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

Where does the Herald stand?????

Filed under: General — triassic @ 6:05 pm Sat 13th May 2006


The Charge: Fathers’ rights activists who protest outside judges’ homes are resorting to bullying tactics.

The Herald polls seven as giving a verdict of guilty. However, when I read what they say it is only three who say “guilty”

Surprise, surprise!!! The harshest is Lawyer, Brian Gubb. He states:

‘while this sad little group “protest”, the other 99.9% of separated fathers get on with caring for and supporting their children.’

I would have expected that from any of the eleven other people questioned who don’t work in the family court industry, but Mr Gubb!!!! Is this Pratt totally ignorant? Most fathers deprived of their children are now living overseas, unable to bear the pain of separation and injustice of the system. They now are starting a new life.

Perhaps Mr Gubb refers to the ones still living in NZ. Is he aware of the ground swell of discontent amongst fathers here? Probably not, as red necks usually do not educate themselves with reality.

The fear of reprisal is the biggest deterrent from many more fathers joining in these protests.

Shame on you Mr Gubb for remaining ignorant or hiding the truth. However, thankyou for your statement which gives increased credence to the protestors claim.


  1. I didn’t read the article. Yet the facts are different from how they could possibly be presented. The media representation of the protests as they have been related to me so far, (I haven’t seen any footage other than on the Sunday night of the protests) did not give any significant detail of what we are about to achieve. For example, when I was outside the High Court on the megaphone I claimed that the DVA is an illegal document. I have made this claim in other forums and to the politically correct people. It was not introduced properly under Section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act. I have a letter from the 2003 Attorney General Margaret Wilson that says as much. She says “it wasn’t the practice in 1995 to write detailed reports on inconsistancy with human rights”. That’s still the practice I’ll add. Guilty before innocent is a breach of human rights. Loss of right to associate is a breach of those rights. Discriminating against a family member is a breach of those rights. These facts coming from an apparently sad little man, marginalised for his aptitude within the status quo are surely quite alarming.

    Additionally came the allegation against Judge Judith Potter. Apparently, as one of our fliers said she ruled in favour of her brother in law without disclosing the relationship to the court. Eh? Surely that cannot happen? The rule of natural justice, or should I better say, the law of natural justice precludes such events. Its second principle says that noone adjudicating over any form of tribunal can be partial. Its what justice about. You must have an impartial judge. The flier continues to say that the counsel observed this event, complaining and was rebuffed. Eh? This doesn’t happen anywhere but in places like Zimbabwee or other places of abusive dictatorship. They there apparently treat their blacks badly. We here apparently don’t? Why are our jails so full then? Surely it is more that people like Mr Gubb have had their way of supressing the facts for so long that they believe it is a law of natural justice.

    It is reasonable for the public to say we are guilty of bullying tactics. What is not reasonable is that the interpretation of bullying, under these conditions is as supressive as the Family Court history.

    Bad things have happened in this country. It is just that our copnviction to tolerance has become so condition it has been exploited.

    Mr Gubb, it would be highly impolite for me to describe what I consider my children should think of you in this moment of your time.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 14th May 2006 @ 10:24 am

  2. I think Brian Gubb’s comment is despicable. It is also highly revealing. How can a man who is supposed to work for families pretend not to know how cruelly father-child relationships are treated under the law. And how by protesting, fathers in fact are getting on with caring for and supporting their children.

    Most revealling of all is how Brian’s statement stands out in it’s harsh judgmental attitude, while the reported comments of other’s from a cross section of the community are much more supportive and underatanding of the protesting fathers.

    Mr Gubb seems unaware of the fact that ordinary people now know that a dangerous and unjust father-removal project has been going on and must be stopped.

    Comment by PaulM — Sun 14th May 2006 @ 11:20 am

  3. Mr Gubb does not inspire me as a lawyer to have confidence in. He cleary, despite all his education and (presumed) intelligence to acheive a law degree, is incomptant in mathematics.
    99.99% means 9,999 in 10,000. He is saying there is one discontented seperated father for every 9,999 accepting fathers, of custody / access arrangements.
    Clearly not, because if 99.99% of seperated fathers simply got on with caring for their children, we wouldn’t have 7,868 new applications for custody / access adjudication in the Family Court in 2004.
    Not unless those 7,868 dissatisfied fathers at the rate of 1 in 10,000 were viewed against the other 78,672,132 satisfied fathers!

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 14th May 2006 @ 9:29 pm

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