- 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.

Fri 30th June 2017

The Death of a Child

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 11:54 am

We are seeing more often the death of children due to distracted ‘carers’ and convictions for manslaughter.

Mother and grandmother jailed for death of baby Isaiah in hot car

In this case the comparison is drawn in the article about one other case and the sentence.

There is also a question of the presence or absence of the father in these cases, and how they are included or excluded.

17 Responses to “The Death of a Child”

  1. Buster says:

    Three years those [expletive deleted] got, should of got life!. The child’s in a better place now , thank god! and won’t have to have a life of constant abuse, assaults, thrown in a tumble drier or hung on the line,bashed, under feed, bitten by under feed mongrel guard dogs while they dish out tinnies over the fence.

    #3 fucking years is that all our children are worth? The Judge should have his [abusive comment deleted]. Nuff said.

  2. Man X Norton says:

    The women were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with no minimum term, so they will be out in about 18 months. Oh well, they only allowed their baby to die slowly while they rendered themselves senseless for fun, and it was only a worthless male baby, so what’s the big deal? Lucky they weren’t a guy who gently touched a female in a sexual way after she gave him mixed messages that may or may not have amounted to consent. He would be lucky to be out of prison in 18 months because his terrible crime would have really traumatized the woman and ruined her life or something. Much more serious than killing someone after all.

    Then there is this case in which a woman violently assaulted a male pensioner because he dared to express disapproval that she didn’t dispose lawfully of her dog’s faeces. The assault caused injuries including blinding the pensioner in one eye. For this kindness, plus providing a false statement to police, plus stealing from another male pensioner by using his bank card “all over the place”, plus possessing methamphetamine, plus fleeing police and threatening them with a rock, plus stealing petrol from a service station, plus no doubt having previous convictions, she was sentenced to 2 years 3 months imprisonment with no minimum period. Wow, she’s lucky she didn’t have a penis and that her two detected civilian victims were only from that relatively worthless male sex, because if she had been a male and any victim had been female (s)he would be looking at a much longer sentence.

  3. Evan Myers says:

    Yes, interesting, the father wasn’t at the time a carer, but is jailed for his omissions under the influence once he encounters the situation.

  4. Downunder says:

    The same question is asked here

    Where does this leave the father?

  5. Evan Myers says:

    Ah, when is a father a carer?

    Not a carer when it suits the mother’s case, but he is a carer when it suits the State’s case.

  6. Man X Norton says:

    The Isaiah Neil case is just another one in which NZ authorities showed sexist favouritism. Serious concerns had been communicated to CYFS by extended family about the parents and grandmother spending money on synthetic cannabis instead of food for the children, and having been found by extended family to be in a ‘zombie’ state while responsible for the children. The mother’s sister then took the older children away to care for them and protect them but was ordered by CYFS to return them to the mother despite the evidence and warnings.

    When a child is primarily cared for by a father it takes only one mistake or unsafe action on his part for our child protection authorities and our Family Court to remove the child from the father. However, when mothers or women are the primary caregivers, endless tolerance and trust is shown by our authorities towards them despite massive evidence that such trust is unsafe.

    The case highlights also the consequences of prohibition. For whatever reason, people choose to use drugs including tobacco and alcohol. Keeping cannabis illegal put its supply into the hands of criminal gangs who found that highly addictive methamphetamine was easier to produce and much more lucrative. Synthetic cannabis (which is not cannabis at all) was also developed and for a time less dangerous forms of it were made legal, but since they were made illegal much more dangerous, totally unregulated forms of these non-cannabis drugs have proliferated and we now see people becoming addicted to them and the zombie-like state they cause. Prohibition through huge taxes is now being conducted towards tobacco and we see before our eyes the consequences, tobacco becoming a central focus of serious crime and an underground market. When will we learn?

  7. Man X Norton says:

    Good point Evan Myers @5. Nevertheless, this father is responsible for his own irresponsible behaviour and he seriously failed to provide the role of protector. Yes, the system had probably empowered the women to cut his authority and role off at the knees.

  8. Evan Myers says:

    It’s far worse than sexist @Man X Norton

    It’s a massive contradiction in law.

  9. Downunder says:

    Yes, constant sexist analysis is as bad as silly racist comments, you can’t see the wood for trees.

  10. Man X Norton says:

    Downunder @ 9: Your frequent attempts at one-upmanship and running down the efforts of other posters is tiring. Not sure of what motivates this, but it’s certainly of no value to the men’s movement.

    Even though there is such a constant flow of examples, it’s important to highlight sexism against men, which is at the basis of the vast majority of men’s problems in the feminist era. It’s important even though there are so many examples. Your claim that it’s bad and ‘silly’ to do so is insulting and unappreciated.

  11. Downunder says:

    CONSTANT sexist analysis is as bad … as … silly racist comments.

    This is my opinion. I prefer not to be blind by default.

    An assault on your precious existence and of no value to the ‘men’s movement’?

    That would appear to be your opinion, and I would be a fool to think otherwise.

  12. martin says:

    @10 – In fairness to Downunder (whom I rarely agree with) he makes a valid point.

    [ Mod: content removed – discussion about the appropriateness of other’s comments is specifically forbidden]

    I also agree with Downunder’s comment on the “constant sexist analysis”. If I had have wanted one-eyed rhetoric I would have joined the feminist movement. Just because something happens to a man, doesn’t mean it is sexist! From my understanding the father failed his obligations as a human being, not as a man.

  13. Downunder says:

    @10 progress

    just because something happened to a man doesn’t mean it is sexist

    And even if it is sexist, that is the consequence not the cause.

  14. Man X Norton says:

    Undeserved attempts at one-upmanship and running down the efforts of other contributors is devisive and destructive, even if they come from uniquely wise and intelligent people who can see the wood for the trees that other lower mortals can’t see. That is my opinion.

    Block-quoting statements that aren’t quotes at all then commenting on them amounts to a strawman fallacy, of no value to reasoned debate. That is my opinion.

    Highlighting sexism in the treatment of men in Courts, sentencing and other state processes is important. It isn’t being done elsewhere to any significant extent and it’s entirely appropriate on a site for

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

    (That’s a valid quote.)

    That is my opinion, and I will continue to do it.

    Since it seems to be ok here to critique other contributors’ efforts with insults such as “bad”, “silly” and “you can’t see the wood for the trees” (also all valid quotes), I will from now on proceed likewise.

  15. martin says:

    ManX Norton @14, Everything said up until your last sentence was a good argument as you well know. I would hope to think that you won’t lower yourself to proceed likewise – rather you will shrug it off and continue to provide good contributions with integrity 🙂

  16. DJ Ward says:

    The mind boggles.
    6 dead babies.

    “Medical experts testified the infants were Giesbrecht’s, were at or near full term and were likely to have been born alive.”

    From the lawyer for the women.
    “Brodsky, said he was surprised at the severity of the sentence and said his client didn’t kill anyone.”

    Got a discount, despite no remorse.
    “A sentence of that length would be “crushing” to Giesbrecht, Thompson said. He therefore reduced the sentence by one year, minus time served.”

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/judge-rejects-andrea-giesbrecht-delay-motion-1.4204123

  17. DJ Ward says:

    I think they made a mistake in the title.

    She killed the girlfriend not the husband.
    Maybe it sounds better killing the husband.
    No comment about the custody decision but it seems the children we in the fathers custody when she killed the women.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11891054

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