NZ Herald: Fathers’ vendetta angers top judge

Principal Family Court judge Peter Boshier said men’s groups such as the Union of Fathers, which had been picketing two judges’ homes in recent weeks, were going beyond acceptable democratic protest.

Boshier’s “beyond acceptable democratic protest” demonstrates the type of thinking which underlies the whole dysfunctional culture of the Family Court. Actions are either legal or illegal; judges are supposed to understand this sort of thing! While I don’t personally agree with protesting outside private homes, I find it most disturbing that a senior Judge believes that there is a grey area between legal and illegal where he can legitimately weild his considerable coercive power.

In this murky realm of feminist jurisprudence traditional concepts of justice go out the window, rules of evidence are disregarded, and the whole process can be blatently manipulated behind the scenes. No-one is accountable, there is no effective way to object. No wonder the NZ judiciary has become an international laughing-stock!

“It has all the hallmarks of personal vendetta by individuals who do not respect the legitimacy of the court,” he said.

Wrong on the first count your Honour – it’s a political struggle and it’s a movement, but correct in the last part of your observation. The NZ Family Court is not respected as legitimate by a large proportion of the population. If you are incapable of reforming the institution so that it does deserve respect, you should resign and make way for someone who can.

Over half way through the article, the Herald finally reports on someone from a Father’s organisation: our regular contributor Bevan Berg.

Union of Fathers spokesman Bevan Berg said the group would continue to protest and would target more judges if necessary, until a full Government inquiry was held into the Family Court. He accused Family Court judges and lawyers of “serious breaches of conduct”.

“It’s likely we will continue and will be outside the homes of Family Court judges and lawyers whose names appear within our circles with monotonous regularity,” he said.

The protests were about the “misapplication” of the law and centred on the access of fathers to their children.

While Family Court proceedings were opened to media last year, in practice its proceedings still largely happened behind closed doors, Mr Berg said.

“A lot is happening in the process leading up to the hearing, all the media are getting is a whitewash.”

The judges targeted were obviously uncomfortable, Mr Berg said. “I think anyone would be uncomfortable if there were protesters outside their house.”

Boshier makes another very revealing statement at the end of the article:

“The tactics of publicly distributing confidential case material that could lead to identification of the parties is very concerning,” the judge said.

Yes there is is a considerable amount of confidential material circulating – someone needs to educate Judges that keeping evidence suppressed is no longer an option, now that this interweb thingy makes it so easy to share information. Has the Union of Fathers ever used the material to identify and manipulate a party to a legal case whose name should have been secret? No, it’s the feminists who do that. Is Boshier seriously worried the Union of Fathers intends to? I suspect not.

I think what he is worried about is the mounting evidence of systematic abuses of human rights by his Court that might one day be seen by impartial and non-feminist judges – there’s always the danger our Appeal Court will be staffed by Australian judges some day!