MENZ ISSUES

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

Ministry of Justice Refuses to Correct Wrong Statistics

Tue 8th September 2015

FYI, our media release 07/09/2015

Ministry of Justice Refuses to Change False Statistics

Community group the Ministry for Men has accused the Ministry of Justice and other government departments of spreading false statistics about domestic violence then refusing to correct their error after being informed.

The Ministry of Justice recently published a document called ‘Strengthening NZ’s legislative response to family violence; A public discussion document’ that claimed at its outset “On average, every year 14 women, 7 men and 8 children are killed by a family member”. The same claim appears on a Ministry of Social Development web page and has been repeated by news media and other groups.

Ministry for Men spokesman Kerry Bevin said that the figures are not in line with any official records and appear to have been plucked out of thin air.

“NZ Police figures on family homicides from the years 2007 to 2014 don’t show anything like what our Ministries are claiming as averages. The latest report from the state-funded Family Violence Death Review Committee show that the true average figures are 13 women, 10 men and 9 children.”

Kerry Bevin said the error was significant. “These false statistics lead the public to believe that twice as many women as men are killed through family violence, whereas in fact 43% of family violence deaths are suffered by men. That gives a very different picture of the problem.”

Kerry Bevin said it was concerning that the Ministry for Justice would publish misleading statistics in a discussion document that the public is being asked to read before providing submissions regarding proposed family violence law changes.

“Public submissions will be based on the false picture being painted, so resulting solutions can be expected to miss the mark.”

“It’s a sorry state of affairs when taxpayers cannot trust government Ministries to provide accurate information about such a basic matter, and it’s appalling that those Ministries have refused to correct their error when made aware of it.”

The Ministry for Men called on both Ministries and any other group that had repeated the false statistics to issue corrections quickly, to ensure that those taking the time to make submissions on family law changes are properly informed.

End

15 Responses to “Ministry of Justice Refuses to Correct Wrong Statistics”

  1. JONO says:

    When were politicians and truth ever used in the same sentence. Hopefully the KEY to the problem will be ousted at next election.

  2. MurrayBacon says:

    Congratulations for the work behind your challenge and following through with the challenge.

    Your challenge is extremely important, as this reflects politicians being a knowing party to manipulating the voting public. Such behaviour threatens democracy, in a way that does damage many hundreds of thousands of lives, over a long period of time.

    You have reached Greg Andresen‘s level (Men’s Health Australia) and in time, I am sure you will have the same degree of success that he has eventually achieved in Australia. Lets hope sooner, rather than later.

    For all of the hissing and spitting, underlying the rhetoric most feminists just want a world safe for men and women. In their frustration, they sometimes act outrageously, as do some fathers too. Lets see what common ground can be found?

    Thanks again,
    MurrayBacon.

  3. triassic says:

    MOMA you may find the article below of interest. Grant McLachlan has good insight to the political arena and how to reach the ‘Tipping Point’ in your quest. All the best!
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11510969

  4. WayneBurrows says:

    We are making some small inroads but I think we are a long way off seeing significant progress. Some organisations will not even look at the data or opposing viewpoints. For example, in the last month or so I have I have been banned from posting on the social media pages of White Ribbon New Zealand and Shine. My posts try and simply reflect balance and that there is another side. In response people are often abusive including in my view some of the funded officials of these organisations.

    Last month I attended the Green’s Party initiative on Family Violence in Wellington. At that meeting they lamented that there were not more men there. We really need to get out and put forward our perspective and challenge their misleading use of data. At the meeting I spoke up about the way they alienate men. The naturally used misleading data like “98% are men” or “overwhelmingly men”. I challenged that data quoting the Family Violence Clearing House Death Review data which has over 40% of adult deaths men.

    If we do not take every opportunity we can it will be a long road before we make significant progress. The feminist sympathising organisations are relatively well funded compared with any organisation promoting a men’s perspective.

  5. Warren Tooley says:

    I’ve been doing some research and unfortunately domestic violence is not partnership violence. The person looking after the child on a day to day basis is the guardian of the child. So if the guardian swings a golf club at the provider and the provider just holds her back, statistically speaking the provider is the violent one, holding someone back is violence.

    So this is something that I have done plenty of research on. They are only concerned about the child and therefore the guardian. Anyhow if we can just get this information out to people, maybe things can change. In America either parent is the guardian, and they look at the merits of both people objectively.

    Here in New Zealand the person looking after the child is the guardian. If enough people knew this, then we could say if things don’t change we’ll go elsewhere to raise a family. Then they would lose tax wise.

  6. Voices back from the bush. says:

    Hi Warren.
    You suggested ” unfortunately domestic violence is not partnership violence.” Violence from one partner to another is partnership violence. If it’s both that are violent its still partnership violence.
    From my experience the problem is the same if there’s children present or not.
    If there is an altercation, the man will be removed from the home. If police can convince the woman to make a statment against the man he will be arrested and put in a cell. Charged with MAF. Presumed guilty. Treated as guilty. He will unlikely ever see inside his home again or his belongings. Around nine months later after the hearing he goes into the station to ask that his belongings be returned. The cop says” do you have the reciepts”?
    In New Zealand the situation is almost always male = provider\ perpetrator , female = guardian/victim.

    It doesn’t make any difference who has the kids.

    Police are told they are not arresting enough men for domestic violence so knowing the sergent isn’t going to be impressed if officers return to the watchhouse with a female in the back of a waggon, they bring back the man or they do nothing. ( unless the female assaults police).

  7. Downunder says:

    Police officers are like any other human being – they respond to kudos.

    So, if you tell them, an arrest for the unlawful taking of a car, or the burglary of a commercial premises, is a good thing, that’s what they will go looking for.

    If you tell them an arrest for a female bashing male, is a good thing, that’s what they will go looking for.

    And they will go home happy, and sleep well at night, believing they have done a good thing.

  8. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    For those who didn’t get a submission in on time, the Ministry of Justice has extended the deadline to this Friday 25 September. It would be worthwhile writing even a few sentences, for those who don’t feel like writing a lot! Just send it via the Ministry’s website here.

  9. DJ Ward says:

    I have put one in myself. A little rough but I am only human.
    I think I may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater?
    Or stabbed a few sacred cows.

    Now its up to Amy Adams to let the cow die.
    Or she can patch it up, keeping the cancer that will inevitably kill the cow, for the next puppet to deal with.

    I have hope.
    Scant.
    But present.

  10. Vman says:

    It doesn’t say it has been extended but I put in a submission today and it was received fine.

    Here is some of my submission:

    A complete re-think of policy and legislation is required if we are to make progress on family violence. In fact the entire paradigm that existing policy and legislation needs to be re-considered.
    The approach that has been taken to date has been a failure. Family violence has got worse, not better. This should have been a signal to us that, previous assumptions used to form policy have been incorrect.
    We have known for over a decade what the real risk factors are for negative outcomes for children. The data is available in several longitudinal studies. However ideology has meant that we have ignored these factors, and stuck with other proposed theories. We have ignored the empirical evidence because it was contrary to the ruling ideology of the time.
    The result is that ‘The rate of family violence in New Zealand is horrific.’ It will continue to be so until we place empirical evidence ahead of ideology.
    Our laws are no doubt well-intentioned but misguided. They are generally worded neutrally but implemented along ideological lines.
    First we need to determine that children are the most vulnerable in society. Unfortunately we tend to group their needs along with women’s needs. This prevents us from targeting polices that are effective for children. Children’s needs often can be at odds with women’s desires.
    Secondly we need to acknowledge that family violence is committed by and on both women and men. We have continually re-enforced the stereotype of man = abuser, woman = victim. This has been extremely counter productive.
    The empirical evidence is that children are most at risk of abuse from (in order):
    1. Their own mother
    2. Mother’s boyfriend or partner not related to the child
    3. Other family members
    4. Other people not related the child
    5. Their biological father.
    Children are also at far higher risk when raised in a solo mother family than in a solo father family or in a mother and biological father family.
    Not only are they at higher risk of violence but also they are at much higher risk from a whole host of negative outcomes.
    Children in solo mother households on benefits are at even higher risk. Particularly when these family are Maori. This family dynamic is the highest risk background for children and family violence in general.
    This isn’t to say other groups are immune from family violence. It means that we need to encourage better parental choices for all and especially those choices that place children at highest risk.
    This isn’t to say a child in a solo mother household is doomed. Or that all solo mothers can be tarred with the same brush. One can engage in risky behaviour on the road and come away without incident. This doesn’t make such risky behaviour a good choice. We create legislation to penalise risky behaviour on the road for the sake of society. Rather than penalise risky choices in families, we need to encourage choices that we know reduce risks for most children.
    New Zealand is becoming a fatherless country. Has much as half of all children are raised with little or no involved biological father. The rate is higher in Maori households.
    Yet we implement laws and regulations that have the unintended effect of discouraging biological fathers to care for their children. This needs to be reversed urgently.
    For example, a major overhaul of the Care of Children Act is required to make it much easier and much more likely that both biological parents will remain part of the child’s life after a relationship breakdown. Although there are guidelines in that legislation to encourage both parents to remain involved with their children, these guidelines have not resulted in the desired outcomes. The process has undermined those guidelines being reached in the vast majority of cases. The entire process is currently extremely hostile to fathers wishing to remain part of their children’s lives. This needs to be reversed so that the system is hostile to those wishing to exclude a loving parent from a child’s life.
    Another example, the majority of protection orders stem from false allegations as a technique to minimise or exclude a loving father from a child’s life after a relationship breakdown. This undermines the entire intention of the process. Making these easier to obtain only makes the problem worse. The increase in protection orders issued over the last 2 decades has seen an increase in family violence. Not a decrease. Initially this was dismissed as only a higher incidence of reporting. However such dismissals no longer carry any weight. The reality is that the unintended consequences are that this tool is used more to exclude loving fathers who protect children than it is to protect genuine potential victims of violence.
    We need to stop demonising and trivialising fathers in general. We need to promote the importance of involved biological fathers in children’s lives.
    We need to encourage family dynamics that reduce negative outcomes for children. Even if this is not popular with the ruling ideology of the day.

  11. DJ Ward says:

    Good input to the issue Vman

  12. DJ Ward says:

    Caught lying again.

    One important part in the article.

    “Given that this is one area I know well and can prove political manipulation, I wring my hands pondering how much other information is being used to create false impressions about important issues. This is hardly a situation that will comfort those who appreciate honest and open democracy.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11520398

    First rule of propaganda.
    Those who lie first win!

  13. DJ Ward says:

    Yes lets label a group ‘of males’ and persecute them.

    Lets arrest them if they go near an ice cream shop!
    On a family day out!

    Lets put all 5 in prison for 2 weeks for no charge!
    Now there is some justice?

    http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/case-dismissed-against-accused-bikies-arrested-while-buying-ice-cream/story-fnj4alav-1227547252733

  14. voices back from the bush says:

    #13,

    I wonder if an emergency crisis response crew was deployed to counsel the victims who witness the horrors of the ice cream gang..

    I hope those thugs have learned a lesson from this!

    What right do they think the have chosing ice creams at the window for their children.

    Chcolate or vanilla, shame,shame,shame all dads should know kids prefer bubble gum flavour.

    I bet they intimidated those poor kids..

    And what a stupid article.. doesn’t even say if those kids got an ice cream OR NOT!

  15. Voices back from the bush. says:

    Two weeks in prison for buying the kids an ice cream together.
    I spent just 50 hours in police solitary falsly accused of assault after being assaulted.
    It was 16 months ago and I’m still reeling from it.
    One might think time alone like this would be an oppertunity to ponder a novel, reminis or work out a thesis for a new projeject.
    But somehow it’s very difficult to process thoughts at all under those circumstances. Being caged is a very hard thing to accept for an innocent man. Especially when he knows not of what might have prevented his situation.
    These men will have come out of those cells with a deep an intense hatred for the same society they have spent thier lives trying to support.
    They will hate police forevermore and have no respect for authorities. They will be ANGRY men , probably dangerous men.
    I have an incling of how they might feel.
    After 16 months, I still feel the same way.
    They will be told they are ‘collateral damage ‘

    It’s no way to treat men if the objective is to have a harmonious society. The opposite will be the result.

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar