- 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.

Thu 7th September 2017

Election Thoughts 2017

Filed under: Child Support,Domestic Violence,Gender Politics,Gender Wage Gap,General,Law & Courts — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:54 pm

Here are a few thoughts regarding men and father issues this election.

NZ First
NZ First is the first NZ political party to announce any male-considerate policy of any kind in almost two decades. (Please correct us with examples if we are wrong about this.) NZ First has proposed providing for two weeks’ paternal leave following the birth of a child. The last male-considerate policy was from ACT when Muriel Newman introduced the Shared Parenting Bill in the year 2000 and a couple of other efforts over the next few years to reform family law, all of which were defeated. NZ First did vote back then in favour of one of Muriel’s bills to end secrecy in the Family Court.

While the NZ First paternal leave policy might be only a few crumbs to a starving population, any male-respecting policy in the current environment is of massive significance and might be built on.

National
National in government has not pursued a strongly femaleist ideology but even then it has not been able to avoid the misandrist inclinations of some of its female ministers. Family Court changes removed what was a useful service of funded counselling to help partners deal with conflicts. Those changes attempted to increase mediated settlements and reduce the involvement of lawyers in Family Court disputes but this backfired, mainly because the confused ideology resulted in a system that now heavily incentivizes false allegations of ‘violence’ which will provide free and quick access to the Family Court and avoid the substantial mediation fee imposed on those who don’t come up with ‘violence’ allegations.

National has also deliberately increased imprisonment rates, mainly affecting men. National has also done nothing about our Ministry of Health’s determination to deny the gender issues in suicide and to avoid providing any male-tailored strategy to reduce male suicide. National has disempowered unions and kept wages low through immigration, disproportionately affecting men who still carry, on average, the greatest load of providing economically for their families and for the lifestyles of their separated partners.

Since Bill English took over, the femaleist Nats appear to have become emboldened. Louise Upston recently announced a formal policy of favouritism in our justice system towards women by deliberately reducing female imprisonment rates for the same crimes that men would be imprisoned for. Unless English can rein in his femaleists we are likely to see more such atrocities, but it doesn’t seem likely he will either because he won’t wield enough authority or he doesn’t appreciate the dire risks involved in allowing irrational femaleism to run riot. We are likely to see more royalization of women by the Nats.

Labour
Labour has lurched strongly towards further femaleism with the appointment of yet another childless woman to lead them, this time quite a young woman with very limited life experience and little evident wisdom. The voter support she has stimulated is on a shallow basis: her appearance and a sense of chivalrous support for ‘a woman doing well’. There is no logical reason why being female will make a person better as a prime minister than would being male, or vice versa. Her sudden celebrity appeal certainly wasn’t based on her policies because they simply were not known and she continues to be vague about them.

Adern has strongly asserted herself as a femaleist. She has announced a policy to decriminalize abortion, seeing it as a free choice for women and no doubt an entitlement to be paid for by our taxes. Her reasoning for this was vacuous, referring to women’s ‘right’ to abort as if this is something set in stone whereas in fact any ‘right’ is only what the people through government decide on. None of us have the right to have a surgeon cut off our healthy arm and it would be illegal for the surgeon to do so, yet somehow Adern thinks women have some God-given right to cut out a healthy foetus. She made no mention of the father’s right even to be informed of the pregancy that carries his genes, much less have any input whatsoever into the decision to abort or alternatively to enslave him for almost two decades of financial exploitation that is based on preventing him from having a full or equal role in raising the child. If the Labia Party is able to form a government we men are in for a great increase in already appalling sexist disrespect, injustice and exploitation.

Green
They think it’s ok for a female to deliberately defraud our welfare system over a long period of time, not pay back the defrauded money even when she is earning a large salary as an MP, and to self-righteously announce her fraud after the Statute of Limitations prevents her from being prosecuted. Green’s special treatment of females was reflected in their readiness to accept the resignation of two loyal male candidates instead of demoting this fraudster female.

The Green Party has long pursued a confused type of sexist social justice that deprives, ignores and/or denigrates men. Their latest policy announcement is to require employers to inform their employees what they are paying other employees. The Greens believe this will expose widespread underpayment of women purely on the basis of their sex. It won’t, because when female employees are paid less this is usually because of different jobs, different qualifications and/or different experience. The whole exercise will be largely futile and will carry significant undesirable consequences such as extra expense for employers and a loss of privacy for all.

We don’t have much to say about the other parties but others might wish to.

24 Responses to “Election Thoughts 2017”

  1. WayneBurrows says:

    The Green’s told me on 1 November 2011

    Hi Wayne we have a drafted mens policy but its still being discussed in our grassroots democratic process. Men and women have many similar issues but women also have particular issues like equal pay and far higher impacts from ubiquitous violence against them by men. Men also have unique health issues which need particular advocacy.
    Thanks
    Catherine
    Authorised by Catherine Delahunty, Parliament Buildings, Wellington

    I have irregularly corresponded with them since this date on their men’s policy. The last correspondence from me was in January this year.

    Hi Catherine

    Has there been in any progress with this policy?

    Thanks

    I received no response to this question. That of course speaks volumes for their interest in the welfare and rights of men.

  2. Downunder says:

    Thanks Wayne. I have had many similar encounters with Labour, who in the end simply refused to answer any difficult question.

    If there was one person who could get over their personal politics and do their job, out of that whole bunch of Red Renegades, it was Helen Kelly.

  3. Man X Norton says:

    “ubiquitous violence against them by men”

    This shows the Greens’ mindset based on false beliefs. It amounts to hate-speech against men, essentially alleging that most men everywhere are being violent towards women. No recognition of the comparable rates of various forms of violence by women against men, or the significant minority of the most serious violence such as partner homicide being committed by women.

  4. Lukenz says:

    I think it will be Winstons vote after the election that will decided who is going to be the Government. Hard to know what way Winston is leaning.

  5. Downunder says:

    I think that is somewhat presumptive @LukeNZ

    It may have been regularly the case in the past but this election has the potential to throw up other possibilities.

  6. Downunder says:

    @3 Man X Norton

    If you reverse the emphasis what we are seeing is part of a pattern of exclusion.

    Legal exclusion
    Political exclusion … in this case, but otherwise

    Educational exclusion
    Social Exclusion
    Financial Exclusion

    Feminism = male exclusion

    Did I mention the family – we’re not included in that either.

  7. Hornet says:

    Maori and mana….the only parties and culture to consistently put a strong focus on FAMILY, who oppose the state taking your kids when other family members can do the job and who consistently talk about feeding our children and looking after the homeless and protecting our environment…..our collective HOME…

    Maori have been colonised once so they know what that is like.

    That is WHY there is a push to destroy the Maori party entirely.

    Have you noticed the blatant singular choice promotion of either the red pill or the blue pill at the total exclusion of any of the other party options!

    I’m a PAKEHA …. A NZ BORN MAN.

    The same racist govt nark who tried to falsely accuse me and my family of being terrorists under national also falsely accused Maori of being terrorists in the tuhoi raids under labour!!!!!!!!!!……

    I’m voting for the Maori party!,

    Maori and Pakeha working together…..not deliberately divided …..will again make this nation a great place to live!!!!!!!!!

  8. golfa says:

    I think I’m going to leave all the boxes unticked this election.

  9. Hornet says:

    De facto gun confiscation by the state.
    You will all recall the concerns I raised on here with the actions of my IRD employee sister and her citizens advice burau husband who have committed elder abuse on her mother. A police report was filed by me some weeks ago and to date the police have taken NO action.

    So this week I have a bailiff chasing me wanting to serve papers on me……guess what…..my sister is trying to get a protection order against me……for what I have no idea……but guess what….as soon as one is granted I lose my firearms licence and my collection of firearms……

    So IRD have refused to reign in their staff member who has breached her code of ethics and threatened family members…..and now it would appear she is getting every assistance from the state to destroy my credibility in the secret corrupted family courts of NZ…

    As we all know from bitter experience…..trying to defend these false accusations is never easy for a father, son, man.

    The laws of evidence do NOT apply……anything goes…..any lie can be told and tabled…….

    We want nothing more to do with this mad ….greed driven lunatic……so I’m inclined to let her have her protection order….and forgo my right to own firearms…..

  10. DJ Ward says:

    Maybe what’s happened is the police did go see her to ask what’s going on. The result being she responded with a sob story and she was advised to get the order. The order may even be used to stop you seeing your mother. It could be on her behalf? Or as a threatened family member of the applicant.
    Find a friend now with a gun licence and get them to look after them until this is resolved.
    I think if you can provide good evidence of her actions, your responses to protect your mother IE you went to the police and timelines for events to a judge, then hopefully the judge will see her actions for what they are and throw out the PO.

  11. Downunder says:

    Historically we are used to viewing our police in the light of the English model of a modern police force in Criminal Law and responsible government.

    Let’s not forget that the origins of this word, ie polis, police (Middle French) relate to policy, enforcing policy, and civil law.

    One might then question how The Police might be advised – legally – in their approach to enforcing the increasing degree of civil law that now falls within their paling of duty.

  12. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    It’s amazing how our media fail to discuss gender and family politics realistically. For example, regarding the NZ housing crisis it’s rarely acknowledged that a large majority of our homeless are men. Or that a good proportion of our homeless at any one time will be men who have been thrown out of their homes through police ‘safety’ orders and ‘protection’ orders. Or that demand on housing is increased by our penchant for paying parents, read women, to break up their children’s family units and continuing to pay them on the condition that they remain sole parents. As a result, a family that previously needed only one house now needs two.

    And what positive outcome is achieved by all this to justify the increased demand on housing and the swelling of the ranks of homeless men? Yes, it has assisted some women to escape violent relationships. However, it’s clear to any honest observer that only a very small proportion of women who go on the DPB do so to get away from violent relationships. In many cases it’s simply economically advantageous for them to live apart from their children’s father and get the DPB rather than trying to live together on his low wage. In many other cases the choice to break up the children’s family unit results from ‘feeling unhappy’ in the relationship with the mate they started a family with. “I am unhappy therefore the state and my ex should provide me with free money for many years.” The DPB conveniently reduces any need for them to work on themselves and the relationship, to make compromizes or to notice the positive things about their partner. Receiving the DPB and/or so-called ‘child support’ requires the parent (usually mother) to seize the majority of time with the children who then miss out on a full relationship with the other parent (usually father). Sole parenthood in general and father absence in particular then increase the number of maladjusted, ill-disciplined children who will under-achieve and will be more likely to end up increasing our prison, addictions and mental illness populations.

    As for ‘safety’ and ‘protection’ orders, It’s very clear that only a small proportion of them involve any real issues of safety or protection at all, and in those few cases where protection is needed that these orders only increase risk to the ‘protected’ person. It’s very clear that ulterior motives usually underly these orders and that has only been increased since our family law provided free and quick access to the Court for those who come up with allegations or who apply for such orders which will relieve the requirement to pay for otherwise expensive mediation.

    So our corrupt family law quietly and progressively worsens our housing crisis while at the same time damaging the majority of children caught up in its feminist web of selfishness and deception. Unfortunately, MENZ Issues will be pretty well the only media source of honest discussion about this.

  13. Downunder says:

    @12 … after the recent High Court Court of Appeal decision relating to protection orders any politician with the slightest concern for child poverty, violent youth, stressed teachers, the drug culture in schools, etc, would surely be campaigning with a promise of immediate review:

    It seems our politicians only know how to promise money.

  14. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Which High Court decision was that Downunder? Sounds interesting; do you have a link?

  15. Downunder says:

    There is a brief mention of this in a previous post

  16. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Thanks

  17. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Yes, quite right. That Court of Appeal decision highlights the need to reform the travesty of justice that is the DVA. In the case, we are told, there was almost no violence apart from two incidents of ‘body slamming’ (whatever that is, and the sensible Family Court judge had ruled that those incidents had not amounted to physical violence), the fact that the man had a temper, swearing and yelling, and “the buring of hedge trimmings following an argument”. WTF? This woman did not appear to need protection from violence, only from the inconvenience of having to experience a man’s emotional expression at being mistreated by her. This case, like so many others, appeared to be based on indignation by a female that men would dare to object to anything women do or say. The man then committed repeated breaches of the ‘protection’ order; these were probably efforts by him to give birthday presents to his children or to discuss separation matters that needed to be resolved. Such breaches mainly show how ‘protection’ orders generate new fake crimes labelled as ‘violent’ when no violence was involved or intended.

    The Court of Appeal correctly judged that these normal human behaviours should have led to the imposition and continuation of a ‘protection’ order to remove many basic civil rights from a man under our DVA. Even though the Court of Appeal judges may well be afflicted by the same chivalry and femaleist bias that all judges have been indoctrinated with, the main fault is the wording of the DVA.

    Misandrist Catriona MacLennan crows about this Appeal Court decision, bemoaning the fact that any Family Court would ever disbelieve a woman’s allegations or question her claims of being fearful. She is largely correct; the DVA was designed to allow subjective claims of fear to remove rights from men and rights of the children to a realistic relationship with their father. No evidence is necessary apart from a woman’s allegations and the standard of ‘proof’ is ‘the balance of probabilities’, a spurious mathematical calculation that involves no maths at all but a great deal of the judge’s propaganda-based beliefs and bias. “Male partners are typically violent to women so on the balance of probabilities this woman’s allegations must be true.” Imagine if such reasoning were applied to deal with allegations against Maori of criminal offending, or allegations against Muslims of terrorist activity.

    The DVA approach lauded by MacLennan may be compared to a policy of cutting out organs at every complaint of stomach ache. The treatment, based on inadequate investigation, usually causes unnecessary and futile harm much greater than the initial problem and that was never likely to fix the stomach ache anyway.

    There is sometimes a need to protect women from family violence or intimate partner violence. There is sometimes a need, although less frequently, to protect men from intimate partner violence, while men are actually more often than women subjected to serious violence including homicide from family members other than intimate partners. The DVA has never been shown to provide protection when it’s genuinely needed; on the contrary, many domestic homicides are committed by people subjected to a kangaroo court ‘protection’ order and many of those homicides would never have happened without the increased stakes and resentment caused by the ‘protection’ order.

    MacLennan’s crowing was her foolish celebration of corrupt law simply because it provides women with a weapon to use against men who displease them, regardless of the fact that it provides no protection for those who really need protecting.

  18. Hornet says:

    Thanks for the advice and comments…..
    It’s intersting that IRD and their unlawful actions have been involved in the entire story affecting our family….
    From the very start where they offered a resolution to resolve disputes over child support to which we agreed.
    They then pulled that accepted contracted resolution offer while we were away on holiday with an alienated child and raided our home and unlawfully took my wife’s vehicle which had to be returned.
    Complaints were then made as to breaches of human rights , rights to due process and fairness…..and breach of contract.
    Then there were the attempts to entrap me on firearms charges, our home was surveiled by MSD and there were attempts to character assassinate me using a known police informant, who,falsely accused,me of being a mental case terrorist…also with the intention to take my firearms from me..which all failed.
    And now we have this latest tactic to use the secret family courts and an IRD employee who is harming her mother and committing elder abuse….and true to form…has sought to reverse the victim offender roles…..falsely accusing me of threatening behaviour……
    The problem with this protection order system is we are then guilty until we can prove our innocence……not an easy task when your a man who stands up for his rights.I am clearly not someone the police want having guns as they prepare NZ for the exploitation of our OIL…….for when they come for the OIl everyone’s human rights will be taken away…..
    I was in the police years ago when we protected,life and property and preserved the peace…..the transformation of the police and its culture today is detrimental to protecting human rights, rights to owning property….which includes firearms and the right to self defence.

  19. Hornet says:

    Down under ….. You raise good points on civil law…..of which all of this is civil law…….and to which the police have no power or authority since this becomes a civil matter between parties.

    It’s interting that my firearms licence has NOT been renewed…it’s now been 5 months in renewal. I have mates who received their renewals within weeks…..so clearly mine is being deliberately delayed. The NZ police are not happy I caught their filthy lying informant trying to entrap me on firearms charges and attempting to falsely accuse me of being a terrorist mental case…..so I’m not so sure the NZ police are very keen to investigate my complaints about my sisters actions towards her own mother….a crime in NZ…even though she has trespassed and attempted to alienate and threaten other family members …some of whom are also ex police officers…good men, fathers who were trying to also protect my mothers a vulnerable widow. Do you see a pattern here where the good men are alienated from the victim.

    A point of note….since my firearms licence has NOT been renewed I am lawfully in possession of my firearms …property in accordance with common law rights …..this was confirmed to me by the arms officer who conducted my last inspection……so at common law, without the need for any ” licence” I am entitled to own and possess property…firearms included……on my provate property.

    The proof is in the pudding since I have been In lawful possession of my firearms on my private property for over five months now WITHOUT a licence……so thanks NZ police your deliberate delays have assisted in exposing this lawful possession.

    And I have legal and lawful rights to protect that property…..refer crimes act sections 48, 52, 53, 55, 56……and the police have a duty at common law to protect the peace should any one try and unlawfully attempt to remove that property….under civil statutory law.

    Now if I want to take that property off my land I then Require a “licence” since I am the in the public domain and can be prosecuted by the police under criminal laws…….the police can only get a warrant to seize property if I have committed a crime.

    There is also another very relevant point as to “person” and how this relates to “statutes” but I’ll leave that debate for another time.

  20. Hornet says:

    There is one more piece to this puzzle…..in my complaints about the actions of IRD staff I noted my suspicions that my sister was colluding with my ex wife to destroy me…..they were both good bed mates with similar envious and jealous impulses towards me and my wife and family.

    At the time I made those concerns known to family and in complaints to to government……I was never told by my family that my sister was an IRD employee.

    My dad took that to his grave….I guess given all the disagreements we had and my shared concerns about my sister helping my ex…..he knew if I found out she was an IRD employee ….my suspicions would have been more than confirmed……and he would have known there was no hope of my sister and I ever getting along……something every parent wishes for….especially my mother….

    So it was only after my dad died that I then Found out the secret they had been keeping from me.

    Had I known at the time it would have confirmed and re enforced my complaints as to the actions of IRD and the intentional and planned attacks on my chredibility and character over many years by my ex wife….and my sister….an ex wife who was and still is good friends with my sister….

    I do hope IRD are reading this because now those complaints are coming back to haunt them and expose their complicity in protecting this most horrible individual.

    Driven by greed and envy and selfishness……..

  21. Downunder says:

    I think there is a question in the discussion above as to whether the DVA constitutes a dispute between the named parties, or the applicant and the State.

    The Feminist concept of exclusion and Catriona MacLennan’s approach would suggest that she prefers the latter concept, whereas the male understanding is that they are a party to the dispute rather than a respondent to it.

  22. DJ Ward says:

    I think feminists prefer that we were first issued with identity cards that sent the police to get us if we went in prohibited areas. Like anywhere a outside our work camp. In effect if an accusation is made then guilt is assumed until the lawyers are well fed. Accusation equals guilt in the eyes of the law. Family law has become a prove your innocence beyond reasonable doubt system. So in effect all men can be assumed guilty and be treated as such (effects of PO) because at any time a female can make an allegation without any evidence. It must now be considered true and the punishment imposed. He said, she said, or on the balance of probabilities is no longer something to consider in a decision. Are we not just prisoners watching other men walking in thier cage wearing thier rose tinted glasses.

  23. Man X Norton says:

    DJ Ward @22: Yep

  24. Downunder says:

    @22 let’s stick with the earth-paint while we are here.

    If the protection order automatically applies to the children, after the court has decided whether the woman needs a protection order, then the court doesn’t have to take the interests of the children into account.

    That might suggest the law views them as the mother’s chattels like a fridge or a washing machine, or it might suggest that the law assumes the mother decides the best interest of the child.

    But either way that makes the law only as sane as the woman they are obliged to protect.

    One would expect that would impoverish and deteriorate many children’s lives. Over time one might also expect that to impact on youth suicide figures.

    It can only be seen as unfortunate that an MP would draw a comparison between youth suicide and euthanasia rather than make the connection between Family Law and youth suicide.

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