- 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.

Mon 20th May 2013

Feminist Training for legal worker$

Filed under: Domestic Violence,Gender Politics,Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — MurrayBacon @ 7:20 pm

I have heard comments about feminist training in Law School and feminist training supplied to newly appointed familycaught$ judges. I was sceptical that any such “training” could subvert human minds, as to completely undermine their ability to carry out their job competently and roughly fairly.

However, read the comments of a Canadian judge, who minimised the cold blooded murder of two young girls by their own mother:

Barbara Kay: When a mother is on trial, the father is the accused

Warning: The newspaper links in this article can only be viewed once, then you are invited to take out a paid subscription to the National Post newspaper.

The trial was over, But Judge Stong added comments after the verdict announcement suggesting that if had the power to overturn the jury’s verdict, he would. He said, “It is more than disconcerting to think that if Campione had not been so abused, so used and discarded as a person, her two daughters could still be alive”¦” Judge Stong was determined that even if it is Campione that gets locked up, Canadians would know that the real villain, morally speaking, is Leo Campione, the father of the dead girls (even though his alleged abusiveness was entirely based on his wife’s allegations and never proved), and it is actually the “discarded” Elaine Campione who is the victim.

Judge Stong felt such personal animus against the grieving father that he wanted to deny Mr. Campione and his parents their opportunity to read a victim-impact statement, standard practice even with mandatory- sentencing cases. He only relented under strong pressure from the prosecutor, who reminded the judge that the murdered girls had been “an extremely important part of [Mr. Campione’s] life.”

The judge’s attitude is shameful. But what can you expect from someone who has been trained – literally, judges take structured learning programs steeped in feminist myths and misandric conspiracy theories – that women are never abusive or violent unless they have been driven to it by an abusive male. Judge Stong just could not get it into his head – he alluded to the “unimaginable facts of this case” – that a woman could kill her children without a motivation involving a controlling male that somehow drove her to the act.

Why did it not occur to the judge to blame the CAS? The CAS was well aware of Elaine Campione’s quixotic and alarming history. They knew that Campione had exhibited many signs of psychosis, that she had been hospitalized in psychiatric wards, believed people were out to kill her and kidnap her children, and exhibiting such bizarre and/or negligent behaviours toward her girls that mother-substitutes, including her own mother, had to be constantly parachuted into her household if it was to function at all.

Yet the CAS decided the mother was the “safe parent.” Mr. Campione fought like a tiger and indebted himself trying to wrest control of the children from a woman he knew to be unstable and a potential risk to them, but nobody listened to him. Why? Because everyone licenced to deal with family issues on behalf of the state – social service agencies, police, lawyers and judges – are trained in the same mythology about women as Judge Stong was. They are all singing from the same hymn book: trust the woman, suspect the man, even when the evidence screams not to.

Let a man raise his hand once to a woman (or not, but simply be accused of doing so), and he will be whisked out of his children’s lives for a year at least. You can be sure that if the father of these children had exhibited one-hundredth of the myriad clues to Elaine Campione’s potential risk to her children’s safety, the CAS would have eaten him for breakfast.

The “system” didn’t fail Elaine Campione. The system failed those two little girls by enabling a woman’s psychosis at the expense of her children. There is nothing “unimaginable” in this case at all. It has all happened before.

“Lives shattered’ by death of two girls: father
Video: Evidence from the Elaine Campione trial
Newspaper summary

_____________________________________________________________________________________
The notes from the NZ familycaught$ judge gender equity training seminar are available through your local library:

Judicial Working Group on Gender Equity – JUDICIAL SEMINAR ON GENDER EQUITY NZLS
Available at DAVIS LAW LIBRARY (KM208.22 L1 JUD )

Rotorua 15-17 May, 1997

I do suggest you you take these psychiatric problems in our caught system seriously.
As Barbara Kay notes, we must all face facts, both men and women may be dangerous to children and we must handle child abuse based on the facts of the situation.
If the Children’s Aid Society had looked fair and square at the hazards threatening the two daughters, they WOULD be alive today. In essence, by failing, they manslaughtered these two girls. Why was the deranged mother tried? the CAS should have been on trial.
Note that the judge accepted the mother’s lawyer’s claims that the husband was abusive, without needing any evidence at all to form his opinion…. The world would be safer, if he was in prison or a preventative detention psychiatric hospital.
I wouldn’t have believed that any judge could be so easily conned.
If you want your children live, then make sure that child protection and “judges” judge men and women on an equal basis!
Time to replace them all, as soon as possible.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Rosemary Perkins
Allan Bristol

The cases above show that it is safer to not put parents under extreme fear of losing access to their children.
A presumption of shared parenting would have saved quite a few children’s lives. Is lawyer’s income that important, that we willingly sacrifice justice and children’s lives, for easy incomes for legal workers?

Allan Bristol expected to be imprisoned on possibly false rape allegations. If that interpretation is correct, then Christine Bristol was the author of her own misfortune. Her false allegation, to take custody away from her girls father, drove him into sufficient fear that he murdered the girls and suicided?
Should she have been charged with perjury and manslaughter?

MurrayBacon

24 Responses to “Feminist Training for legal worker$”

  1. Gwahir says:

    Christine Bristol left the place of the offence for fear of being sent to coventry by the town concerned.

    The Ironic part she had her tubes tied prior to the murders/suicide!

  2. golfa says:

    Possibly the most honest thing I have EVER read on the matter …..

    “When fathers kill, they are not assigned any motivation but their own evil impulses. When mothers kill, everyone in the system kicks into denial mode, and assumes the fault has to lie elsewhere – anywhere, as long as the woman doesn’t have to take responsibility for her actions, and can be offered sympathy. When fathers show disturbing tendencies, the system acts, or tries to. When mothers show disturbing behaviour, the system protects the victimizer.”

    Thank you Barbara Kay.

  3. MurrayBacon says:

    It seemed to me that the “judge” was a like crab host infested with a parasite feminist , such as the Sacculina. The parasite takes complete mind control of the host and its entire body is utilised to perform the functions required by the parasite. This control is so pervasive, that even a male crab behaves like a female, to serve the reproduction of the parasite.

  4. Ted says:

    Good grief. They even name it a “castrator”. Cue high pitched feminist cackling…

  5. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Excellent post thanks Murray.

    While males are without doubt more physically violent and physically dangerous than females are on average, unrealistic stereotyping based on gender often leads to underestimation of female risk. Such stereotyping is probably the single most important factor underlying gender discrimination in the feminist age, including the pussy pass, unequal state abuse and exploitation of men and unfair treatment in family law, care of children, alimony, relationship property and child tax. Anti-male stereotyping has been deliberately encouraged by feminist groups using false propaganda and it is taking a long time for people including average laypersons and those in positions of power such as politicians and law enforcement agents to wake up to how much they have been misled.

  6. Skeptic says:

    @5 “While males are without doubt more physically violent and physically dangerous than females are on average” – not so.
    Women of all races in NZ far surpass men for physical violence towards children.
    Add in abortion as a form of violence then that level spikes even further.
    Then there’s the whole issue of women enacting physical violence indirectly – by emotionally manipulating others into enacting proxy violence on their behalf.

    So I think the issue is far from being as black and white as the bold typeface quote.

  7. Allan Harvey says:

    The Dunedin Longitudinal study and other NZ studies have shown that when self-disclosed incidents of physical violence are reported that women are more violent than men.
    I suspect MOMA meant to say that men are (on average) physically stronger and more muscular than women. That may be true and we certainly have many stories reported of men who have allowed this strength to be used against women.

    My own particular concern is that men in NZ (and probably elsewhere) are enculturated that violence is “normal” and that violence between men, among boys is acceptable. Until we as a society get on board with the all violence is bad message then I fear we address only part of the problem and send unhelpful mixed messages like white ribbon campaigners.

  8. Scott B says:

    Men being more muscular and or physically stronger doesn’t equate to violence, not one bit.

  9. Allan Harvey says:

    Yes I think men are being labelled for potential violence with the same logic as “all men are rapists” and you are right Scott.

    However we do live in a society where the risk of violence to men or boys is several 100% greater than violence towards women and girls. Much of this violence is men against men or boy against boys. This we need to work towards stopping this violence and make it unacceptable.

  10. Kumar says:

    “Stop Violence” should be the message. “Against elderly,men, women and children”

  11. Down Under says:

    Perhaps more like child support.

    The state recognises that men have greater earning capacity and invents potential income to increase the tax take via child-tax then because men have greater strength invents potential violence to keep then under control.

  12. MurrayBacon says:

    Please excuse me if I try to pull together several of the comments above about protecting vulnerable people.

    Men exhibit more violence than women, for example total punches thrown and murder acts. Most of that violence is directed at other men 80%. Violence between intimate partners, statistics from balanced studies show that women throw more punches and start more violence. A few men exert extreme violence and carry out more murders, than women carry out murders, say 40% to 60%. Murders carried out by women use scalding water knives, poisoning, thus physical strength isn’t a necessary element.

    Injuries suffered by children are largely carried out by mothers. Child deaths are largely carried out by mothers, but mothers killings of children are under-reported by media, due to less visible blood ie asphyxiations and poisonings. Child is no less and no more dead, even if it is less salacious and entertaining in media reporting.

    Both husbands and wives kill, so does the exact ratio isn’t really important in terms of setting policy. We need to address women’s violence just as much as addressing men’s, unless we are wanting to shield one sex from accountability (this then is sacrificing the other sex, to achieve a wider range of lifestyles for the shielded sex).

    The media attention given to children’s violent injuries is a diversion away from emotional abuse and neglect of children. Again, this is predominantly done by mothers, many of whom are only able to fund their lifestyles by keeping a pet child (someone else is doing the work to provide the support).

    When we look at disability years and lost years of life, emotional abuse and neglect cause way more harm to children and resulting from that, massively more economic loss of quality of life, than violence. A bruise may be healed in a week or two. Broken bones rarely take more than 10 weeks to recover. Sexual assault victims sometimes take many years to recover. Children of emotional neglect and abuse often take 20 to 40 years, usually to make only partial recoveries. (Our mandatory sentence for murder is 25 years nominal, with recall to jail for the rest of life. Over centuries, this has been observed to reflect the time it takes for psychopaths, sociopaths and lawyers to recover from their childhoods and training.)

    NZ does not publish serious statistics about child injuries, of even the lowest level of professional quality. The USA National Incidence Study NIS series of child injury statistics are probably the most carefully gathered in the world. Even so, they do not satisfactorily capture damage to children in the form of emotional abuse and neglect. These statistics are gathered by social services and reflect mainly physical abuse and physical neglect. These are easily seen and fairly easily diagnosed. Thus the greatest hazard to our children’s healthy and happy development, is not satisfactorily measured in Government statistics. A more satisfactory indicator would be utilisation of mental health services, but these under indicate the problems, as we under provide these services, by an unknown amount.

    At present, it is possible to diagnose severe emotional neglect, when the child is already seriously harmed. We cannot diagnose children in the early stages of emotional abuse or neglect.

    We can observe parental characteristics, which usually will result in a seriously neglected child, if the child isn’t being co-parented with another adult without these same disabilities. These disabilities which are well proven to result in child emotional neglect and emotional abuse, are depression, substance abuse and personality disorder. These can seriously impact onto the baby, toddler or child, even at levels well below the formal diagnosis level, especially if there are multiple disorders.

    Even if one parent is fairly disabled in these respects, if there is regular contact with the other parent and that parent does not have the same disorders, then the child is far less likely to suffer emotional damage. (It takes a village to raise a child…)

    Our present societal focus is only on physical violence and then vandalising the child’s relationship with the father. This is exactly what to do to dangerously increase the child’s exposure to its highest hazard – emotional abuse and neglect!

    Looking at the distribution of good mental health and poor mental health in our population, allows us to see that about 40% of our children are at real risk and 20% do suffer from fairly serious emotional abuse and neglect.

    Our profit media focus on violence reflects, is partly abhorence at unnecessary injury and us turning a blind eye towards that which we are presently lacking good skills to detect.

    If we wait for sensitive, reliable tests for detecting emotionally abused and neglected children at the early stages, we will be failing to protect another generation of children from severe damage.

    The only way we can proceed to protect these children now, is to prevent children being removed from the marital home unilaterally by one parent. When this occurs, it is usually the very parent that should not have children left in their care, that takes this action!

    For children to be removed from the marital home, there should be a check that the proposed parenting plan will not leave young children for long periods of time, say over 3 hours, in the care of a parent with poor mental health.

    Although it is easy to point an accusing finger at women’s behaviour in terms of emotional abuse and neglect, for every such mother there is presumably a father who should step up and provide active care for these children? Some men are keen to take significant care of their children.

    Alas, there are too many men who are unwilling to take such care (unfeminine?). Also, many couple’s financial expectations don’t permit the father to provide sufficient care for the children.

    Before we accuse women, are men truly stepping up to protect and care for their children?

    Is the familycaught$ helping men to protect their children, or is it a large and unfortunate part of the problem of children NOT protected?

  13. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    OMG, get real people. Men kill female intimate partners at (at least) 4 to 5 times the rate that women kill male intimate partners, and the gender ratios pertaining to violence injuries requiring medical treatment are similar. Although the number of physically violent acts in relationships may be similar for men and women, and although emotional violence may well be caused more by women than men, the violence done by men is definitely much more serious, therefore men are more violent and dangerous than women. Most physical violence in society generally is caused by men and suffered by other men, although female violent offending has been increasing. Children are more often killed by men than by women, except for babies and very young children. Anti-violence initiatives should address violence by men and women and victimization of men and women, but we will only lose credibility and be relegated to well-deserved irrelevance if we foolishly try to deny the facts.

  14. Allan Harvey says:

    MOMA I think you may have clarified your comments with the statement men are more dangerous than women. I do accept that more men kill children over the age of 2 years than women but the research is very clear many of these men are not the biological fathers of these children. Often then are new partners of mum. I understand the statistic is something like children are 50 times more vulnerable by harm from a “step-parent” than a biological parent.
    What is your evidence for homicides being 4-5 times for men. It is rather old now but 6-8 years ago the Govt appointed Wendy Davis (now that is a neutral appointment – yeah right) to a committee to investigate the issue and the first years stats they analysed were 12 men murdered and 14 women.
    My point is that as a society we need to be saying all violence is unacceptable and as a man I am saying we have a responsibility to not accept a culture of violence among our mates associates and children. It is not OK!

  15. Allan Harvey says:

    I did some digging and statistics for Family violence related deaths as reported by the Family Violence Review Committee show the following statistics.
    Perpetrators of deaths in NZ from 2002-2008
    Couple related deaths (Adults killed) perpetrators were 86% male to 14% female with 76 female victims and 24 male victims (13 of whom were new male partners of female victims)
    Children under 15 years perpetrators were 60% male and 40% female and where other family members were killed perpetrators were 73% male and 27% female.
    MOMA’s figures are quite accurate.

    I note that Julia Tolmie Professor of Feminist Law in Auckland now chairs this Family Violence Death Review Committee and that they exclude 4 classes of Family Violence
    Suicide, assisted suicide, deaths from chronic illness resulting from sustained violence and accidental deaths related to family violence incidents.
    I wonder why? but to speculate might be conspiratorial.

    Presumably the car dealer beaten severely by his former partner in Auckland who died from these untreated injuries several weeks later won’t be counted as the death was from illness resulting from the violence and it was just an accident that he died and his two children now no longer have a father.

  16. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    As a result of the widespread female=good mindset, here are some recent NZ examples of underestimation of female risk and responsibility:
    1. Teen not seen as danger to outsiders. Those paid to manage this violent female teenager believed that she presented a risk only to her caregivers. Yeah right! Only in the case of a female would such a stupid assumption be made, reflecting people’s reluctance ever to view females as violent. One may as well say “we thought this drunk driver would only ever crash into walls” or “we assumed this sex offender would only ever target 11-year-olds so we thought 10-year-olds would be safe with her”.

    By Alastair Bull, NZ NewswireUpdated May 30, 2013, 6:12 am
    Tonia Bennett was seen as more of a danger to her caregivers than to outsiders before she murdered her ex-boyfriend’s mother, an inquest has been told.
    Coroner Morag McDowell is holding an inquest into the death of Lynette Chapman, who burned to death at her Pukekohe home in January 2009.
    Bennett, who was 16 at the time and angry at her ex-boyfriend Brad Chapman, set fire to some of his clothes at the bottom of his stairwell, knowing that Ms Chapman was at home.
    Child, Youth and Family (CYF) had been aware of Bennett’s behavioural difficulties since she was nine.
    Bennett was in a Youthlink home when the murder was committed. She did not have permanent care but rather a roster of Youthlink caregivers visited the home for 16 hours from 4pm each day.
    Diana Bush of Youthlink told the inquest Bennett had been a handful for a number of caregivers.
    But when asked if Bennett was seen as a danger of violence, Ms Bush said it was for “violence in relation to caregivers”, but not outsiders.
    Auckland University psychology professor Dr Ian Lambie said the basic plan for Bennett’s care seemed reasonable, but following the murder it should have been reviewed by outsiders.
    “If a different group had done that report they could have provided feedback about how to improve.”
    Earlier, one of Bennett’s caregivers said she wasn’t aware of a crisis plan to get Bennett to go to sleep if she was drunk and then call police, but she said it wouldn’t have worked.
    “She was in a hyperactive mode. She was ready to party,” said the caregiver, whose name is suppressed.
    The witness also said it was difficult to get Bennett to take her medication, and Dr Charles Fishman later said there was nothing which could be done to force her to take it.
    The hearing is expected to end on Thursday.

    I provided further wording from this article because Yahoo soon takes them down. Note also how all parties involved seek to blame everyone else for this female’s behaviour and nowhere do we hear anyone criticizing her, talking about the need to protect society from her etc as would be the norm for a violent teenage male. Even at sentencing this female offender’s vindictive, selfish violence was excused and her welfare appeared to be the main concern:

    “Your offending on the night was stupid and had a tragic result but was committed in the context of your very troubled personal circumstances,” (Justice Geoffrey Venning) told Bennett.
    Bennett’s lawyer, Clare Bennett, said the jail time would be the most stable her client would have ever had.
    On January 20, 2009, Bennett and a 19 year-old man went to Ms Chapman’s house and set alight a T-shirt on the front step”¦Disappointed the T-shirt burned out quickly, Bennett – then aged 16 – took a sweatshirt, belonging to one of Ms Chapman’s sons, and entered the house where she set it on fire by the stairwell. She also poured absinthe on the floor.
    She later admitted to police she heard the television playing upstairs when she approached the house, knew Ms Chapman was home, and had earlier spoke of knowing, “Lynette sleeps with her television on all the time”.

    2. When a young female is charged with sexual offending she is given name suppression and the judge emphasizes how important it is for her future to remain at school; a clear pussy pass. Males who offend in a similar way to this female will always have their names published on the argument that it will encourage other victims to come forward, and if a male sex offender were even allowed to continue to mix with other potential victims his name would be published to protect them. But for a female sex offender any other victims don’t appear to matter. This is entirely consistent with our general underestimation of female offending.

    3. Child abductions to other countries soar, mainly women abducting fathers’ children, yet the only actual case discussed here and leading to criticism of the NZ Family Court was a rare case of a father taking his child away.

    4. This female fraudster is referred to as “conman’s ex-wife” so a male could be seen to be to blame, and only a photograph of him is published in this story about her sentencing.

    5. This woman admits hitting man with a weapon, her shoe, but makes out that the man’s self-defensive response was the only crime.

    6. This woman is charged with atrocious, long term abuse against her elderly mother but is referred for assessment to get off on the grounds of insanity, even though she was sane enough to call an ambulance when this became absolutely necessary.

    7. This self-described sportswoman was discharged without conviction for drunk driving and the police took the rare step (when it comes to female offending) of appealing the decision, but not because of the gender discrimination, only because no evidence was provided to support her claims about her sports career.

    8. This mother clearly murdered a baby but was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter, and home detention was being considered! Incredible pussy pass. Imagine the different treatment if a man had killed the baby. This case is also an interesting example in which the partial defence of provocation is used in a back-door, dishonest way for a female murderer to enable her to be convicted only of manslaughter, consistent with the true misandrist aim of removing provocation as a partial defence.

    9. A nice pussy pass for a serious, prolonged assault by a mother on her 12yo daughter. Any man would have been sent to prison and CYFS would have ensured he was kept out of the child’s life, but no such thing for this violent female. (I’m not supporting CYFS’ policy when it comes to males, just objecting to the gender double standards.) And where was the baying from the ‘law and order’ groups?

    10. Pregnant women are drinking a lot of alcohol, essentially abusing the children they will give birth to, but women are not held accountable for this form of life-wrecking child abuse.

    11. The Employment Relations Authority gives a pussy pass to an air hostess who assaulted a colleague, and used minimizing wording to describe the assault.

    12. Check out the caring, understanding way various people comment about this violent woman assaulting and stabbing her female partner, having a history of similar violence.

    13. And what about the pussy pass given to this woman who injured her male partner by repeatedly bashing him using a cd player as a weapon: 9 months supervision, when she was already breaching community service for previous charges.

    14. And another pussy pass shown in the judge’s sympathetic judgement on this repeat violent female offender.

    15. And as we often see, in the rare situation when a protection order is issued against a female it is soon cancelled, and the judge asks if her breach of the order is an example of the police being used as a tool in the couple’s domestic dispute! We know that applications by men for protection orders against women are usually thrown out because judges won’t believe women could be violent enough, so if such an application succeeds it must involve really solid evidence, yet this judge still treats it with contempt. And we also know that protection orders are often used against men as a tool in domestic disputes, but we never seem to hear judges mentioning it in those cases. Pure sexism.

  17. Down Under says:

    Pure sexism.

    From a sexism point of view, the argument returns a decision of bias – women treated more leniently than men are.

    I see this as a blinkered male perspective (driven by centuries of culture) lost in examining the ‘equality issue’.

    This illustrates the feminist perspective that treats men with a dissociative response while individually examining women’s circumstances.

    When you translate this into a court system, you see two different standards applied.

    This is not the same as bias or is it an inability or refusal to recognise equality.

    This is a legal determination that treats women, superior to men.

    Take this into a broader social context, men are given a generic base of rights that exist provided they do not conflict with the collective women’s rights or the individual woman’s freedom and women are given a superior set of rights.

    This is far more dangerous than sexism.

  18. Skeptic says:

    Down Under @17

    Indeed if we ascribe the conditions you describe to races rather than sexes we can arguably called it a form of fascism. Sexual fascism is where one sex has superior rights than another akin to when Germans ascribed themselves superior rights than Jews, Slaviks and Gypsies, the latter parties being seen by fascists as genetically inferior.

  19. Ted says:

    a superior set of rights.

    This is far more dangerous than sexism.

    Yep. Superior rights, without corresponding responsibilities, equals power. And power corrupts.

  20. Down Under says:

    Ssssh, Skeptic. Does this make us male sympathisers or does it put us in the camp of the more hated anti-feminist collaborators?

  21. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Mmm, my pleasure and thanks are also due to any others who spent hours compiling relevant evidence.

  22. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    CYF spent $500k trying to help troubled teen

    Half a million dollars of the money taxed from our labours spent in order to be unsuccessful in achieving what a bit of support for parental authority would have achieved. $500,000 to pay for numerous experts applying ineffective, feminist ideological child-rearing and behaviour-management approaches (the same ones they are telling, no, requring NZ parents to rely on) resulting in a murder that would probably have been avoided by sensible, adequate discipline.

  23. Man X Norton says:

    Men are more dangerous and violent than women are. Men are strong and brave, prepared to sacrifice their own lives for the common good. It’s very surprising that men have allowed the current ridiculous situation of male bashing, exploitation and enslavement, child deprivation of male influence, anti-male lies and propaganda, to continue for as long as it has. Men won’t sit on their hands forever, when our letters and political efforts are conveniently ignored. Rise up men and show that we will not be walked on!

  24. Equalist says:

    Our feminist dictatorship would ruin 2 women to ruin 1 man. Feminism is anti-men, not pro-women.

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