Violence law faces challenge
by GILL VOWLES
March 14, 2010 08:50am

A TASMANIAN group has filed a $200 million class action against Premier David Bartlett and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is believed to be the first Australian class action against a law.

JAIL (Juries Against Illegal Laws) filed papers with the Federal Court of Australia on February 4 claiming that the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tasmania) was invalid.

The group is claiming $200 million in damages under Section 46 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.

JAIL is also seeking an additional $200,000 in damages for unlawful assault, trespass, negligence, conspiracy to cause economic loss, intimidation and defamation.

The writ further seeks an order that the Tasmanian Government and DPP Tim Ellis cease to engage in arresting people without proper evidence or procedures, giving police judicial powers, denying people the right to a fair and proper hearing and usurping the proper role of the courts.

JAIL president Ray Escobar said that if the class action was successful the money would be given to all the Tasmanians who had suffered under the Family Violence Act.

JAIL, formed in early 2008, now has more than 200 members around Tasmania who have been, or are related to, victims of false applications for violence orders.

Mr Escobar said JAIL was being represented by one of the finest legal minds in Australia, Sir John Walsh of Brannagh, who lives on Norfolk Island.

Sir John said he agreed to represent JAIL because the case raised important and fundamental questions of human rights, such as the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and the separation of powers.

“The legislation, and the way it is enforced, is contrary to human rights and to international law as accepted by Australia,” Sir John said.

“The legislation conflicts with the Constitution of Australia and with the fundamental rights of all Australians.”
Sir John said he was confident a federal judge would apply the law of the Commonwealth and the fundamental principles of Australia’s legal system.

JAIL’s application has been set down for hearing in the Tasmanian registry of the Federal Court of Australia at 10am on Monday, April 12.

Link Here
For those interested in further info, contact: Ray Escobar, “Lest We Forget”, J.A.I.L
Email: rjescobar1@bigpond.com

Link Here

AN OPEN LETTER TO WOMEN IN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MOVEMENT FROM THE FOUNDER OF THE MOVEMENT AND AUTHOR OF THE FIRST MODERN BOOK ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

When I first tried to open the refuge, the police, the charities, the social service agencies, the newspapers, all said it would stand empty. They said it wasn’t a significant problem, that it happened only rarely, and when it did it was already being handled effectively by the existing agencies.

Domestic violence against women was only a minor problem, and very few women were getting seriously hurt anyway. Of course, when we finally did open, and got a little support at last to make women aware of our existence, we were filled to overflowing and the phone was ringing off the hook.

It’s the same exact thing now with attempts to have domestic violence resources for men. The same attitude exists. However, it’s even more difficult now to open something for men, or raise awareness, than it was when I opened the first shelter for women.

There is now an established domestic violence industry which fears any acknowledgment of the well established scientific fact (through my own research and many many others) that women can be as violent as men with their intimate partners and are not always the victim or acting only in self-defense. This fear is based on a false premise, that acknowledging this fact or speaking publicly about it, or offering services, will take away funding and hurt the established resources for women.

That’s nonsense. I proved and others can too, that offering help for abused men can be done within an existing system set up originally to help women, that is willing to deal with the totality and reality of domestic violence. There should of course, also be some support groups, shelter help, and crisis lines specifically aimed and publicized as such for men-what man for example, would even think to call a crisis line that called itself a “woman’s crisis line.”

Of course, he’s automatically excluded.

The charities and the social service system and government told me when I opened the first refuge for women that there wasn’t enough money, that resources were stretched too thin, that police have to focus on where the majority of the crime is, and so on.

Nonsense. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. The trouble is, there’s no will. But there should be, and women should take the lead, not men. After all, not only is it our brothers, fathers, and friends who are being abused, by not helping men, we’re not helping women who are having trouble dealing with their own violence against their partners and against their children.

Because we too easily accept such violence against men, we are not dealing as effectively as we could with child abuse, where women constitute the primary perpetrators.

Our acceptance of women’s violence against men increase the chances of both boys and girls being involved with domestic violence in their later adult lives. I’ve seen that scenario happen time and time again.

Women have the power in the established domestic violence movement now. We should take the lead in taking the movement to the next step. Economic circumstances for many women have changed, so that while it was important to focus first on women when I started things more than twenty years ago, women now have more economic opportunities and more government support as well as refuge resources to get help.

Besides, we should now be ready to accept what the researchers are all telling us…there are many many violent women. As women, we can not claim perfection and ask to be put on a pedestal any longer, and most women no longer desire that, but to make that change, we must also accept responsibility for our own actions or lack of action.

Because of these views, and daring to speak out, I’ve been vilified, and physically threatened many times by women in the domestic violence movement.

Don’t tell me that women can’t be violent!

Now a days, you won’t even find my name or my domestic violence books mentioned in the established domestic violence literature…I’ve been erased because of heresy, or daring to speak to the truth. But when I can, I still take the opportunity to speak out, because we’ll never break the chain of domestic violence until we accept the truth, domestic violence is a complex issue, there are many elements involved in intimate partner relationships, it takes hard work and investigation to deal with it in a truly effective manner, and finally, no one sex, just because of their sex, is less capable of it. ”

– Erin Pizzey, Author, Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear
Founder of the world’s first shelter and crisis line for battered women, Chiswick
Women’s Refuge

From a 2000 Interview with journalist Philip W. Cook, author of Abused Men-The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence

Kindest Regards
Paul and Opal Catton

SKELETON SUICIDE PETITION HITS NERVE

The skeleton suicide petitioners say they have hit a nerve on the streets in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
Since launching the skeleton suicide petition at parliament they have gathered thousands of signatures for an inquiry into suicide. The working party on suicide claim New Zealand has a serious social problem indicated by the latest OECD suicide statistics. Wearing their skeleton suits the “skeletoneers” are taking their deadly concerns to Hamilton, Tauranga, Napier and Hastings before presenting the petition at parliament at 11.00am on Friday the 19th March.

Skeleton spokesman Kerry Bevin said “we must confront this tragic secret. It is ok to talk about suicide. Decent kiwis can no longer accept so many feel worthless and powerless, too many attempt and finally complete. The suicide toll is too high; the human right to a better life is being undermined”.

Mr Bevin noted “alarming rates for males and Maori were sidestepped by Peter Dunn’s suicide plan committee who totally ignored the social devastation of suicided fathers following separation.
Autocide is not mentioned either. No clear intervention or funding for the “at risk” is proffered nor any legislative scoping or mental health supports set. Who is going to get real about suicide before this self-destructive cycle becomes a morbid population?” He asked.

“We took our plea to John Key in Parnell. No response from the prime minister. The media seem oblivious too. However we are encouraged by thousands of concerned citizens. Unfortunately many have direct experience with suicide. The Fathers Coalition and the Republican Party have been supportive” said the skeleton spokesman.

Phone working party on suicide

Kerry Bevin (09) 473 3747
Jack Gielen (07) 859 2939
Craig Jackson (04) 389 2291

According to dictionary.com, the definition of feminism is:

1 The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women EQUAL to those of men.

2 An organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3 Feminine character.

Wikipedia has a similar definition:

“The term feminism can be used to describe a political, cultural, or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal protection for women. Feminism involves political, cultural and sociological theories, as well as philosophies concerned with issues of gender difference. It is also a movement that advocates gender equality for women and campaigns for women’s rights and interests.”

The question is simple. Is feminism in New Zealand advocating EQUAL rights for men and women? It would certainly appear that this is not the case, with various experiences on this site indicating that anti-male attitudes and policies are well and truly entrenched throughout New Zealand. Man hating is not part of feminism; feminism is about equality.

Now it could be argued that the New Zealand government and other governments around the world are giving extra help to females because of gender inequalities, thereby equalizing the gaps between the sexes in traditionally male areas, (pay rates and such like.) But this doesn’t make any sense either, after all, how can women have equal rights to men, if men don’t have equal rights to women; it’s a two edged sword.

Or is feminism truly just about women? This certainly seems to be the case in New Zealand, where the “equal“ rights of women seem to dominate our society. If feminism is about equality, then this can hardly be called a “victory” for the feminists; unless their agenda was not equality in the first place. In reality a search for equal rights would result in the feminists being just as concerned for the rights of men, and this would give rise to extra help in order to equalize human rights in the areas that men are not equal to women, for example in relation to family and children. Men were just as oppressed by the old sex roles as women, and although it is now considered acceptable for a man to play a more active part in the family, we are a long way from gender equality when it comes to other matters of the family, as is shown by the experiences of men during family breakdown.

The only conclusion is that what is called feminism is not about equal rights at all, both in New Zealand and throughout western countries. Men are actively discriminated against right throughout western society. It is considered fine in western society for women to display open misandry, to insult men in public, or thorough advertising; political policies are brought in that are anti male in their agenda; examples abound throughout this site in every area of anti-male behaviour and policy that we can imagine.

So with all this anti male behaviour from supposedly equality seeking feminists perhaps it’s time to find a new word whose definition matches the reality of the “feminists” in western society.

We know that “feminists” are no longer concerned about reaching equality with men. Two groups of people are either equal or in-equal and this brings us to the inescapable conclusion that the agenda of “feminism” is superiority of women over men. This certainly seems to match the facts of New Zealand’s treatment of men and brings us to a completely different word to describe these “feminists” A word that feminists themselves touted in the 1960s. Chauvinism.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of chauvinism is:

1 Zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.

2 Militant devotion to and glorification of one’s country; fanatical patriotism.

3 Biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.

4 PREJUDICED BELIEF IN THE SUPERIORITY OF ONE’S OWN GENDER, GROUP, OR KIND.

It is this fourth definition that was applied to men in the late 1960s thereby giving rise to the term, “Male Chauvinist” this was based on an entrenched attitude in the past that men were superior to women. I might add that this attitude still exists in certain places in the world where feminism didn’t reach, such as Central Asia.

This definition, when applied to women seems to match the reality of modern western society very accurately. There is an increasingly disturbing trend of women seeing themselves as superior to men, therefore deserving rights that men do not have. This is seen right throughout western society, and is becoming more deeply entrenched as time passes. It seems that western society is becoming full of female chauvinists masquerading as feminists and pretending to be victims.

My challenge to all men and women is to call these “feminists” what they really are.

They are FEMALE CHAUVINISTS!!!

One of the things the Families Commission deals with is family violence and the rights of each individual in the family where women are a class, gay and lesbians are a class, children are a class, elderly are a class and minority groups are a class. The only class that doesn’t exist are young men over the age of thirteen to grown men who are not yet elderly. Judy Turner is aware this is discrimination and wants to see this changed.

Her statement comes after the release of the 2010 family violence death report which states 12 men, 16 children and 13 women were abused so badly they died at the hands of the people they should have been able to trust – their own family members.

Judy Turner said says, “While the total of 41 deaths is appalling and the number of children represented absolutely tragic, it is the high number of men killed that will come as a surprise to many.”

I agree that many people will be surprised but I think the surprise will come more from the fact a report acknowledges men as victims and that a politician cares enough to speak out. After all, this proves family violence is not a gender issue.

All violence whether man assaults man, man assaults woman, woman assaults woman, or woman assaults man was part of common assault law and domestic family violence was gender neutral until radical feminists argued it was a gender issue. When men’s advocates argue that feminists harm men, they are saying it is the gender feminists a.k.a radical feminists with their ideology of man=perpetrator (bad man) and woman=victim (good, innocent woman) that is stopping men from progressing towards equal rights. Equality for men and women can only come about when government agencies like the Families Commission and Human Rights Commission are no longer under the power of radical feminists and their ideology.

The Christchurch Health and Development Study showed rates of assault on males by females were similar to rates of assault on females by males. Research after research after research after research confirms this. However the Families Commission policy analysts and developers don’t accept any of these reports arguing radical feminism must stay in power because “We are talking about the most serious and lethal cases where perpetrators are predominantly men and the sufferers are predominantly women and children.”

Police statistics are able to track men as perpetrators and women as victims because there is a law “Man assaults Woman” while all women perpetrators are included (and lost) in the assaults collected under common assault. This report was a one off where police specifically kept track of all victims of domestic family violence during 2009 and showed men suffer the same severity as women.

Judy says, “Men made up nearly one third of all deaths in the statistics released yet there is almost a total ignorance of men as the victims of family violence from both advocacy groups and within government policy.”

“Quite rightly there have been a number of extremely effective media campaigns in the last few years; however those have focussed almost entirely on women and to a lesser extent children, with men involved purely as the perpetrators of violence.”

When government and advocacy groups use millions of tax paid dollars allocated to them yearly for huge media campaigns that repeat the message over and over and over again that violence on women and children is ‘not OK’, society takes the message to heart and women and children are treated better. But when the same government and advocacy groups show men as the perpetrators over and over and over again, society takes this to heart and unknowingly (or on purpose) sets men up as the bad guy. Abuse towards men becomes justice for women and children and is “OK” in societies new brainwashed thinking. As this has happened over decades, society has become anti male and men have become isolated. Male suicide has increased while woman’s abuse on man has increased.

Judy Turner asks “Shouldn’t the focus be about stopping violence against all family members no matter what their age or gender?” and finishes by saying “This Government needs to send a signal to men that they matter too, acknowledging men as sufferers of family violence and including men’s advocates in policy-making around family violence would be a good start.”

It is an absolute must men’s advocates are part of government policy making because men must have representation that is fair and correct. Otherwise all the good work good people do is in vain.

I remember the first time I saw domestic violence. I was living in a second unit of three where we all shared the same driveway. Coming home one night, I saw a man and woman outside the first unit having a domestic. I was horrified to see this and had the intention to phone the police as soon as I stepped in the door. But to my shock, it was a woman punching up a man and I froze. It sounds horrible, but because I had never expected a woman to be the perpetrator I didn’t phone the police.

Some time passed and I met a male in Taupo with his 16 year old daughter who had fled Gisborne because his wife was violent. One day I was around his house and this large (government worker) woman walked in the back door. She spoke in a ‘looking down at him way’ then walked up to him and punched him till he fell to the ground. Then she dragged him into the bathroom and laid into him. I stood in his kitchen again frozen as well as scared for my own safety. I phoned the police for this one as she may have killed him.

Then another time I was at Mission Bay and this large female teenager just turned around and started beating this smaller teenage boy, giving him a hiding, while everyone walked on by, kids still played on the play equipment and adults relaxed on the grass. Not one person said or did a thing.

And then more recently, I was at a railway station where 3 girls in their high school uniform bragged to each other about the amount of teenage boys they had stabbed and how they carry a knife in their bag looking for male victims to attack at night on the streets. One shared how she was put in a CYFS teenage home for one of her many nights out making young men disabled.

I know now always to phone the police but this has only come about because I have been educated to care. It is not something I would do otherwise and by the looks of it, neither will anyone else in New Zealand. 20 adults stood and sat on the railway station while 3 girls bragged aloud about stabbing and possibly killing young men. They were given the green light by all us adults to premeditate and carry through attempted murders.

What does this say about society?

Judy Turner is absolutely right. Men matter, boys over the age of 13 matter, husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, grand-dads and uncles all matter and they all need representation.

Many continue to provide distracting and alternative opinions from the many issues and realities expierenced by the significant majority of users of this website, it thus diminishes to a bun-fighting merry-go-round contest, thus with denigration of the valuable resource /advice available to men and families that this site is able to provide.

This Post would require reply from Angela as it has been previously requested under this forum under occassion

1.Why are you here?
2.What do you wish to achieve?
3.And why?

We always remain in
Kindest Regards
Paul & Opal Catton
(09) 271 3020

The woman commiserated with her. “I haven’t taken my Prozac today—everyone’s walking around unprotected.”

Numerous analysis and comments here in this website point the finger at the Family Court and the domestic violence industry.

Note that suicides among kiwi dads did not make it into the reports stats.

Article read from here

By KATIE CHAPMAN – The Dominion Post

Figures that show at least 41 New Zealanders died at the hands of family members in 2009 have been labelled “staggering” by some working to stop family violence.

The Family Violence Death Review Committee issued the figures in its annual report to Parliament. But it says the number could still get higher, as some deaths at the end of the year have not yet been included.

The figure is made up of 16 children, 13 women and 12 men – 10 deaths above the national average of 14 women, six men and 10 children killed each year.

A family violence death is defined as “the unnatural death of a person (adult or child) where the suspected perpetrator is a family or extended family member, caregiver, intimate partner, previous partner of the victim, or previous partner of the victim’s current partner”.

Committee chairwoman Wendy Davis said this was the first year the committee, which was established by the Health Ministry in 2008, had formally provided an official toll.

It was a shocking, yet unsurprising, result, she said.

“Nobody in New Zealand who works in the family violence area is surprised by these.”

The committee planned to analyse each death to highlight “crisis points” where intervention may have been possible, she said. The more information, the better equipped they would be to address the problem, she said.

“As a group we are very aware of the complexity of the problem we are helping to try and solve.”

Family violence researcher and campaigner Ruth Herbert, who is a member of the Round Table for Violence Against Women, labelled the figure “staggering”. “To actually hear it as an official number kind of makes me a bit weak at the knees.”

Now the information was public it had to be used to make a difference, she said.

“This country has to stand up, open its eyes, and realise what’s going on behind closed doors.

“We need to take a concerted approach to this. We need to base what we’re doing on evidence. It really needs a family violence programme. It’s all been rather ad hoc to date.”

The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s report says it aims to review each death and make recommendations by the end of 2010.