
A perfect anology Darryl.
It gives you pleasure, is totally unproductive, upsets those who see it and leaves a mess! Perfect
Comment by Alastair — Fri 5th June 2009 @ 8:33 am
“there are cowards here that won’t give their full names but are happy to heap unjustified insults at him”.
There’s wonderful irony built into that statement!!! LOL!
Some of us don’t need the attention.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 5th June 2009 @ 11:46 am
That’s a silly cop-out. (I’m hoping you can handle my forwardness)
Here’s a reality check for you.
How do we get leaders to speak up not about the personal but about the nation.?
What if the most of us here have no clue what is even right or wrong?
What can we all as men and women do and if we discover what we can and can’t do then how do we even know it is the right thing to do?
This site could easily turn into a Glenn Sack’s site but is that wrong to do?
Why won’t you share your wisdom for all of us who are listening by reading and writing?
What is so wrong for debate between men of knowledge?
Comment by julie — Fri 5th June 2009 @ 7:32 pm
Julie,
Call it a cop out.
But like Skeptik said we don’t all need the limelight.
I love Bob Geldhof’s attitude on the matter.
When asked if he did his work for Live Aid etc because he wanted to be leave a legacy to be remembered by, he said “+++k No! I just want the place to improve a bit while I’m around”
I really think that lashing out with labels like cowardly because some of us choose not to leave ourselves wide open to NZs often petty minded feminist skullduggery and don’t need the limelight anyway instead of debating the issues men face is a cop out.
Comment by Lacking vanity — Fri 5th June 2009 @ 9:06 pm
Dear Lacking vanity, I really don’t mind if people use their real name or not.
You may be afraid of vanity (just kidding, I am sure you are not) and Skeptic may not want to be known (too late for that) but it doesn’t change much for me.
There is a saying, “If in doubt, leave it out”.
Maybe that is what the most of us should do until leadership develops and just say, “Oh, well, life is strange how it works out”.
Comment by julie — Fri 5th June 2009 @ 10:28 pm
We can all choose to use our real names or a pseudonym. Thats your choice. Equally it is my choice how much credibility I choose to give a particular post. Some pseudonyms I see often and have learn’t their wisdom ane even feelings. Of these I may choose to give a little credibility. they have earned that respect. Others (Including some who use their names) I have learned to simply ignore. – full of fine words and signifying nothing. Named people I choose to read a lot more carefully – and I realise who many of these people are and the amount they do to advance the cause of men and their families.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 5th June 2009 @ 10:45 pm
It is one thing to keep a low profile to protect one’s family.
It is a totally different matter to defame someone while hiding under the cloak of anonymity.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Fri 5th June 2009 @ 11:59 pm
What a hoot!
So let’s get this clear…….
some amongst us have an issue with folks expressing opinions about others whilst (drumroll to build expectant tension before final cymbal CRASH!!!!!) going under a pseudonym (gasp! horror! Oh! My god, someone call the whitehouse, Batman, Paul Holmes, the fire brigade!!!!)
Please get a grip.
I have absolutely no problem with anonymously defaming Hitler, Stalin or any number of man~hating feminists and their supporters I can think of.
In fact many of us delight in it.
And it’s not just family to protect. It’s friends and allies too.
We know feminists and their allies are out to oppress men even further with more and more misandric misinformation, so we’re talking about a culture war.
And I reckon in a culture war normal rules of engagement don’t apply.
That includes having the right to act under a psuedonym.
You better get used to that, because no amount of shaming language from you and some others is going to stop it………
in fact it lays you wide open to claims that you simply want to know folks identities so you can nobble them.
Comment by Think it through — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 10:40 am
For those who choose to use pseudonyms, try getting a letter published in a newspaper under that pseudonym. Try making a submission on almost anything, to a select committee, to your local authority, to a small claims tribunal. I suggest that these statements would simply not be acceptable.
Here we can, and for various reasons, it is a right to be preserved for reasons you well elucidate, reasons I am certain the users of false identities are fully satisfied with.
Comment by Alastair — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 10:53 am
This debate is off track by focusing on the use of pseudonyms. John is happy with them, it has a long tradition on this site, I have used them myself at times.
My complaint was that Ian slagged me off without any evidence being posted. If he has a complaint I am more than happy to answer it. I’m happy to hold my head high (high enough to even use my own name). I appear regularly in court, I am a teacher by profession and I manage two health care businesses. I have had my teacher registration questioned by people who feel my work for fathers is incompatible with teaching. To date those complaints and other moaners have not been successful.
If I get moans from both sides then my position must be about right.
Let us cease this nonsense about pseudonyms and get on with debating MENZ matters.
John Potter has asked Ian to apologise. I am humbled by the number who have written kindly of my work to me directly and via MENZ. I suspect Ian may also be “Skeptic” and “Think it through” and “lacking vanity”. Who knows, who cares?
MENZ is a forum for comment and debate. Time to focus on issues and not pseudonyms.
If Ian does exist then maybe he will see fit to put up or apologise. Time will tell who the real workers for fathers are. I’m working hard and happy to put my name to that. There is plenty of work to be done and if people want to help then they can contact me by e-mail [email protected] or any other branch of Union of Fathers via http://www.uof.org.nz.
I hope we will soon see the end of this unhelpful debate.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Allan,
I’m pleased to see you’ve come round in your thinking.
Time indeed to get back on track and focus on Men’s issues.
As Jim would say…….
Onwards!
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 5:18 pm
The men’s movement is doing great, just look at the male suicide rate!
Comment by dad4justice — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 10:14 pm
One theory from Ian?
http://wemen.us/articles/an-article-a-day/520-why-men-hate-other-men-so-much.html
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 11:12 pm
my experience of allan harvey was that he gave me some hope at a terrible time and practical legal advice. He acted as the supervisor for the supervised contact, for which i paid him.
He seemed to think that i was lying when i told him that my wife was violent and she had lots of money in the bank that she had stolen from me and pocketed throughout our marriage (which was quite galling). He gives no emotional support at all just practical legal advice. I
Fathers need both forms of support when faced with such terrible injustice
Comment by martin swash — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Are you certainthat that is the Allan Harvey who is on this group? It certainly does not sound like the Allan Harvey know. I feel that you may be mistaken.
Comment by Alastair — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 11:59 pm
An interesting read.
I agree that SOME men are a long way from empathy towards other men as they strive to stand out in the crowd of men and covet female sexually. Yet reduce the problem of societal misandry to me means also facing that significant portion added by a great many women. These women spoon-fed a diet of entitled mentality for decades now are also a long way from having empathy towards menfolk. Indeed many are ambivalent about mens plight and much more focused on narcicistic self fullfillment than on aiding the sex in trouble. Many times women have said to me (misguided as they were by feminist ideology) that men deserved to be subservient to make up for women being subservient in days gone by.
So ironically on it’s own the article from Ian becomes in itself a kind of inept argument which sadly only mirrors the writer’s theory whilst ignorantly letting women off the hook.
It can take a great deal of courage to move beyond old school chivalry to a place of holding woemn also accountable for their (both active and passively expressed)misandry.
That said I also note that only a couple of years ago the term misandry wasn’t even being used regularly on this site. A sure sign that it wasn’t recognised.
And now it is regularly used by bloggers to express thoughts, words and deeds pertaining to hatred of maleness.
That is encouraging.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th June 2009 @ 12:11 am
[This comment by Alan has been removed by the moderator. The feedback to Martin may be completely deserved, but it reveals personal details that should not be made public in my opinion.
As Dave says in his message to me: “It is inappropriate, not least because it could one day be read by the father’s children.”]
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 7th June 2009 @ 10:25 am
I had a lot of respect for Allan up until I read this comment. It should be removed. This comment is a major mistake by Allan. His personal judgement of someone else’s case who has been named should never have been published. If I were a father looking for help I would want to know if someone had published something like this about another father.
Comment by Dave — Mon 8th June 2009 @ 7:03 pm
Dave,
If we are going to criticise we must be correct. When you attempt to help others, those being helped normally turn on the one helping when the helper identifies the person seeking help’s deficiencies and suggests steps they need to take to confront the the problem. Unfortunately in this case as in many others the person seeking help is in total denial and because they cannot attain their unachievable goal blame the helper. It’s sort of like shooting the messenger. Full support for Allan.
Comment by Alastair — Mon 8th June 2009 @ 7:39 pm
I am not impressed by this censorship of Allan. Jim, We have another gatekeeper for your list.
Ian’s original post should have been deleted. Allan should have been permitted a right of reply to Martin Swash. Facts, as presented by Allan, I know are correct. Lennins Dictum states “That if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes accepted as the truth!”
I should possibly add on Pauls News (I am a moderator) Ian would have at the very least have received a warning, and more probabally placed on moderation, That is we (The moderation team, would have his posts viewed before they were up in public). Martin would also at the very least have been banned. This shameful mess could not have happened.
Unfortunately the wrong person was penalised.
CYFSTALK is different, any of the offending posts (Including Allan’s) would have been deleleted and the poster banned for 7 days. I rather suspect Chuck (NZFVL) and his team would have handled matters similarly to Pauls-News.
This once again demonstrates how knowing who posters are, discourages this type of post.
Comment by Alastair — Tue 9th June 2009 @ 10:34 am