FYI: The reply from government-funded “Jigsaw”, a patronizing letter typical of feminists when challenged for telling fibs. My original letter (previously posted) below

Hans

Greetings Hans

Thank you for taking the time to write to me and express your concerns
about my statements on national radio last week.

I appreciate that you have a different view about the patterns of
domestic violence within New Zealand families and about the proposed
amendment to Section 59 of the Crimes Act that those I expressed.

Jigsaw’s role is to advocate for the social and legislative changes that
our network believes will most benefit the safety and wellbeing of
children. That means speaking up about the realities of life for many of
the children and families our agencies work with.

On that basis Jigsaw will continue to work towards a society where
children do not see their mothers (or their father or any other member
of their family) hurt within their family and where adults who
discipline children in ways that cause them harm are held accountable
for their behaviour.

Liz Kinley
Chief Executive (Strategic Operations)
Jigsaw

Dear Ms Kinley
> >
> > I heard you interviewed on National Radio yesterday 15 Feb
> > concerning the Unicef report on child welfare.
> >
> > I wish to challenge two statements you made in that
> > interview. This challenge will be public in that I am
> > providing a copy of this e-mail to local and international
> > men’s and fathers’ groups.
> >
> > Firstly, you stated “…but I think the main thing is
> that
> > in NZ we have an enormously high tolerance…for violence
> > within families, and I think the report you know relates
> > to children that are hurt in their families or directly
> > abused or neglected. But there’s also all the children
> > whose mothers are being beaten, or killed, in front of
> > their eyes so, basically, we just know that we’ve got an
> > enormous problem…”
> >
> > There is no excuse in Feb 2007 for a spokesperson in such
> > a responsible position to be discussing domestic violence
> > or partner violence as though only males commit it and
> > only women suffer it. If you are not aware of the
> > relevant international research including thorough
> > findings from both the Christchurch and Dunedin
> > Longitudinal Studies then you should be. If you are aware
> > of it but are choosing to ignore it then you are not fit
> > for your position of responsibility. Research undertaken
> > independently and with reasonable experimental rigour (as
> > opposed to predetermined studies done by feminist interest
> > groups) shows partner violence is roughly as often
> > committed by each gender against the other. More serious
> > harm is caused on average by males against females but it
> > remains true that females quite often seriously harm
> > males. Even allowing for an imbalance in violence caused
> > by males compared with females, it is misleading to
> > discuss the matter using only male=perpetrator and
> > female=victim language. By doing this you implied that
> > domestic violence is only caused by men against women; as
> > well as being dishonest that was sexist.
> >
> > We know that Maori on average commit more crime including
> > violent crime than do pakeha, the racial imbalance being
> > considerably greater than any gender imbalance in domestic
> > violence. But would you state “Corporate crime is a big
> > problem in NZ but there’s also all the Maori committing
> > serious crime in front of White people’s eyes”, or
> > otherwise discuss crime implying that only Maori ever
> > commit it, using exclusively Maori=offender and
> > Pakeha=victim language? I doubt it, so why do you think
> > it’s ok to demonize men and to sanitize women in the
> same
> > way?
> >
> > Invalid feminist models of domestic violence have been at
> > the basis of intervention and indeed Family law, Court
> > practice and police policy for many years now. Domestic
> > violence appears to have increased in frequency and
> > severity during that time, as might be expected when the
> > problem is mistakenly formulated and when something
> > approaching half the problem is denied and disregarded.
> >
> > Female violence against men when noticed at all is usually
> > considered funny, and when women murder men they are
> > likely to attract hordes of feminist supporters blaming
> > the man and demanding that the murderer be seen as the
> > real victim and excused for her violence. I’m not aware
> > of the public doing that for male murderers or violent
> > offenders. It seems that what NZ has an enormously high
> > tolerance for is male bashing (both physically and
> > metaphorically), as well as for falsehood and deliberate
> > misrepresentation in the service of feminist ideology.
> >
> > My second complaint arising from your interview is against
> > your statement in support of the proposed amendment to
> > section 59 of the Crimes Act. You said “We want NZers
> to
> > understand that its not about punishing parents who are
> > just trying to manage their kids’ behaviour and give
> them
> > an occasional smack, it’s about stopping people that
> > discipline children in a way that seriously hurts them.”
> >
> > The proposed amendment, as would be the case with repeal
> > of section 59, will make it a criminal offence to use
> > physical force of any kind for the purpose of disciplining
> > children. There is no mention in the proposed amendment
> > of “serious hurt” and there is no exemption for
> > “occasional smack”. Whether people are punished or
> not
> > for the criminal offence of smacking will be at the whim
> > of police, CYFS, Family Courts, and whatever political
> > administration is in charge at the time. You must be
> > aware that your statement is serious misrepresentation of
> > the truth, and I wonder why the pro-repeal people rely so
> > often on lying to the public. I don’t here wish to
> debate
> > the issue of smacking save to point out that there are
> > many people in NZ prisons right now for violence towards
> > against children, and there are very few charged with
> > using unreasonable force against children who walk free
> > underthe present legislation.
> >
> > I realise that you believe you are working towards the
> > best interests of children and I suppose that for you
> > honesty can be discarded in favour of propaganda towards
> > your favoured outcome. My advice to you is to remain
> > honest as an overriding priority, and realise that wise
> > outcomes seldom arise from dishonesty however well
> > intended.
> >
> > Hans Laven