UK proposing new offence – emotional cruelty to children
Erin Pizzey is concerned that British families are under threat as never before from the Nanny State.
A proposed new law would introduce the new offence of ’emotional cruelty to children’. Parents judged to be unloving, though not physically abusive, could face jail. The evidence could rest partly on the testimony of the children.
She explains why this law against ’emotional cruelty’ could turn every parent into a suspect.
Although her article about the so-called “Cinderella Law” in the Daily Mail is dated April 1st, it is not an April Fool’s joke. She writes:
The British family has been under attack since the Seventies, when women were told by Left-wing politicians that the traditional home, with a mother and father, was a dangerous place. Slowly, men were excised from family life.
In 1990, a Labour policy paper called The Family Way was presented by MPs Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, co-written with the Left-wing journalist Anna Coote. It argued that the family of the future would consist of mothers and children without fathers, because ‘men are not necessarily harmonious to family life’.
From this policy has grown an army of single mothers. And in most cases now, it is from single-parent families that children are being taken away into care.
It is no exaggeration to say that feminism is now synonymous with the destruction of the family.
I noticed something similar recently when I posted about the PSA’s (Domestic Violence in the workplace report) where you have an ex refuge worker like Brenda Pilott getting into an influencial position such secretary of the PSA and engineering this domestic violence report with Susan Snively.
If you look at the type of material quoted from e.g. 1994 ‘research’ on American refuge women produced by Davis & Srinivasan you see the same premise – that the father is unnecessary and expendable, and adopts a starting point where the father even when present is not considered part of the family.
It is quite disturbing when you see these two Ne Zealand women (Pilott and Snively) in cohorts with Green MP Jan Logie promoting anti-father legislation based on the lowest female-denominator.
In both cases the determined outcome is quite clear, make the father legally expendable – remove the father – but by different political vehicles; in the UK case by alleged emotion child-abuse and in the New Zealand case by domestic violence.
We may have seen some improvement in the Family Court, but I think what we are seeing here, is Western Society entering a whole new phase in this feminasty crusade against fathers.
It on takes a few people to make a big mess in any society and we need to keep a close eye on what some of these key individuals are getting up to both here and overseas.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 4th April 2014 @ 11:58 am
Great article John, thanks.
I have slowly come to the opinion that the state is in the process of trying to destroy the family unit. I don’t know why maybe it is some Orwellian future being laid out for us. Maybe its just the natural decline of an empire.
Democracy has its inadequacies and one of the major ones is having people of high caliber to vote for. It seems that politics attract a certain ilk that are far from representative of the people. They covet power.
The height of a politicians career is to pass a law. i.e. Sue Bradford got her smacking bill then retired.
The consequence, more and more rules amounting to attacks on your freedom and the family unit.
Look at the states and the militarization of their police force. Judge Dred comming to a corner near you.
Comment by Ritche — Fri 4th April 2014 @ 12:04 pm
Sue Bradford didn’t retire. After 10 years as a list MP she expected to be leader. When that didn’t happen she packed a sad and left. She is currently part of the Mana party.
At least the Greens had the sense to see what would have happened if they had a narrow minded ideological leader like Bradford – they would have ended up like the Labour Party is now, dogged by a divisive feminist gaggle that is pulling their ship apart.
These feminasty-facists will destroy society before they ever get to run it. The only crown the winner will ever own is Queen of Nothing.
They view representation as a fight to force society to comply with their ideological following not representing individuals in a progressive society where we all get equal opportunity.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 4th April 2014 @ 1:09 pm
That proposed law is not a nanny state. It’s a police state.
It’s a very dangerous law against the wellbeing of normal families. All kids think they are hard done by when they don’t get what they want. ‘Oh so you can’t have a cell phone till your 15’ or you can’t go out with that person, causes an argument and carry on where the child, shouts, sobs, howls, complains that they are not loved and you get investigated at the very least.
Teachers handing out brochures on how to complain if your folks make you work in the family garden
or do the dishes and clean up after themselves.
Like the smacking law to prevent child abuse didn’t save a soul because the thugs who lay into kids don’t give a dang while the normal families disciplining are open to awful interrogation at the very least.
Comment by Lukenz — Sat 5th April 2014 @ 10:35 am
I think its high-time we simply chip all men (boys) at birth, and then track them right through life.
Any misdemeanours, and you’re instantly pinged. Have a record that you carry (literally) everywhere with you.
The for fatherhood, we can keep a check on your full history, and cop you when you (inevitably and invariably) commit an act of dom violence. Level of proof required? Only her word against yours, and you’re out of the family home, mate.
Now, take this a stage further, and have every parent undergo a psych test before parenthood to ascertain your fitness. All men of course will be failed, because they’re inherently violent – and if not, well they’re all potential violators, so it doesn’t matter if we fail a few good ones, in the name of keeping kiddies safe.
So unless you women raiuse your children exactly the way Ms Nanny State and her close cousin, Ms Policy State, require, then you too are nabbed, and lose your right to parenthood.
Fathers? well we’d better remove them from the equation permanently. Mothers: Undergo some nanny-training and you can have your kids back, eh.
Comment by Sarah Haras\ — Sat 5th April 2014 @ 2:02 pm
Luke #4. Yep, insightful comments. As previous writers have pointed out, families were always a threat to governments because parents would place their responsibility towards providing for and protecting their families ahead of cooperation with government or its laws. Family units were the only groupings that were widely accepted as providing a moral justification for individuals to stand up against or show disobedience towards the state. Feminists and their contrived ideology presented an excellent opportunity for governments to diminish and remove men from families, thereby dividing and ruling family units. What a wonderful solution: support a social movement that seeks to eject men from their families and that otherwise generally diminishes men’s role in families, while encouraging women to become dependent on the state rather than on the men they mated with. Presto, the men who were always the most capable family members of standing up against the state’s power have been neutralized and government now needs only to dominate the mothers whom they have already made directly dependent on the state. The master stroke is that the resources used to make the mothers dependent on and beholden to the state are stolen by force from those very men who were cast out of their family roles. The state now maintains a huge machinery encouraging, facilitating and violently forcing the ejection of men from their families. Even criminal laws are being used to support this process, continually made harsher and more draconian in order to repress men on increasingly flimsy grounds, this still being demanded and applauded by naive, short-sighted feminists and both male and female ‘law and order’ ideologues. By the time they wake up there will be no way to stop the state without huge fatalities.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 5th April 2014 @ 2:05 pm
MOMA – we are already awake; we have the male suicide statistics to prove it.
Comment by Bruce S — Sat 5th April 2014 @ 11:36 pm
Bruce S #7: You’re probably right though we still don’t have good research clarifying why men are killing themselves at such high rates. We know suicide often follows relationship / family ‘break-up’ (actually, usually it’s ‘male disposal’) but no researchers appear to have asked why break-ups are impacting so much more on men. The Ministry of Health has deliberately minimized attention to men’s high suicide rates and believes the cause is simply that men are more violent in self-harming. However, the Ministry of Health is very concerned about the much smaller suicide differential for Maori compared with Pakeha and there are well-funded programs to study and ameliorate that. Nothing specifically for men though, nothing to focus on the much greater differential between the genders, hardly a mention that men are killing themselves at huge rates across all ages. Only propaganda based on wishful thinking that the problem will simply go away, such as claims that men’s suicide is ‘trending downwards’ as soon as they have a slight dip in statistics for a few months.
Of course, although you’re correct that suicide is causing ‘huge fatalities’ already, that’s not the fatalities that will bring about any change, at least not for a very long time until there are insufficient men left to provide the resources for the survival of their societies. The fatalities needed for realistic change will arise when enough men rise up against government. Western governments have been anticipating such an eventuality for some time now and have been training their armed forces for crowd control against their own populations, as well as equipping and training their police forces with military weapons, equipment and clothing for the same purpose, as well as expanding the numbers and powers of many other state agencies in order to reinforce constant repression, removal of rights and demoralization of the population and ultimately to assist in quashing any significant rebellion. We are fast heading towards increased enslavement of men by disallowing labour strikes or other refusal to work towards maintaining the system, disallowing any refusal to keep enriching the rich and (for the moment) to serve women. The so-called ‘child support’ regime has been doing its bit by increasingly assessing men on the basis of what they are claimed to be capable of earning rather than what they actually earn and, for those who don’t cooperate, increasing state violence against them at borders, through direct theft from their bank accounts and so forth.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 6th April 2014 @ 8:12 am
#7 Bruce S
MOMA – we are already awake; we have the male suicide fatalities to prove it.
Ministry of Men’s Affairs seems to be suggesting that Ministry of Health should fund suicide research to look into the underlying causes for male suicides being 3 or more times higher than women’s suicides.
In other countries, women’s suicides are up to 3 or more times higher than mens, so it is almost certainly culturally determined.
In my opinion, if Ministry of Health were to put large funding into researching male the culture behind male suicide success, this would be an unmitigated disaster. By visibly putting in money and obtaining no results, the whole subject would be turned into a research nightmare, that noone would ever want to enter. The “troubles” could then go on forever.
In the present situation of low Government funding in this area, if men wish to put their own time and resource, they can carry out research (out of the control of Government). This then allows people with more open minds to research the issues. In my opinion, this offers a more straightforward path to successful research, than Government funded research. It might sound as though I am warped – let there be no doubt – but research into values can be opened up or blinded by the researchers own assumptions and fears of where not to tread.
We have the time, we have the resources, what do we want to do with them?
Are men worth saving from rational suicide?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 6th April 2014 @ 8:48 am
I am trying to focus on the decisions that we can make, rather than decisions way out of our power to make.
In some ways, it would be nice if “the Government” picked up on male rational suicide issues. As I have tried to warn above, it wouldn’t guarantee success anyway, it might even make the whole situation worse?
I believe that it would be safer, ie result in less men’s deaths beyond those that occur due to other causes anyway, for us to work together to look into male rational suicide culture. Jim Bagnall is the only person who has agreed to work with me and we made a little progress together, bouncing ideas around and discussing. Lately, we have not cooperated in this way, alas.
Otherwise, all other men I have asked, have said I want to spend my spare time with my children, or that is too close to my bones, or it their own decision so why try to change it?
Skeptic opened up my eyes to MGTOW. Initially I didn’t take it very seriously. I am guessing that – given men’s inability to work effectively together – this movement might end up saving men more effectively that muddling, after the event changes in Government social policies and legislation.
I do fear that failing to put integrity into social policy and caught$ will result in a huge overswing and end up with an even more damaged society. If we were able to negotiate to sort out legislation and social policies, I think the prognosis would be much happier and healthier, than for men to refuse to take part in intimate relationships. I see this as ending up in a complete reversal of gender roles, including a women’s rape culture, of rape for child support and rape to railroad into marriage. Right back into the 1930s?
Sex roles are not as rigidly biologically programmed as most people think. Evidence of dominance and submission effects in both sexes, with associated endocrine hormone changes, suggests that if the games in familycaught$, well all caught$ really, carry on as easily used tools of abuse, then we are just giving everything away.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 6th April 2014 @ 11:53 am
MOMA #8; you are absolutely correct; militarization of the state control apparatus has arisen because western governments are (correctly) anticipating a “citizen” led backlash to their authoritarian regimes. One could almost say they are scared.
Desperate men do desperate things; we see that with suicide; simply no other real options, yet. Men (in the main) have had their investments in family and society unjustly removed through no real fault of their own. Legislated theft of assets has made it easy for successive governments to control men simply by stripping them of their sense of worth. We have let it pass that we now have courts that enforce unjust laws and that justice, for men, can no longer be sought by pursuing legal means.
The only take aways, for now, are that democracy doesn’t work for men and that the sword is, in fact, mightier than the pen!
Comment by Bruce S — Sun 6th April 2014 @ 8:54 pm
8 and 11…….
We have a small economy – that is a fact, and sadly this opens up our society, and our citizens to those in power, who look at any way possible to create DEBT so they can BORROW more to fund Govt…….why is this dangerous…….because as people become corrupted by power – which has happened here in NZ – make no mistake – then we are all forced to fund this system as they enforce more and more draconian REVENUE collection methods on us all…….
Example – in the last 4 years NZ citizens have been subjected to EVERY AUSTERITY measure that Greece was subjected to……but it was done slowly and deliberately and in isolation – so we did not notice the massive impact……..but the truth is, we have been attacked on a massive scale with increases in costs for all the things we need in life – petrol, diesel, vehicle registration, fines, the list goes on…….excessive child support demands are just another piece of the scam…….
The corruption is hidden, by a system which simply refuses to take complaints concerning how it is operating…….
The police are now simply a revenue collection service – fighting crime, prosecuting etc costs money……
As this NEED for more REVENUE increases – we see our RIGHTS being destroyed as they pursue this revenue at all cost – Property rights, and many civil and bill of rights for the individual are being destroyed – ignored – because currently REVENUE collection is the only thing that matters.
As an example – in a larger economy where they do not need to resort to these tactics – Motorcycle registration is $3 ( 3 dollars ) as opposed to $700 per year in NZ – see the concern………because our gov has limited options to create debt, to raise borrowing to fund the scam, they have to rape us all of everything we own and work hard for……..
Suicides of good people – driven to despair = because they are attacked as individuals, and never get any help from this corrupted system – suicides are simply collateral damage for a system which does not care about you.
What is more disturbing – are the proposed changes to child support which will attack your property ownership to fund this corruption…..thats why it was delayed until after the election – but is SHOULD be an election issue -= because every good parent in NZ is going to be hammered by the changes……..
Did you know, we here in NZ have the worst personal property protection systems in the western world – our civl and human rights are the worst on record when it comes to protecting property ownership……..this is why they would not enact the same protections as are given by the UN ………because they need our property – and the ability to take it – to support the scam…….
As they demand more than you earn in income, and force massive debt on you – the scam is they then force you to sell personal property to pay the debt……….this is the plan……….
http://www.iscr.org.nz/f493,14385/Land_Rights_paper_Final.pdf
11. If you want to know why the GCSB laws were created – it was to remove the powers the police previously had to deal with these concerns – so that these powers were transferred under the DIRECT control of the Executive – a corruption of power……totalitarian rule with NO BALANCE TO POWER which is why we are supposed to have branches of govt……..in the first place……
So if the Govt executive branch takes total control of power – what do we have???? Why are they changing the Constitution – our BILL of Rights, which defines PROPERTY protections and Human and civil rights – why is this being changed in SECRET……….with NO PUBLIC discussion?????///
Secrecy is Tyrranny – Secret agreements and those who engage in them are corrupted and are traitors to the NZ way of life………..
Comment by hornet — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 8:14 am
And heres a goody, Im not pushing any one political party – but its interesting that an ENTIRE community board would take this stance…….because they are sick and tired of not getting anywhere with the current system ………
check out the front page article in the lower left side……Waimarino Community board to instruct ALL RESIDENTS to vote for a particular party…….
http://www.ohakune.info/bulletins/ruapehubulletin.pdf
Comment by hornet — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 8:21 am
hornet #13. I suspect the fact that the Waimarino Community Board story was published on April 1 might have some bearing on it…
But MoMA agrees with much of what you say in #12. The latest theft from the public is the intention for parking meter wardens to write tickets for insufficient tread on car tyres. The whole rort of allowing councils to make money from their meter wardens for lapsed car registrations and warrants was always corrupt revenue gathering, and this is now being extended.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 7th April 2014 @ 6:04 pm
This proposed law sounds like a well intentioned idiot’s idea.
Research on emotionaldamage to children, which is the damage that takes the longest duration and the most resources to try to undo, shows that the biggest single driver of emotional damage, is parental failure to respond appropriately to the child. The most critical time period, is birth through to 18 months, ie the period of which memories are lost as the child develops language. This makes prosecution based on hard evidence almost completely impossible.
Maybe that is no impediment to gaining convictions, in a NZ caught! Who wants convictions, apart from “judges”? Surely we just want to have safe, happy, well developed children?
The article written by Erin Pizzey does not mention any written definition of failure to love, that could be used in caught$?
Possibly it could be defined as failing to respond appropriately to the needs of the baby? This can be judged from careful filming of many, many hours of interactions between babies and their caregivers. This is extremely time consuming, to pickup about 500 unsatisfactory parents per year, would require investigation of about 3,000 parents per year, at an investigation cost of about $5 t0 $10,000 per investigation. Even if such resources were budgeted, we lack sufficient trained observer/raters….. At best, we would only pickup about 70% of the unsatisfactory parents anyway….. So many thousands, tens of thousands of children would still be damaged by incompetent parents, as no accusation was made against them, in time to protect their children….
For all of the cost, for all of the suffering and then still failing to protect a large number of children, such a system would still be a big disaster (but not as bad as what CYFs are doing now).
What of parents, who when together were effective and safe as parents, but on separation and with the children spending long time periods in the care of only one parent – are now at risk of emotional damage?
Should we say to these separating parents, the children must spend the larger part of their time with the parent with better mental health, with better parenting skills, or your children will be removed from both of you on separation? This would greatly improve the protection of children. About half the time, the preferred parent would be the father (perhaps a little over half for very young children, due to women’s greater depression levels).
This approach would mean that a parenting plan would need to be filed and approved, before removing the children from the marital home. (This would take away much of the familycaught$ power to provoke family destroying legal battles, for their paramount financial benefit.)
All of the above ideas are ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and still result in large numbers of seriously damaged children.
To provide much better protection of children, we need to be proactive.
If schools can show children their levels of communication ability and parenting skills, then many people who would later turn out to be poor and hazardous parents may be dissuaded from having children at all. If people in this category decide to have children anyway, they will know that they are at a disadvantage and will need much greater social supports, especially through the first 3 or 4 years of their baby’s life. If they don’t want to put up with the loss of freedom and privacy that these supports would entail, again don’t have children at all.
A young woman who wanted children, would be careful not to have children with a man who lacked good parenting skills, as if they were to separate, they would have less freedom about their separated parenting plans. And vice versa.
By giving better information to young adults about their parenting skills and mental health, we can avoid creating most of the problems that presently feed the familycaught$ and endanger or damage our children and make families vulnerable to the mafia in familycaught$.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 30th April 2014 @ 8:28 pm
Excellent points one and all. Yes, we are already the most legislated country in the wolrd along with USA and all our Human Rights are ignored (while they still exist on paper) and it is just a matter of time until they are removed in legislation.
Check Parliament’s legislation web site and see how much legislation has been passed in the last few years compared to all the 100 years before that – u will find it frightening! If i read it correctly..
It is obviously a plot by Government to have total control over us tax slaves, by using the innate selfishness of many females to wreck the family unit and good father’s lives and steal their money. It is murder by driving men to suicide. Women talk. Men don’t. Women know the statistics about male suicide and they are taught by all the women’s Refuse and miriads of State funded Female Power and Control organisations to plot to leave their children’s father in order to create maximum shock and trauma and get him to kill himself. Women may be selfish and malicious, but they ain’t dumb.
We men have to spread the word to all the younger men and older men of how the female mind works. Do you know of any marriages that have lasted from their 20’s till their 90’s? All should if they love each other and the children. Love is forever or it’s not love it’s something else.
Where to from here? not sure….
Comment by Phil Watts — Tue 5th August 2014 @ 3:17 pm
okay, many of the comments on this thread echo my reason for asking Dominic to help me set up the facebook page NZ Men Fed Up With Family Court’ and i have posted many of these thoughts on this page and on my own in early to mid 2014. It is encouraging that others have also come to the same conclusions. Hans, and Murray et al. almost make me think i may not be crazy!
i have had time to think and have many ideas about how to combat the police state and feminazism and human rights abusers in government.
starting an unalienable individual Human Rights Party is one method. I have many other ideas including exposing feminist government anti-male propaganda and protesting it and countering it – if i had no morals or ethics i could probably make a good living in the secret police of nz and other countries.
Any takers?
Comment by phil watts — Sun 22nd February 2015 @ 4:40 pm