Hose assaulter discharged without conviction
Sunday Star-Times: Protest left my family in fear: lawyer’s wife
A lawyer’s wife who faced assault charges after spraying a group of fathers’ rights protesters with a hose says the protest left her in shock, fear and disbelief.
In Auckland District Court last week, [the wife] pleaded guilty to common assault and was discharged without conviction.
In a speech addressing the and released to the Sunday Star-Times she says:
“You treated me and my children as if we were ‘nothing’, ‘dirt’. You treated my husband as if he was to blame for all of your problems and the situation that you put yourselves into. You all left me hugging my sons, and they me, in shock, fear, tears and disbelief. You all have no idea how much pain and ruin the above mentioned had impacted on our lives.”
She goes on to say: “Nevertheless I forgive you all.”
Lawyer’s wife hosing protestors (photographer unknown)
Personally, I think this is a reasonable outcome. Mrs France and her children are not indirectly responsible for Ross France’s behaviour after all, and the unfortunate use of a Nazi banner on the street outside their home was fairly provocative!
It is a shame that there needs to be some kind of violence or disturbance involved before the media will pay attention to fathers’ issues.
So if I believe someone is a nazzi of sorts it’s not right for me to publically protest signalling so?……and when I do protest, one of their supporters reacts by assaulting me which then gets treated as an uninditable non-offence that’s OK by you?…is that what your saying?
I don’t think that it is effective as a way of communicating a message. A large percentage of people seeing red and black and banners with swastikas will simply be offended.
Even when there is a significant amount of truth in the analogy, references to Nazis is a pretty lazy way of making an argument in my opinion. Although MENZ does not have a tradition of invoking Godwins Law, I would prefer to see messages about what needs to change; about what fathers are collectively demanding.
One of the problems the men’s movement faces is that large sections of the general public think we’re a bunch of nutters. It does get media attention, but it is the moderate and a sensible voices which will have the best chance of winning hearts and minds.
She sprayed him with a hose. I think the justice system resources used by this farce would have been better allocated to ensuring that Family Court hearings actually happen within specified timeframes.
I recall back in 1980 in the UK going on a rock against racism rally to protest against the national front and certain Tory party policies of the time which treated our immigrant brothers and sisters from such places as the West Indies and Sri Lanka etc as second class citizens. (Check out the Sus Laws of the early 80’s if your interested to know more).
That day marching through Mosside in Manchester were 250,000 people all united in calling a spade a spade. We didn’t shirk from our moral duty to express that certain elements of out society were facist in nature.
Nor do I believe should you.
To refer to Godwin’s law only cheapens the debate and attempts to sidetrack from cogent issues in my view.
As for trivializing common assault saying the resources would better be spent elsewhere think on how the law would have dealt to a man spraying a woman in the face with a hose pipe.
Are you aware that such violence risks causing blindness? A jet of water in the eye can do such damage.
And think on how through trivializing assault against a man you give tacit permission to females in nz to continue treating men disgracefully WITH IMPUNITY.
I do agree with you that large sections of the public view Men’s Rights advocates as nutters. They’ve been conditioned to for over 30 years now by feminist propoganda.
I’m afraid that your trivializing acts of violence against men and insisting on turning down the rhetoric because it may offend the male-bashing FC (Feminist Correct) only plays into the hands of those who demonize males.
Unfortunately using a Nazi symbol to nail to your oppoent has become standard policy since WWII. This all started internationally because the communists and socialists had supported the occupation of the 3 baltics states and half of Poland by the Soviets and needed to prove they were the true anti-Nazis after things turn bad.
Now on most news stations you see old communists hard lines labeled right wingers????- of all things. Watch next time and listen! How extreme leftist communist/ socialists become rightwingers on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBC, CTV, BBC, NHK and NZTV is again covering someone rhetorical backside.
All those people who embraced socialism (Che today) don’t like to even hear today that Lenin started what Stalin finished and that they together killed off more than Hitler. Or that Mao out did Hitler too.
Why are those who fought in the War and the male kin of those who killed or fought in the war indirectly labled Nazis by the phrase “angry white men”? Strange priories for those who say men and women are the same. The Moslems supported Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s and then Commmunism from the 1930s till the 1960s, but get a free pass on both?
All this points to is the fashionable ideas of those in the journalistic field. They look at history the way they want to and we all suffer. Drawing the line at men’s rights seems unfair when it has become a cliche for so long by the left. I once saw a vet going into a convention and the protestors where shouting in his face that he was a Nazis for supporting a conservative party. The old vet said, “How dare you call me a Nazi, my friends died fighting and I fought..” I thought this protester would be ashamed, for I was thinking under my ideas of honor, yet once the old man was finished being an “anrgy white male’ he was then subjected to the same slander by the same leftist protester as if it had meant nothing he had killed some real ones. I would have been self-doubting myself for years after doing something as dishonorable as that, but for those with no honour they will do or say anything.
I can only say regarding this event that I’m glad [the lawyer’s wife] was dealt with as she was. She shouldn’t have had to put up with this assault on her and her childrens personal space and integrity. It was a cowardly act on behalf of the protesters and she was very brave. I don’t believe most men would agree with these methods of harassment against women and children in their homes. It does make the mens groups/advocates who are sincere in their efforts to advocate for their roles in families etc etc look like “nutters” and undermines any benefit won.
Are you a parent, and if so, how much do you value your relationship with your children? If your children were unlawfully ripped away from you, and those that are supposed to ensure that your children’s interests are upheld and parental relationships protected, ignore you, use false evidence against you, brainwash your child against you, charge you tens of thousands of dollars, and you’re not legally allowed to tell anyone and there is no person or organistaion in the world who can help you; would protesting outside the home of the person who delivered the final blow seem so bad?
Look at it in context, and leave out the emotive terms like “assault”, because in reality, 10 minutes of protest and a dousing with water are a small price to pay to create awarness of the injustice that is going on in sececy within the walls of the family court.
Yes I’m a parent and yes I value my kids and their needs…so much so I have tried to have access implemented through the Family Court with an unwilling other parent. It takes a long time for issues like you describe and I have to get to resolution when the other parent is intractable. I also know it can do your head in…my experience is that the Family Court bends over backwards to keep kids connected to both parents. I would do anything if I couldn’t see my kids…as much supervised access as required, make it fun, not talk adult issues ANYTHING. Protesting the way described above would be a sure fire way to ensure I’d probably have to do another 6 months of counselling and have supervision, so no I would not do that. I would also be very careful what lawyer I used as well and in hindsight I’d come to agreements on separation quicker to avoid the long haul. But you’re right if the other parent wants war it’s the kids that miss out they often “move on” and the kids (who are the only ones who shouldn’t be “moved on” from) miss out on their right to have safe and happy enriching, supportive and extremely important relationships with BOTH of their parents. Some people out there simply are not interested in supporting their children and prioritising their needs. They are more interested in their own needs than their childrens …totally selfish… its as simple as that.Cheers
you say – the Family Court bends over backwards to keep kids connected to both parents.
Wierdly out of step with the vast majority of men’s experience. Don’t believe me? Just ask guys.
You also reckon the woman assaulting a guy with a hose spray full in the face was the one assaulted!
I think you’re in denial and you do your brothers no good with such.