MENZ ISSUES

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

Protection Orders

Filed under: General — UF @ 1:21 pm Mon 24th September 2007

Intersting to see Henare and Brian Garder ‘snickering’ when the suggestion that women sometimes make things up to get protection orders is raised.

This is ‘Eye to Eye’ from about three weeks ago

http://tvnzondemand.co.nz/content/eye_to_eye/ondemand_video_skin?tab=ONDEMAND%20NCA&sb=date-descending&e=eye_to_eye_2007_ep22#ep_eye_to_eye_2007_ep22

9 Responses to “Protection Orders”

  1. Benjamin Easton says:

    UF,

    the library machine doesn’t permit me to follow your link, which is unfortunate as I am calmer now than when I watched the original programme. I didn’t finish watching, Willie Jackson had built my anger where he virtually castrated men in the vital region of the interview – saying, I presume to Brian Gardner and inclusive of Heather Henare, “so men have no rights in this then” concurring for the delivery and its follow through that men had no rights.

    It was the bombshell of discrimination and decidedly inconsistent with what I thought to be the practice of balanced media representation. It was further unfortunate because I had earlier been left with an impression from a Radio NZ National report that Maori groups were working into an initiative of supporting the condition of fatherhood, and it was encouraging to believe that the road of inclusion wasn’t lost to a national psyche blaming the bloke, by ostrasising him for his behaviours.

    It is as if in perpetuity that those who portray societal views reject to accept that women have greater access and administer in a violence that is considered invulnerable. Even in our own groups we read that men are focused on wommen’s violence when it is of a physical (and rarely) or sexual nature. Yet we have no provisions to cope with the violence of circumstantial manipulation. It is simply as if it doesn’t happen. If it happens, then it must be not reported as violent because it is too common to control. Doesn’t this then indicate why we have so much violence? Because there is a component of that violence that is left unchecked and allowed to thrive.

    If women begin to take a responsibility to recognise that they can and do manipulate situations to accomodate their want that is and maybe detrimental to other humans, then maybe we will eventually be able to accomodate the problem.

    But how presently do we recognise that this violecne is being practiced and accomodated in our society where Willie Jackso stands up Eyer to Eye and slags off men as if they are justifiably the folk on whom we have to focus if we are ever to address our collective problems. It is just stupid. It is just hypocritical.

    Where are the courses to train a woman out of alienating her children to the father separated out from a marriage? They do not exist! Why don’t they exist?

    Because women are too tough: Because this violence has become too practiced. It is an art.

    My case, my former wife purjers herself and teh judge asks her to leave the Court when I am at teh point of getting her to explain exactly what teh evidence is against me that says I was in any way violent to her. And he blames me for asking these questions. He blames me for calling this kind of behaviour because it is allowed to be left unchecked in our society an emergency.

    While I appreciate that Willie won’t be doing anything about this in a hurry, I hope Judy Turner will ramp up her firepower in this area. It’s not the males’ domain. We can take care of the physical violence, once the emotional domestic violence that isbeing inflicted on our families is seen to be a problem. Otherwise our guys will just carry on being thugs. Why not? The hope of help is choked whenever they may scream.

  2. julie says:

    UF,

    It seems easy to speak of things that are pro male, well sort of if you do it in a roundabout way. But if you attack feminism itself, watch out.

    The loyalty to women’s rights in this country and even when speaking of other countries is unbelievable.

    It doesn’t matter what you throw at them. It may be something from the net.. which is as far as they are concerned a load of crap. The net is BS. And there is no point speaking about something in the herald for that too is a load of crap. And even if you get books that back you up, the writer is in question.

    The way I see it is that as far as feminists are concerned there is no truth left. I suppose that may be because they know that their own work is based on lies.

    The only person who I think is on to it is Angry Harry. Arms have to be twisted before anything will change.

    Anyhow, I did not know which film to watch from your link. Can you help me out.

  3. UF says:

    It should pop up in the window to the right of the programme archives – you have to wait for the flight centre ad to finish then click on it.

    Otherwise, its just TVNZ on demand, go to eye to eye and it’s:

    Episode 22, 1 Sep 2007
    “Willie Jackson asks if the law more lenient on men who abuse their partners, than men who…”

  4. Benjamin Easton says:

    Again fair enough Julie,

    but again the primary point is overlooked where you have not caught up with what I said. The answer to your observation on my behaviour was already incorporated into the text of my reply to Darryl, Alistair and Paul R. It is in my reply to Scrap previously, Murray, David and yourself.

    I defend myself agaisnt allegations that I may be defaming, I defend Jim Bailey and Peter Burns against behaviour that simply does not register with what it is we are standing for, the very hard work we have been doing and the severity of teh slope we have to climb. And you laugh. You suggest Peter will laugh. You suggest that from your experience this could be funny and that Peter may laugh at its end where your observation recognises the frivolity of the circumstances.

    A male parent’s corpse because he has killed himself because of the damage that has been done to him, is not funny Julie. I am not sure in your circumstances where you are one of the protected gender if you have arrived a to a place where you wanted to kill yourself because of your circumstances and how difficult they are.

    You laugh at me for having stood in the court and proving I was right and teh judge kicking the proof out of the court leaving the questions I was asking unanswered, lost to the jury, lost to the truth and lost to justice. You laugh Julie. Previously I asked you in response to comments suggesting that your contribution was valuable to what it is that men were trying to do to “get real” – and later commented on “your laughing out loud” – and “not taking the jewels” – “stop tinking”. And still you haven’t figured out what it is that you are being told. I am no different from when I met you at all. I am serious Julie. I am very, very serious. I am not funny.

    In my recent court proceedings I said to teh jury that there was an emergency in this country and “that I am that emergency”. This is true Julie. Men have been badly discriminated against. Countless children have had the meaningful contact with their children alienated, lost by force into a chasm of hatred and spite. You haven’t seen the truth of this Julie. You have read and responded to the headlines.

    There is only one law Julie that can justifiably claim its right to have authority over me Julie and I have asked constantly to be charged with that law. It is s.81 (b) of the Crimes Act 1961, Sedition. I invoked this law in September 2002 breaking 3 eggs on teh Family Court and distributing material over the internet, a fax copy of which I sent to the Waitakere Police Station. I was jailed for Trespass and the present politicians are trying to have the law Sedition repealed. They have to repeal the law Julie. It’s called checkmate and someone has to claim that position.

    The reason I hog the site, as I do, as you suggest I do isn’t because I want to Julie, it is because if we are ever to break the oppressive damage that is being inflicted on a New Zealand citizenship, for quite some undefined period, then someone has to take this kind of action. If Pete laughs Julie it won’t be for teh same reason that you may think he is laughing.

    Howeve, offenceaside, and none taken – you still a wonderful job by challenging that oppression even if you seem not to fully have calculated just how deep and oppressive it really is.

    Cheers,
    Benjamin.

  5. julie says:

    Benjamin,

    Your comment was meant for another post. But still. You make me out to be someone who finds all this funny. Not so.

    But since you wrote something encouraging at the end of it, I am happy.

    I do understand how frustrating all this must be for you. Well, I try to understand. And I know Jim isn’t too happy that he is not being listened to. I hope in time that things work out for you. I really do.

  6. Frank & Earnest says:

    Ex: “I may have sexually abused our daughter”. Evidence? Judge: “I find NO evidence” Allegation made up? Well, either that, or (and the femi-nazi will no doubt take this view) I was so damned incredibly good at it that I got away with it, leaving no trace whatsoever. Wonder why the ex didn’t want to have little Janey examined by a doctor?

  7. dad4justice says:

    Protection orders killed my mother and allowed both my young daughters to be sexually abused .
    I will get even !!

  8. KellyMac says:

    I’ve tried and tried but the video won’t play on my computer. It just loads forever. No ads or anything. Just “loading”. Is there a transcript available? Not that I think I’ll be able to get through it – from what I’ve read in these comments I think the top of my head will blow off before I get through page 1.

    Feminists will not change until they are forced to. We cannot concern ourselves with trying to change them. Instead, we must reach those whose minds are open, who are not so enmeshed in the ideology that they are able to see reason and empirical reality. Only when the majority are fighting for change will the feminist leadership be defeated. Truly, feminism is a cult.

  9. Benjamin Easton says:

    Pete,

    you will get even when your circumstances have been measured befroe an authority that is as compassionate as it is fair – no sooner and no later, no matter what you do. Yet if your demand for that jurisdiction commands your sense of fairness then it will be simply about yourself, and that demand to get “even”. Even and fair are two different paradyms.

    Optimally to remain consistent with this post UF or someone with better access to the web will link this morning’s first interview on Nine to Noon. It deals directly with women’s violence – and to quote a comment from Catherine Ryan as succinctly as I can paraphrase: “yet, women’s emotional violence is a behaviour since time immemorial”.

    Simply – we folk should be well pleased. The guests were one from America and one of our own “kiwi – born, bred (I presume), tough and real”.

    Last night on TV3 an excellent piece was on the news on a single woman looking to have 11 babies married and connected only to the benefit – when asked (Why?) she replied as best I can succinctly quote – “because I can”.

    Hopefully, both of these advances into the realm of arguments the menz movement is tyrying to present as challenge effectively can be made available.

    In the RNZN interview I thought there was one point that needed greater emphasis for future recognition if women’s violence as the American woman determined is to be countered against, where presently it may simply be an advance into a behaviour that women recognise needs to be treated as a problem without effectively delivering into its causal status – is that the response women have to their violence is to support each other asking “how will you get yourself out of this problem?” What I know as male that men say in response to a problem is: “this is how you can get out of the problem”. If women advance without effectively recognising that their violence for its type is as damaging as any male violence, yet cure it for their ability to support themselves out of a problem, then the functionality (or non chaos) skills of their gender may tend to want to overlook a need for the practical resolution and direction of the male gender to observe the problem for what it really is. While it is that I am male and tend to suggest what the answer may be, it was included in the detail of the interview as consistent to the interview the day before on children’s violence in school. The answer is in the protections of the child. What does the child need? After all, we were all children once – weren’t we?

Leave a Reply

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