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

Ministry of Male Denigration

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:25 pm Fri 16th May 2008

Gender-political corruption accompanies the favouritism, financial and employment corruption recently uncovered in the Immigration Service. On National Radio today Immigration lawyer Ms Olinda Woodroffe exposed a case in which the NZ Immigration Service in Samoa assisted a woman to remove her two young children to NZ without the father’s agreement. (Hear it here or if the link has expired request it from me.) This apparently was based on the woman’s claims of domestic violence for which no evidence existed such as previous police complaints, medical evidence or corroborative accounts. Once in NZ the Immigration Service here assisted the woman in applying for residency for herself and the two children, and obstructed the lawyer’s efforts to obtain information needed to represent the father in legal action to have his children returned.

The Immigration Service joins the many other government departments and indeed most political parties in parliament that operate as extensions of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.


  1. Similarly, in my case I sent a huge amount of evidence, vetted by the office of Hamilton West Labour Party MP Martin Gallagher, to the nZ Immigration service. The evidence consisted of falsified birth certificates (4 different versions for the same child!), documents altered after they were translated and certified true copies made, documents that had forged signatures, and even the transcript of a Family Court hearing during which the mother admitted lying in her immigration affidavit. The lies she admitted to were directly related to the Birth Certificates, and therefore should have cast serious doubt about her child’s legal name and her alleged full custody of the child.
    Here’s what Immigration achieved after 3 years of investigation……….

    I was blackmailed by Judge Riddell during a FC conference into retracting my allegations. I said I didn’t think I could retract allegations several years after providing them, so the lovely Judge Riddell said, “in that case there will be no custody hearing until Immigration has finsihed their investigation”. Moments before this the C4C told the judge that he was concerned that my application for custody had been filed years earlier and that a date should be set to hear my application.
    Then the mother’s lovely bitch from helll barrister blackmailed me into retracting my allegations. She held onto our SIGNED Equal Share Parenting CONSENT agreement for three months before filing it with the FC…just to make sure I complied.
    At least two Family Court judges, one barrister who is now a FC judge, another barrister and two lawyers, Immigration management and investigators, Internal Affairs management and investigators, Ministers of Immigration and Internal Affairs and several other Members of Parliament, were all happy for this mother to illegally change a child’s name, unilaterally assume full custody of the child by changing the child’s name, smuggle the child into NZ without the father’s concent, apply for and recieve the DPB for the child, and then admit lying in the Immigration affidavit that allowed her to do all this.
    I have a good mind to re-send all the allegations, hoping that this time someone who hasn’t got a hidden agenda or who lied in her CV will address the issues appropriately.

    Comment by xsryder — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 1:13 pm

  2. Amazing events xsryder. I hope you are able to get someone to deal properly with your ex’s criminal offending. However, our culture at present still seems to involve a strong reluctance to ever hold a woman accountable for anything.

    Nonetheless, current scandals and enquiries involving the Ministry of Immigration might allow you a window to have the events examined independently, at least with respect to collusion or incompetence by Immigration officials. If the Family Court then failed to do anything about that wrongdoing, it could be embarrassed in the enquiry. You might want to send your stuff to those currently investigating the Ministry of Immigration.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 3:05 pm

  3. Yeah it is amazing this lying thing.
    xsryder have you tried sending your concerns and all your evidence to the Ombudsman.No guarantee in New Zealand that they are not also twisted and corrupt and sexist but at least it is another avenue of some hope.
    As I have detailed in other posts my ex wife has lied on several occassions and gotten off scot free each time.Does not seem to bother anybody.Least of all the Family Caught.
    The pathetic,easy to see through lies to obtain protection orders and interim custody were of course the worst.However even the relationship property issues were dealt with exparte and she claimed that a computer bought for $5,500 4 years before and sold by me for $1500 should be my loss.Everyone knows computers lose their value but when I pointed this out to the caught they would have nothing of it.
    The Immigration Service has long been a mess.So many workers in the service have been found taking bribes and making weird decisions and then never fired.I was an immigration lawyer for several years and found out some things that would shock many New Zealanders.Nothing surprises me anymore.

    Comment by whanga — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 3:21 pm

  4. I was thinking of some more names for government departments in the feminist era. How about:
    The Ministry of Women’s Privileges
    The Ministry for Men’s Enslavement
    The Ministry for Men’s Extermination
    The Ministry of Male Suicide Promotion
    The Ministry for Extramarital Affairs
    The Ministry of Social Degradation
    The Department of Gender Wealth Transfer
    The Department of Male Imprisonment
    (Male) Work and (Female) Income New Zealand
    The Department of Labour to Break Men’s Backs
    Child Youth and Mother Service (CYMS)
    The Broken Families Commission
    The Mother, Casual Boyfriend and Children’s Commission
    The Mother, Sex-Toy and Children’s Commission
    Inland Revenue Slave Management Service
    The Girl Children’s Commissioner
    The Department of Femeducation
    The Department of Air-Conditioned Employment
    The (Some Animals Are More) Equal (Than Others) Employment Opportunities Commissioner
    The Unequal Employment Opportunities Commission
    The Anti White Male Race Commissioner
    The Department of Injustice

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 3:58 pm

  5. Don’t joke or even think about it Hans.Ten years time it may all be true way things are going.
    Combining Child Support and IRD was unthinkable till they did it.
    Look at the injustices that have sprung from that.I cannot even re-enter my own country when actually I am owed money if they bothered to look at my side of the story.(see previous posts)
    As for people who think things will get better under National I sent Judith Collins a brief report on my Child Support saga.Told her not all CS debts are what they seem.She never replied.
    Do you know by the way what a father with 2 kids who has them 145 nights a year (39.9%)and earns $75,000 gross actually gets in the hand after paying tax and CS?
    About $30,000.Not much to go on when he has to rent a 3 bedroom house to house the kids when they are with him,pay for their food,entertainment,after school care possibly,travel,presents etc.
    Any women out there looking for a man like that??
    Hardly worth working at all really.Sick country

    Comment by whanga — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 4:21 pm

  6. Actually I have a good one for you…
    The Ministry of Family Separation

    I hope none of the scum in Wellington are reading this and get too many ideas.You see they love to change their names.The NZIS did this recently and other Ministries do this regularly.
    There is a very good reason for this.You see whenever there is a change there is need for new signs,namecards,stationary,application forms,documents,websites,car signage,god knows what.And different companies want this business.So they will bribe government officials to get this business.Take them for lunch,box at the Cake Tin,whatever.This is how Wellington works.
    How about all you guys out there stop paying CS just for a month.Just as a protest to get some attention.I will find this easy to do as I have never(willingly) paid the bloody thing.Come on.Get some attention in this election year.Join us “deadbeat dads”.You know the money is not going to your kids anyway don’t you

    Comment by whanga — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 4:32 pm

  7. How about boycotting the election?

    Let’s be serious here – whoever gets in will do nothing for men.
    If large enough numbers of men stop voting, they start to become a splinter group worth pursuing in later elections.
    They also become a visible problem that’s rather hard to hide.

    None of us need to agree on anything to make this work, other than that we don’t vote.

    Comment by Rob Case — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 4:44 pm

  8. Hi Rob. I don’t think boycotting the election will achieve anything useful at all. Whoever gets in won’t really know why some did not vote and of course they won’t care much. Those who like feminist family wrecking either Labour or National style will be quite happy for dissenters not to vote.

    A much better idea is to vote for parties that explicitly offer male-friendly and family-protective policies. Not many such parties on offer but the Republic of NZ Party has exactly such policies. Protect the right of children to be raised by both parents whether together or apart, including a presumption of shared care. Review Child Support to ensure it is related to actual child costs and that it both promotes and gives credit for meaningful participation and contribution by both parents. Review the DPB to reduce its family-wrecking effect. Review all laws that might contribute to breaking up families, such as relationship property laws, tax laws, other welfare benefits. Introduce new laws and initiatives to promote the maintenance of family units until children become independent. Review family law fundamentally, and possibly disestablish the Family Court. All social laws and law changes to be put to binding citizens’ referenda. All local body initiatives and regulations beyond basic services to be put to local referenda. A constitution to provide much greater protection for our rights and freedoms, that would for example make the DVA totally unconstitutional (as it should be). The NZ Republicans (no connection whatsoever with the US Republican Party) are also developing sensible policies to cover other major government responsibilities such as economics and environment.

    Although the Republic of NZ Party has little chance of getting into parliament this election, any support for it will give a strong message to the bigger players about the direction many people want to go. In fact, every vote for a minor party that starts to look like it could take votes away from the larger parties is more influential than the same vote for a large party. No voter is likely to feel 100% represented by any party. But voting for a party that pushes some of the moral, ethical and social policies you prefer makes sense especially in a situation where strategic voting is a waste of time because none of the likely outcomes appeals. Boycotting the election gives no clear message and seems to me a lost opportunity to influence the country’s direction.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 6:08 pm

  9. Hi group,
    I totally concur with Hans.
    However, I also seriously considered the idea of a publicity campaign that threatened a mass boycott of the elections if no party committed to some basic reforms, including, as Hans stated, the presumption of equal share parenting, and one of my favourites, the establishment of a Ministry of Men’s Affairs (note that the former is supposed to be guaranteed in United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child, and the latter is should be guaranteed under NZ’s own anti-discrimination laws).
    As I stated in an earlier post, threatening to boycott the elections does not actually mean we have to boycott the elections. In fact with some clever manoeuvring and well timed press releases, such a campaign could be a coupe for the Republicans, as they would present themselves as the only party willing to address these society defining issues in any meaningful way.
    I would also argue that the Republicans winning a seat or two this time around would not be totally impossible. Look at Peter Dunne and United Future. I mean no disrespect to Judy Turner and applaud her for her efforts, but I think it can be said that United Future’s big break was one televised debate; the “worm” debate. The right person with the right message at the right time in front of the right audience; that could make all the difference.
    Finally, as Hans said, the more support shown for the Republicans, the more the big(ger) players will take notice and reconsider their own stance on the particular issues mentioned by Hans.

    Comment by xsryder — Fri 16th May 2008 @ 9:45 pm

  10. I was just reading one of Murray Bacon’s excellent posts more thoroughly than I had the time to initially. Interestingly he reports that under the Labour government more women than men have been admitted to NZ where normal education and economic criteria are not complied with. I’m not sure where the statistics came from but I’m confident Murray’s source will be good. This situation suggests that the Dept of Immigration’s bias towards women comes from above. Similarly, all the other government departments whose priorities make them all look like Ministries of Womens Affairs, have been required to do so from on high. In addition, so many of them have appointed women to powerful positions, women who were chosen partly on the basis of their feminist politics (in contrast to men who are excluded from such positions specifically for failing to show support for feminist politics), that the pro-woman bias is conveniently increased from within as well.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 17th May 2008 @ 12:08 pm

  11. Rot sets in from the top. The Immigration department’s pro-feminist sexist practice spreads even further in how the State Services Commission and possibly ministers dealt with evidence several years ago that Immigration head Ms Thompson had lied in her job application about having a PhD from a prestigious English university. The supervising officials did nothing and appeared to hope the matter would never become known to the public. While this appalling neglect of duty has now been strongly condemned from various quarters, what has not been acknowledged is the gender politics involved. Ms Thompson was allowed to continue in her fraudulent role because she was a woman. Chilvalry, the ongoing belief that women still need special treatment, the sugar and spice myth and most important of all, the pro-feminist culture promoted by Helen and her Funny Girls’ regime led to Ms Thompson’s criminal fraud being quietly tolerated over a long period. Her department continued the cultural norm by its favouritism towards female immigrants, and she further exploited the privilege of female immunity against accountability by brazenly assisting in the immigration of her own family relations. Yes, it used to be the old boys’ network and clearly now it has become the old girls’ network. Unfortunately, two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 17th May 2008 @ 4:35 pm

    Wear the pants before your wife does. Otherwise, before you know it, you’ll be wearing a skirt around the house while dusting the furniture.

    I believe that it is the man’s fine duty to control the decision-making process of all family related decisions — or at least pretend he does. Why? Because like it or not, it is probably the only thing left in life that we men can still lay claim to. Once you lose it, you no longer have anything to look forward to, but the Family Court…

    Comment by cb — Sun 18th May 2008 @ 4:03 pm

    “What is truth?” asked Pontius Pilate at one of the more consequential moments in human history.
    It is a question that persists in our own time, which might reasonably be called “the age of the lie.” If every major institution is a crystallization of the dominant values of a society, what are we to think about the latest news from the world of sports?

    Floyd Landis’ recent win in the Tour de France has been overturned by a drug test. Justin Gatlin, reigning Olympic champion in the 100 meters, faces a possible lifetime ban from the sport after testing positive for testosterone. The spectacle of bulked-up major league ballplayers denying steroid use has become familiar.

    The world of literature has given us (among others) the fictional memoirs of James Frey, T. “Nasdijj” Barrus, and Savannah “JT Leroy” Knoop. Journalists Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass and Jack Kelley have done their share to create skepticism about the accuracy of our newspapers and magazines.

    A lot of space on the Internet is now devoted to manufacturing identities. Whether in chat rooms, on social Web sites or in areas devoted to the search for love, the “profiles” that people create are the subjects of widespread and justifiable disbelief. How many friends can you accumulate on Are they really your friends?

    Is it essential in evaluating the work of a filmmaker who makes religious movies to know that he is anti-Semitic? One would think so, but can we find out the truth by asking him? Apparently not.

    Then there is the government. No administration since Richard Nixon’s has done as much to undermine confidence in its public pronouncements (“You’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie”).

    Is any of this important? We have always been subject to deceit for profit or power. Who among us has not lied when it suited our purposes? Why should we care when public figures play us for fools?

    One answer is that, confronted with threats to our way of life, even our very existence, we can only respond correctly by apprehending the truth. Put another way, we are continually using our experience to create in our heads a map of the world and how it works. If our maps are inaccurate, it will be impossible for us to navigate correctly, to make sound decisions about our lives and our society.

    We would do well to stop believing in astrology, miracle cures, and versions of religion that foster an illusion of exclusivity, because adherents of such theologies tend to occupy themselves with coercive fantasies unsuited to a free society. The worst of them would kill us if they can’t convert us.

    There is a school of thought that truth is a flexible construct, elusive and subject to interpretation. In at least one area, this is demonstrably not the case. Nature and its laws are intolerant of fools. I thought of this last year while watching the documentary Grizzly Man. When Timothy Treadwell chose to live among the Alaskan grizzlies for extended periods, he imagined that they reciprocated the affection and respect that he felt for them. He gave them names. It turned out, of course, that while he was indulging his naive delusions about these wild creatures, they had also given him a name. That name was “food,” and his life was ended by a hungry bear.

    A second disadvantage of public lies is that they erode the trust that enables us to live peacefully with each other. We need to have some reasonable expectation that our news is accurate and our leaders are being honest with us in order to have a functioning society. Imagine what driving would be like if we could not trust our fellow motorists to stop at red lights and to drive on the left. There can be no governing consensus and no enforceable law without a shared sense of trust. Every time one of our major institutions, especially our government, lies to us, there is a slight but progressive erosion in our ability to rely on each other. As with the “inconvenient truth” of global warming, we may end up drowning in a flood of cynicism and distrust.

    If we believe that in most areas the truth exists in some discernible form, then we must demand it, first from ourselves and then from those we depend on to help us construct a map that will lead us out of the thicket of lies in which we find ourselves.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 18th May 2008 @ 11:33 pm

  14. Sacred cows are safe, but every now and then, the situation changes and what what above investigation suddenly becomes open and the people within can be thrown to the wolves.

    It seems to take a long time, but the final shift can happen astonishingly suddenly.

    So the Immigration Department is now to be subject to an internal enquiry. It does sound as though continuing public complaints are likely to blow it open, into public commission of enquiry.

    The public don’t see how much work has gone into TVOne’s investigation, before they opened their mouth in public.

    It seems to me that the situation is parallel to the jUSTICE dEPARTMENT. They and the dEPARTMENT of cAUGHTS/”judiciary” have ignored and trashed and deprecated those who have complained about them. Their “friends” in Parliament have refused to sanction any investigation of the performance of the beneficiaries working in these dEPARTMENTS, despite the ongoing trickle of complaints.

    When dissastisfied customers have done enough investigation work to tighten the noose on these beneficiaries, then these people will discover the discomfort of accountability being dropped suddenly onto their shoulders.

    These dissatisfied customers seem to be very patient, if we judge by the small amount of work they are doing to investigate and show the need for an enquiry into these dEPARTMENTS. If an enquiry is expensive, then it is necessary and proper to justify the expenditure that we are seeking.

    Professionals listen and actively investigate complaints with their own initiative. Through this they improve their performance. Has anyone seen this ethic among legal workers, top bench or bottom bench?

    It worries me that people attack each other, rather than work together to investigate these Government dEPARTMENTs to prepare a case for a Commission of Enquiry.
    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 19th May 2008 @ 10:44 am

  15. Sorry cb, we men can no longer lay claim to control the decision-making process of all family related decisions. And a good thing too! Attempting to pull rank on your partner will be the quickest way of finding yourself in the Family Court.

    No matter how we buckle up, we are unlikely to return to the bad old days as long as our civilization continues (which admittedly may not be long, but that will be no comfort for non-Muslim men or women). Personally I wouldn’t recommend a return to “man is the head of the family” ideas. However, I would like our society to claw back to a position where men’s input and wisdom is valued and has at least as much influence on decisions for the family as do women’s preferences. To a position where men’s equal rights are protected again in law. And where children’s right is protected to be raised by both parents whether together or apart. I agree though that men need to stand up for themselves both individually and collectively.

    Comment by Empathic Listener — Mon 19th May 2008 @ 2:36 pm

  16. I hear complaints, but where is the investigation, to put together a case to justify a commission of enquiry into family justice issues in NZ?

    Victoria University has a group looking into criminal justice failures, but there appears to be no organised group putting together a case to justify a Commission of Enquiry into the familycaught.

    Some people have suggested that we wait for Government funding! Read Sandra Coney’s book…..

    We can learn from women’s groups.

    Sandra Coney’s book “An Unfortunate Experiment” shows the amounts of effort and skilled professional effort at that, that was required to gain Government approval for a Commission of Enquiry. This effort was all given privately, by people who cared enough about the issues, to put in their own time and money.

    Approval was only given, when the Government could see that it was impossible to withhold approval, that they would go down with National Women’s Hospital and Drs Green etc, if they didn’t give approval.

    An investigation into legal worker’s behaviour, when Parliament is over endowed with legal worker-MPs will be even harder to obtain.

    We can all make mistakes. Some people are in positions that allow them to create mistakes with bigger positive and negative impacts. If we refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of us making mistakes, then we risk going on to create even bigger fuckups. Answering questions about our competence, values or ethics by arrogance, is only showing that we are unsuitable for any job of responsibility.

    At this point in time, lets make sure that we are carrying our personal responsibilities well. The critical element at present, is bringing together sufficient evidence to show negligent performance and malpractice in familycaught, that is strong enough that the Government has no choice but to authorise a Commission of Enquiry. To get an enquiry, we also have to show what the solution is, so that it can be seen that we are proceeding forward to a cost effective and competent familycaught system.

    Hans asks about immigration statistics. I heard Dr Paul Callister give a speech at the Waitakere Men’s Conference, organised by Warick Pudney. He covered these issues. My memory, after this time may be a bit defective.

    Google search at top right corner of this page: pudney conference

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 19th May 2008 @ 3:32 pm

  17. Hi guys, yesterday i e-mailed a real estate agent in New Plymouth, letting him know the peoples house he is trying to sell may not sell in a hurry as it isnt that greater house and everyone knows they stole my wifes daughter which means war and they dont want to be in the middle of it, the real estate agent went to the police who turned up yesterday when we wernt here and first thing this morning and handed us a tresspass notice each, how long do these people intend to keep my wifes daughter away from us, she turns 17 in August and has been asking to see her mother for years, she is the size of a 7yr old.

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Thu 22nd May 2008 @ 9:50 am

  18. Hadi you seem to be trying to solve problems by confrontation and bullying.Sorry mate but you will get nowhere.You have to show forgiveness,gratitude,love.You have to apologise for what you have done.You have to give the people you are in conflict with a reason to like and trust you not dislike and distrust you.
    Hope you do not take this the wrong way.Just trying to pass on the experiences and learning I have had.
    As you say yourself you are getting nowhere with your present methods.You thus have very little to lose by trying another way…………..

    Comment by whanga — Thu 22nd May 2008 @ 4:01 pm

  19. Hi Whanga, i believe you, but these people had my 1yr old son taken from us at the hospital 10 mins after he was born, they have ruined our lives

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Thu 22nd May 2008 @ 7:33 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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