- 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 14th September 2017

Labour’s policy remains guilty unless you can prove you are innocent

Filed under: General — Lukenz @ 1:38 pm

Guilty until proven innocent

With 20 years jail in the balance, when will National publicly as Labour to clarify this policy.

11 Responses to “Labour’s policy remains guilty unless you can prove you are innocent”

  1. Grange bond says:

    Any good lawyers in South auckland matrimonial property

  2. JONO says:

    Nothing new. In the Courts the dogma “you are deemed guilty unless you can prove you are innocent” has existed for years. Judges pay lip service to “innocent until proved guilty” knowing full well that juries assume that cops wouldn’t lay charges if you’re not guilty.

  3. Man X Norton says:

    JONO: That does happen but it’s still the case that many accused walk free because of the ‘beyond doubt’ standard of proof that the Crown’s case did not meet. Juries involve judgment by our lay peers who will sometimes come up with decisions based on their assessment of the situation more than the hard evidence. More frequently, juries acquit people, mainly women, on compassionate grounds even when the evidence has established proof.

    A large lurch away from ‘justice’ occurred when unanimous verdicts were abandoned to allow a majority verdict if one juror disagreed. It seems to me that if one person out of 12 maintains doubt, then there is reasonable doubt.

    A change to find someone guilty of a criminal offence because he can’t prove otherwise is certainly something new in New Zealand. It would formally abandon the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard of proof and any need for the Crown to meet that standard.\

    It’s no coincidence that it’s only crimes mainly committed by men for which this abandonment of such a fundamental principle of our justice system is favoured by the Labia Party.

  4. Julie says:

    It’s a complicated subject, imo.

    What pisses me off is that children have to go to court to get counselling. I don’t know if it’s 13% conviction, I was told lower by police but either way, that’s a lot of children damaged before they get to counselling, imo.

  5. Man X Norton says:

    Not complicated at all. Simple. Are we going to assume males accused of sexual crimes are guilty unless they can prove their innocence, or are we going to maintain the requirement that the Crown proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

  6. voices back from the bush says:

    This is a blog page from a guy sharing his opinion from his firmly hinged perspective,

    Its a bit of a read, but I found it interesting so I thought I’d share the link,

    https://freetheanimal.com/2013/04/connecting-relativism-multiculturism.html

  7. Man X Norton says:

    Thanks for that link ‘voices’.

    Regarding the feminist conference speech by Ms Ali, the blog author Richard Nikoley said he gave it 7.5 out of 10, criticizing only her advocacy of affirmative action. It was interesting to hear a feminist speech again (at a conference called ‘All About Women’) and to see that little has changed regarding feminist dishonesty, duplicity and false propaganda. I would give Ms Ali’s speech perhaps 1.5 out of 10.

    I agreed with her argument that western women have a great deal to feel grateful for and to celebrate, including emancipation from unnecessary restriction on their choices, contribution to society and legal rights.

    I didn’t agree with her claim that western women are now “equal before the law”. Certainly in New Zealand and I suspect for most other western countries, women are unequal before the law, in the privileged direction. New Zealand has a dozen or more laws that are gender-specific and each one favours women or disadvantages men, while there is not a single law or legal right that favours men more than women. Women almost always receive more favourable treatment in our Courts than shown towards men for the same offending.

    Ms Ali later acknowledged that for child custody following separation, western women enjoy more rights to the children than the fathers do; she said this was worth celebrating, and she didn’t seem to recognize how this contradicted her claim that women are equal before the law.

    I didn’t agree with her claim that advancement of western civilization was best explained by “the unleashing of the potential of all its citizens”. This is a hollow slogan without supporting evidence or argument, typical of feminist claims. It could equally be asserted that the unleashing of women from nearly all restrictions, duties and responsibilities is leading western civilization towards an early demise.

    I didn’t agree that girls in western countries have as much right as boys to education; girls are given more such right by dint of overwhelming female representation as teachers and designers of the education process. In NZ, schooling is largely by the women for the girls. Rather than provide boys with education in ways that work for them, boys are more often labelled as problems or failures, put on medication, suspended or expelled.

    I didn’t agree with her that it is “fantastic” that women are favoured in job applications over similarly qualified men, as affirmative action to redress employment imbalance. It’s fantastic if you agree that everything is ‘all about women’ but not for the success of the employing organisations or for the productivity of the country.

    While it is to be celebrated that women can keep and live on money they have earned, generated through business, inherited or gained through other means, Ms Ali didn’t mention the grevious inequality here in that an average man in western countries is required to give much of what he earns and owns to some woman who ditched him, even after a deliberate plot to partner with him for just long enough to seize his money.

    I didn’t agree with Richard Nikoley that Ms Ali’s scathing rebuke of western feminism and its moral relativism on grounds of multiculturalism was “spot on”. In fact it was highly unbalanced. It’s not only women who have fewer human and civil rights in many non-western countries and under their religions. Men are also subjected to strict rules, responsibilities and restrictions and are punished harshly if they contravene them. This includes an expectation to go to war and die to protect their regime. It may well be that overall women are more disadvantaged but actually that would be a complex calculation, and many women in those countries point to the ways they are protected and privileged. As for circumcision, that is illegal in western countries for girls but ok for boys, a scandalous inequality even though male circumcision is not typically as traumatic or impacting.

    I didn’t agree with Ms Ali’s claim that the advances for western women all required “a great deal of struggle” or that this struggle continues. Huge advances for women have been achieved over a relatively short period of time and most have come about quite easily based on largely male decision makers listening and attempting to apply fairness, compassion and integrity to those decisions.

    Anyway, that’s enough of All About Women, a telling title for a conference about the new royal class in western societies. The rest of Ms Ali’s speech wasn’t worth the time it would take to challenge it, a familiar outcome for feminist speeches.

  8. Too tired says:

    The protester that burned themselves today at parliament looks like another victim of the Family Court system and Child Support etc. The signs on the ground say something about mothers and not killing men etc.

  9. voices back from the bush says:

    An unconfirmed soure (trademe message board) Claims the media has reported he hed a sign,

    “ISSUE IS NOT TO TAKE CHILDREN AWAY. ENOUGH MURDERING FATHER BY CULT AND LAWYER.”
    But it says “ISSUE IS NOT TO TAKE CHILDRENs MOTHER AWAY. ENOUGH MURDERING FATHER BY CULT AND LAWYER.

    He was standing a few metres away from where we were protesting about these issues at the beginning of the month, almost no one listened, almost no one cared.

  10. voices back from the bush says:

    Take a look at the comments, people just treat it as a joke,
    https://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=1719120&p=2&topic=7

  11. Downunder says:

    There is a post up now for comments on the incident.

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