- 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 14th September 2015

Canadian Identity Researcher Professor Robert A. Kenedy Will Visit NZ

He will arrive on Thursday 15th October and expects to be in NZ for about one week.

I am doing research on fathers, shared/continued parenting, as well as related areas. I have been working in this area for about 26 years, mainly in Canada, the UK, and US. I am now looking at the Global Shared Parenting movement and would like to do interviews with those in Australia and New Zealand. The interviews will be part of the book I am writing about the Family Law system, the Fathers’ Rights/Parenting Movement, and related issues. I would like to interview fathers, mothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, and others who have been impacted by the Family Law System. I would also like to interview mental health professionals, legal professionals, and others who have concerns about the Family Law System. All interviews will be confidential and those being interviewed will remain anonymous.

Overall, I am interviewing parents and others who are concerned with the state of the family law system, children, and parenting. I am particularly concerned about the stress experienced as a result of separation and divorce such as potential mental and physical health issues as well as possible suicide ideation and suicide. I have also interviewed many participants who have discussed domestic violence, false accusations, and related issues.

University Homepage

I have published the following selected works in the area:

Kenedy, R. (2015). ‘Post-Divorced Transitions: Mental Health and Suicide Ideation Among Canadian Fathers’. International Journal of Family Research and Policy. 1(1), Forthcoming.

Kenedy, R. (2014). ‘Do Fathers Matter? Post-Divorced Transitions Regarding Mental Health and Suicide Ideation Among Fathers in a Canadian Context’. In R. Kenedy, (Ed.) Senator Cools’ Roundtable and Symposium on Family Dynamics Proceedings Senate of Canada. Published by the Senate of Canada.

Kenedy, R. (2011). Moral panic: Male studies and the spectrum of denial. New Male Studies: An International Journal, 1 (1), 52-60.

Kenedy, R. (2006). Researching the intersection between collective identity and conceptions of post-separation and divorced fatherhood: Fathers for justice, fathers for just us, or fathers are us? Qualitative Sociology Review, 2 (2), 75-97.

Contact: rkenedy@yorku.ca

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Jewish Diaspora from France to Montré al:Situational Identity and Multi-centred Diasporas
Robert A. Kenedy, York University
Diana Cohen-Reis, University of Ottawa

Critical Thinking and ‘Critical Skills Pedagogy’ in the First Year Experience
Dr. Robert A. Kenedy
Assistant Professor
York University
Faculty of Arts
Department of Sociology
Academic Advisor, 219 Founders College
York University, Toronto

20 Responses to “Canadian Identity Researcher Professor Robert A. Kenedy Will Visit NZ”

  1. Paul says:

    Professor Kenedy, I am a father with shared care.

    It took 13 hearings in the NZ Family Court to achieve Shared care.

    I suggest that;

    Directions have been made with out evidence.

    Counsel for our children engineered outcomes which prevented overnight access (after it been agreed by the mother in Judge lead Mediation) by a respected Judge – His Honour Judge Ian Mill.

    Children and Young Persons (CYPS) found that; The children had been subjected to emotional and psychological abuse by the mother. This CYPS report is on the court file yet nothing was done. I would have expected counsel for our children to have done something (other than crank out another invoice) on the basis that our children had a legal right not to be abused by their mother.

    A dead body was found by my son hanging from the neck in the mother’s garage. Nothing was done to help the children.

    Counsel for our children went into some sort of business relationship with the counsel for the mother, working from the same offices. That business is called Harrison Byrne. Harrison acted for the children Byrne acted for the mother.

    The court appointed psychologist in 2004 reported that the mother had not bonded with the children yet the father had, a hearing was held re a change in the primary care arrangements yet two weeks before this hearing and only three months after the report, a second report/update was done. (counsel for the children briefed the psychologist) This found the mother has now bonded with the children. (same psychologist with no professional intervention for the mother in only 12 weeks)It would seem that the outcome was predetermined.

    My recollection is that 18 months and later after our son had suffered, the same psychologist came back and said the mother has not bonded with the son after all. (Joe Leach court appointed psychologist)

    This same psychologist who appeared to receive a large percentage of her work from the Family Court (which I understand is administered by the “court coordinator”) is as I understand, an independent contractor.

    Aspects of the aforementioned matters were raised with the then Principal Family Court Judge – things moved forward (positively)after that for our children (although the principal was rightly unable to be interfere in the natural course of Justice). It took 13 hearings to achieve shared care.

    I have no criminal record.

    I have developed respect for some staff and Judges involved with this file, but not for others.

    I believe that it was not appropriate for counsel for the children and counsel for the the mother to be from the same firm Harrison Byrne.

    This process has been most detrimental to me and in many instances our children.

    The mother, Harrison and Byrne may well have been the recipients of tax payer funding.

    I have successfully defended two protection order applications at a cost of around six thousand dollars each time. I did not bother to defend the mother’s third application.

    This process can alienate good and potentially good fathers.

    We have one of the worst child abuse rates in the world.

    The statistics demonstrate that so often the perpetrators of abuse are the mother’s new “intimate partner”.

    Caring fathers are typically protectors who can provide another set of caring eyes and a safe haven for the child/children – as long as they can stay involved yet so often they give up and who can blame them. This leaves mummy’s new “intimate partner” and the mother with the children.

    The new “intimate partner” has no such rigor or process applied.

    I say that there is no wonder that we have these levels of abuse in this country and the more difficult it is for the caring father who must typically pay real money to be involved via this process, the more abuse we will see.

    It has been said that the NZ Family Court is gender biased and in my view it is, potentially by way of some of it’s officer’s and the process which in my view has been hijacked by some.

    “The Order to Enforce The Order”.

    Imagine that a caring young man wants to bee a good father yet the mother opposes his request for meaningful access with the children. He remains committed to the children and applies via the court to have meaningful consistent access/relationship with the children.

    The father preservers and spends perhaps $3-4,000 via this process to achieve a sensible level of care with the children via a court order. a level of care that can make a difference to the child/children. Not just “Cash and Contact”

    Access is granted and directions are made.

    The mother doesn’t make the children available for access.

    The father goes to the police who might tell him, sorry we don’t get involved in these things, talk to your lawyer.

    The father rings his lawyer and says ” hi remember me, we got the court order so that I can see my children two nights per a week but the mother hasn’t made the children available for the last two weeks”.

    The lawyer may say; MMMMM,I suppose we can apply to the court for an Order to Enforce The Order.

    Young Man might say; ‘what’s that? We have a court order remember, the children are supposed to be at the park, remember, I spent $4,000 with you to achieve that”

    Lawyer may say; Yea but if you want to enforce that order, we would need to go back to court and apply for an “Order to Enforce the Order”, and there are no guarantees.

    Young Man may say; What do you mean? What are you saying? Are you saying that I have to go back to court?

    The Lawyer might say: Well you would have to, yes

    Young Man could then ask: How long? How Much?

    Lawyer might add; Perhaps $2,000, three months and there are no guarantees.

    Young Man may: Buy a plane ticket, Rip up his $4,000 piece of paper, (that he now considers worthless) go to Australia and become what Andrew? Sad? Depressed? An alcoholic?

    The child could easily end up with: No dad, and mummy’s new “intimate partner” arrives on the scene.

    The result: refer to the stastics.

    Happy to talk Andrew. In my view there is a better way. Encourage, support, assist the caring father with some boundaries and provisos around this.

    I Say Shift the budget to ‘Support liaison Staff for the mother and the father” who meet and talk to each other. Child Case Manager’s, not File Case Managers.

    It may be that our existing process is tired and has developed into a costly in effective process in many respects which does not serve the children well and does not support the child/children having both parents.

    We hear such rubbish, every case is different, yet commonality exists in all of them.

    I wish to protect the children, you can contact me via Allen Harvey.

  2. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Paul,

    thank you for sharing your experiences with Prof Robert A. Kenedy.

    I guess I have heard your comments 50 or a hundred or two hundred times. Yet these things are still going on. This is why it is so important that all parents search for constructive ways to improve familycaught, despite the people in it and their paramount best interests.

    Maybe my experience was not as destructive as yours. As my experience is no longer a current negotiation, I have the small luxury of being able to call a spade, a fucking spade. And I do.

    I am not Prof Kenedy’s official representative in NZ. However, I will contact Allan and try to establish a direct between you and Prof kenedy. Otherwise, his week in NZ will whizz by possibly an opportunity for you to meet directly might not be possible. Or, you can EMAIL him directly, his EMAIL address is just above.

    It grieves me how little interest any NZ researchers take in looking at the quality of outcomes in familycaught$. Here we are, discussing with a Canadian academic. In my opinion, NZ fathers and mothers should get cracking and set up their own research project. It is much work to set up and less work to then gather experiences and evaluate them. Our children are worth the effort.

    I apologise that I was rude to you, in another thread.

    Thanks,
    MurrayBacon.

  3. Paul says:

    I referred to Prof Robert Kenedy as Andrew [now fixed – mod], I didn’t intend to.

    Allen is familiar with aspects of this case and how some outcomes were engineered. For example the children and mother’s GP sent a letter to Counsel for the children which said – The level of access these children have with their father is compromising their attachment to their primary care giver who is their mother and suggested that the level of access be reduced.

    That GP was Dr Ruth Brown, yet she had never seen me with the children and met me once.

    Counsel for the children Peter Harrison submitted that letter to the court as he felt it was his duty to do so.

    An unsigned copy of the letter was sent to me from the GP.

    Another letter was sent to Harrison from the GP which her also submitted to the court. This one said the GP would not see the children when in my care (a prerequisite for shared care was to have a common GP)

    This letter was sent tome from the GP also unsigned.

    Harrison submitted this letter to the court as well and talked about the level of conflict that may exist between the GP and the father.

    I allege that Harrison was the author of these letters by way of draft or dictation, he sent them to the GP for her to place on her letter head to place on her letter head, sign them and send them back to him for him to submit to the court, sending me the unsigned copies. Of Course I did receive a copy of the signed letters by of the court record as a copy of his submission with the letters attached. (It is regarded as an offense to copy or distribute court documents)

    The matter went before his Honuor Judge Walsh who had to act on the evidence before him and naturally the letters (the signed ones) were attached to the mother’s affidavit applying to put overnight access on hold after only two overnight access visits.

    It would take another two years before our children could have another night in our home.

    Harrison, well I guess he invoiced the tax payer for his time re the hearing before Judge Walsh and perhaps for his time taken to draft the letters in the first instance.

    After I put a little pressure on the GP some time later Harrison popped up out of nowhere with out any appointment and put forward a Memorandum Seeking Clarification effectively seeking reappointment to be the gatekeeper of the Medical Record. Harrison made sure that this request went to His Honour Judge Ellis. The purpose of this was to cover the GP’s fat arse. It took him about tow days from receiving correspondence from the GP that she was being put under pressure by me for Harrison to produce the arse covering Memorandum/Application for re appointment, yet when the dead body was hanging in my 9 year old children’s garage this so called professional up holder of children’s legal rights did nothing.

    It may be that he has;
    Brought the court into disrepute
    Perverted the course of justice
    Mislead the court

    He is regarded as a senior officer of the court.

    So this is how our children are treated and we as father’s are treated.

    Thank you for the gesture and the kind thought Murray but no need to apologise to me.

    Keen to talk/meet with Robert
    Regards

  4. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Andrew,

    I suggest that assessing attachment issues is outside the professional training and competence of a GP.

    Making an assessment that an added hour with the father reduces the quality of attachment with the mother, could only be true if the children’s attachment to the mother was unusually weak. In that case, the children’s welfare is best served by doing everything possible to foster the relationship between the children and father! Being practical, drawing this type of conclusion is outside the training and competence of any psychologist or child and adolescent psychiatrist (let alone a GP!).

    To make such a comparative statement about relative attachment, would require measuring the child’s attachment to both parent’s accurately enough, that the difference had some accuracy. Even if that could be done (which it cannot and certainly not by a GP), the result would likely be different a few days later.

    So what? Such a comparison has almost no value. Children are adept at taking the best from both parents (except when clown judges get in the children’s way). In almost every situation, children’s best interests are served by having enough time with both parents, that they can have a good relationship. If one parent (maybe in this case the mother?) is less skilled at developing her relationship with the child, then that certainly is not a reason to work to cripple the relationship between the children and father. To do that, would be only further damaging the children’s situation!

    The idea of time with one parent taking away from the relationship of the other, is an accountant’s approach to relationships. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Legal workers aren’t even that skilled about relationships. They only look for assets that can be sold to pay their bills! They are just relationship vandals. However, the accountant’s approach to relationships enables the familycaught$ to pit parents against each other, so it is valuable to their billing for that reason, but not valuable to children.

    Some people consider it is very unprofessional, to work outside your own training and proven competence. I certainly do. You could consider making a professional complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner about the GP. This is a constructive step, as it reminds the practitioner of the extent of their competence and the limits of their competence. They might also be required to apply to the familycaught$ to withdraw their affidavit. The Evidence Act and Family Court Rules cover these situations.

    A complaint is likely to draw attention of other practitioners to these same issues. As a result, children’s lives can be saver from unprofessional interference. Limits of competence isn’t often a problem in the medical area, as most practitioners do show due professional caution. It does show up enough to create real concerns.

    In the legal area, it appears this problem is rife, but then there isn’t a working complaints system to address this issue for any type of legal worker, down a bench, or up a bench. Thank goodness too, it would be terrible if the public ever started to take legal workers seriously for anything but invoicing!

    GP’s affidavit to familycaught$:

    The level of access these children have with their father is compromising their attachment to their primary care giver who is their mother and suggested that the level of access be reduced.

    Thank you for working on improvements in these areas. Children’s lives won’t improve, unless people work to make them better.

    There are many ignorant and greedy barriers in the way.

  5. paul says:

    Thank you, clearly the GP was out side her area of expertise. They don’t even talk like that; the level of access is compromising their attachment etc.

    I say this was engineered by Peter Harrison.
    He has had several chances to deny it-but hasn’t.

    This may well be perverting the course of Justice, after all the court can only act on the evidence before it.

    It may be that the outcome is often predetermined and all that is required is the evidence to support the outcome which has already been decided (by potentially counsel for the children in this instance and perhaps with the blessing of certain Judges.

    In any event this is wrong on many fronts, and the impact of predetermined and engineered outcomes for the children, and every father who just cant believe the outcome clearly makes many good father’s give up, leave.

    In terms of a Just process in the Family Court with this level of nonsense, well who can respect that.

    We are expected to have faith in the Family Court process and I did in the beginning but knowing what I know now who would?

    The children loose their father, a protector.
    Mummies new boyfriend – well he is free to abuse away.

    I say:

    The sooner decent fathers are supported and encouraged.

    Ok fathers are assisted and encouraged.

    The process is shortened.

    The process is not costly.

    Judges/adjudicators are held accountable (not by Sir Dave, Judicial Conduct Commissioner who doesn’t have a great reputation for doing his job)

    Mothers who frustrate and stymie access are acknowledged and dealt with by a system that does something, faith in the system will not eventuate, good fathers and potentially good fathers will continue walk, children will suffer and mummies new boyfriend will have a free reign to abuse away.

    That means that behaviour (as suggested) by Harrison, Byrne and the court appointed psychologist stops and the behaviour from all people is held up to the light.

    Because one thing is sure, and that is that the behaviour of us (the father) is held up to the light, scrutinised, assessed, questions, poked, prodded and potentially surveilled.

    That is a hell of a price to pay for trying to be a caring father in this country.

  6. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Paul, the idea of comparing quality of a child’s attachment to mother or father, has been much discussed in psychology circles, but very rarely done. The only paper that I have been able to find, goes back to 1974 and the thesis written by NZ psychology Masters student Glen L. Harding. It is available in the Auckland University Library.

    She carried out quite a careful measurement. Although her procedure was based on extending a well accepted measurement procedure, her comparative measurement procedure has not found general acceptance. This is probably for good reason, it has yet to be proven to be relevant and reliable.

    My guess is that this task isn’t actually do-able. Glen L. Harding’s attempt was based on good knowledge and carefully thought through ideas. But in the end, the objective measurement that she attempted, seemed to remain not do-able.

    Your GP claimed to have achieved a measurement that appears to have eluded the world’s best psychologists for about 65 years. On top of that, she was able to deduce that spending a little time with father would actually damage the relationship between child and mother. Wild extrapolation. Similar claims have been made by Jennifer McIntosh.

    Considerable harm can result from unfounded psychologist claims in familycaught$. It is necessary that fathers have sufficient knowledge to be able to counter these pseudo-science psycholgists, when they put affidavits or “evidence” in to familycaught$.

    Of course competent judges would smell a rat and not allow these types of pseudo affidavits to be tabled in caught.

  7. paul says:

    The point here is that;

    What the GP did was bullshit we know that.

    It would seem that she was put up to this by counsel for the child.

    I have explained what lengths the Court appointed representative has gone to in order to engineer outcomes.

  8. MurrayBacon says:

    I was initially a bit sceptical about the importance of identity in the men/father’s movement. As I read through Prof Kenedy’s paper about the 1999 jewish diaspora from France to Montreal, I could see that identity gives a useful lense for viewing both fathers experiences in familycaught$ and jewish experiences of diaspora.

    While reading the paper, it also brought back to me how the development and progression of the women’s movement seemed faltering and slow, as it developed new identities for women. Even with that example to hand, the development of the men’s movement is still surprisingly slow. Maybe few men bother to read about the history, sorry herstory of the women’s movement, or to apply that knowledge to speeding up the development of the men’s movement? (Maybe men don’t know about the importance of learning from history?)

    Moving on to Prof Kenedy’s papers on the father’s movement, I felt that he took a mature and balanced approach to measuring up the men’s movement and its critics. Again identity gives a sharp and close to the heart point of view.

    Identity is important, as suffering assault to your own identity, strikes very close to the heart.

    It seems to surprise less professionally aware judges, that malpractice on their part might drive either mothers or fathers to suicide. This denial that they could cause perverse outcomes, even when they look through suicide statistics through the period of the inception of familycaught$ plunder, through to the present day, just shows their lack of learning from the consequences of their actions.

    Much more focus is needed on the quality of upbringing that results from intervention by familycaught$. To learn and improve, we need to measure up what was achieved, against what should have been achievable, given the parent’s social and financial resources. Although $ values don’t seem especially relevant in this area, this area is the most relevant for children’s welfare. We need to look more carefully and unforgivingly at the quality of outcomes for all children. I see vandals more often than I see the wisdom of Solomon. Wisdom after the event, doesn’t deliver good outcomes for children.

    So, if you would like to raise awareness about the quality of performance in familycaught$, I suggest to contact Professor Robert A. Kenedy and make an appointment to discuss your experiences with him. (His EMAIL address is given in the post above.) Also encourage the other parties to your involvement to do the same!

    Anyway, I had better get back to purifying and quietly disposing old surplus tritium….

  9. Voices back from the bush. says:

    @8 MurrayBacon says’

    I see vandals more often than I see the wisdom of Solomon.

    That’s a great post.
    I read it it three times.
    Thanks.

  10. sMurrayBacon says:

    Dear Voices,
    thank you and you are welcome.

    I hope I was able to motivate action? (Because if our energy doesn’t reach to action, probably little has been achieved. MoMA has suggested getting a submission in to Justice Department, deadline 25th September. Also, please make contact with Prof. Kenedy…)

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

  11. voices back from the bush says:

    Hi MurryBacon and others,

    I sent my opinion regarding DV on MOJ website some weeks ago.

    I also wrote to Amy Adams and other politicians about Male DV victims issues.

    I got reply from Amy five weeks later. She did not mention a single issue that I had raised. One paragraph is all I got which translates that her and the social development woman were going to do some shopping together and have lunch somewhere nice.
    But at least I tried and would also encourage others to also.
    As MoMa says – just a few words helps.
    Yours could be the few words that reaches the tipping point that we sometimes mention.

    I will look more into Professor Kennedy and the identity problem, I don’t have a good understanding of the issue yet so thanks for the reminder.

    I do Understand the Issue of “Victim Identification” when it comes to IP Violence, I believe DV instances could virtually be halved- instantly if Victim Identity is considered on a case by case basic rather than gender-bias preconceived nonsense.

  12. voices back from the bush says:

    @12 I learned a new word- Irascibility.

    Becoming angry very easily, having a bad\hot temper , easily provoked anger..

    Sounds like my borderline ex..

    They’re dangerous those types..they will tell fibs too- real nasty ones.

    The old saying “it takes two to tango” is quite wrong . They can light their own fuses.

  13. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    DJ (#12): Interesting article. So the feminists claim that female to female nasty competitiveness is a myth. Well, perhaps so but it’s interesting that almost any unflattering generalization made about women is interpreted by feminists as part of the male conspiracy when if fact the feminists have invented major myths about men that are now widely considered to be truths.

    Even if some research were to establish that women do have an aggressive competitiveness vis-a-vis other women, it would be blamed on the position that patriarchy placed women in rather than being attributed to femaleness in any way.

  14. MurrayBacon says:

    Please show constructive energy and take appropriate advantage of Prof. Kenedy visiting NZ, in the next few days!

  15. voices back from the bush says:

    Hi Murray,
    So Professor Kennedy arrives on thursday for a week or so..
    What can I do to find out his schedule or express to him the extent of NZ Family Caught$ issues and extend a needy welcome to a man with his credentials and motivation?

  16. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear voices back from the bush,

    Prof. Kenedy prefers people to make contact directly with him, so that you can agree a convenient interview time. Contact: rkenedy@yorku.ca

    Cheers,
    MurrayBacon – deranged axe murderer.

  17. MurrayBacon says:

    I met with Prof. Kenedy yesterday. We had a fairly mild chat, as well as working through his standard questions. Identity researchers in general can be pretty invasive, by normal conversational standards, so I was prepared for the worst. But I was determined to face up to any challenge. Good medicine isn’t meant to taste good.

    Anyway, I survived better than I might have hoped for. So I encourage people to communicate, rather than complain and to suggest good uses for familycaught$. I suggested they were only safe in well overcooked, really cheap hamburgers, or in a museum of criminality.

    And special thanks to Prof. Kenedy for venturing so far out into the countryside, as Auckland, New Zealand, so far away from the known world.

    It is only through incorporating widely diverse suggestions, knowledge and creative imagination, that the familycaught$ problem can be safely solved. These ideas cannot come from the minds of those who presently benefit so much from the status quo, as they have little diversity, relevant knowledge or creativity. Society needs to protect itself.

    Go get it!!!!

  18. Downunder says:

    Now Murray – Geographically we may be the boonies of the world, but let’s not forget that in a societal context, New Zealand is ‘The Social Laboratory of the World’.

    Controversial researchers such as Charles Darwin and Samuel Clemmons made their way to New Zealand as part of their research, and others keep an interested eye via correspondence.

    Any educated researcher wouldn’t think of producing a social science research paper without including New Zealand.

    I think you are doing the man a disservice suggesting that he ‘just ventured’ to the nether-regions of planet earth.

  19. MurrayBacon says:

    I think we might be agreeing?

    When something is done to a group of people, where the outcome is not known, then it is an experiment.

    Human subject research suggests that human experiment guinea pigs should be allowed to consent, after being fully informed. (This is intended to include an implication that if they haven’t freely given their consent, they won’t be included in the experiment anyway!)

    Nuremberg principles

    The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed for the medical community by the World Medical Association (WMA).[1] It is widely regarded as the cornerstone document on human research ethics.

    One of the most unethical things that can be done in human experimentation, is to not monitor the experiment. In that case, the subjects get to suffer any risks that might have been entailed, but with no knowledge gain. In other words, the cost of human suffering was paid, but there was no positive gain at all in terms of knowledge. This is why researchers “must” be properly qualified!!!!!

    It seems that “must” doesn’t really apply in NZ!!!?????

    So the familycaught$, the DV Act, the ird child [and spousal] support act were put into operation, without a full consideration of advantages and risks. Not only that, they all have never been fully evaluated for both positive effects and perverse outcomes, so that if they were not working successfully, they could be stopped with the minimum amount of adverse outcomes. The evaluations that have been carried out, haven’t used careful, accurate measurements and haven’t even attempted to identify possible adverse effects, let alone accurately measure them. As a result, they continue impacting society, with no proper management information being assembled.

    One (non-Government) DV Act evaluation attempted to do a first principles analysis, because this was specifically not asked for when submissions about the DV Act were requested in 2008. That submission was ignored, as it didn’t assist in the blind application of already existing policy.

    Other examples of human experiments, which didn’t involve non-coercive subject informed consent:

    Operation Plumbbob
    Desert Rock exercises
    Totskoye nuclear exercise
    NZ Prison Suicides Experiment

    So, by implementing new ideological policies, without first studying and understanding the available academic literature and without properly monitoring the implementation for adverse effects, we are the bunnies.

    I am just suggesting that social projects should receive similar analysis to that applied to new drugs and medical equipment, before implementation. The existing Parliamentary Standing Orders and procedures for developing legislation already require this, though it isn’t spelt out in detail. It is just that these rules are easily bypassed by claiming urgency. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Legal workers reap the unjust enrichment every time. Lational and Nabour both breach these constitutional safeguards for developing legislation, at the drop of a hat.

    There is no formal requirement in NZ for the introduction of new speculative legislation to be monitored for desirable and adverse outcomes. We have a lot of experience with developing unsuccessful legislation, but much less experience with developing successful legislation. Curiously, legal workers play a huge role in developing unsuccessful legislation, even where it is obvious from the outset that they will be the only beneficiaries from the unsuccessful legislation. Why do we tolerate having MPs with legal training?

    Oops, my tritium flasks are boiling over. Better get back to work..

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