We’re marching for democracy again
A lot of deceit has gone on over the Electoral Bill but it is from the outside made to look so that the opposition to Labour cannot use their power of money.
And yet at the same time Labour is using dirty political tactics to win votes. This post is only touching the rim. Their tactics are very well planned.
Also of notice is the newspaper article on this bill ….
and the street protest. This is a must to read and notice the placards.
You can check out more if you wish by searching the HeraldNZ newspaper with the words electoral bill.
When 2000 people marched down Queen Street on 17th November the Prime Minister dismissed it as, “Not indicative of a groundswell.”
What do you think about that Aucklanders?
If you care about free elections – whatever party you support – come to the Auckland Town hall Saturday 1st December from 2pm and march down Queen Street at 2.30pm.
And show Helen Clark, Winston Peters, Jeanette Fitzsimons and Peter Dunne that elections are not owned by the Government, but by the people.
All power to the voice of protest on Saturday. It’s been a week of comprehensive mail back from politicians this week. I meet with Marion Hobbs at 2.30pm. Optimally all of the necessary issues to be debated for a fair democratic election will be open for that debate this election around. If this is the case the justifiable conditions of sovereignty itself may be fragile as the Electoral Finance Bill has proved testimony – once coming under such scutiny.
This is to say that the general question that may be asked is: if there is proof that this information on politicing and fiscal resource is hidden from the public view, then what else can we expect to find that has also been hidden?
What are you saying? Are you saying that the Bill will not be passed?
I am saying that there is significant pressure on honesty, where parliament has hidden from the public view truths about the rules to which we are led to believe they are supposed to adhere. The Hollow men and the Pledge cards are direct deceipts of breaking the rules. More pressure in these areas may well uncover more rules that are being broken. I site sovereignty. The issue of the Care of Children Bill is constitutional. What else exists and what protection does the public have from independent bodies exercising in that independece as if it means an independence from the public interest?
I hear you Benjamin. You are doing great work. I will go and see Lyn Pillay. I am interviewing someone from the HRC on Monday.
Then I will make an appointment. It is the least I can do.
A report on how the march went will be great. Lynne Pillay is sensitive to a barrage of questions delivered to her by Chris Finlayson (Deputy Chair) of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee of which she is the Chair and Act who capitalised on her inefficiencies letting the Electoral and Finance Bill slip through the Select Committee without the proper scrutiny and public access being paid full and due process on that legislation. They raised, just under the surface serious questions on her complicity with any corruption occurring under the bill. Laila Harre has also thrown aspirtion on Lynne Pillay’s abilities although recently on Radio NZ National separated (LH) her view that the select committee process could be corrupt. One thing I couldn’t catch up on in the house recently where Winston Peter’s threw ice on the “in crowd’s” views on the EFB and CF and RH for their challenge on LP, where he said that eveyone in the House knew why they were challenging LP as they were. It had something to do with a court case pending. Well that loosely could have been a reference to Taito Phillip Field and the case of corruption and me with my pressure on MW and Lynne Pillay for improperly dropping my challenge for MW to make herself appear before that committee to answer why she had stuffed up the COC.
The behaviour of the politicians in the House aside, Lynne Pillay has acted innapropriately to my submission on the deletion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by Doug Woolerton. She as the Chair decided that their was not enough public interest for DW’s bill to be engaged any more. But that is clearly wrong. Because in the submission was my submission proving on behalf of the public interest: Corruption. There should be no confusion about what I am saying and what it means. When you go and see her she is protecting some pretty heavy material that may eventually go before a Court (which one is completely beyond me at the moment) and she would have to answer for her actions.
So after all of that my advice on what you can talk to her about from the father’s perspective where your advocacy is for single parents, is does she support the statement that: “children need their fathers”. Get her to say that and she joins the growing list of politicians who pretend that is what they stand for yet act differently. Get her to say disagree, then let me know, cause I’ll write to her.
The key here is the Human Rights Commission. Rodney Hide brought them to the table to override the removal of citizenship rights for how the EFB was being manipulated into law. He stopped me by this from putting in my complaint to the HRC on the COC. If that goes in and its unlawful as indirect discrimination agaisnt fatherhood is denied then really there is no other choice but for the walls of corruption to be dismantled by the public “groundswell” becoming agitated. The HRC Chief Commissioner is on side and has to be. When I met with her in a just off heated exchange I left the meeting room telling her that i was about to publish that her position was that of “children do not need their fathers”. She said that was not right so I reingaged the discussion. At its end I asked her directly: Do children need their fathers. She replied “Children need their fathers”.
So when you talk with these people the Chief Commissioner of the HRC expresses a different point of view on the acting Labour (if not parliamentry view) that fathers are an exploitable as an expendable commodity. Because the HRC is now directly linked to the EFB you have leverage. Just remember: Sons and daughters need their fathers: and you’ll be right noone in this country, in the end, will have the working authority to trump you!
The walk was great. It was estimated by the police that in excess of 5,000 attended. I got to walk with Dave L and Kerry B and Brett.
That was fun. They were yelling out things and I was yelling out things. Who needs a microphone?
Kerry was funny because he was yelling out, “Smack your Grandchildren. It will do them the world of good”. People laughed at that. It was neat. We yelled out lots of things while holding our signs and somehow we started in the middle but ended up as one of the last people to finish.
The speakers were great also. It was asked how many people were on their first protest and more than half of the crowd had there hand up.
People have had enough. It was clear.
I watched the news item on TV1. The crowd were placid and calm, which likely reflects the middle class nature of the group and the absense this time around of the major agitating principle last time in the Springbok tour, where the thuggery of racial discrimination was manifest in police who were lining up with their brand new minto bars (the batons were named by consensus where John Minit was the most vocal protester). This time the thugs are different and it isn’t the ordinary citizen who is under such a threat so the “groundswell” of violent oppression isn’t so visible. The oppression is in the mind and as Jim Hopkins as poet lauriette (I think that’s how you spell it) as: Jam Hipkins wrote, in Friday’s Herald “pigs on the line”, where pigs can now fly the danger is far more subtle. This is why the Terrorism Supression Bill is so much linked to this legislation. It is all in the platform of how evolution into an eloctronic age is ahead of how the public consider they are being mistreated. This is why the removal of the laws on Sedition is so pointed at how New Zealand is advancing to disestablish the affect of the Crown and replacing it with the values and aspirations of the American model of capitalism. The Oaths Modernisation legislation makes ground open for a Moari King or Queen.
Now many will say this is all fine and exactly what is required. Yet how many will consider that it is not? How many are interested in subsribing forst to the principles of their core belief and being true to hte reasons as why they are out protesting, not capitulating to the more recent weapon of “life is too easy and challenge is too hard?”. To this end, watching the news braodcast the as delivered as fact that alarmed me most was that the organiser (I’m slow on connecting names to their conceptive ownership) Not Bob Mc Croskie, stated that 3 conditions of the HRC submission were not taken up. I am sure he is right, and I am fairly familiar with the points of public rejection, even if I haven’t got around yet to reading the text of the proposed legislation, my worry is the emphasis on his observation. This is on how serious the neglect of those principles is considered by the HRC. The most aggravating non cooperation with the HRC suggestions that I am aware of is the period of limitation where advertising values directly crediting or discrediting any party policy or practice as directly associable to votes is active. Additionally I am not sure how this revenue is calculated and from what period its cost is measured. I might for example, if I wanted to spend say $2 million dollars on an advertising campaign tomorrow and then reignite that campaign a week before the election with some clever marketing and use of words.
Additionally I am concerned – and this is real concern that the HRC may impliment a policy that covers only those human rights that are reasonable bacause that is what the populace figure is fair and just – because it sounds fair and just. Act replied to a letter I sent and outlined their views on the bill. In it was a portion that recognised the freedom to express ones views as consistent to the base of capital and that this would be compromised in the conditions set in the bill: which after all is the justification of the legislation. Act are saying that that principle in itself is a breach of the legislation. What this creates is an interesting challenge back to how we measure human rights and how those laws that are inconsistent with their principles are measured. S7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 requires a report on the legislation to be tabled on the introduction of any bill. Chris Finnlayson in the House recently suggested that Michael Cullen who is responsible for that obligation as the Attorney General hadn’t tabled any such legislation. I haven’t looked to see if this is fact, and to be honest because this demand under the Bill of Rights isn’t made audible in the chamber on the introduction of the bill, and I continually reject that this kind of research should be the task of a political busker who doesn’t get paid, finding that impediment in the system by saying it is inconsistent with the public’s freedom not to report those reports in the House on the day they are introduced, urging a select committee to undertake this fundamental change better to protect constiutional arrangeremnts of the public interest, is a task the I should not be forced to undertake answering a philisophical report to assimilate a paid public political party’s take on a fundamental breach of human rights – if any quite get what I mean.
However gripes aside: The primary point to this phase of the comment is that Act reckons that $ are equal in an election and shouldn’t be restricted. They are very likely to have a point because a limitation has to be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. My point of reply would be then why not make $ equal with an equal amount for every party: as small as that thereby might have to be? Go the Republicans!
The more fundamental point though is that this variation fro the HRC having its influence deeply disaffected is considerable and needs to be viewed. IN order to do this and to keep the activity alive so that there can be another protest, Chris Finnlayson needs to bring this issue, (if he would so dare) of how s.7 of the NZBORA as protective of the citizens rights is managed. The alternative at its end if politicians cannot take control of the issue themselves is that I will table my complaint before the HRC. This is not a threat as it has always been the case. The point most important to consider is just how powerful is my complaint? The second consideration is, does the present system have the cap[acity of service to disengage its legal power before it is rought to bear? That second consideration is the problem that is just too hard and the PM’s are simply not prepared to face while everything else is going on in their mirrors.
Sorry that was a typo where John Minto was the protester not John Minit.
I find it hard to follow all that you are saying because I don’t follow things the same way you do but I understand you are writing this more for someone else than myself.
My gripe is not about the money. I won’t be spending huge amounts of money for my political views. My gripe is that I cannot write about politics on my website nor discuss matters in a crowd nor debate issues for 11 months during the election year. Political parties can slyly do something like use the education system to collect votes of the 17 year olds now that they have given them the right to vote in the next election. They can start educating them to vote their way from the beginning of high school where the greens have a loud voice with ‘saving the planet and environmental issues’ and Labour has ‘feminist issues and social issues and poverty, plus, plus’.
NZ is so close to Sweden it is not funny. In NZ and Sweden you cannot buy the text books your children use for school nor can they come home to be scrutinized. Parents are being cut out of their children’s lives and the Smacking Bill by the greens and Labour is only one piece. People are waking up to what is going on and getting organised. This threatens the feminist and communist agenda.
That is against my rights as a human being and I am going to do it even louder now. I do not know what they have planned for us that use expression or speech next year. Maybe they will have to get really tough and start throwing us in prison.
I intend to hand out pamphlets and all sorts now. I have never done this before and I think there will be others planning the same.
Even if the Government thinks that they should make a law to shut up one group speaking up being the Bretheren they have attacked ALL New Zealanders.
It is too easy to see the consequence for the Government on this. One of the biggest mistakes any Government can make is to force people to DO or NOT DO. People don’t like it and don’t tolerate it. Just look at the Rugby stadium? They told Aucklander’s that they were deciding what we were going to do and not do and then the people got together. Who won?
These politicians are far too cocky. They need to go. They do not represent the people anymore.
The way I see it is that they have been slowly manipulating us into slavery over the past decades. But for some reason they have to change these laws as quick as possible to finish us off. The terrorism bill is a part of it to. None of these laws can be changed back. Not even National can do it. They do not have the support in parliament. Only if they win by a huge landslide can they change anything Labour and the Greens are doing. IMO
Yes, in a large part I did write to others in a reply to you.
I said to National that they should keep up with what I wrote. I can advance to say I appreciate Simon Power’s letter of support in regard to stance on Noelle’s and for the FC assistance’s fight against every extension in legal manipulation of monopoly by judicial (as naturally devolved to the legal minions)independence over the public interest: Yet more simply, for the point in your letter extend that the direct requirement of that citizenship’s interest (and I hope to have been meticulous) of demanded obligation, is to bring the human rights inconsistentcies into check using the as present democratic processes. There should be no doubt that there is no argument.
An argument gambles that the election process shall not be naturally subverted for its abuse, (that of possessing inability) fail checking itself in non justiciable abusive capacity. That capacity is one of unconditional prerogative, as licence for, or access to the public demand against remedial constructions that challenge such principles of monopolistic power. This is to say that if Chris Finnlayson is to meet with the presently, as I write, stipulated condition of public health factioned to Marion Hobbs, then his game should be conditioned, as to disengage from the urgency/emergency of the overarching effects scoring such affect. This is simply my observation on how democracy has been corrupted and what I do to bring it back into alignment with the public interest. CF can do what he wants, but he would be far better placed to figure it out early. SP’s words are well considered and will be utilised to their fullest and first should a reluctance of the encumbant power to abuse section.7 of the NZBORA 90 still exercise freely in a manner that cannot comprehend that that abuse was well checked on July 1st 2003.
Rodney Hide’s done well to stay the catastrophe and put forward a case that as well needs to be looked at by the HRC.
How I see these replies that eventually must relegate from a function that is inconsistent with the objective principles if not the purpose of due process, of New Zealand law is a good thing and a necessary exercise if the functionality of a democracy from a country that established those principles undermining its justifiable as supposedly demonstrated weapon of rights over evil through good faith, is that that instrument (because good is not a weapon) can be used effectively under consultation to mutualise its consensus renegotiating the purpose, process and cause. But that’s not the EFB. That’s the TTOW: so its still a way off.
Where you come back into it is: go the Republican’s if that’s how the victims of family law abuse, who wish collectively to retaliate can find their ground. That they using this instrument haven’t figured their way around the curve of TTOW, creating right angles, is really quite THE problem for their future, I can promise.
As single parents advocacy goes get stuck in. Get your points in early before the legislation takes hold, if it does. Retract in the campaign back to your points on the I told you so basis. We told you so. We told you so. But before you do that and before tomorrow afternoon go to Radion New Zealand National Website and Mary Wilson’s section. Listen to the article on single parenting and recognise that the policies that are in place by Labour are solid. These will be the cornerstones of the economic campaign. That will give you a bit of time to figure out what you tell the public in your advocacy pamphlets.
Please do not give me anymore suggestions. Please do not direct me.
I am a funny bugger. I listen more to people who walk the talk. I do not find your ways attractive. I have to be honest and say that I listen more to females and males who have made it in life than men who are not caring for their children nor working.
Yet I understand that you want to fight for something you believe in. And I give you respect because you have that choice. It is not for me to tell any father nor mother that they should be a mother nor a father.
You do not fight for the ordinary person. You fight for yourself and your own ego. Yes, you sacrifice but then you didn’t do what the most of successful people have done. The most of successful people know that you go bankrupt at least twice. 3 times is normal. You choose to change the law to suit your needs where most people change themselves to suit society.
I will not follow you Benjamin. I was raised in business. I have owned business and I work a business. I don’t look to force my views on others to suit my needs. I am working class. And I truly represent people if I have the opportunity as how they want to be represented. I am not out to destroy feminism because it doesn’t suit some males.
That’s all good, yet for the primary mistake. I’m not changing the rules to suit. While you haven’t picked up on this then it creates the reason why I feel a demand to direct you. If you reject the objective, which here you dismiss, then you live by the subjective, that which is attractive. The subjective is easy to protect.
I hear the objective loud and clear. You are talking about a law that says a father is not needed to raise a family. This law was made so that lesbian families could have children.
But your situation makes your words hypocrisy. I won’t listen to wisdom that has no actions. When you have fixed you own situation and are raising your own children then I believe you can tell others how they should do life. But until then you sound like a dictator to me.
“Do as I say, not as I do” is not something I can promote. But I do know that your children as well as many others are going to need their fathers at some stage. I just hope you can be there for them when they need you and be able to put them first in your life.
Judging me and saying that I go against your words because of comfortability etc is untrue. Waitakere is trying to get fathers involved. Many single mothers would love to have the fathers sharing the parenting. Lyn Pillay will be aware of the work Waitakere is doing.
To ask her to make a law to get fathers involved will not change the situation. All it will do is stop lesbians from having children.
The FC will give shared parenting where it can. But it can’t force parents to get along and work as a team. Sometimes this is more dangerous to do than give one person day to day care and hope they can work it out in time.
Lyn Pillay is not silly Benjamin. I cannot treat her as such. And plus which single parent am I referring to when I say fathers are needed? Is it you and your ex? No, it is not. You can work out a way yourself if you wanted to so you can share parenting.
I am sorry to have to be so blunt with you Benjamin. But I have to push you back from dragging me into this. I am so sure you can find fathers in groups and men in groups that can promote this. Or you can find other women in other groups that have nothing to do with the partners of males to promote this.
I believe you have a few groups in Wellington to promote what you say. And I am sure the law change can start on the groundswell of Wellington. It doesn’t fit well up here in Waitakere. The groups and council are working on the solution in another type of a way. First get families together and then change the law is how things seem to be going up here.
The last posts that you have put forward on the issue of whether or not you should challenge Lyn Pillay have been much better and stronger than former posts. The facts are now better described as you see them. The fact for you is that I am being hypocritical, that I am telling New Zealand and others that would read, that children need their fathers, and you reject that I could have any possible justification to be so exempted such a serious and strong demand. You reiterate that I seek to change the law.
I reply: I don’t need to change the law. I need to have those, like yourself, who are energetic but comfortable with complacent law to begin to take a real and truthful account of what I am saying. You say, I judge you when I say that it isn’t me who is hiding from the truth.
I reply: my comments when they are directed at you when I say you are refusing like millions of others to tell the truth. You prefer to hide behind the deceipt because it is more comfortable and easy to control. You are loud, boisterous and energetic within a group of people similarly comfortable with complacency and deceipt and that makes you refreshing to them telling them again the same kinds of things that they like to hear, that keeps them comfortable, feeling appreciated and able to relax.
I advise you: that if you wish to achieve in the aspirations of your statements, then you need to better apply yourself to the values and truths of those aspirations, where single parents, (mum and dad) need the other partner mum or dad to be better valued. I add that the Labour government and probably all government and bureaucrats reject that fathers need to be part of this formula they being comfortable to be so complacent. You reject my comments criticising my values in protest as against yours where you say you can comprehend what I feel forced to demand of your knowledge.
You don’t know what I am saying at all Julie. CYFS have the job to protect children not the Family Court. CYFS do not have the history, resource or will better to protect children because they are too comfortable as made complacent for a view that arbitration, adjudication and punishment are the necessary instruments in a capitalistic economy that best services the community. You concur. So to do is a lie. A child’s currency is love not money.
You advise me in reply, saying that the Family Court are doing their best building toward cases of shared parenting. You further suggest that if you challenge lesbian (I’ll add) and single women from having children from having sons or daughters without providing the child with their inheritable and natural right to have a developmental association with their father then all you will do is to stop lesbian women (I’ll subtract) from having children.
I reply: This is not true, I do not complain about lesbian women or single women having children. I complain about direct unlawful discrimination agaisnt children. I complain about indirect as unlawful discrimination against fatherhood. I say that the laws where directly broken and manipulated to protect this direct and indirect abuse of citizens. When I allege that you talk past or miss the point, you demonstrate in your concise reply a direct example of that. You are protecting women as single parents to be single parents. Your mind set has little to do with single dads or sons and daughters. They are a necessary convenieince to furnish your views of fairness and fact.
You challenge me for my contact or lack of contact with my children, on top of having demonstrated in your conversation that your views are predominantly set to protect women within a forum set in gender discrimination to protect men, claiming that my sacrifice is shallow and unnecessary.
I reply: CYFS have the job to protect sons and daughters from women’s abuse where women can refuse to face facts, demanding instead to be given freedom to be equal using the femily caught (I’m being deliberately rude). The Family Court is easier to manipulate. It is an array of complexity for rules over practice. I am a rules designer. I am very good at what I do. There is a breach in teh practice of the Family Court rules and this breach is not only being manipulated but it is being exploited. Sons and daughters are the primary capital of currency. It is easy to make parents part with their money when what they want to do most is to protect their sons and daughters to their loving association. The LAW says that this association is a right. The practice that can so exploit, says otherwise.
I’m not saying anything different in my texts Julie. I’ve been doing this at teh cost I pay for seven years now. I’ve heard what you tell me from my best friends and my family. I’ve heard it from New Zealand’s top politicians and from its top judges who had to lie to disguise that this is what they had a legitimate right to say. It’s all a lie Julie. Your protecting fiction and saying it is “cool”. It’s not cool. My son and my daughter have been stolen.
I amnot being aggressive and I am not being angry. I am advising you again that your objective responsibility has been overrun, to a will, for whatever reason with your subjective cause. As I said earlier you are one of millions. Why?
Lynn Pillay is the instrument of this capital advance of social engineering in Waitakere – your town. Waitakere is a very powerful town with many very powerful people and institutions of commanding authority. Wellington, presently is where I am placed. The most powerful people here are in parliament and government is the most powerful institution. That, is where as my writing is testimony is where I place my energy. In Feilding I am directly challenging the Courts. Their poor practice too, has now been comprehensively undermined. I’m not asking you to do or not to do anything. It will be better for you given your reply to think of what I have asked you over some period in a different frame as better to justify your situation. This can help you to decide without me in mind as directly challenging you as if I have any authority over the things you say and do. It is a question to which I need no answer. Do you believe in protecting the truth?
Good for you for taking things well and good for for putting in 7 hard years. I am sure you have made progress along the way and by the sounds of your writing you will make more.
I don’t know what and who to believe half the time. I only want to help get a men’s affairs for the younger guys and would like to see a law made, “Woman assaults man”. I understand that this is not what others think is a good idea and I understand others will want to do other things. That is fine with me.
How about we all just do what we can and leave it at that. I said I will see Lynn Pillay but I doubt it will be what you want to tell her yourself and I am sure that very few people in Waitakere will be doing what you want. But I am sure in time you will receive more support from people and one day you will have an army to work with.
It may be that I am wrong with what I do but these are my decisions, my words and my actions. All I ask is to share a website without being told what to do.
and well answered, in my opinion.
I don’t want to see a men’s affairs for the younger guys at all. I want to see them growing up to be independent of such nonsense, as I want to see them clear of a nonesense that sees two rules (1) male assaults female and (2) female assaults male.
I figure, in doing what each of us can: is that you keep with your energy of supporting single parents, drumming up for their support, as you are so clearly able but being cautious that that energy is true to thier needs as absent of the glamour of single parenting. Each child is entitled to be protected to a life of quality association with both parents.
My suggestion calculates that a tolerance for same sex relationships as an answer to single parenting is not a part of the solution to supporting single parents out of their circumstances, unless it does not involve children.
Because both you and I are advocates of bodies that involves the wellbeing of childhood and I have absolutely no intention of leaving any subjective principle that directly discriminates against a child as a functionality for its existance any rest to remain in power. If your advocacy crosses into this advocacy as I suspect for your replies then our fundamental practice of protecting children under the guise of sustainable parenting is directly at odds. I have no problem with sharing any forum in regards to this, but you should learn more quickly than you have that you don’t have the objective control of your argument to criticise me on the sacrifice I make on behalf of my children to protect others, where your subjective argument protects other women to directly abuse children and indirectly as unlawful discriminate against fatherhood.
I don’t believe this is telling you what to do. I believe I am pointing out to you thast which you are not doing very well. And you are more energetic than others.
You continue to go on how I support single parents. And yet you are a single parent yourself. And so is every male that is on this board separated from the other parent. We also work with step parents, foster parents and those who partners have died.
How do you think we were able to hold a meeting for fathers? You do not have to have day to day care of your children to qualify for our group.
And the most important thing you need to know is that the majority of parents in our group share parenting on some basis. It is only parents who have the other parent overseas or parents who have violent partners that are not sharing the children.
On my website you will find information on shared parenting and on relationship break-ups and how to cope with the other parent dating before you and other helpful information.
I don’t know where you get this idea that single parents are choosing to have children on their own and hate the other parent.
Look over http://www.singleparents.org.nz Check out the page, “About us”
I’ll have a look at the website when I become human again. I won’t be human until I have ground the monster by gender or sexist discrimination to the ground. If any want to slaughter it, that is their prerogative. My job is just to bring it to a halt. I think I still have alot to do before that is the case.
No problem with your post, I’ll even concede to the degree of underestimating your effect, but for the telling tail of the last concept. Where did you drag this idea of “hate” in from? I certainly cannot remember using any phrase that even comes close. I shy away from the word evil as much as I can and only tend to use the word good when it can be described to be consistent with honour, consistency or non violence, and dread the thought that any parent should be destined to a condition of hatred after a separation.
If you haven’t concluded accurately what I have said as sadly it here appears, then I have to reiterate to balance the first concept of your last sentence. Read back. I figure you just haven’t picked it up. The COC let single women have babies on their own. No dad. Just them. Instant eggs from the freezer like the COC’l doodle you. Single parents guaranteed and in premium stock once the social engineers have their full and wicked way with the men from the DNA. Women’s rights you know and all that stuff… toodle pip. Chow.
I don’t have anything to do with this. The Auckland’s women centre may have something to do with it. We are not a women’s group. We are for both sexes. And we do not lobby with women’s groups.
But we do lobby with Family First because they are for families and have accepted single parent families as a family. They are against the same things that we are. Single parents are a target for CYFS and state control. The state is putting pressure on single parent families and Family First is against that. If Family first gets involved in your fight then we shall through them. Maybe that is who you need to target for support instead of us. I do believe they have something going on about this. Which will bring us in.
that’s a reasonable end from your point, yet creates a demand for your consideration. This is “have accepted single parents as a family.”
What I complain about is an abuse. At present both your organisation and Family First, as you have alleged is their stated policy are in a position of accepting an abuse of the fundamental family being mum and dad and son and or daughter. NGO’s are legally obliged to observe practice that is consistent with the legislation of the Human Rights Act section. 21. A failure so to do where accepting as unlawful as indirect discrimination against fatherhood, has nothing at all to do with me and everything to do with your organisation. Operating with a policiy that is consistent with direct discrimination against children is worse. Your comments that Family First will set the pace has nothing to do with the practice of the law investigating whether or not your organisation is running a policy that is inconsistent with the Human Rights Act. Your from Single Parents Trust. Bob Mc Croskie is from Family First. I am and have for a long period informed you that your policy is directly inconsistent with the Human Rights legislation. Your replying to me that you have no idea what I am talking about and I should either talk to Lyn Pillay myself or get some advice from Bob. It’s not my job. It’s your trust. I am doing my job. I am stopping child abuse that your in the process of condoning because you won’t recognise it as child abuse. It is crude abuse. It is nasty and vicious. If it is deliberately manipulated as part of a social agenda then it is “sinister” (nasty word that).
My job is to catch the monster. I’m doing a good job. I really hope that you and Bob and others of the social contingency who demand you show resepct for families can do the same. I’ve warned everyone. I have decided not to put in my complaint on the COC legislation as yet. Hopefully a few more people SHALL open their brains as to what I have been saying. It is going to take a while to establish that the old bastions protecting women’s violence are vulnerable as subjective, not objective. The lack of objectivity means that eventually they shall be dismantled.
Kia ora, me ka kite ano e hoa.
Do you do this to all groups or are you just targeting me?
Best you make official complaints against our group now. Write to the Charities Commission and the HRC. I am 100% sure we are not abusing children nor discriminating against fathers.
But if there is any possibility we are then it is best our group be shut down immediately. Best you now put actions to your words. You will be doing the right thing if we are guilty.
This discussion is over now.
You didn’t get what I said. No matter.
Very very few get what you say when you write your thoughts out.
Simple words in simple sentence, treat all as an eight year old.
Kindest as always,
Hope the IRD went well – sorry I didn’t make it. As you will have read, you know how busy things are. Just been offered a massive fully holiday at the end of all this so something to look forward to I’ll warrant. Stop off on my way up – sometime.
I am not letting Benjamin off that easy. It won’t matter if he writes simplistic.
I get what he is saying. I agree with him.
My problem is that he is “suggesting how I should do things and what I should do”. He sees that I have a single parent trust and that this is a good think for him to get his message across. He sees Family First has a good group and can get the message across also.
I understand that. And I don’t mind seeing a politician. But I kow it doesn’t end there because this has been going on for ages. Benjamin would like for me and my group to be at his side in all that he does. One day it is writing to leaders, politicians etc, next it is to contact groups, next is council, next is … and the list goes on.
I have my own goals and our group has it’s own goals. And did I mention kids to finish raising and jobs to attend.
I would like for Benjamin to back off. I have done heaps already that he has asked for and I also do things Family First asks for and I did things Jim asked for.
I would like to put a post up on this site and make a comment without Benjamin telling me what to do. Is this too much to ask for? And besides, It is impossible for me to please Benjamin anyhow. I did not have him as a speaker. I do not make appointments for him.
My turn is over. Benjamin needs to find someone else to direct for a while. I need a break from his work.
Paul wasn’t talking to you Julie,
He was talking to me.
You say you support single parents – then support them.
I want you to support them by recognising they have difficulties not that their circumstances are tolerable.
While you do not work in this area you can damage single parents.
If you want to support single parents by being nice to them then do it by being nice to them and not by being political.
If you want to be political when you don’t know how to be policitical because you don’t understand politics: where our discussions end with you saying you simply don’t care, using my family circumstances and my philispophical direction as reason to justify you being right – then I ask you respectfully – back off.
In your last post you said children don’t need dads plain and simple. If you didn’t say that then go back to school or back off.
Otherwise, you energy is fantastic, you are boisterous and encouraging but don’t for a second think you are an advocate for blokes.
Benjamin, you are doing it again.
I never said children don’t need fathers. And no I will not go back to school. And no I will not back off. It is not your site Benjamin.
All seeing Benjamin, you don’t even know what we do.
All I asked was for you to stop telling me what to do and now this. So it must be that as long as I do what you want all is sweet but as soon as I stop doing what you want the whole country should ignore me.
Sorry Benjamin, I have never spoken up for blokes. They have their own voice. My whole talk when I represented a part at a meeting was on how it was for our community group and what I had read off sites. That’s all I ever do. I only pass the word on. I don’t make the words. The blokes make the words.
I am pleased that you are not talking for blokes. Our young men do not need support for a Minstry of Men’s affairs – unless that it could be proved that such a need for discriminative policies are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, which is simply ridiculous – thank you.
I do believe that our young men need to be coaxed into adulthood and freedom through the use of “their” plan where between the ages of 16 and 18 they will be assisted by the State to get their lives into an independent order. I believe this is an issue for youth rather than simply for young men, but if you should comment on this independently as a woman, where the idea might be alienating for women, then I should recognise that I would be being presumptive, turning such difficult gender decisions over to your natural by gender experience.
You said you support the single parent, as recognised by your NGO policy, constituting a family and that this by 100% is not child abuse. You said you know what I am saying. You say I am telling you what to do. I tell you that legally it will be deemed to be unlawful as indirect discrimination against fatherhood when a complaint (should it – may in perpertuity it never have to be tabled) is upheld against the Care of Children Act 2004 which directly authorises a single woman to have a child demandingly removing from the child a protection of a developmental association with their natural dad as abuse. I say this is fact and you are in breach. You say I am terlling you what to do. I say in reply have you seen the advertisments on television:
IT IS NOT OK.
Apparently it is by your policy, and apparently you still want to think that you think children need their dads. I say you need more education if you think you really think that children need dads and that singularly is why I am telling you what to do. That is because you say one thing but you cannot demonstrate that statement with the facts as consistent with your policies.
You are simply not listening. It is either OK by your trust for a woman to have a baby deliberately removing dad, as consistent with your Trust’s policy or it is not OK for a woman to have a baby removing the dad.
I retract: I will ask you to do something rather than tell you. Julie, please wake up. You are asleep at the wheel. It has nothing to do with me. I don’t want it to have anything to do with me. It is about you. You are dreaming.
Asides this, your energy is exemplary. It seems to me from the perspective of a father’s coalition that you should keep up those energy levels because if noone in society exercises at that level then everyone else would simply fade away to apathy – wouldn’t they?
(of a) father’s coalition.
Apparently I have to tone down how I talk to everyone as if they are 8 years old. Otherwise I will be banned.
The Care of Children Bill is not constiyuted properly and it is a direct abuse for its discrimination of children, indirectly discriminating against childhood. That’s a fact – worthy of a novel or two, or more from the future on New Zealand history.
That there are people who might close their eyes, ears and minds to their abuse and watch it advance on them wondering how and why suddenly whole generations and populaces are consumed by its erosion, I never thought could possibly be the problem for the whistle blower. Especially when the curruption and erosion in New Zealand at least, is proved to be of men and I am ostracised for making such comments on a site dedicated to masculinity and its protection.
And there is a question about keeping on topic. We are marching for democracy again. Well until we get rid of this restrictive dimension that is directly curtailing the freedom of speech at its own will and pace, then yes – we are, in unity and in the step of goose.
Sorry a mistake, I meant fatherhood not childhood!
I do not want for you to get into trouble. If you were to be banned it would be like having one of the fingers cut off the hand. I think we have a really good team in this and I know we have all become close.
You are a very passionate person and have taken on a very big issue.
I do get what you are saying. I really do. And I think most people you discuss it with get it. (toning down would be letting it go after they get it and don’t want to join in, I would think)
It is so tough that people are backing away from it. The leaders are lesbians themselves and they are going to do everything in their power to shut you down and anyone else who touches this issue. And what makes it even harder is that the law already exists. You are trying to change a law back to something. That is a radical change. Like bringing the Privy Council back.
I will lose everything to touch this issue and I doubt any politician in their right mind would go near it either. It is a death sentence today. I do not want to destroy my group over this issue. Because that is what will happen. I could speak up but nothing will come from it. You have been at it 7 years and have not been able to even get a politician to speak of it in the house. Not a radio station nor a newspaper.
You are asking too much from me. That is the bottom line. I hear you go on about it constantly and ask every member who is active to do something about it. Can you understand why they can’t? Can you understand that everyone including me is trying to do something that we think we can change.
You ask for me to do something about this and I am saying ‘No’. ‘No’ for today, ‘no’ for next week and ‘no’ for next month. And ‘no’ up to the elections at least.
Whether you throw all the reasons in the world why I should be responsible to say ‘yes’ I am not going to do that. When Family First does it then I will do it. And that is all there is to it.
A little bit of respect for my stand would be appreciated. Having my energy out there is better than not have my energy out there.
Before you come on and tell me that it doesn’t matter what anyone is doing on any subject in the interest of men, women and children or families, I want to say first that I don’t care. I don’t care if my work seems pointless because this law is in the way. I still at this stage will NOT touch it.
When a discussion goes on this long, with both sides somewhat talking past each other, then it is worth taking a wide perspective and looking back at the dynamics. Otherwise, such a discussion might go on forever, without ever reaching a valuable conclusion.
Are the two people failing to appreciate the other’s values and motivations?
Are the two people not listening to what the other is saying?
Are the two people failing to respect the other’s freedoms, to decide their own actions?
I have quite a problem with voices and psychedelic signs flashing in my head. Usually its quite entertaining and enjoyable (there are very few advertisements and I have learned a bit of french), but its sometimes quite hard to tell what is real and what is only in my head.
I’ve noticed that familycaught judges also make decisions, not particularly based on the information presented in evidence before them, even despite the evidence presented before them.
The MERRIAM-WEBSTER dictionary defines “psychosis” as:
fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and behavior.
Its really quite funny how the legal workers and judges always seem to come out on top, so they are quite focussed and successful about protecting their personal “paramount” interests.
The communication and reality issues only seem to be a problem, when it comes to protecting the children’s interests, or the parents of these children. Certainly, the legal workers lose interest, when the children’s inheritance has been “exhausted”, in their vulturous direction. The communications are fast, efficient and reliable about when the finances have dried up. This selective competence feels quite shizoid at the time, but its sooo practical.
People who keep going back to familycaught, again and again, seem to me to have a pathological gambling problem, or is it just some psychosis? Maybe I’m really not in a position to judge?
Its said that 10% of the population have psychiatric problems, I know it affects more than 10% of me.
Julie has made reference to taking care of children and jobs.
To me, these are important connections to reality, or at least someone’s reality. To destroy these functions, is relationship vandalism at its ugly worst.
To pull myself back together, after facing these black forces, that prey cloaked under secrecy, has been a slow difficult achievement in my life. It has taken more years than I care to admit.
As Glen Campbell asked, “show a little bit of kindness”.
All help will be gratefully accepted, MurrayBacon.