Men and Domestic Violence
Hans made a good point in one of his comments stating that the Domestic Violence laws in New Zealand are biased against men.
Canada has a solid Men’s Movement and since the 80’s have tried to find fairness for fathers, men and boys as well as stop the bias and hatred feminism tries so hard to hold on to. But after all the years they found a way to gain care for male victims of DV.
October 14th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks
California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence services violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights.
The taxpayer lawsuit — Woods. v. Shewry — was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence.
In 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly dismissed the case, ruling that men are not entitled to equal protection regarding domestic violence because they statistically are not similarly situated with women.
Today the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held:
The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.
To add, I found an interesting October 2008 pdf file written by the America Society of Criminology about the backlash of men’s advocates and funded by Health Research Centre on Violence Against Women, University of Windsor.
This article examines government and advocacy group texts on three recent Canadian domestic violence policy moments. Drawing on governance, feminist poststructuralist, and social movement perspectives, it examines men’s rights advocates’ and feminists’ discursive actions and their influence on officials. The research aim is to explore the provisional, intrinsically incomplete, and indeed questionable success, to date, of Canadian anti—domestic violence advocates’ strategies and tactics of resisting men’s advocates’ efforts to delegitimize gendered constructions of domestic violence. At the level of political action, the article contributes to efforts by feminists internationally to safeguard protections and supports for abused women and children in a political context marked by the increasingly prominent influence of men’s rights and associated antiprogressive backlash.
So here is another success .. this time in America.
California Court Bans Public Funding Of Women-Only Domestic Violence Services
Posted by Ampersand | November 18th, 2008
In mid-October, the California Court of Appeals ruled that California cannot legally fund women-only shelters.
No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or
activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.[…]This article shall not be interpreted in a manner that would adversely affect lawful programs which benefit the disabled, the aged, minorities, and women.
The plaintiffs, a group including men who said they had been abused, and a teenage girl who claimed her father had been abused by her mother, sued. The appeals court found in their favor, writing:
The greater need for services by female victims of domestic violence does not provide a compelling state interest in a gender classification. As Connerly makes clear, equal protection is not concerned with numbers. “In applying the strict scrutiny test, it must be remembered that the rights created by the equal protection clause are not group rights; they are personal rights guaranteed to the individual.” (Connerly, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 35.) Arguing that a group of people (here male victims of domestic violence) is too small in number to be afforded equal protection is simply arguing “that the right to equal protection should hinge on ‘administrative convenience.’”
You need to visit the sites to read more.
Any thoughts for New Zealand?
We need a constitution. In the mean time you could look into the Bill of Rights. I can’t see how it can be justified to have a specific crime/charge of male assaults female. That law certainly doesn’t stand up to UN conventions that NZ has signed.
Comment by Dave — Tue 25th November 2008 @ 1:58 pm
someone just has to have the balls to
kill a few family court judges[this threat violates the rules of this site – refer to comment #13 below]… end of story..Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Sun 30th November 2008 @ 9:24 pm
#2 What a sad comment. I hope you remain so gutless hiding behind your pseudonym that our Judges have nothing to fear. This kind of comment just makes us all look stupid.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 30th November 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Everyone is entitled to a personal view, there is no “us” in this world we live unless you are part of mob mentality, it is a metaphor i have expressed, nothing more…, as in – may they meet an untimely death by whatever means, albeit accidental or otherwise is not significant, they are evil, period. Regards, Colin Brown
Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 8:09 am
ALAN – I Believe You Are Too Sensitive For An Open Discussion Forum..
Some Words Of Advice..
Well it’s one for the money, two for the show
Three to get ready now go cat go
But don’t you step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes
You can knock me down, step on my face
Slander my name all over the place
Do anything that you wanna do
But oh oh honey lay off of them shoes
Don’t you step on my blue suede shoes
Well you can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes
You can burn my house, steal my car
Drink my liquor from an old fruit jar
Do anything that you wanna do
But oh oh honey lay off them shoes
Don’t you step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes
Blue, blue, blue suede shoes
Blue, blue, blue suede shoes
Blue, blue, blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off my blue suede shoes
Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 8:53 am
FAMILY COURT VERSUS NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT (Go Figure…)
According to Scott Peck, an evil person:
Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency
Is unable to think from other people’s viewpoints.
He also considers certain institutions may be evil, as his discussion of the My Lai Massacre and its attempted coverup illustrate. By this definition, acts of criminal and state terrorism would also be considered evil.
Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 9:49 am
Colin, or poster #2, I formally reject your encouragement to violence, and I strongly recommend that others here keep to the law in their statements and actions. I agree wholeheartedly with Allan, a very wise and knowledgeable poster. You clearly advocated violence towards judges, then when this was challenged you claimed it was just a metaphor. It most certainly was not a metaphor and I’m sure no Court would see it as such. It’s important that you remember we live under draconian “anti-terror” legislation that would allow police to target all who contribute here on the strength of your stupid endorsement of violent responses. You can be sure this political site is monitored by various agents of the state. While many of us will understand your anger against the system, we all need to exercise some restraint to protect each other and the movement.
With your post you have scored an own-goal against this movement. One might suspect that you are a saboteur from a man-hating feminist group; your post certainly sabotages all of our work.
Please take responsibility for your statements, and please exercise some care. If everyone who has posted here were to write half a dozen lawful letters next year to influential people, or submissions to select committees in parliament, or even letters to editors of newspapers, this would forward the aspirations of this movement considerably.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 9:51 am
That is not for you to decide Hans, you are nobody. I will answer to John P. only, so please do not waste your time with your futile words by joining alans mob mentality, i have the right to freedom of speech and i shall use it even if you can not comprehend its meaning, you are only twisting my words to the short excerpts i have made, again stop being so sensitive to my comments that purely are legal in a democracy, you are only causing sensationalism by your comments, you fool, we live in real times.
Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 10:02 am
John Potter, I ask that poster #2 be either warned or banned from MENZ. He has advocated the murder of Family Court judges, and this exposes us all to a very real risk of state intervention. After feedback he failed to withdraw his comment or to show any recognition of the risks he is exposing us to. I do not wish to associate with such terrorist mentality, or to risk having my home searched and my computers seized by anti-terror police simply because I have also posted here. I strongly recommend that you consider your own position and that of the many hard-working contributers, as well as the role and future of the MENZ site.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 10:22 am
someone just has to have the balls to kill a few child molester’s… end of story..
(while this may be an unsavoury or extreme view, it does not demand censorship)
As in.., don’t take these remarks literally.
Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 10:32 am
Hyperbole
The earliest known printed reference to the actual phrase occurred in The Washington Post on 4 March 1916 (page 6):“CURIOSITY KILLED THE CAT.
Four Departments of New York City Government Summoned to Rescue Feline.
From the New York World.
Curiosity, as you may recall–
On the fifth floor of the apartment house at 203 West 130th street lives Miss Mable Godfrey. When she came to the house about seven months ago she brought Blackie, a cat of several years’ experience of life.
The cat seldom left the apartment. He was a hearth cat, not a fence cat, and did not dearly love to sing. In other respects he was normal and hence curious.
Last Tuesday afternoon when Miss Godfrey was out Blackie skipped into the grate fireplace in a rear room. He had done this many times before. But he had not climbed up the flue to the chimney. This he did Tuesday. Blackie there remained, perched on the top of the screen separating the apartment flue from the main chimney, crying for assistance. Miss Godfrey, returning, tried to induce her pet to come down. If you are experienced in felinity, you know that Blackie didn’t come down.
On Wednesday the cat, curiosity unsatisfied, tried to climb higher–and fell to the first floor. His cries could still be heard by Miss Godfrey; who, to effect Blackie’s rescue, communicated with the following departments:
1. Police department.
2. Fire department.
3. Health department.
4. Building department.
5. Washington Heights court.
Among them they lowered a rope to Blackie. But it availed neither the cat nor them anything.
Thursday morning, just before noon, a plumber opened the rear wall back of the chimney. Blackie was taken out. His fall had injured his back. Ten minutes later Blackie died. ”
The proverb, though, has been widely attributed to Eugene O’Neill who included the variation, “Curiosity killed a cat!” in his play Diff’rent from 1920:“ BENNY–(with a wink) Curiosity killed a cat! Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies. ”
Shakespeare used a similar quote in his circa 1599 play,
Much Ado About Nothing:
“What, courage man! what though care killed a cat, thou hast mettle enough in thee to kill care.”
Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 11:09 am
Some believe Hans, that you can kill with kindness, so i think John P. is doing that to me maybe – as he has not wrapped me over the knuckles yet, god willing .. I am very sorry to any offence i have caused you Han’s, but there is a tommorrow..
Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Colin:
JohnP has “not wrapped you over the knuckles” only because I have been otherwise occupied and only just read your comment #2. If you check out the rules, you will see that making threatening posts are specifically forbidden.
Please desist from doing so again or you will indeed be banned.
When I answered the Men’s Centre North Shore phone regularly back in the 1990s, I talked to dozens of distraught fathers who in their time of maximum stress were clearly having great difficulty making rational decisions. A number of these admitted to me that they had serious fantasies of killing judges, bombing courts, etc, etc.
Imagine that tomorrow, a father in this position does not ring his local men’s centre and get talked out of doing something stupid. Instead he looks on the internet for help and finds your suggestion on MENZ that his problem will be solved if he “just has the balls” to kill a few judges.
You might understand your comment as a metaphor, but I’m not confident others will.
As I make clear in the rules, if any judges are harmed in the future and the police come asking for the identity of the person who incited this outcome, don’t expect me to protect your identity!
Comment by JohnP — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Hey all, I want to keep these comments from her if you don’t mind.
I should have pity for her. Nah, no way!
Comment by julie — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Dear Julie,
If Colin Brown is not “blue suede shoes” and a radical feminist, she has now committed identity fraud, albeit under deleted post.
Family Lawyers and practioners and thus elevation to being District Court Judges under Warrant, are still pariahs of Society.
Successive governmental administration have allowed this to fruition, being a stand alone Industry.
Head of Bench, Peter Boshier’s office intervened at the Manukau Court under duress by myself, to provision of timely arbitration “3 days” inclusive of weekend for Orders that both parties sought through Joint Memorandum.
I have been both been abused and assaulted in providing passive protest to date.
Outside the home of John Key,upon personal request, last Sunday, I gave a short oratory.
Proactive protest is relegated to three activities.
Mumbai – Terrorism and anarchaic activity.
Bangkok – Disruption internally and externally.
(Antonia orginally was scheduled to have arrived today, Thai airways via Bangkok, Am I an angry beaver).
Auckland – Megaphone outside of notable homes who may impart recognition ,therefore perhaps action.
If Colin Brown is ” Blue Suede Shoes” his sentiments are shared by perhaps many.
Having overcome the trauma that stipended Family Court Players including Judiciary and the practices utilised to extract status and earnings, leaves me speechless, the corruptions I have recorded is unprecendented.
It is quite reasonable to have homicidical thought toward a member of a biased judiiciary who balances position of fact for reasoning against ideology expectation,with ideology winning.
However, we are now able to utilise our brain function and stem emotion of “fight or flight” in protecting our children into better recourse than ‘topping a Judge”
Violence only begets violence, suppression only begets inquizitiion.
I fully commend “blue suede shoes” for his gumption to express his inherent feeling.
I furtively condemn the actions committed toward him that require such expression.
I can empathise toward his feelings, as I have been experienced to similar process prior to my own vindication.
How are we as Men,Women and families being unified or apart, pro-actively assist “blue sued shoes” other than condemnation.
Colin is one of many.
I always remain in kindest regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
09 271 3020
Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 10:03 pm
Dear Julie,
This website and resource is not a Joke.
In an earlier comment since censored, they ascribed to being Colin Brown.
Colin is not a Joke.
Colin has more than a significant gripe against the Systemic abuse conducted by the auspice of Family Court.
To make light of the matter is of no value, to shield an idiot doesn’t wash.
What I now need to be ascertained prior to perhaps a complaint forwarded to the Police is full disclosure.
I am sick and tired of silly games that silly people play.
I have to extract myself from work and attend with them at Police Stations.
I have to draft papers for the Court on behalf of them.
When needed I provide emergency accommodation for them.
The “cached” log of this posting is ready for process as a complaint.
I await your instruction.
Kindest Regard
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
09 271 3020
Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 10:37 pm
Sorry Julie, your theory about the gender of “blue suede shoes” is wrong, although it is plausable and worth considering in the future. Actually, Colin is a father who has every reason to be angry about the treatment he has received at the hands of the Family Court.
I agree with Paul that:
BUT, the minute anyone starts acting on these sorts of feelings (even by posting a message on a website like MENZ), they cross a line which justifiably invites legal intervention and sanction.
As others have pointed out it also discredits all fathers if we can be characterised as advocating violence as a way to solve disputes.
Comment by JohnP — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Personally i don’t think Dads should be doing such homicidal things to Family Court judges, NO for me that would be the army’s job!
Comment by Martin Swash — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Dear John,
As the moderator thereby gatekeeper with tabs to the site, you have put all speculation to rest.
Police complaint thus negated.
I thank you for putting my reasoning in emphasis.
Without further encumbrance I might just find time to go round and help Murray hone an axe or two.
Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
09 271 3020
Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 11:06 pm
Thanks for the support from all concerned, to which i will tone down my comments in future as they may be misconstrued to mine and others detriment, which we do not need. I think the Santa Parade got the better of me yesterday, seeing thousands of children and having no contact to my son now for 10 1/2 years, i started thinking negative thoughts to this day while i was in the city having lunch. Maybe a mens group should join the santa parade next year to show that everything ain’t that dandy in NZ. But, i don’t think they would want us.. (auckland city council) Cheers all, you’re champions.
Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 11:46 pm
We all know how you feel ”Blue Suede Shoes” !
About the Santa Parade : Santa is a man and a big supporter of mens’ groups, he NEVER visits evil wives who have divorced their husbands and never gives any presents to kids who made false allegations against Dads prompted by those mothers
One day justice will done, but it will take a lot to change government’s vested interest in ALL those tax $$$$ of child support.
Comment by Martin Swash — Tue 2nd December 2008 @ 6:53 am
I am sorry blue suede shoes… I was wrong.
Why don’t we all start a committee to do something proactive as a group in Auckland. We are all out there speaking up in different forms and complaining to those who are in the way of progress but as a team we can do much bigger things that can change some of these situations in a fun way that doesn’t drain us so much.
Why can’t we get Nth Shore Men;s Centre up and running to get funding. Maybe instead of protesting and getting into trouble we can organise a major walk in the city and ask everyone from radio stations to clowns to cooks … to get involved?
Otherwise we are just going to burn out and quit and let some newbies do the same hard yards as what we are.
Maybe we can hold groups to speak to judges and lawyers and such.
I myself am starting to dislike all this. You fix one case and then there is someone else needing help. Scrap and Mark did this for 6 years. I cannot do what they did. And the line is becoming so blurry that I am doing free accounting and know the word is out.
Paul Catton, I am sure you can’t keep up what you do for too long. And Benjamin and Jim Bagnall are devoted every day to this.
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd December 2008 @ 11:45 am
Every member of the movement who advocates violence or acts intemeperately sets back the cause by years.
No matter how justified we may feel to be in our anger, outrageous comments and threats play right into the hands of those whom would have everyone believe that men are violent and abusive etc.
Please don’t do it.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Tue 2nd December 2008 @ 10:26 pm
This Is About Balls, Not Violence.
What i really meant to say was “Family Court Judges Have No Balls” I just wanted to use the word Balls in a sentence without creating too much hysteria, hopefully my latest offering is more accomodating
for those who did not approve of my former use of the word Balls in a sentence.
I have no anger Darryl, just moral retribution.
Comment by don't step on my blue suede shoes — Wed 3rd December 2008 @ 8:39 am
#25 Well grow some balls yourself. Get an action plan together that isn’t just hurt feelings and moans about your own situation.
The hard work we need to do is to A) work together not against each other and B) Offer reasoned arguments for change. That needs a research base, ideas and lots of hard yards.
What it doesn’t need is idiots that work against those of us doing the real work.
Family Court Judges don’t need balls, their procreation days are long offer, don’t expect any ideas from there.
Allan
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 3rd December 2008 @ 10:20 am
#21
The reason you would not be wanted in a Santa Parade, Colin, is that you carry your “moral retribution” as some sort of badge of honour. It is not! Get over yourself and your past hurts.
Union of Fathers have been part of several Santa Parades in several areas and we are welcomed. We make the positive point that kids need both parents. Of course the point that we seek changes isn’t missed by onlookers, but the major message is men being happy with and nurturing of their children.
If you want to be exposing your personal hurts and anger then a counsellor is the right place. Just like we don’t (or maybe that is shouldn’t in your case) show our frustration, anger, moral retribution to our own children, we should not show this negative stuff to others.
Moral retribution is all in your own head Colin. It is your morals, your concept of retribution. They don’t exist for significant others. I suspect it doesn’t for your ex, all Family Court Judges and hopefully it isn’t in your kids minds.
Like it or not NZ has no fault divorce, very few social morals and retribution is a concept that probably only Colin, Peter B and the Exclusive Brethren can grasp.
Until you, Colin, and others learn to get over themselves and their hang-ups they are just a liability in any political lobbying.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 3rd December 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Wow!
Some common sense in the NZ media today! –
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10552354
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 18th January 2009 @ 3:06 pm
My x-girlfriend has for the last six years filed fault police reports on me. I have been put in jail and convicted of things I have not done. I have taken 5 poly tests and passed all. After the first three tests were viewed and not excepted I contacted “Jack Trimarco” in Beverly Hills and took two additional tests. Passing both we were such this would show the DA that the “X” and her family were setting me up, but again the tests results were not excepted.
I really do not understand what I do to prove that I have not harrassed, etc. my x and that she is using the system to to punish me for not wanting to be with her.
I really do not know what to do next, I just know I can not do it along…I need help. I have used three attorneys and spend all of my money 60k…I have not more funds, I have lost job and job, because she puts me in jail over and over.
If there is a group that can help me, please contact me at [email protected]
Donnie Hock
Comment by Donald Hock — Fri 30th January 2009 @ 4:03 am
My ex did similarly. Although she had a Protection Order against me she would regularly phone with abusive threats and then complain that I had broken the P.O., complain to her solicitor that I was stalking her, wrote threatening notes to herself and placed them on her car windscreen and accused me of being the author, accused me of child sexual abuse and anything else that would punish me for daring to leave her and apply for custody of our children.
Judge Milne allowed her continued perjuries and slander without consequence to her or compensation to me. It’s okay for girls to lie under oath in our Femily Courts. Sometimes an idiot Judge might even assume that the truth lies somewhere between the honest persons testimony and the liars testimony regardless of previous perjuries being submitted as evidence by the liar.
The only thing that stopped her stalking me and falsely accusing me of breaching her Protection Order was me cutting her from my life entirely. She was still continuing some warped kind of relationship with me by inventing her victim/abuser fantasies. It was her only method of maintaining contact with me.
She’s obviously not over you. Unfortunately you must place yourself somewhere where she has absolutely no knowledge of your life and therefore can’t comment or complain about your activities. It’s a girl’s world. The law won’t protect you. You have to do it yourself.
Comment by SicKoFNZ — Sat 9th May 2009 @ 1:34 am
protection orders give the applicant all the tools they need to play manipulating mindgames…i was at work 1 day and a guy turned up with a wad of papers…i very quickly discovered he was the bailiff dropping off 6 court orders…1 was a protection order claiming all the abuse u can think of..admittedly i swore at my x but then to have her go through the process of playing the victim was frustrating to say the least…all the things she use to do/say to me she accused me of doing to her..she covered all her bases by getting in first…i was always on the back foot and found it very difficult to prove her lies and games as manipulation…noone ever listened…as far as ppl were concerned i was the bully and she the victim…the protection order was granted to her with no proof or evidence of violence…no police reports …no police visits during the relationship…no arrests…not a thing…yet it was granted on her word alone…it ended up going final but as i had something on her oldest son(not mine)it ended up being used as a barter and she dropped it…more lies to get that done and they too made me look issue ridden and less than desirable…all the while painting a pretty picture of herself…she would invite me round and then complain to her lawyer i would show up at her place…she would want to meet me at lunchtimes then complain to her lawyer i turn up when shes at work…she would see me in town and complain i was stalking her…she would ask me to ring then complain i wouldnt leave her alone…she also gave me a key to her house to feed animals when she went way then claimed she was scared of me…then after all the crap died down she gave me full custody and left town with a guy 16 yrs her junior…same age as the oldest son…this is only the tip of the iceberg…i dont think id have enough gig space for all of it…this garbage went on for 10 or so years
Comment by ford — Sat 11th July 2009 @ 12:36 pm