No picnic for Fathers in NZ.
In a Fathers Day Statement Republican Leader Kerry Bevin puts family devastation clearly at the feet of the feminist agenda, and its moderate face, NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark.
By allowing this Government to continue unchallenged in the implementation of its pink policy we leave unaddressed the underlying causes of family devastation.
“Family discipline is undermined and violence encouraged by Helen’s provocative feminist agenda, leaving fathers unable to fulfil their social obligations”, said Mr Bevin.
Link: Media Statement
This is really interesting Bevan that Kerry has stood up like this. A few hours ago I was talking to a businessman, well… not a business man as such but one of the financial secretaries of one of our biggest businesses and I know he also has had enough of the feminists because his wife told me so last year. Anyhow, he said to me today that, “Men need to start sticking up for themselves”.
Also of note is that NZHerald journalism is taken as a joke to men in these positions that travel the world doing business with investors of other countries.
Comment by julie — Fri 31st August 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Unfortenately Julie it is not just the Herald that is taken as as a joke, it is NZ too.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 31st August 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Yes, Bevan. That is true.
Comment by julie — Fri 31st August 2007 @ 7:34 pm
Kerry, in our conversations at least, is direct and wishing to put up as direct a challenge on gender discrimination as can be mustered. In the Sunday (if it was that programme) documentary, he put in a “one liner” to beat them all. “The girls are fucking us over” – delivered with poise and finesse.
Yet can he or any of the Republicans handle the slaughter in the House? I doubt it. Hone Harawira has had to break away and get back into his natural ground of whatever pleases, if he is to survive with the protocols ruling his every responsibility . If the Republicans can cut it it will be because they are able to lift themselves above the protocols and gather public interest. Kerry’s appeal will be if he is direct. If he makes it – is he dependent on anonimity to secure his (as for any minor party’s) need to be assimilated into the House’s bloodlust – rationalising the man to our modern and corrupted democracy.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 31st August 2007 @ 7:55 pm
As a male undergoing the feminist HAIP program my true anger has stemmed from being forced into a sentence of imposed rehabiliation and I devoutly stand by my innocence from ‘heresay’ testimony in the Protection Order. I have no faith in the Hamilton legal system to recognise truth or its ability to obtain it, but it is doubly insulting to endure rehabilitation for violence when none has been commited by me. Further more the HAIP program is again unrelated to me personally as I’ve been seperated from my ex-partner for three years and the course focuses on relationship issues.
Mr Bevin has my backing and my only hope is that others out there are as angered as I am. Balance has to be struck. Which was once a fight for woman’s rights has gathered momentum and like glutony the feminist movement has devoured all that it can bypassing the mark of reason. What feminist have fought so hard to achieve will be their undoing as the backlash has already begun. Let us hope that we find equillibrium in a future discourse.
Comment by Eli Peters — Sun 2nd September 2007 @ 3:17 am
Having separated from my 1st wife for 5 years, and not been aware of the ‘pink’ epidemic within NZ, I was not prepared for what I was to experience in the family courts. The bias towards the mother having full custody of our children is an acute issue which allows decisions of law to be undertaken without true and wide assessment. Of course there are family court websites that state fairness and equality, but what is not spoken of is the well known outcome that is the father will not have the opportunity to parent under a joint custody ruling.
Lawyers are well aware of this, and their job is to tip-toe through the myriad of potential prejudice issues whilst subtly persuading the father that the outcome of not having your children full-time or equally is one that needs to be accepted.
The father continues to motor down a path where he pays significant sums of money to a lawyer because he believes that there is light at the end of the tunnel. What he doesn’t know is that the light is false hope. Only after re-mortgaging, spending the holiday money, taking out a loan and being told that they have no real say in the custody matter, does the reality of the situation finally dawn upon them. Once the father has spent his savings, the law can now be assured that he won’t dare confront it again. He is now chained to the decision.
Interestingly, there is one thing that family courts want from the father – money. Most fathers have greater earning ability than their wives. As such, the father are required to make payments deducted direct from their salaries. Just imagine what would happen if fathers could refuse these payments? It is necessary that fathers are tied into future payments so that the mothers, who now have full custody, can be supported by the state.
It is also interesting how children are becoming aware that having a child and being supported by the state is tantamount to employment – the difference is that the ‘work’ they do is bringing up a child.
A further interesting comment to be made is with regards to due process. By getting the father ‘across the consent line’, due process will have been seen to be done.
Not sure if changing my vote will reverse the discrimination. If it could, I would….
Comment by S.Weekes — Mon 3rd September 2007 @ 2:43 pm
All I can say is we that have put the alternative platform up there. If there is to be change it is up to the voter, yourself included.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 3rd September 2007 @ 4:51 pm
The individual voter can have more influence, if they spend time discussing their attitudes with several of their local politicians, well before the erection.
To get reasonable influence for your vote, you have to do the work up front. You might only get a few minutes, so be prepared with what you want to say.
If you show yourself as almost certain to vote for any party, then you have little influencing power. If you are swinging with a real chance of voting for that politician, then you have maximum influence.
Show the issues that concern you and how they will sway your vote.
I’m told most men vote for national interest, rather than personal interest. Politicians know this and this reduces men’s influence for the issues close to their hearts.
If you try to say with 98,276 words, what could have been said in 25…..
The vote is just the orgasm at the end.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 3rd September 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Well Murray. National in Waitakere has the interest of men and yes, unfortunately of fortunately, it is a she.
Comment by julie — Mon 3rd September 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Yeah Right.
National is not a male friendly political party. There track record and actions show it.
To claim there MP’s are male friendly is a bit like believing in a flat earth. You can write with a passion and say the earth is flat but its still bulls***.
National are a male unfriendly political party just like Labour.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 3rd September 2007 @ 8:31 pm
Ouch Scrap. But of course you know better. Why would the council know shite. And of course the community groups.
Comment by julie — Mon 3rd September 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Julie,
My apologies, but it is all the same fence: one side is painted red and the other side blue. The Femily Caught and Child Tax regimes will be at least as harsh with Judith and co in charge as they are with Cun[silent-T]liffe, Sue-the-slapper and the Anti-Clark.
Kerry,
Good to see you still pushing the message and a great message it is.
Stay healthy and happy,
Mark Shipman
Comment by Mark Shipman — Mon 3rd September 2007 @ 9:06 pm
Mark,
How can you say the above. You live in the same area as me. We could have got Judith to speak at our child support groups.
Did you know this?
Comment by julie — Mon 3rd September 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Does this mean that the interests of men is a lost cause? There must be another way. I find it hard to believe that our combined voices fail to carry weight and attention. Is the individual lobbying of MP’s a successful strategy? There must be another way….
Comment by S.Weekes — Tue 4th September 2007 @ 7:43 am
Some people may speak, as if they have given up all hope.
If they had truly given up all hope, they would not be bothering to take part in these discussions. Don’t let their pessimism stop you from acting, to make a better and safer world for your children and grandchildren.
Campaigns require energy in several directions simultaneously. Any one of these initiatives on its own, would fail to have any impact.
In the real world, where our children grow and maybe get lost or taken, it is action that counts, not words.
Faith, hope, charity… shutup and pass the ammunition.
Don’t hesitate..
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 4th September 2007 @ 8:37 am
I repeat National is not a male friendly political party.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 4th September 2007 @ 9:10 am
For the record Paul Bennet is the National MP for Waitakere.
Thanks to the website they work for you it is easy to see what Paula has been advocating in the house.
You can make your own informed decisions on how male friendly this National MP is.
Its not about what a Councill or vested interest community group, that draws large sums of funding from thinks its about what they actually say and do in the house.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 4th September 2007 @ 9:51 am
Actually, I meant Paula Bennett. I got the Judith bit from Mark’s comment.
I will look into this later. Thanx Scrap for getting this info.
Comment by julie — Tue 4th September 2007 @ 11:01 am
A limitation accepting that voting is the effective response to an injustice is not only a falacy, but it is especially popular. This is the principle by definition for the constiution of “the ewe”.
While I, by minimum, certainly appreciate the initiative of Bevan and Bevin’ and co:, that it is accepted as a limit by which to establish confidence, as S.Weekes, points out, remains the alarming fact.
If the menz movement is reasonable to complain that it is alienated, then surely it is because that alienation is a subscription of reasonable limitation. The focal points disassembling the cohesion of a movement, for its ability to place a vote, either in block or individually, quite indicative of the power of the institution’s (various) supply of confidence as the status quo.
If alternatives are not readily recognisable then this would be consistent with the power and affect of any causal institution with a responsibility in the disaffection of the primary body: in this case the New Zealand public. Language generated to manipulate conditions of such an environment (for example this week NZ First’s stratergy by term of “laughing stock”, are tools that once explored, themselves become mimicable definitions to institute subjective authority.
The demanding point in this, is whether or not the alternative applications are attractive enough to employ against a commonly exercised access to power and (then thereby) for such a necessity by commonality if that instiuted alternative, itself is corrupt. This develops the age old adage of “better the one you know than the other”. This constructs an imbalance in fairness where the system is developed and dependent on all alternatives being in (as) consistant conflict.
The answer is more simple. It is to broaden the approach through tolerance of alternatives, yet define each specific for its adherence to due process. This can only possibly be achieved through knowledge (education) and an ability to separate oneself from any function of alienation.
This ends with exploring the truths before making the decision and if not making a decision that is dependent on that truth then defining it as corrupt and therefore alienating of every other possible condition – if any figured what I said. Respectfully – of a fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 4th September 2007 @ 1:17 pm
One area of intrigue is why fathers are prepared to spend so much money on lawyers. This is not to say that lawyers are part of the problem (although they are the gatekeepers of the injustice), but to query the father’s sensibility. I do know from experience that the emotional and loving aspect that the father has for his children drives him forward, but I also know that fathers need to recognise the futility of their actions earlier on. I believe that fathers should undertake the reverse of their instincts, to fight and hold on, and allow mothers (and the children in their custody) to progress on with their lives.
Fathers should ‘come out of the closet’ and collectively form a movement, along with a singular voting pledge. Eventually, the stakeholders responsible for this travesty of law will come to recognise the power created by the unity of fathers.
Comment by S.Weekes — Tue 4th September 2007 @ 8:52 pm
The fathers and mothers who spend ridiculous money on lawyers, are those who haven’t spent the time to learn from their friends and family’s first hand experiences. At first, I could not believe what people who had experience with familycaught told me about it. (Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it?)
These are people who trust the cultivated public image of familycaught legal workers (lawyers and judges).
I fell into this trap myself, but awakened after only about $850 valueless expenditure. After testing several legal workers, all with a task no more complex than writing 1 (one) letter each, I could quickly see that the value for money was astonishingly small and the creativity in their advice was only mechanical.
I then found 1 lawyer who was productive and honest. He would give me advice in private, but refused to have anything to do with the familycaught directly.
A lady lawyer also gave me honest, but incomplete advice. Essentially, she told me that I had no chance to successfully address an abduction issue in familycaught. I pointed out legislation and she went silent. She refused to backup her advice with any documentary evidence. I was tempted to complain, but essentially she was being valuably honest to me, even if she refused to tell me the whole truth. Who could complain about this?
I still found it impossible to believe her honest advice. I did not pay a legal worker in familycaught, but went on to try. The lady was exactly correct in her advice!
She was in a conflict of interest situation, she could milk me or she could be honest and serve my interest. She was one of the two lawyers I have ever met who honoured their client’s interest before their own.
She has my strong admiration and respect.
All of the other legal workers that I have met, have always put their own financial interests before caring for their customers. I do know that it is a hard commercial world, but I have seen people who holiday overseas and enjoy many restaurants, bleeding parents who work hard and honestly for the money they use to feed their children and pay tax from their meagre income.
The recent NZ family legislation is poor quality. as a result of being passed without being subject to careful thought about how well it would work in practice and due to non legal worker Parliamentarians not taking enough care to protect society from the conflicts of interest legal workers (lawyers and judges) face. (It sometimes looks as if legal worker Parliamentarians wrote the Relationship Property Act to be unclear ie very low quality, to “create” increased “work” for themselves.)
The biggest problem in familycaught, is the employment of judges who lack professional level training as judges and training on relevant issues about parenting children.
In the end, you and I talk to politicians and through around our votes. Many citizens are pretty careless. Careless or not, we get better than we deserve from out politicians.
Voters – raise your act – stop wasting time complaining!
The public need to work out for themselves what is happening in familycaught. It isn’t all bad! Due to incompetence, it sometimes works well, sometimes poorly and sometimes disastrously. Like all classical incompetence situation, the workers are unable to see the consequences of what they are doing. You see this on Fair Go, the concreter who doesn’t know or understand all of the issues of laying good quality concrete. He lacks enough knowledge to judge his own work. A skillful concreter soon points out defects. In many cases, even another poor concreter can point out many faults. The ripoff concreter refuses to see anything wrong at all.
If you want to protect your children – work it out for yourself. Listen to your friends, before your problems are set in concrete!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 5th September 2007 @ 8:52 am
Scrap, comment 17.
Thanx heaps for the link.
Comment by julie — Wed 5th September 2007 @ 10:59 am
Reading these two posts culminate, I suppose the reasonable frustration of an individual who deliberately set himself apart from the Family Court, where its actions were, as they remain, blatantly discrimnatory, yet read that the principles of that discrimination, although constantly presented, haven’t yet been grasped by its victims: the public body of this readership.
If a group, any group wants an oppression to end, it requires a basic comprehension of what that problem is, in a way because of its “truth” is incontestable. The thing that is marketable in this highly charged argument and its ongoing debate is fact.
Anything that contests fact loses.
The Court requires a public confidence in the Court and is under a requirement to demand of itself that confidence. They will put people into prison before they dispense with that obligation.
This says; in its mentality, you lose I win. So we have a fundamental problem from the beginning when discussing the issues. The confidence previous to the complaints made by disaffecteds like ourselves (many there have been) was preserving an active discrimination against fatherhood.
They did it since making the FC, because that is quite simply what they all did and how they thought because it was what they were taught – no other reason: And, because that behaviour remains protected for its sheer volume, confidence in the Court is directly linked to preserving the credibility of the instiution throughout its history. We arrive at the place of “Family Court Matters”.
The defence of the Court is that it is not discriminatory or biased – which is just absolute rubbish. It has been an institution from its conception of patronising poppycock.
So the facts to exploit are those truths on that discrimination. Yesterday Judy Turner in parliament spoke on her call on that Bill – the FCMB. She complained that there was no good reason for Rick Barker as she claimed he has reject her demand on changes to testing regimes. Think about it. The legislation that protects a mother to interfere with information on the birth certificate is discriminatory and biased. Simple really and worthy of a complaint. It isn’t a condition or provision that can be protected under the Human Rights Act s.74 1 (a). So there is no defence by the judiciary or the acting administration (Rick Barker) in their functionality of purpose. They are talking rubbish – telling lies even if you like: Or I should be challenged.
Murray, you say “vote”. For who? Even the Republicans haven’t figured these basic problems out. It’s all just talk and no action.
S.Weekes, I’ve had these kinds of debates in various forms before and when individuals look at what I am saying, they test them and then eventually they agree, going away and carrying on with what they do, still talking but having forgotten that the principle of corruption about which they complain has already been exposed and they “choose” (the pill of freedom) to just carry on, happy. Happy as yesterday with all hope into tomorrow.
I could put this challenge into the Human Rights Commission, but I’ve already got one going and that is big enough. You could investigate it if you want – why not – you can read, surely?
As for what you say about finding unity, we already have it. It is our sons and daughters and our responsibility to provide for them. That provision, presently is focused on the dollar. That is because this is how a capitalist developing society has always operated. If you want it to change then it is up to you and sorry Murray – voting (presently) just doesn’t cut it. But we are one. We are all, if we should so agree of a fathers coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 5th September 2007 @ 11:30 am
Oh well,
spose I’ll just have to do it myself then said the ageing, little red rooster.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fathers coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 6th September 2007 @ 10:15 am
Yesterday,
in the House of Representatives, a most interesting exchange was undertaken. Chris Carter challenged a National member, Phil Heatley, as I remember of dealing in half truths. Up bounced the reply from the benches “Madam Speaker” – “if anyone is guilty of dealing in half truths it is that member” (hear, hear I went quitely in my mind, mulling over the history that I know of for Chris Carter directly misleading the public with his insignificant truths), and then came the reply of all replies. Michael Cullen – acting Attorney General, God of constitution and its currency of supply, eloquent to a t and directly on the spot, (or something like) “Madam Speaker” a half truth is not all of the truth and I suggest to that Member that he would be wrong if he were not familiar with such things”.
Now I elaborate this reply as being profound, because really that is exactly what is going on in the House of Representatives. They are all playing games with your money. There is not Honour in the House – it is a game.
And your sons and your daughters, not to mention you all, are the direct losers of that game. They need your cash to play. And they need losers to win.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 6th September 2007 @ 11:57 am
Earlier today,
I wrote to the House of Representatives, as I do. Or at least to a member from each party, or independent. The letter was directed to Judy Turner, Rick Barker and Rosslyn Noonan, who is the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission. I wanted Judy Turner to investigate the consistancy with human rights provisions in the Family Court Matters Bill where I allege that an inconsistency thereby being an UNlawful discrimination is directly determinable for the present practices of non DNA testing for parternal applicants, wanting to know if they are or are not dad. This issue is raised by her at present in the House, where she has complained in the House that Rick Barker will not accept the necessity of considering her complaint. I am suggesting he is obliged under s.7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to respond to her inquiry as to whether or not her argument is protected to that section, as it is the function of that provision. I have complained to her, that for its capacity in “half truths” it is likely that she will not recognise this stratergy, (as much as anything that it has come from me) and this makes her practice as dishonourable as that of any Attorney General from our long history, fiddling with the public interest.
If I do not hear back from Judy Turner in seven days, then I will have requested that my letter be accepted as a comaplint with the Human Rights Commission. I figure I am keeping them fairly busy for their (as) already limited budget. Hopefully Judy Turner will be able to put her honour behind her intention and her Oath before God and the Queen will be honoured with the “full” truth.
If I am wrong, then I will inform through this forum that indeed the provision of direct unlawful discrimination is a directly lawful discrimination against sex.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fathers coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 6th September 2007 @ 12:10 pm
While this is a bit off topic, for those following politics, where it is claimed by those followers that the real work is done in the House of Representatives, and for those who challenge Labour as a responsible government; today at question time, a rare variation from the ordinary dialogue by New Zealand First, demonstrated that the challenge on the ability of the acting Government effectively to maintain a ticket of confidence in its rule for that supply is not out of the question. Gerry Brownlee pounced on the opportunity seeking of the House, to vote on whether or not government could demonstrate that confidence. Of course there was objection.
Fiji is now under Marshall law.
In all there is a loud and demonstrably upheaving debate growing relavent to the politics of Labour. Parliament, at this stage, however, is not likely to step up to the dysfunction of parliament for adopting law as sexually discriminating, that; complaining about sexual discrimination against women and homosexuals, nor for its own racial discrimination and type casts of racial equalitiy. The focus, as expressedly delivered by Brian Donnelly, with succinct specification that the agreement between the party’s was under stress is enough ground I would guess to reform the patterns of gameplay and arrogance that have been exercised by practicing government. The fathers NZ movement should push, to capitalise on its present position, given the adversity and weakness demonstrated for these events to demand that gender equality now, in terms of social health and well being is comprehensively bankrupt.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 6th September 2007 @ 3:56 pm
While this is a bit off topic, for those following politics, where it is claimed by those followers that the real work is done in the House of Representatives, and for those who challenge Labour as a responsible government; today at question time, a rare variation from the ordinary dialogue by New Zealand First, demonstrated that the challenge on the ability of the acting Government effectively to maintain a ticket of confidence in its rule for that supply is not out of the question. Gerry Brownlee pounced on the opportunity seeking of the House, to vote on whether or not government could demonstrate that confidence. Of course there was objection…
Fiji is now under Marshall law.
In all there is a loud and demonstrably upheaving debate growing relavent to the politics of Labour. Parliament, at this stage, however, is not likely to step up to the dysfunction of parliament for adopting law as sexually discriminating, that; complaining about sexual discrimination against women and homosexuals, nor for its own racial discrimination and type casts of racial equalitiy. The focus, as expressedly delivered by Brian Donnelly, with succinct specification that the agreement between the party’s was under stress is enough ground I would guess to reform the patterns of gameplay and arrogance that have been exercised by practicing government. The fathers NZ movement should push, to capitalise on its present position, given the adversity and weakness demonstrated for these events to demand that gender equality now, in terms of social health and well being is comprehensively bankrupt.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 6th September 2007 @ 3:58 pm
New Age Fairy Tale but with no happy ending ?
Hubbie is good hubbie, he pay for all house, all food, all car in new land, him work hard for family
Wife work but refuse to pay for anything, she spend lots of money on pretty things, and telephone bill to people from old land
Hubbie argue back, Wife argue back
Wife violent as in old land, hits hubbie often when in rage, she say i kill you, you have no finger in night
Hubbie never EVER hit wife
Wife steal from hubbie as in old land
Hubbie goes to law, law say counselling, counselling
Law say to wife, “when hubbie violent next, call us, him bad hubbie”
WIfe and hubbie have small argument, wife drunk, wife call law
Law say to Hubbie, you bad violent hubbie, you leave for night, you go to hotel
Wife go to law for BIG LAW ORDER, wife say hubbie look at her in bad way, him very very bad hubbie
Son break arm at school in accident, go to hospital
Hubbie at home 2 days later wonder why no wife, no sons return from hospital
Hubbie received the BIG LAW ORDER
Law say to Hubbie you MUST leave home that you have paid for, must leave furniture you have paid for, you no can see sons any more
Wife get free money to fight hubbie in law
Hubbie must pay big money to law just to see kids for small time
(Later)
Law say to Hubbie, you pay for wife to live, we no pay nothing for her
Hubbie no can see kids, must pay for wife
Comment by swashy — Tue 2nd October 2007 @ 2:53 pm
How many Hubbie’s, how many kids, how many, how many, how many times?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 2nd October 2007 @ 5:34 pm
Erm, just me in this story, and 2 kids, but i guess roughly the same thing has taken place in many Kiwi homes, apart from the son breaking arm during the Order serving notice period (divine mood intervention ?).
I am new to Menz and all this, i guess all of you were in the same boat originally.
Of course when all this happens to you, you only start to see the unjust things that are happening to Dads. Having read Menz.org.nz and other sites, my conclusion is that :
1. THis is a phenomenon throughout the idustrialised world, NZ just tagged along, along although, some of the NZ Protection Order rules are extreme and simply unbelievable. It is not a local issue. Some countries are starting to change and are having 50/50 custody for fathers as the norm.
2. The system is corrupt, secret courts doing what they like, lawyers making $$$$$, but that are just the symptom. The government pushes Hubbies along the path of Protection Order, No Custody and paying child support. My conclusion is that simply fathers have not been trusted with the sole custody of the children, this mentality has been pushed for by Feminists since the 60s. Many bad fathers maybe cannot be trusted, but most can be. Many domestic incidents are due to the rage of the fathers faced by all this unjustice. I can imagine women are equally violent to men, it is just we are stronger than them.
3. The best way to fight this unjustice is to prove that Dads CAN bring up their kids well, but also pressure must be made to bear on the government who has made us all so angry with the injustice of it all. The Fathers4Justice campaign in England was brilliant. Any violence would be very counter-productive.
Yes the tide of feminism must be turned back, and Dads are making headway now
Comment by martin swash — Wed 3rd October 2007 @ 7:42 am
My comment was to compliment your writing and to concur, recognising the problem you describe as a well worded account of many events, involving countless children and as a work load for every father.
I had an interesting opportunity yesterday being given a lift hitchhiking from Sanson to Wellington, after helping Noelle with her Court case through the weekend and early week. I was fairly exhausted really, for having worked through the last two nights on little sleep as the time available to complete the interlocutory application ticked down like the decreasing fuse of a societal bomb. Not only was I tired but because of the intensity of the argument that attempts to draw the Domestic Violence Act into the jurisdiction of the Property (Relationships) Act, as first and paramount priority, requiring, where there are incidents of domestic violence associated to the relationship, an effective platform fgor these to be countered before the property matters proceed, my mind was alive and working to its most concentrated state.
The man who picked me up was in the practice of relocating his children to their mum, where they had been with him and they were growing into the realm where their mum’s influence was more the necessity for the girl’s needs. In my opinion he demonstrated the detail of masculine discipline that is tend to be less observed by women. We talked about this through the journey, and for the factor of interest in his circumstances in the challenges I am presenting in New Zealand the conversation was engaged and detailed comprehensively to “sorting it all out”.
Men have been left behind as not being so important in issues relative to family or social matters. That is because women host the human life form of a child from their body. It is the natural role, and it is thereby reasonable to expect that this functionality must be coupled to a duty to provide an environment that is directly nurturing of the child. The male role, is obviously different. Women, of the aggressive feminst variety have claimed that this observation is improper and that women should not be so bound to this role if women are to be considered equal to men. This argument on their behalf has been empowered with actions like abortion and access to contraception. The banner of justification has been this word “equality”.
As male, it is difficult not to concur with the idea that what the woman should want is what the woman should get. After all it is they who will accomodate our offspring. Without the woman to whom to make love and create new life made in our own image, we would be powerless to survive. And it’s a lot of fun making love. This means that we protect our women. They are our fun as much as they are our necessity.
As a male this thinking to me is fairly basic and natural. I would be interested to read if their was a view that countered it.
Yet what does counter it is how we live. The question then should be “why is that?” It appears to me that the reason is because the women who would institute a variation to the natural rules under the banner of wanting equality, have distorted the terms of that equality and ignored the necessity for provisions of social equity. With this comes the respect of men. Without men they cannot function either. Yet recently, this has been contested and its practice excused by applied law allowing a single woman or two women to have children without protecting the child born to the influence and developmental association of the male. On this site we would argue that that male should be the natural father. This argument is supported by international legislation titled the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 9 of that convention is very, very, very specific.
The problem becomes clear. The kind of feminist view that would dissestablish as reasonable the right of association a child should have with their natural parent, creates the child as a commodity of the woman’s want. A father is no longer necessary in what is deemed to be a modern society. We argue that this isn’t right. The feminists reply that it is the law and there is nothing that we can do about it.
Fortunately for us men, and those others who would support us, in New Zealand this is not the case. Our then Attorney General margaret Wilson made the law on the Care of Children, which directly accomodates this manipulation of the law improperly as according to her obligation under s.6 and s.7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This for us provides an exceptionally clear instrument on how to compete with the extreme feminist view that in thier Women’s Republic of New Zealand view the modern child has no practical need to either associate with a man, and much less any demand that their is a need to develop as associating with their natural dad. The difficulty that we have is that this instrument is very heavy and very hard to use. People do not want to use it because it means that all of the damage that has been done by the rise of feminism may have to be undone.
This, obviously encompasses abortion and contraception. It encompasses morality and ethical behaviour overhauls. And as my newly found friend and I were quick to agree that such a task is a minefield of moral conjecture, and ethical argument.
So this poses us all with a problem. It is easy to agree that extreme feminism has done to our society inexcusable damage. Women are allegedly happy that they are now equal and becoming more so by the day. Child care centres are full and the economy has benefited markedly because there are so many more people in the workforce.
Yet our violence has risen. With this rise in violence comes a greater intolerance for its event. With the Internet and other tehnological improvements in communication people are better informed, or more knowledgable (whichever of the two is closer to the truth), so the critical capacity of the public is also increased. CYFS are required to do more and there is more to do. Everyone gets tired, some get exhausted, many fall down.
In the above account, I made two references to problems that are difficult to include in the region of finding solutions or sorting it all out as I put it: Abortion and contraception. They are difficult to sort out because they are directly related to sex. Women have rights which we need to protect because we have to and we want to and the circle starts over again.
While I figure I have a few answers and figure that a few readers have a few good answers as well, what isn’t clear is how those answers will be reasoned into the way to cope with the problem when those who run the system reject to listen to what Margaret Wilson did and why she did it. Those people, like National would as well, will protect their ability to control these issues for their democratic election. They will comment that they have the authority and the duty to exploit and abuse as they see it is fit to exploit and abuse. While democracy is protected as it is applied that will be the view that is supported by the mainstream public and the public interest will be to agree to be abused and exploited. We will just call it something else.
In brief there is no wall of ignorance strong robust enough to keep this information about the neglect to observe due process by Margaret Wilson from the tomes of history. The problem we have is that the longer it takes the active administration to recognise that the application of bad law into mainstream society is directly improperly and contestable unlawfully damaging children, is the register of how much damage for that ignorance will eventually be done. The longer it takes to register and compete with its negative affect, invariably the more damage that will have to be accomodated in reply will occur.
At teh moment the menz movement is still fairly weak. There is a growing trend in society to recognise that men too are important and need to be protected from abuse. The abuse is that women who would advertise a view such as “Womens’ Republic of New Zealand” are exercising in a violence that is predominantly found and protected in women and by women.
In this we find the answer. And Mike and I were celebrating this point each in our own way with the extacy of the “Eureka”.
Men like me cannot fight women like Margaret Wilson. We aren’t women. Women need stronger women to pull them down when women are behaving badly.
So where are those women?
Until women recognise that their battle against domestic violence has nothing to do with fighting the men who commit violence but to directly fight the kinds of violence that women use in their domestic relationships to compete in that relationship, we are going nowhere but down the gurgler. Cuddling up to men to fight with them against the oppression of feminism doesn’t cut it. You have to fight your own battle. Optimally some women will read this and agree, recognising that they have a task to achieve that connot be achieved by men like me. I have discovered the instrument – Where the COC got put in bad. Women have to wield its power. Women have to say to teh government and to the media that it is not OK for a woman to have a baby without protecting that baby to know dad. Women have to argue the point about sex and show responsibility to sex rather than blaming men for how they need to have a greater responsibility for their sex.
If they do this then and only then will we begin to compete with domestic violence.
Great poem Martin – sorry to hear that your son broke his arm – but reply that if things are ever to get better then women should break a leg.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 4th October 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Benjamin,
Great comment.
Comment by S.Weekes — Fri 5th October 2007 @ 7:02 am
I am sure that Iran and Muslim countries treatment of women justify themselves by quoting “The Natural Order of things”.
Political parties who are on the side of men tend to be the right wing ones, i am sorely tempted to vote for them now.
I think that in the future, the right balance will be that like womens’ rights in the workplaces, equality in law but not quite equal on the ground, will be replicated in the family, men will get equal rights in law but not quite in reality.
You seem to be a family lawyer, Benjamin, do i really have no chance of winning even 50% custody even if my wife is violent and dishonest ? I will give up now if that is the case. What should i do ? Just leave her to it and accept being a weekend dad ? We emigrated to NZ from Belgium, where 50/50 custody has just been made the law of the land (well while Belgium still exists , that is)
Comment by swashy — Fri 5th October 2007 @ 8:41 am
Thank you S.Weekes.
Swashy, no I am not a lawyer and in regard to answering your question on reasonable expectations on 50/50 equal shared care, I am less experienced on how this could be achieved from your circumstances, than others who could write to or may read from this site. If you email me on [email protected], I will provide you with the email address of Alan Harvey from the Union of Fathers. He may be able to give you advice that is directly acceptable to the Courts from your circumstances. You would be doing well to put your confidence in that advice: he is a good man.
The advice that I provide you is different and it is composed from two different areas. The first is the emotional, describing a mind set and the second is from my present and developing experience (with growing confidence in my own capability) before the family law Acts and their various administrations.
Point 1: No – don’t leave her to it. She is damaging everyone. Simply because society has allowed itself to neglect women’s violence and take the easier and more manipulative method to excuse women from taking an account of that violence does not justify you to abandon your sons or daughters because it is just too hard to confront. That behaviour is the domain of cowards, and there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of cowards who would prefer to abandon the truth in favour of being certain that they get paid.
The problem you have when you rise to this challenge is as you observe, and is the reason for the existance of this website and those many others that exist. The problem is advanced and extreme. This means that your facing a battle where as soon as you open your mouth to speak you are disempowered because of your sex.
I have suggested above that a society that functions in this way, with this conditioning to women’s violence as if it is not necessary to curtail is an act of cowardice, and request of you to reject its condition, if on the grounds that the battle may just all be too hard. Stand up man, protect your children.
So that’s the first part of point 1. If you fall over we lose another soldier and the truth slips just that one more infintisimal notch away from the truth. The second of point 1, is a little more ugly for those of us who read this site.
In the case history’s before the Family Court there will be reasons that can be established to support the use of the Court and the practice of preferential treatment showing bias toward women and neglecting fatherhood. That is, as I wrote earlier because it is a more natural condition to expect that the woman is better built to raise the child. If we say otherwise, then we begin to tell oourselves that men are equally built with women, creating an argument that breastfeeding is not a necessirty for a child where it is involved in circumstances of separation. Judges, in my opinion have shown and exercised in this bias and let it become the predominant truth in judgements because they want, subconsciously or conciously to protect women to raise the child: “Mum’s the word”. I have not said that mums are better at bringing up the young. I have said they are better equipped and that that condition is natural. It is reasonable to observe that judges would tend to adjudicate under this influence of natural conclusion, whether or not any would agree that its value is a commodity to consider in cases of separating families that have produced children.
To compete with this as we do the menz movement has to reject this behaviour as deplorable, because as we know only too well its condition has hurt countless fathers and countless sons and daughters. I argue this condition has been allowed to explode over families because when extreme women in feminist clothing took to the streets arguing for greater rights, they forgot to recognise that they too were capable of extraordinary violence and that that absense of conscience was in itself the greatest example of women’s violence that we will ever get to see.
The capitalisation of this deplorable ignorance is as I complain easliy identifiable on the introduction of the COC (the Care of Children Bill 2003). It was a licence for women to breed without having to pay respect or tribute on behalf of the child to dad. So what I am saying, is that our more natural condition is to protect women to raise the child, but that this view has been deeply distorted because society has been made to respond to the underthought bias prevention weapons unlawfully discriminating women demanded that men recognise as they stormed their way into society.
They have wrought incredible damage on children and families and your circumstances are directly victim to that damaging oppression. Our problem today is that women still want it both ways. They want to be considered equal to men, exercising in their freedom of choice yet still demand preferential treatment of the gender biases that we have come to expect from the courts. This is detailed with a refusal to recognise that women’s violence is equal to that of mens’ but that it is different. They look in the mirror and say we all see beauty, and they look at men and command that we all see “ugly”.
So at the point of emotional, for having separated you have no absolutely no choice. You should champion for 50/50. Optimally in my view, money would be taken out of the equation. Optimally in my view children would be taken out of the equation. At the point of a separation a highly skilled individual would work with the family establishing a plan on how to separate. All areas of complication would be traversed and the only time that a Court (not including Properties (Relationship) Act 1976) would be used when that plan, one that included in account the interests of the child was in the process of breaking down. If that threshold was ever reached then it would be CYFS who took the situation to the Court. Look at that: no lawyers – no cost – just straight forward prepared and careful consideration for the people invlolved. Yet these aren’t your circumstances and they are still only the target that I am aim for, so they are musings and not much practical use.
Poiint 2: No, don’t leave her to it! Again I come back to Alan Harvey. Get in touch with me and then get in touch with him. Fight this thing to the best of your capability. You know guys have bled on battlefields aplenty to protect you to your freedom and when it comes down to your turn to stand in battle you are prepared to turn your back on that fight? If Alan cannot help you, then ask him who can, if who can cannot help you then figure out who can, if you cannot figure out who can then you are left with “you”. You can help yourself. If you email me I can give you some tips and links on how to take the battle to the front, but essentially I describe it below.
2, a. What do you want and why do you want it? You want 50/50. Is this because your former is violent? If so detail the violence.
We come to the first problem. You are not saying the right things in your email if you are talking about violence. You have not exercised the law as it should be exercised. If you want to fight this on an issue of her violence then you need the protection of the Court to back you up. This requires and allegation of her violence to be tabled before the Court in a way of a protection order. The protection order will include the children. There is no point of you even considering your ability to be successful with an argument on domestic violence if you are not prepared to exercise that arguemtn as it has to be exercised. You would be dreaming. So if your argument does have something to do with domestic violence: write it down. It is a very powerful argument. If you are not violent then it is an exceptionally powerful argument. Under s.5 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995, if you prove violence you will force her under that jurisdiction to attend whateve programmes are agree will help her overcome that condition. If you have got this far, then it is because you are thinking. Your allegations will be well thought out and you will have the ability to back these up with evidence. Once you have got yourself organised into this condition, you are already strong because you are prepared to step into the relationship she has with your child in an extraordinary fashion.
2, b. How does this violence fit into your 50/50 plan? Build it into your plan. How will she be able to progress in her relationship with the child on a reasonable basis if she will be violent to the child? Now your really thinking. Establish your conditions around how you think this will be achieved. Read s3. Interpretation of Domestic Violence very carefully, especially the section that deliniates psychological violence involving children. If there are incidents of domestic violence that have exposed the children to that domestic violence and you haven’t been the primary aggressor of that violence then measure the strength of your case on that (or those) incidents. Now ask yourself, how strong is my case on domestic violence? You’ve just done a good deal of the work required of alawyer. You have the basic principle accessible to you that the lawyer would have to demonstrate before the Court. Only you know how strong your case is: Are you telling yourself porkies?
2, c. Your problems are now administrative if you could conclude that you have just removed the lawyer from the equation. Alan Harvey could help you with this and so can I.
So with respect – yes the eastern belief system recognises that women have a natural role that should be protected by law and possession that is not shared by western values, and there is conflict between these predominantly geographical views, where women outside the eastern values have championed their freedom to such an end that they can determine on behalf of any child to be born that the child’s rights and necessities to the security of their masculine (optimally biological father) developmental influence are void.
The difference between the two sets of principles is simple where the women have exploited the unique presumptions to peace of the Christian belief for the Word of Jesus Christ to entitle homosexuality to advance over men. This is very unfortunate for the Christian belief and sad to see where in some parts of the Muslim belief a woman could be stoned to protect a natural demand that she as a woman must remain, caring reasonable and fair. Quite dotty.
You, for the deaths of thousands have the opportunity to demonstrate that earned freedom by bringing your former wife to account for her violence on a child. You should use this instrument, the Domestic Violence Act to stabilise your desire to have a presumption of equal shared parenting into your separated families life. Go for it: good luck any help I can give you is yours to ask for.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 5th October 2007 @ 11:52 am
And Kerry is still flying the flag
Ration Shed – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sun 15th June 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Great stuff?… I personally want to thank you for writing this article. I am just very impressed with your work. I gained a lot of information on this matter. I really happy to have gone through your article. Please keep up the good work.
Comment by SEO Article Writing Service — Wed 10th February 2010 @ 5:11 pm