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

The Next Allegation.

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,Domestic Violence,General,Law & Courts,Men's Health,Sex Abuse / CYF — Downunder @ 9:03 am Fri 3rd March 2006

He was violent toward me, or He sexually abused the children, can now be a thing of the past.

The new allegation will be his discipline is not appropriate.

At present section 59 of the Crimes Act, authorises mothers and fathers to discipline their children. If section 59 is removed discipline will be a dispute or an issue to be determined in individual cases in the family court.

The removal of section 59 will not only start a new wave of court activity, but many of you who thought your family court days were over may find your case revisited on discipline issues, historic allegations of violence against your children.

The removal of section 59 will also open the door in the Care of Children Bill for greater representation of children by lawyers. If you thought it was just their mother you had to watch out for watch this space.

If only people would stop talking about smacking and start understanding the significance and the implications of section 59 of the Crimes Act, and how it relates to our children — your children, and the future of fathers in New Zealand.


  1. Spot on Bevan

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 3rd March 2006 @ 9:18 am

  2. Well this one really takes that cake, we are not allowed to tell our kids off now (what a joke this country has become) Sue Bradford is an X Sole parent who was on the bones of her arse, when she flucked it in as a list MP – If she is able to manipulate the sitting house the way she did the agency that gave her the DPB we mightas well put our hands up and surrender – a smack on the hand or bum when need is the best form of short punishment that has worked for centuries – are we going to let one woman take our legal right away from us ???? Moira Buchanan
    I have spoken to Principal Youth court Judge Andrew Becroft on this.
    Do you think it might be time to appeal to the Governor General who is the Queens council here in NZ.
    I wrote to the Queen last year, so the Governor General knows who I am

    Comment by Moria Buchanan — Fri 3rd March 2006 @ 11:02 am

  3. When I’ve stood by and watched mothers in public disciplining their children, they get somewhat agro that I’ve taken the effort to quietly observe.
    (how much child violence – the real kind, the thrashings, beatings and killings) could have been averted if someone took time to intervene?)

    Having been through the Family Court mill, there is no way I will ever use any form of physical punishment, because I am quietly confident it will get held against me as further evidence that I am violent.

    What I never understood is why there can’t be reasonable limits:
    – physical discipline that leaves any physical damage beyond a red mark, is in my mind too severe.
    – and discipline that a reasonable adult would have reason to be concerned about, is unreasonable.

    How hard is that?

    That people have gotten off after using horse whips, electric cords etc, is unbelievable.

    Also, why would you hit someone you love?
    (although, in the case of the proverbial hot-stove, it is the lesser of two evils).

    But as a disenfranchised father, the other reason I will not disipline, is because I now understand McDad’s syndrome.
    This is where you see your kids for a few hours each week, or less often. You want to please them, because you want them to have fun, so that they look forward to next time. You are scared shitless they’ll oneday turn around and say ‘I don’t want to go to dad’s – it’s no fun; he hits me; he’s too busy; it’s boring; etc.
    So you take them to McDadville each Saturday …

    Comment by Al D Rado — Fri 3rd March 2006 @ 5:23 pm

  4. All this fear and loathing of the proposed removal of section 59 is paranoid nonsense. I don’t understand the obsession of some denizen’s of this site with smacking children. I am a father and I have no wish to ever hit my child, or anyone else’s. Nor will I ever need to, in the name of discipline or of fatherhood. Anyone with half a brain can find non-violent ways of influencing children’s behaviour.
    If I suspect anyone of hitting my child, they will be accountable to me. And I want the law to hold them accountable too. If their mother, my ex, disciplines them ‘innappropriately’ (and she is far more likely to than I am) then I want the law to hold her to account and if an allegation is made in the family court of ‘innappropriate discipline’, it may well be me who is putting the allegation forward. I want the law to protect my child, and I look forward to the removal of section 59.

    Comment by Paul — Fri 3rd March 2006 @ 11:15 pm

  5. The removal of section 59 is just another step towards the “government” intruding on our families to control ever more finer aspects of our lives.

    Since when did we need the govenment to decide how we discipline our children ? It seems to be developing into a fully blown big Brother ( or would it be big Mother ) situation.

    I know from experience that a quick smack on the bum for a kid who is out of line is far more effective than what the PC crowd would want.

    For starters the child can’t be bothered being sat down and have everything explained to them as to why what they were out of line. They just loose interest after a minute. And I probably do as well. But a quick smack gets the point across in a split second with no harm done.

    Yes I know there are parents who go way overboard when it comes to physical discipline – I’ve seen it myself. But as usual it’s a very very small proportion of parents ruining it for the rest.

    Comment by Moose — Fri 3rd March 2006 @ 11:22 pm

  6. Thank you all especially Paul for proving the point. The article wasn’t about smacking it was about inappropriate discipline. I never said anything about smacking until the last line, see what you all assumed. I could have been talking about time out in the toilet. Like I said understand what section 59 means and stop talking about smacking.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Sat 4th March 2006 @ 7:43 am

  7. Am I the only one joining the dots here?
    Maybe my distance from NZ is giving me some perspective.
    What I’m seeing is a fullblown assault to have govt further intrude into peoples lives and retroactive punishment for alleged child abuse.
    Benson Pope is a classic example. I don’t especially warm to his politics. However, regardless of one’s view as to whether he’s guilty of abuse or not, the fact is he hasn’t been convicted of such yet his reputation and social standing have been hugely undermined by slurs and innuendo.

    Culture warfare in action.

    Bradford and Co who want to repeal section 59 must be gleeful. Some of our more rabid social worker types will be counting the dollars coming thier way with retroactive charges and the subsequent ‘counselling’ required for ‘offenders’. Another gravy train to feed the DV organism. Yay!

    What I think is happenening is that now the Men’s movement has gotten more contact going between fathers and children the fems are concocting child abuse hysteria as a fallback position.
    They’re probably not aware that thier doing such mind you.
    It’s just that after 40 odd years of fighting that mythical beast ‘the patriarchy’ thier ingrained proclivity is to think the very worst of men.

    So let’s see now.
    I can’t sit next to kid on public transport without some idiot thinking I’m probably a predator.
    I can’t be alone with any child without some dolt thinking I’m propbably secretly abusing them.
    I can’t meet any women in private without the risk of being alleged to have abused her, even raped her and it being brought to trial 16 years later.
    I can’t have any say in whether I unilaterally get divorced.
    I can’t stop an ex-wife from moving herself and taking our kids with her to someplace beyond my means to have contact with them.
    I can’t take up teaching especially at kindergarten and primary level without some moron suspecting I’m a child molester.
    AND to top it all off if section 59 gets overturned I can’t live without the fear of being accused of child abuse and loss of mana, not to mention possible conviction for assaulting a child.

    OMG. The NZ fems are having a field day.

    Thank God I’m in Asia. Away from all this bullshit.
    My sincere condolences and gratitude to all those still in NZ fighting this shit.

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 5th March 2006 @ 5:22 pm

  8. You forgot that you can’t have children in the first place, without the mother deciding on your behalf whether or not to abort the precious child ….

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 5th March 2006 @ 8:14 pm

  9. Yes Al D Rado,
    that’s right. Thankyou.

    I also forgot to mention that with all these barriers in the way which marginalize and alienate NZ menfolk we can’t even keep ourselves at a safe distance from women and children without some moron pointing the finger at us and saying men have an intimacy problem!!!!
    Too _ _ _ _ ing right men have an intimacy problem.
    Who wouldn’t have an intimacy problem given such circumstances?

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 5th March 2006 @ 11:45 pm

  10. i might try donating at the sperm bank,
    no government interference, will not yet any way…

    Comment by cwb — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 8:56 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