Hidden Violence Comes to Light
Article in the Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=322&objectid=10452857? (link option not working)
“But there are also surveys that show women and men are equally likely to be perpetrators and victims of violence in intimate relationships…
Women’s Refuge’s Henare gives a swift response to such statistics. “The question is about fear. Does she fear her husband? A woman is beaten by man for years, then one day she picks up an iron and says: ‘If you touch me one more time, I’m going to put this into your skull’. She is taking a stand the only way she knows how. Does he fear her? I suspect not.”
Unbelievable. Does she really believe that the? reports like the Dunedin longitudinal study are actually describing what she suggests?
“Police numbers for family violence are going up because they’re now reporting incidents as domestic violence in a way they never did before. ”
Is it not any wonder as smacking is now domestic violence thanks Sue !!
As far as protection orders go I say they harm the children and are worthless !
CYFS are a dysfunctional mess .
Infanticide and child abuse on increase – well done Labour Fools !!
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 26th July 2007 @ 10:47 am
For a long time now the feminist inspired definition of domestic violence being used accross the land has included such terribly nebulous territory as simply ‘fearing’ ones partner.
There doesn’t have to be ANY corroborative evidence of anything to actually fear. Most often simply the word of a woman will get you sent packing for anger management, supervised access to your kid/s in a prison like environment and possibly as recent posts have mentioned suspended or sacked from your job whilst the rumour mills in your community churn out gossip which sees you being silently ostrasiced by many.
Then you’ll probably get seen for ‘counselling’ at a men’s (read feminist anger management) centre where the counsellor will routinely forgoe telling you you actaully have the right to appeal the order to attend anger management for the next 6 months for the alleged abuse you have been wrongly accused of.
Then before that shock has worn off, while you’re still nice and numb you’ll be up in front of a ‘family’ ‘court’ ‘judge’ who’ll pronounce you unfit to parent.
As an extra treat you may also get to see your ex take your kid/s hundreds or perhaps thousands of kilometere away, somewhere it’s improbable or impossible for you on your meagre income to get to. I say meagre because whilst you’re not seeing your kid/s you’re still expected by IRD to be a walking ATM for the ex (who they NEVER check to see is actually spending the money on the kid/s).
Menawhile as fools and naivettes around you wonder why you’re drugging yourself, hitting the bottle or behaving with recklessness or even suicidal tendencies, and they prattle on about the decline of family there’s a growing marriage strike and men are silently (for many have simply given up trying to get heard by societies that don’t care about them) going thier own way MGTOW?
Ah yes, the REAL hidden family violence.
We men with our scarred hearts know it so well.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 26th July 2007 @ 12:24 pm
UF you might be interested to read
Understanding Recent Movements in Crime
Statistics
I summise that mutiple catergerisation of incidents leads to increased reporting.Note an incident does not mean a criminal offence has occured.
In fact it does not mean that any charges have been laid.
It is a dangerous reporting figure and is more suited to understanding the call mangent process that representing real data on DV.
Incident figures will be vastly different from the quantified conviction figures.
The measure of actual violence can only be based on convictions not recording and tracking on a call mangement system (which is what incidents are).
When the police flag an incident as DV what are the national guidelines for doing so. None I suspect.
This incident figure needs some more analysis contact me off list if you want to discuss further.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 26th July 2007 @ 1:40 pm
The biggest problem is these womens groups have made issues which arise as normal in a marriage glamourised, and made to appear more harsh than it really is. They tend to encourage creating a villainous male image as much as possible even if the instance is really trivial and of minute consequence. They have been able to get away with this unchecked hence the birth of false allegations and tall stories which are accepted as actual events without investigation.
Comment by starr — Thu 26th July 2007 @ 7:24 pm
Incredibly, Heather Henare is justifying domestic violence, victim-blaming and claiming that women who are violent to men are acting reasonably and have no other option. She fails to show sufficient social responsibility to remind women that their legal and ethical obligation is to use non-violent methods and correct channels to deal with provocation. Henare’s statement is also an indictment on her own heavily government-funded organisation. If Women’s Refuge were doing its job properly women would not need to be in situations that Henare sees as justifying violent responses. If Henare believes that the many women who are violent truly need to assault or kill their partners, this is an acknowledgement that Women’s Refuge is ineffective and is not reaching those who are claimed to need it.
Henare’s outburst shows clearly that Women’s Refuge is not actually against family violence at all but aims simply to increase feminist power and privilege. This news item is gold for the men’s movement and the nation deserves to be reminded of it frequently.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 4:03 pm
In my Court of Appeal evidence from the APRIL FOOL’S DAY judgement I covered this in my submission to the Justices. The problem is really very clearly defined by the Domestic Violence Act and the injustice compounded on the Family Court practices where ignoring the detail of logical (generally fathers) complaint against the disguising practice of someone (generally women) to hide their want for self improperly using the provisions excused by the Domestic Violence Act 1995 ss.2 to corroborate that want as justified.
Any act of psychological abuse, not limited, whether or not before a child is considered an act of violence, warrantable as legitimate and requiring the security of a protection order.
So this sets as broad a scope for interpretation that any could wish.
The complaint by fathers groups is that event though the wording appears gender nuetral, its statistical affect describes that its condition is generally exploited by women (I asked CYF for figures of proof on this under the Official Informations Act, which was declined by Lianne Dalziel, because it would take too much to collate).
This condition sets a difference of levels in recognising domestic violence, yet so to empower the Act, measures all acts under the same principle, and in the case of children includes the child.
Judges reply when questioned on these figures that there is no bias to the Act – in order to validate their absense from bias Judge Boshier recently released figures from the court on custody, saying that these figures illustrated the fairness of the court. Yet the figures doid not take into regard the attitude of the court to the circumstance of violence and how the Act was used to interpret any such event. These figures that automatically include children will undoubtably be fascinating and the true source to determine the attitudes of judges to favour between men and women.
In the Court of Appeal submission I drew to the Court’s attention the Domestic Violence rules and demanded that the Court recognise that it too was bound to these rules. The rules state that s.5 of the Act overides everything else and nothing that is inconsistent with those objectives will be tolerated by ANY court.
This leaves us with two questions, the first is how do we interpret violence? Ss 3, does this for us. Additionally and this is my argument, recognition of child abuse is written out by s.15 of the CYPFA 89. This includes deprivation. Deprivation is also supported as neglect by the United nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child and most particular to the issue of overriding the attitudes that women are championing that children do not need their fathers A.9 protects the child to an association with both mum (real) and dad (real).
The second question is far more specific to the damage we have before us and that is: Which courts, judges and other relative bureaucrats have tolerated acts of domestic violence as acceptable in order to determine a preference for conditions providing for the child?
Here the top comes off. Women’s exclusive need for protection and separatist advocacy is just plain garbage. It is mean spirited and an act of extreme violence against children. It refuses to accept that any act of violence is intolerable and presently the questions to determine the violence toward the victim in no way cover the institutions leading to any violent act.
It’s all just smudged. And another dad gets the blame. And all of the professionals pretend. And all of the professionals lie. And another baby dies.
Parlaiment spend extraordinary amounts on fixing the problems from an adjudicative means, where domestic violence is primarily a social problem. It is called the Domestic Violence Industry. And those who abuse the child by failing to accept that children/little humans need to have a strong association with both parents in order for them to be healthy and strong is teh paramount principle of development. It is not exploitable. To continue so to exploit is a crime agaisnt the Domestic Violence Act.
Government and the judiciary stand charged.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 11:08 am