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

Let Me Say It Again

Filed under: General — dpex @ 6:00 pm Mon 10th July 2006

All we need to have happen in the Family Court is for the Court to accept ‘only’ corroborated evidence.

No other Court in the land….well maybe with the exception of the Employment Court….accepts uncorroborated ‘testimony’ as irrefragible fact.

Interestingly, the only other law-process which brings an evil to one before one has actually committed a real offence, are those governing traffic.

The entire point of traffic laws is to keep vehicles separated; that’s it. A person speeding (although breaking a law) and who never has an accident, cannot be said to be a danger ‘until’ he/she has a crash. My opinion is that at that point, and only at that point, should the book be flung at the malefactor.

And so it equates with the Family Court when it accepts a father ‘may’ be a risk, when it has failed to attract any corroborated evidence that he ‘is’ a risk.

If the father has abused a child in some way which is definable within the concept of abuse, as opposed to some woolly concept tossed up by some shrink, or some opinion of the ungifted who hover round the edges of this system, then sling the book at him.

But until the abuse can be proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, then no court should be allowed to weight the accusation.

Further, a partner who is abusive (and I mean seriously physically abussive) to his partner should have the book thrown at him, but it does not presuppose he ‘will’ be abussive to his children.

The French Dude who head-butted the Italian player should be tried for assault, but his head-butt of another player does not, automatically, presume he is either a bad partner or father.

I truly believe the prime target for all of us is to have the Family Court controlled to the point where ‘only’ corroborated evidence is acceptable. Opinion, uncorroborated accusations, and assertions must all be treated with complete contempt.

That, it seems to me, should be our prime target.



  1. Right-On

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 6:06 pm

  2. Hey…now your talking! It will of course be said that women and children will be most at risk if evidence cannot be offered. This then brings an important principle into question. Should a crime (abuse) be stopped before it happens? We would all want to say yes except if the accused was us. Thats why we ALL have civil rights.
    Fact is that it would now appear that men’s Civil Rights are only as good as the integrity of the woman he has a relationship with……is that fair and desireable??

    Comment by triassic — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 7:12 pm

  3. Yes, I agree entirely with your post triassic.
    However it’s worse than that in some cases. I presented to the family court with scratch marks scarring my face. I told them it was from the most recent in a series of unprovoked attacks from my ex.

    …Unless that is you count them asking me ‘What did you do to her to bring this on? like I deserved it.

    Misandric Kangaroo court sums it up.

    I hope the petition in Wayne’s pram ends up holding millions of signatures

    Comment by Stephen — Tue 11th July 2006 @ 3:33 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar