- 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.

Fri 12th October 2012

Boshier on the couch with Women’s Refuge

Filed under: Domestic Violence,Gender Politics,Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 2:12 pm

At the end of October, Women’s Refuge held their 2012 annual conference at The Winery Riverlands, Blenheim. They “planned a ground breaking conference on how we can build safer futures for women, children and families in Aotearoa.”

Based on what I have heard from hundreds of men who have come in contact with Women’s Refuge I can only assume that the families they are concerned about do not include fathers.

The attendance of NZs Principal Family Court Judge has already been noted. I was disturbed to see that he was not just there as an observer; the programme advertises that he was there to discuss “the challenges and possibilities for a safe, violence-free country.”

Remember that Women’s Refuge head Heather Henare makes it clear whenever she gets an opportunity that what they consider to be violence is “overwhelmingly perpetrated by men”.

It’s probably going too far to suggest Boshier is in bed with radical feminists, but it sure looks like he’s deeply involved with their plotting to destroy the patriarchy. It would have been fascinating to listen to the penultimate session:

On the Couch – Towards Safer Futures
Heather Henare, Dr Ang Jury, Julia Tolmie, Judge Boshier, Ken McMaster, Brian Gardner
Facilitator: Viv Maidaborn

Given that Judge Boshier has never to my knowledge made any attempt to listen to the views of anti-feminist community groups, I think his intimate involvement with Women’s Refuge is cause for considerable concern.

It made me take another look at the paper He’s Just Swapped His Fists for the System which was discussed on MENZ recently, because I see that one of the authors of that paper, University of Auckland Law Professor Julia Tolmie, also featured prominently at the conference.

The authors write:

Partly as a result of attempts by a global fathers’ rights movement to reassert entitlements to children, the welfare principle is currently defined in terms of an ongoing relationship with both parents.

I first heard the term ‘fathers rights’ a decade ago after John Brett managed to infiltrate a private Law Society seminar to hear an address by Julia Tolmie on the threat from the “Father’s Rights Movement”.

No doubt many MENZ readers will be encouraged by this, and some of you may want to join or donate to this clearly effective organisation. Unfortunately, I have so far be unable to find any contact details; if anyone can enlighten me please add a note in the comments. I am aware that there was a NZ ‘men’s rights’ group active for a few years in the early 1990s, but I have been unable to find any details of current, active NZ groups with this focus. Perhaps the global father’s rights movement is a secret branch of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

Presumably the use of this term by feminists is intended pejoratively, at least in the New Zealand context. The message is that men are only promoting in their own interests, when nothing could be further from the truth. I know of no men’s groups who advocate special treatment for fathers. Even organisations like fathers4justice in the UK campaign for equal parenting rights.

The paper outlines the feminist view of the law as a tool for manipulating social change, then goes on to include the following quote which presumably the authors see as the ultimate goal:

Indeed, Rekha Mirchandani (2006) on the basis of her research on a domestic violence court in Salt Lake City, Utah, claims that state institutions can be transformed into feminist regimes that challenge “male dominance in the home” by undermining men’s prerogatives in relation to their partners and children.

The following example of offensive sexist stereotyping shows the kind of thinking designed to disadvantage men:

This logic treats men’s caring about as an indicator of their capacity to care for even when fathers lack a history of undertaking this work and therefore may lack the required practical and emotional skills.

The paper’s central argument is that men use the Family Court as a weapon to abuse women and children. Women of course, with their superior emotional skills and moral integrity, never do this.

The outcome for women in dispute over care and contact arrangements for their children is that men as fathers are able to engage in nonreciprocal exercises of power that have negative effects on the everyday lives of mothers and children….

…to produce a nonreciprocal capacity for men/fathers to intervene and regulate the lives of women/mothers through the threatened or actual instigation of family law processes. A situation that enables so-inclined fathers, in the words of one of our participants, to swap their fists for the system.

So what sort of outcome do feminists expect from the Family Court? It seems they are concerned with, wait for it, mother’s rights!

The injustice that resulted from the privileging of fathers’ preferences, for the participants concerned, would have been best remedied by restoring their rights to act autonomously.

No matter what kind of explicit or implicit contract a women might make, if she unilaterally decides to end a relationship she should apparently have the right to act autonomously, without regard for her former partner or responsibilities. Of course the father’s role in this scenario is anything but autonomous – he faces years of indentured servitude to IRD Child Support.

Shared Parenting is definitely NOT on the feminist agenda:

The imposition of equal patterns of care at the point of separation, in a context of a history of primary maternal care, has the potential to further destabilize children and to expose them to inept parenting, and may merely disguise women’s ongoing greater contribution to the physical and emotional well-being of their children.

Our Principal Family Court Judge has been keeping bad company, I reckon.

Continued demonstrations of support for radical feminist objectives by the Family Court undermines the legitimacy of the entire NZ Justice system. It is widely acknowledged that the Family Court has been biased against men.

I am coming to share the view that the only solution is for it to be abolished.

16 Responses to “Boshier on the couch with Women’s Refuge”

  1. Gwahir says:

    I suggest the womens movement has been successful in brainwashing “Token” men with their mis-truths. We are seeing the results with children being raised in a fatherless society. We note the higher male suicide rate. I could also question why men flee overseas after the atmosphere in this country.

  2. Down Under says:

    Boshier is not doing women in this country any favours. All he is doing is reinforcing the perceived legitimacy of the perceived entitlements they come to believe they have. The reality is that will translate into household violence – it is inevitable that some men will use their fists when confronted with impossible demands. See it for what it is – Boshier manipulating the lower end of society – it’s not a court of law but a self perpetuating industry that is undermining the social fabric of the country.

    The man is a menace.

  3. Hans Laven says:

    Thanks for that important expose John. It’s incredible that the Principal Family Court Judge would allow himself to be associated with such feminist hate speech, gender discrimination and false propaganda. But then he has been doing so throughout his regime.

    I agree with you about abolishing the Family Court, that’s why we did the ‘Kill the Family Court’ campaign.

    I’m sure Women’s Refuge do valuable work but I believe they should be held to the same rules against gender discrimination, hate speech and irresponsible public misinformation as any other group is.

  4. Skeptic says:

    Thanks for the outing JP.
    I agree the femily caught$ should be abolished.
    I’m am relieved to see you put that into words here as although you may have said so previously that’s the first time I’ve heard you make that kind of statement.
    For those of us like myself with traumatic first hand experience of the NZ femily caught$ that decision was made long ago.

    They are a terrible embarrassment to every conscionable NZ who understands their workings. They are an impediment to peaceful relations between the sexes and a danger to children.
    A cancerous growth that needs to be cut out so NZ can begin some long overdue family/social healing.

    As to Boshier,
    I’m not at all surprised he’s in bed with radical feminists and that he’d turn up at one of their conferences. After all it’s just another payday for a man with a long track record of misandry.

  5. Train Driver says:

    It is in my view that the Principle Family Court Judge Boshier and the position he holds in the Family Court system is that he is suppose to act in the best interest for the Child/ren (which is for the Child/ren to see and be with both Parents much as possible)

    Judge Boshier should not be attending this Women’s conference and have say on the issues if he is not going to attend any of the Father’s groups and listen to their concerns or attend any conferences that maybe held?

    Judge Boshier is suppose to be NEUTRAL and NOT take any sides but the Child’s only and protecting their interest.

    Clearly, this Women’s conference is all about beating their drum and playing the “poor me, poor Mother syndrome” and Judge Boshier is taking their lies “Hook, Line, and Sinker”

  6. Skeptic says:

    This radio show is utterly timely as it aired today and applies to Boshier perfectly.

  7. hornet says:

    Train Driver – mate don’t be so practical – then the ” CONFLICT would end, and the little worm would be out of a JOB.

    United Nations – Convention on Care of Children – PLaces the emphasis on BEST INTERESTS OF CHILD – AS the FIRST PRIORITY in all its Articles.

    The current family court shambles – places FIRST PRIORITY on protecting Process, lawyers for child are permitted to stand back and watch harm to there clients – ( THE CHILD ) – there mandate is – TO ENSURE LEGAL PROCESS IS PROTECTED – Fk the Child.

    This is abhorrent to most parents when they first enter the system and find out that the Lawyer for child will sit back and watch HARM being caused and DO NOTHING ( Not my JOB one of them said to me ) ARE YOU KIDDING – this was my reaction when ” I THOUGHT” incorrectly thats what they were there for – great I first thought when one was appointed by the COURT – my child has her own lawyer – TO HELP PROTECT HER FROM HARM – what a travesty when I find out that they are there ONLY TO PROTECT the child from the system and its processes which ALLOWS KIDS to be HARMED – they are NOT there to help or intervene when they see first hand – Physical, emotional or psychological harm to their CLIENT.

    These are the subjects which need to be directed at the legal system – because currently this is where the system is flawed.

    As for womans refuges – they do a great JOB and from my time in the police when Women were GENUINELY in need of help they were sometimes the ONLY place for a mother to go -usually late at night, when no other social services are open.

    However – it is certainly not in that organisations best business interests for client numbers to drop off. Which is what we have with the legal system currently – keeping conflict between parents alive and unresolved – is good business.

  8. Gwahir says:

    The problem we face Hornet is a legal nicety. UNCORC has never been RATIFIED, i.e. passed into law by the NZ Government. it is only acknowledged as “Guidelines”. I think those are the correct words. In its simplicith try quoting UNCROC in court the argument is dissmissed as inferior law 🙁

  9. hornet says:

    Il check and get back, but I have a document here somewhere – READ ONLY IN LIBRARY – as in not for letting out and it was order only – so not many copies floating around in the public arena – which says it was RATIFIED.

    I agree with your comments on our system not taking these things seriously. In fact every aspect of NZ law, appears to be protected from INVESTIGATION, when the system breaches all the rights beaches we are all held to account for.

    Ive said it before, having worked within the Criminal Justice system – I have found the Family court and Child Support systems work on a completely different level – Lies, bullshit and anything you want to make up are taken as FACT, over TRUTH, ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and Accounting records. Unbelievable – I dont think many NZ’s are actually aware this is what the system is like, I did not and I worked in another side of it for years, thinking incorrectly it was OK. And they expect Fathers ( mainly ) to spend a fortune trying to prove otherwise – which is actually not possible, because no one has the funds to do that.

    I saw emails inter lawyers yesterday – proclaiming the same thing = what a nightmare system it all was they stated, how it was not based on Facts, Evidence or TRUTH, and how it was open to total abuse, and how it was oppressive and completely impossible for any person ( usually dads ) to ever get any traction in a positive sense. Thats not justice.

  10. Fathersday says:

    http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30229.html

    Explains that only 2 countries have not yet ratified it; Sudan and the US.

    However, ratifying it and actually being able to use it in a fake court like the femily court are 2 separate things… a bit like human rights

  11. hornet says:

    So I read the RESERVATIONS section for NZ – surprise surprise – in brief there comment was yes we will Ratify, but we will do what we like using existing law. What a joke. So as we all know – the existing law in this country is inadequate, is discriminatory, is NOT Protecting Children as per this Ratification – what a travesty for kids and families in this country. And NO ONE can hold them to account – because the Human Rights commission is not allowed to investigate any claims against them. What a SHAM. if most NZers knew there own Govt could breach Childrens Human Rights, Discriminate with impunity through court decisions and not be held accountable – they would be horrified.

  12. Gwahir says:

    Looking at the heading of this thread “Boushier on Couch with Refuge”.

    This is a very dangerous and nigh on precedent for ANY member of the Judiciary. All very well to make a speech explaining the law, but to be publicly seen allying with any interest group is frought for the neutrality and wisdom of the courts!

  13. Down Under says:

    Boshier – The Unprincipled Family Court Judge.

  14. Gwahir says:

    You catch on quick.

  15. hornet says:

    For all those Boshier fans – why not attend his farewell dinner parties – hes having a few across the country….

    Auckland – Parnell Rose gardens 85 Gladstone Road Parnell – Auckland 9/10/2012 7pm.

    Wellington Club Level 4, 88 The Terrace – 5th October 2012 7pm.

    Dunedin Pier 24 Restaurant and bar 24 Esplanade Hotel St Clair 31st October 7pm

  16. kirannjiharr says:

    guys..
    this is a conflict of interest on part of boshier…
    as a court judge he shouldnt’t be attending these things anyway. This is observed as he is siding towards one gender/ area of interest etc and is definitely proof of him being biased in his judgements (past and future). He should be sued for it if you follow my drift..

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