- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

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

Thu 6th May 2010

The law

Filed under: General — Vman @ 2:30 pm

Some people think that:

– Citizens should not be torn from their homes and children in the middle of the night based on nothing more than hearsay.

– Men and women should not be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

– A secret tribunal should not have the power to force a man from his home without notice or hearing.

– Police should not have the right to enter and search a citizen’s home without a warrant.

– Citizens should not be imprisoned based only on hearsay.

– Citizens should not be more afraid of the police than they are of criminals.

– A legal system that tolerates perjury and the subornation of perjury can not produce justice.

– Men should not be censured by public officials for crimes they have not committed.

– Men and women should not be made to work as indentured servants or held in thrall to others for acts they have not committed.

29 Responses to “The law”

  1. John Brett says:

    For these reasons, I have realized that I must be an OUTLAW
    I advised the Courts that I cannot serve on a Jury because of my lack of faith in their system, and they accepted that.
    I also now reserve the right to ignore laws and rules with which I disagree., and rely on their inability to enforce every petty rule.
    I advised the FAMILY COURT (when I was involved with them) that:-

    My committment to obeying the laws and courts of New Zealand was secondary only to my committment to parenting my family.

    I think that they were too stupid to understand the threat that I had made.
    I think that many readers of this site may realise that they too are outlaws.

  2. Scott B says:

    Citizens should be able to speak out in public about their cases and how they have been treated.

    Citizens should be able to have a trial by jury in an open court!

  3. Scott B says:

    citizens should have the same rights as all other citizens

  4. Ms IRD Officer says:

    Hmmm that may be true, BUT slaves are not citizens.
    That is about as nutty as saying CPR’s and NCP’s are the same.

  5. julie says:

    That is about as nutty as saying CPR’s and NCP’s are the same.

    lol, in some cases they are the same.

    Have you ever considered how many NCPs are paying below the cost of raising a child?

    The average wage in NZ is $538. That’s $27,976 per annum. To work out how much CS they owe, you take away living allowance which is $14,158 per annum (for a single man with no dependants). That equals $13,818 assessable income.

    If a NCP has one child and no shared care they pay 18% of the assessable income which is $2,487.24. Divide this by 12 to work out monthly payment which is $207.27

    …….

    Cost to raise a child: While parents know that raising children is a costly business, they may be surprised to find out that new estimates put the bill at $250,000 per child.

    The calculation has been included in a draft study for Inland Revenue and will be used in a Government review of the formula for determining child-support payments.

    To work out the monthly payment, (I know you can do this, I;m just showing I can too, lol)you need to divide $250,000 by 18 years which is $13,888.88. Then dived the answer by 12 to work out the monthly amount which is $1157.41. Is this right? It seems over the top!

    Our average wage earner in NZ will owe $578.70 less what he/she already pays ($207.27) which comes to $371.43 per month. For each other child he/she will also have to come up with another $578.70 a month.

    How is this supposed to work out? Do you know?

  6. Ms IRD Officer says:

    Good sums there Julie,
    We collect Child Support everyday till children turn 19 years of age. You are far to soft thinking we want our pound of flesh only for 18 years.
    What you say is also very correct about many blokes getting off far to lightly as well. If they don’t have the income from their job they can sell their blood and body parts, maybe they might even get a dollar or two for their souls from the devil.
    The $250,000 figure that you lampoon so beautifully came from Minister Dunne Nothings little pet group called the Families Commision. They beavered away generating numbers and came up with (Mum and Dad equales baby divided by one separation and daddy should contribute a fortune for the next 19 years).
    About as simple as Minister Dunne Nothing himself.

  7. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    The problem with calculating the cost of children is that each child is unique . A number of models are used to derive the cost of children, the problem is they all produce different results. Economics is a social science and has the limitation of the social sciences.

    You need to reference the report and look at costs year by year from 0-19. Costs may vary and be considerably different for a young child and 18 year old.

    Hans has already commented on the apparent circular reasoning of the reports authors. My view is that any attempt to calculate the costs of children is flawed.

    I’ll post later in the week as this thread deserves a topic of its own.

    Regards

    Scrap

  8. noconfidence says:

    Yes John;

    I am about to become an outlaw as the family court has, in my case, recently crossed the line and broken NZ law. Not that they care, as the public are not allowed to see inside their court. However, they are about to find I don’t go down easily. You might just see a high court case coming up shortly, though with my lack of confidence in the judiciary I am not overly confident that they will rule in my favour, but with enough publicity, they may have no choice….

  9. julie says:

    Hi Scrap,

    Did you notice that the average wage earner is expected to pay $39.30 more each month on their first child than they receive before tax?

  10. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    The figures are a guesstimate by analysts from IRD what would you expect.

    You cant calculate the costs of raising children accurately, its unique in each case.

    Regards

    Scrap

  11. Skeptik says:

    Dunne and company forgot one BIG cost many fathers must pay in his system, and it doesn’t stop after a mere 19 years either.
    Please factor in a lifetime of alienated grief and sorrow. That should tip the scales.

  12. julie says:

    Good point. I wonder if anyone has started a website database for fathers and children to connect.

    That would be awesome, I think.

  13. julie says:

    You’re right.

    As a guesstimate, I think they’ve been fair as there is day-care now-a-days and children have their own peer pressure as well as being categorised on what they wear etc. Money does make a difference to a child’s well-being, life-style, self esteem and more.

    This would be good for high income earners if it was capped at this but not-so-good if middle to low income earners are expected to reach this.

  14. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Julie,

    Dont agree – the approach used makes a number of assumptions. Why should I have to outfit a child in Prada or buy them the latest XBOX.

    Basic needs are all that a parent can be held accountable for. Putting a child in day care is a choice and if the custodial parent wants to work why should the non custodial parent pay for daycare? Why should a ncp have to pay for anything but basic needs?

    Besides your reducing supporting children to your view of the costs in economic terms not all children go to day care etc..

    Child Support is more than money but thats what you are reducing it too.

    Regards

    Scrap

  15. Scott B says:

    so true scrap, and why should a ncp have to pay a single cent when they never get to see the child(ren)?

  16. Skeptik says:

    How do you think any brainwashed alienated offspring would get up the motivation to connect with their father via some such website?

  17. julie says:

    We’ve just had a TV series in NZ connecting people and many were older children & adults looking for their fathers and some mothers. But that’s nothing new – I met a 96 year old man at North Shore hospital who was on TV decades ago and in the ‘Guinness book of records’ as the eldest man to find his sister.

    Back in the good ol’ days of NZ, families adopted children out to orphanages. I know a late 60 year old woman whose father stole 5 of his children from an orphanage in Australia. The mother adopted them out while he was at work and the courts wouldn’t allow him to have them, so he hid them on a ship coming to NZ. He was unable to get the other 6 children and she’s never met all her siblings.

    I personally think a site that brought fathers and children together would be a brilliant idea especially as there’s a fathers movement changing society’s view on fathers.

    Children as adults and late teens are already hearing how hard it’s been for fathers and they’ll go looking to find out for themselves IMHO.

    Of course not all children will want to connect just as not all fathers will want to connect. But I’m an optimist.

  18. julie says:

    Scrap,

    Dont agree — the approach used makes a number of assumptions. Why should I have to outfit a child in Prada or buy them the latest XBOX.

    Good point. You shouldn’t HAVE to! – no parent should be put in this position.

    Basic needs are all that a parent can be held accountable for.

    For sure.

    Putting a child in day care is a choice and if the custodial parent wants to work why should the non custodial parent pay for daycare? Why should a ncp have to pay for anything but basic needs?

    How basic are we talking about? There are men who have been living in the bush for decades without the need of money.

    Besides the above kind of basic, living in a house costs money, food costs money, clothing, travel and so on and so on costs money. Both parents are responsible to come up with their share of the money. Since day-to-day care of children is not considered a job (doesn’t pays $$$) the CP has to find other means to pay their share.

    Both the NCP and CP are putting the child in day-care so both are equally able to pay for the child and themselves.

    Besides your reducing supporting children to your view of the costs in economic terms not all children go to day care etc..

    This is true. But when it comes to separated parents, how else can you look at it? When non separated, one parent may have brought in the money for the whole family but now there’s 2 families and the parent who didn’t bring in the money now has to find a way to pay costs on their own.

    They may find another person to financially care for them but what happens if they don’t?

    Child Support is more than money but thats what you are reducing it too.

    Everywhere I look online CS is about money. For instance, Paternity fraud.

  19. Skeptik says:

    Julie,
    Thanks for good intentions.
    However I’m afraid it’s going to take FAR more than the mere presence of a website to get many alienated kids back into contact with thier fathers.
    I say that because I’m aware that not only have many of the mothers been indoctrinating them in father-hate for years and years, but at the same time they have been deluged for many years also with widespread feminist manhate fearmongering too.
    I think therefore you’re talking about at least 2, possibly 3 generations of kids now who since the 1980s have effectively been in a cult like environment.

    Just sit with those words a moment.

    Now, having said that I invite you to research just how difficult it is for vulnerable people (kids especially fit that definition perfectly) to be mentally reprogrammed after many years of being in a cult.

    I choose the word cult advisedly.

    Try stepping into the shoes of a child for a few moments and imagine this Julie…..

    See yourself as a young girl snatched from your Mom by your Dad……………. then growing up for years being told by your Dad that your mother was shit…….also getting loads of cultural messages that all women were rapists…………….including many Moms!!!……..
    …….. that 1 in four children would be molested by a woman……..
    ………that women were stupid, brutish, violent, smelly, unfeeling and insensitive………………………………………………………….. only interested in exploiting others……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. formed a big conspiratorial club called the matriarchy………………………………………………….. were responsible for ALL violence and crime……….being given these messages year in year out……..day after day……… from adults you look up to………..
    year in year out…… and you grow older and read headlines and articles…… ‘Are women really necessary?’……..you see books in bookstores – ‘All women are bitches’, ………………..look around and see only the other sex socially valued by having their own department for Men’s Affairs, Men’s clinics, Men’s Studies programs, Men’s support officers and Men’s rooms on campuses, Health programs only for men……….men being given diamond rings, being waited on hand and foot, being protected whilst women going begging………………………meanwhile you watch TV and see women made fun of, killed, maimed, butchered ………..for ‘amusement’ day after day, night after night……..month after month…..year after year………and you are going to school and for years only have male teachers…….no adult females……..and you’re made to do things that only suit only males there……..you go online or watch TV and hear men bemoaning what victims their group are….how they don’t get enough resources to survive because they’re so oppressed by evil women who are everywhere…….

    Now Julie,
    if you’ve done this little empathy excercise you’ve been in the equivalent of ‘child in feminist hatespace’ for about a mere two minutes…….now extend that to 2 hours……two days…….two months……………………..two years………………………………………………………………….two decades…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..two generations ……………………………..AND?

  20. mits says:

    Hi Julie,
    I read what you say with interest but could it be you are confusing Child tax in this instance with spousal support.
    They may find another person to financially care for them but what happens if they don’t?
    Who they find to or not to take care of them is irrelevant surely as Child tax is supposedly there for the child not the parent.

    Since day-to-day care of children is not considered a job (doesn’t pays $$$
    Thats of course if you dont include DPB, WFF, Child Tax, and all the other $$$ that go to someone caring for children.
    I admit that it might not be the highest paying job but there are people in NZ that derive their income from the sole reason that they have children.

  21. Scrap_The_CSa says:

    Good article on the costs of rasing children

  22. julie says:

    Hi Mits,

    I read what you say with interest but could it be you are confusing Child tax in this instance with spousal support.
    They may find another person to financially care for them but what happens if they don’t?
    Who they find to or not to take care of them is irrelevant surely as Child tax is supposedly there for the child not the parent.

    I don’t know if I confuse things but my intention is to understand things.

    To me, I’m looking at the separated parents as individuals and the child as another individual. And working out what is a child cost and what is a separated parent cost.

    The point I’m wanting to make is that male or female, both parents are equally responsible for their children and taking care of themselves (if capable, if not, the welfare system steps in).

    There shouldn’t be any spousal support if both parents can take care of themselves. How they do it, is up to them.

    Since day-to-day care of children is not considered a job (doesn’t pays $$$
    Thats of course if you dont include DPB, WFF, Child Tax, and all the other $$$ that go to someone caring for children.
    I admit that it might not be the highest paying job but there are people in NZ that derive their income from the sole reason that they have children.

    For sure there are people who take advantage of welfare. That’s a given, to me. But I don’t work on a minority so I’m not focused on them. MP Paula Bennett says to them, “The dream is over”.

    Putting single parents to work is both a left and right issue and a feminist and masculinist issue.

    The DPB is not a life-style choice not a long-term choice.

    Y’know, the best alternative to me would be parents working out how to financially support their children together. CS/CT wouldn’t be in their lives if they did this.

  23. julie says:

    Beau-ti-fully written Skeptic. I seriously don’t know what would be a worthy reply.

    This is a really good way to show me what it is like for you. Shame on everyone for allowing this to happen.

  24. Skeptik says:

    No Julie,
    it’s not what it’s like for me.
    It’s what it’s like for countless thousands of NZ children (many who are twisted adults and don’t even know it by now).
    I do agree it’s a great shame on NZ society though.

  25. julie says:

    it’s not what it’s like for me.

    Oh, for a moment there, I forgot the comment referred to children. I meant that seeing the tables turned, I understand your perspective.

  26. mits says:

    Hi Julie I do have a differing opinion as to what child tax calculations should be based on. For example I dont think the NCP should have to contribute for a roof over the childs head. If the parent with the child is living under a bridge and can’t house the child I think this is a seperate issue that would need to be addressed by social agencies as a matter of course.

    and while in principle I agree when you say
    The point I’m wanting to make is that male or female, both parents are equally responsible for their children and taking care of themselves (if capable, if not, the welfare system steps in).
    If the CP isnt capable the welfare system does step in but then stings the other parent.
    How can I be responsible for their care when the family caught will not allow shared care as a starting point but instead along with IRD insisted that as the CP had signed up for a benefit then as a matter of course I must pay to offset that benefit?
    For me it all comes back to child tax being spousal support
    for as you said
    There shouldn’t be any spousal support if both parents can take care of themselves. How they do it, is up to them.

    thats a pretty big IF
    what if the other parent cant or wont take care of themself?
    Under the current system how they do it is not “up to them” but instead foisted on the NCP under the all encompassing banner of “but its all for the children”

  27. julie says:

    It sure is a good article. Here’s something also interesting. I was looking for the year ‘no fault’ divorce came into existence and came across the reasons to divorce under ‘fault divorce’.

    Further changes were made in the 1963 Act and the grounds of divorce available after 1 January 1965 may be summarised as follows: adultery; artificial insemination of the respondent wife without the husband’s consent; desertion for three years; habitual drunkenness for three years, with failure to support or neglect of domestic duties (as the case may be), or cruelty; conviction for murder or certain attempted murders; insanity and confinement for this reason for certain periods without likelihood of recovery; non-compliance for three years with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights; separation by Court order or agreement for three years; living apart for seven years without likelihood of reconciliation; conviction for certain offences of violence or sexual offences; rape, sodomy, or bestiality (wife’s petition).

  28. julie says:

    Hi Mits,

    I hear what you’re saying. I think there are things in the works that will benefit separated fathers and equal parenting. I’m working on a post around this.

  29. Skeptik says:

    It’s pleasing to see that the Editor of Men’s News Daily Paul Elam has come out today with a call for major law reform in the USA which if brought in will affect men there hugely. Such a proposal seems decidedly sensible to me, but what’s even more heartening are two other related matters.
    Firstly even if his proposal isn’t taken up with much haste (as seems likely in USA’s current chivalry-feminist complex) it is at least the first time to my knowledge as a viewer of Men’s rights activism over many years that I’ve seen someone as weighty as Paul Elam laying out this proposal so publicly.
    I myself tried to air the issue at MENZ some time ago but sadly got censured for my efforts – told in effect it was too personal and controversial an issue to discuss here – obviously a view I disagree with.
    But I digress.
    The other matter which I think is of great import is that the publication of Paul Elam’s editorial today marks a really significant turning point politically for the Men’s rights movement whereby a bedrock issue which disempowers men hugely and gives women draconian life or death power is being firmly challenged. Mr Elam skillfully dissembles feminist language which has dominated and clogged up our public discussion of the issue he writes about and reframes it (finally!) very powerfully in a male sensitive way.
    Read for yourself here.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar