69 Comments »

1. 

   Media release from the Political Busker.

   Media hide BNZ acting badly

   In proceedings brought by the Bank of New Zealand against Wellington ’s Political Busker, Benjamin Easton, to strike out or dismiss Easton ’s proceedings against the Bank, the busker claims that the proceedings are far from insignificant and didn’t warrant the lack of recognition or interest by the country’s national media.

   In what would appear to be inconsistent with the medias’ absence at the proceedings the Honourable Justice Randerson, Chief High Court Judge adjudicated over the proceedings. It seems unlikely that a proceeding involving one of New Zealand ’s largest banks pitted against an unemployed political busker could be seen by the Court as frivolous or vexatious if New Zealand ’s top High Court Justice is appointed to administrate over those proceedings. It seems even less likely that there is no merit in the proceedings where the Justice respectfully thanked Easton as well as the Bank for the submissions and has reserved his decision on whether or not to strike out Easton ’s action against the Bank.

   The proceedings are about whether or not the Bank’s decision to fund an advertisement entitled New Zealand ’s Biggest Morning Tea in June 2008 was a decision against the public interest. The Bank argued that funding a television advertisement depicting European fathers assaulting children in a bid to gain funds for battered women, does not make them culpable with any possible act of discrimination against dads. Additionally the Bank argued that Easton had no standing to bring a judicial review against them on grounds of the Bank’s constitution and that regardless they made no mistake in facilitating the advertisement. Easton countered again saying that the Bank’s claim that the advertisement could be considered lawful cannot compete with the straight forward obligations with which the Bank is bound to comply.

   In Easton ’s opinion the Honourable Justice Randerson handled the proceedings as should be expected of the Chief High Court Judge. He explained to the untrained Easton that his demands against the Bank about how they were acting in bad faith and without a fiduciary duty in care or responsibility to the public could not be considered in the subject of a judicial review. Additionally the Justice agreed with the Bank that Easton ’s remedy seeking an order from the Court for the Bank to pay the Human Rights Commission some of the profit from the advertisement to fix its damage was not an order that the Court could or would make. The Justice, however, did question the Bank on whether or not they believed questions should be asked of the Bank, at what executive level the decision was made to fund the advertisement. The Bank replied that such a question did not affect the lack of jurisdiction of the Court to review the Bank’s position. Justice Randerson reserved his decision.

   “If the media had shown the courage to turn up to the proceedings”, says a deferent Easton “they would have identified on behalf of a truth starved public that the Bank has acted badly where blatantly not following their international commercial obligations in marketing. They would have shown the courage to prosecute a Bank in the court of public opinion rather than leaving the job to an unemployed and unknown political busker”.

   Benjamin Easton 027 390 2169

   Comment by julie — Wed 8th July 2009 @ 2:09 pm

2. 

   Thanks for that update Julie.
   Not a least bit surprised that the NZ media didn’t show up as we know they are not impartial. Benjamin would have more hope if foreign media turned up; if that occurred then it would prove the point about NZ media.

   Comment by John (Doe ;) — Wed 8th July 2009 @ 9:38 pm

3. 

   Shame on you Bank of New Zealand! You appear to profit from the hatred of MEN.
   It is no surprise that Bankers funded Hitler and his hatred.
   Maybe you’ve calculated the cost of losing business from Men, Fathers, Sons, Brothers, Uncles, Grandfathers and Mates and you can afford that?

   You should do the right thing! Apologise and pay a self imposed fine instead of hiding behind the law. Benjamin Easton is morally correct despite your legal maneuvering.

   Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 8th July 2009 @ 10:45 pm

4. 

   11 July 2009

   EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE:

   Thank you for your reply to my media release Peter,

   I have copied the Bank’s representative and their legal attorney, adding some of our own media as well as the other parties in the review proceedings. I do not see any difficulty with discussing the matter at all, where the Bank appears not to have contested my claims that their advertisement was in direct breach of the relevant codes on marketing and advertisements. I will send you a copy of the advertisement that I claim is in direct breach of the standards.

   You may also want to consider in your research that the National Australia Bank is the parent of the BNZ. If the Justice indeed considers an investigation on the executive level of the decision is meritorious, you would be able to inquire of the NAB on their role and view.

   If the Bank of New Zealand, the Advertising Standards Authority or the Human Rights Commission has any objections, legal or otherwise to my broadcasting my opinion on the matters that are before the Court they should make contact with me prior to the 21st.

   Kind regards,
   Benjamin Easton
   The Political Busker
   (of a) father’s coalition.

   1. Advertising and Marketing Communication Practice Consolidated ICC Code (PDF)

   · General Provisions on Advertising and Marketing Communication Practice

   · Chapter B — Sponsorship

   2. http://www.asa.co.nz/code_children.php

   · Principle 3 – Advertisements should not by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim mislead or deceive or be likely to mislead or deceive children, abuse the trust of or exploit the lack of knowledge of children, exploit the superstitious or without justifiable reason play on fear.

   3a. Advertisements must be clearly recognisable as such by children and separated from editorial, programmes or other non-advertising material. If there is any likelihood of advertisements being confused with editorial or programme content, they should be clearly labelled “advertisement” or identified in a clear manner

   — On Sat, 11/7/09, peter van de Voorde wrote:

   From: peter van de Voorde
   Subject: Re: [father’s-coalition][Politicial Busker] Media Release: Media hide BNZ acting badly
   To: “Benjamin Easton”
   Cc: [email protected]
   Received: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 12:41 PM

   Dear Benjamin,

   Thank you for alerting us to your proceedings against the bank of NZ. We would like to invite you to speak about your actions as a matter of public interest, on our radio program Dads On The Air http://www.dadsontheair.net on Tuesday 21st July if possible, providing that date was suitable to you.

   However are you allowed to, or is it wise to, speak about it publicly if the judge at this time has still reserved his decision on whether to strike out your action against the bank?

   We will try and get someone from the Bank of New Zealand to make a comment as well if possible. Perhaps you could provide us with some contact details for an appropriate person from the bank to make a comment? We can then at least invite them to make a comment also.

   I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.

   Kind Regards
   Peter van de Voorde
   Producer and Presenter
   DADS ON THE AIR, AUSTRALIA
   http://www.dadsontheair.net
   [email protected]
   +61 04286 48691
   Singer,Songwriter
   http://www.justisrecords.com.au/stolen.asp

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 11th July 2009 @ 2:18 pm

5. 

   Hi Julie

   It is simplistic to blame the media.

   In fact, I say would be an indication of media bias if the media actually DID run this story?

   Why? Because, despite Ben’s best intentions, this breaks what I consider to be the two golden rules of dealing with the media.

   I do not claim to be a media expert, but with 30 years of media / PR experience, I have learned a few things along the way.

   Rule number one: always be friendly with the media.
   

   You are relying on the media to put your message into print, across the airwaves or online. The media do not have to do this, and they are doing you a favour whenever they do: it just as easily be someone else’s message.

   So, whenever your cherished message gets overlooked, do not get all precious about it and take it personally. Rather, look at how you could put it across better and how you can make yourself more credible in the media’s eyes next time.

   In this regard, anybody that speaks for the movement must be credible. It doesn’t matter how many hours you have put in if you lack credibility in the big wide world.

   Also, the media are humans, and sometimes they will get it wrong. Don’t throw your toys when this happens. They will think you are being immature and they will probably be right. Rather, ask the journalist in question to discuss it over coffee, and pay for the coffee. This is not bribery, it is cultivating relationships, and relationships are everything.

   Most importantly, never accuse mainstream media of bias. Anybody in the movement that does so is a loose cannon. He or she will merely prove to the media that he or she is a complete idiot and unfortunately will make the rest of complete idiots as well, and in doing so will ruin any credibility we have established for ourselves.

   I reiterate rule number one: always be friendly with the media.

   Rule number two: make it snappy and to the point.

   The media receive vast volumes of media releases every day. Thanks to the advent of email, anybody can put out a media release. So, unless they come from a high profile organisation or person, most media releases are binned unless they really stand out. That is where being smart and media savvy give you the advantage. If you want your media release to be noticed, it must be snappy and stand out.

   Rambling, incoherent monologues are simply going to be binned by just about everybody (except perhaps Scoop).

   So, unless you are really famous, make your releases really stand out from the rest. If they do not, they will be binned, no matter how important or interesting you think you or your messages are.

   These are two simple rules.

   I should add that those that oppose men’s and fathers’ concerns know how to deal with the media and know it well.

   If the movement wants to get ahead, it needs to learn this as well.

   Kind regards

   Darryl

   Comment by Darryl Ward — Sat 11th July 2009 @ 7:50 pm

6. 

   A good example of what Darryl says is presently occuring. Family first follows all Darryls suggestions, yet only achieves about 10% or less success!

   We HAVE to get our media acts together!

   Comment by Alastair — Sat 11th July 2009 @ 9:04 pm

7. 

   Hi Darryl,

   Thanks for your words of wisdom. You make some valid points.

   Unfortunately, I didn’t post this for the media. In a way, I posted it as the media.

   But I am still going to take your words as something important and something to work towards.

   Comment by julie — Sun 12th July 2009 @ 7:23 am

8. 

   Well done Benjamin. It is exciting to keep up with you. You have grown so much in your correspondence and with your determination you will get your breaks. As a numbers game alone, you have to win some.

   I don’t want to deter you at all but I get the picture of what you are up against. The banks are a real life David and Goliath.
   
   Here’s another peer doing similar to you and with a similar attitude.
   
   standyourground.com

   Comment by julie — Sun 12th July 2009 @ 7:39 am

9. 

   Hi Julie

   Your post had the heading ‘Media release from the Political Busker’, so I treated it as such.

   Good intentions aside, I am certain that this would have been binned by all media, with the possible exceptions of Scoop and a few local ad rags.

   Anyone aspiring to be a spokesperson for the movement must be temperate, must be media savvy and must be credible.

   Otherwise he or she will do us more harm than good.

   Comment by Darryl Ward — Sun 12th July 2009 @ 12:18 pm

10. 

    Darryl, I am not sure I understand what you are doing. (many times the actions people do is greater than the words they say)

    Do you really mean your words to me or are they directed at or about Benjamin?

    Comment by julie — Sun 12th July 2009 @ 5:32 pm

11. 

    Hi Julie

    My target audience is everyone in the movement that tries to use the media to draw attention to the issues that concern us, in the hope that people might engage with the media better and smarter.

    To help make my points though, I used the media realease you posted as an example of what NOT to do.

    Kind regards

    Darryl

    Comment by Darryl Ward — Sun 12th July 2009 @ 6:59 pm

12. 

    Currently on Pauls News we are discussing a press release that made it! It certainly stirred up some very patronising comments by mensline!

    Good on Jim Bagnal, he did well

    Comment by Alastair — Sun 12th July 2009 @ 7:09 pm

13. 

    Oh. I got you Darryl and Alistair. I guessed something was up but I have also been wasting my time on another site just playing around. (naughty me)

    Hey, if this all gets organised I too will behave accordingly. (smile)

    Comment by julie — Sun 12th July 2009 @ 8:16 pm

14. 

    Oh Julie, please keep on not behaving. You keep our feet on the ground.

    Comment by Alastair — Sun 12th July 2009 @ 8:59 pm

15. 

    Oh Julie, please keep on not behaving. You keep our feet on the ground.

    This is kind of you Alistair. But NZ doesn’t need misbehaving. It needs the opposite. Darryl is right about needing credibility.

    I would rather keep moving forward. Else I am of no use and become a silly little voice and someone who will destroy my own life and my children’s.

    If you can do better IMO, you should.

    Comment by julie — Mon 13th July 2009 @ 8:47 am

16. 

    BNZ bags busker for lack of standing

    In a reserved decision, released on 13 July, Chief High Court Judge A P Randerson J, ruled in favour of the Bank of New Zealand and against Wellington ’s unemployed political busker Benjamin Easton. The Bank applied for costs to be awarded against the busker and these were granted on a 2B basis as will be set by the Registrar.

    Justice Randerson struck out the amended statement of claim brought by Easton against the Bank on the grounds that the Bank was a private company going about its ordinary business funding a charitable organisation and that Easton had no connection with the Bank and had not lost any rights because of the screening of an advertisement he claimed was gender discriminatory against fathers exploiting children to gain funds for an unrelated group titled battered women.

    “The Justice has not ruled on the substantive claims I have made” says Easton . “He has simply stated that I have no standing and the Bank cannot be brought to a test by me. The Bank hasn’t argued that the Bank wasn’t in breach of its international obligations; it has successfully argued that I have no legal right to prove that its action was damaging to the public. Naturally enough I am disappointed that the Judge did not go into the merits of what it was I told him about the Bank’s responsibilities under the international codes, preferring to close these arguments down to the issue that I didn’t have the right standing to take them up with the judge. It would have been considerate if he recognised that the Bank was about to fleece me for thousands of dollars I do not have, against my argument about the public importance of the advertisement, relevant to the upcoming referendum and the impossible allegation that only Pakeha fathers hit their children held merit. It would be impossible to say otherwise, but the Judge simply elected not to say it”.

    Easton philosophically claims his campaign is not over although it is obvious that the financial loss from whatever he has to give to the Bank each week will further inhibit a heavily restricted income. “I suppose if I can win against the Human Rights Commission in the review against them for letting the Bank get off following their obligations to the public, I could plead to the Judge that they should pay the bill. Yet if the Judge is going to let the Bank off without making any reliable comment on how the Bank could have been held accountable by a man who had standing, then the same kind of rules may be stretched to apply to the Commission.

    “It is pretty mind numbing really”, concludes Easton, “that I’m the only one out there with enough courage to tell the public that the Bank has completely abrogated their public responsibility and the Bank is considered responsible, for that lack of public recognition to hit me for costs on a matter called principle.”

    Easton will not appeal the decision.

    Benjamin Easton 027 3902169

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 13th July 2009 @ 6:43 pm

17. 

    Is this the penalty the bank exacts for some upstart challenging its “Rights” Remember it is an unsecured debt. the no assets procedure offers an out!

    Comment by Alastair — Mon 13th July 2009 @ 6:49 pm

18. 

    The Political Busker

    PO Box 24415

    Manners St

    Wellington

    027 390 2169

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

    Human Rights Commission

    Robert Holloway

    EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

    July 14 2009

    Tena koe Robert

    I wish to complain about the Bank of New Zealand funding of an advertisement run in June 2008 called New Zealand’s Biggest Morning Tea.

    With the Human Rights Commission’s assistance, I wish to bring these matters into the judicial review of EASTON V HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.

    I request that the initial reply to this complaint be processed with urgency given that otherwise interlocutory applications or notices would be necessary.

    As counsel and legal advisers for the Commission are aware this matter has already been brought to the Courts by me for a judicial review. The Commission will also be aware that it has previously declined two complaints on this matter.

    However in the proceedings before Justice Randerson EASTON V HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION July 13 2009, new information has been identified.

    1. Justice Randerson has ruled that I do not have standing to bring a review against the Bank.

    2. He has not provided them with exception of jurisdiction on a matter of public importance as relkative to review.

    3. The judge has not ruled that the Bank have not faulted their responsibility to:

    a. Advertising and Marketing Communication Practice Consolidated ICC Code (PDF)

    · General Provisions on Advertising and Marketing Communication Practice

    · Chapter B — Sponsorship

    b. http://www.asa.co.nz/code_children.php

    [6] Mr Easton did not pursue rights of appeal available to him within the rules of the Advertising Standards Authority. Nor has he pursued any complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority or the Human Rights Commission about the Bank of New Zealand’s role in the advertisement. Mr Easton informed the Court that a colleague had made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission about the advertisement which apparently was unsuccessful. No steps were taken to bring proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal established under the Human Rights Act.

    [19] Mr Easton also provided a copy of the Consolidated ICC Code of Advertising and Marketing Communication Practice. He relied on all aspects of these principles which refer to marketing materials being “prepared with a due sense of social and personal responsibility and values such as decency, honesty, truthfulness and social responsibility”. He drew particular attention to material indicating that marketing communications should respect human dignity and should not incite or condone any form of discrimination. Nor should any marketing communication denigrate any persons or group of persons or bring them into public contempt or ridicule. One of the principles refers to special care being taken in marketing communications directed to or featuring children or young people. Some of these principles are directly related to sponsorship by both commercial and non-commercial organisations relating to corporate image, brands, products, activities or events of any kind. The importance of social responsibility is emphasised.

    [20] If the decision by the Bank of New Zealand to fund that advertisement is

    susceptible of judicial review then, arguably, the Bank of New Zealand should have taken into account some or all of these principles. Whether or not there has been any breach of those principles is another matter. However, for present purposes, it is sufficient to decide whether the decision by the Bank to fund the advertisement is amenable to judicial review at all.

    [22] A private organisation may be amenable to judicial review if it has the kind of public elements referred to in Royal Australasian College of Surgeons v Phipps. A recent example of the court intervening on judicial review in relation to a private company is the decision of Ronald Young J in Dunne v CanWest TV Works Ltd [2005] NZAR 577.

    Respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton

    The Political Busker

    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 7:52 am

19. 

    Easton sued the bank, not the other way round, so it is his responsibility, not the bank’s.

    He should have thought about the consequences before embarking on what was clearly an unwinnable case.

    Comment by Sanity — Tue 14th July 2009 @ 1:46 pm

20. 

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: peter van de Voorde
    Date: Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:35 PM
    Subject: Radio Interview Request:
    To: “[email protected] [email protected]”

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    My name is Peter van de Voorde, I am a producer and presenter on popular weekly radio program, DADS ON THE AIR, AUSTRALIA, broadcasting from radio station 2GLF in Sydney, Australia. For more details please visit our website http://www.dadsontheair.net

    We are the world’s longest running radio program on father’s issues. Dads On The Air, covers a wide range of social issues around gender and parenthood and actively promotes a positive view of men, boys, fatherhood and co-parenting. The program has attracted leading politicians, authors, academics, and lobbyists from Australia and around the world. You can find out more about the program at: http://www.dadsontheair.net/About/Background/tabid/55/Default.aspx

    On next week’s program (10.30 am Tuesday 21st July 2009), we will be featuring an interview with New Zealand’s Mr Benjamin Easton, who has recently challenged the Bank of New Zealand in court, regarding the Bank’s advertising campaign, which supports the prevailing hysterical propaganda in the context of Domestic Violence.

    There is growing community concern, because this campaign appears to be based on misinformation designed to stereotype only Men as abusers and only Women and Children as victims.

    Please consider the following links to more reliable information on relevant statistics.
    http://www.dadsontheair.net/shows/domestic_violence_statistics_debunked.mp3

    Furthermore, according to the 2007 Child Maltreatment Report of the US Department of Health and Human Services: Victim data were analyzed by relationship to their perpetrators. Nearly 39 percent (38.7%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone (figure 3—6). Nearly 18 percent (17.9%) of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone. Nearly 17 percent (16.8%) were maltreated by both parents.19
    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/chapter3.htm

    Bank of new Zealand customers are not only Women, in fact a large part of your customer base is made up of Men. Many of these men are alarmed at the Bank’s willingness to promote so many of their customers as abusive, violent thugs.

    Accordingly and in fairness to the Bank’s customers, we would like to invite a spokesperson from the NAB as the parent company of the Bank of New Zealand, to take part in next week’s program, in order to explain the Bank’s position on this all important issue.

    I look forward to hearing from you with a favorable reply.

    Thanking you
    Kind regards
    Peter van de Voorde
    Producer, and co-Presenter
    DADS ON THE AIR, AUSTRALIA
    http://www.dadsontheair.net
    [email protected]
    +61 04286 48691
    Singer,Songwriter
    http://www.justisrecords.com.au/stolen.asp

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 17th July 2009 @ 5:27 pm

21. 

    The following codes are relevant to those presented in Court. I have mpg copies of the advertisements so it is pretty easy to compare the relativity of the codes against the advertisement. Until the CD can be put up on site, anyone is welcome to contact me on [email protected] for an email transferred copy.

    I submitted to the ASA (the third respondent) that I was able to enter a Court ordered agreement if the decided to test the Bank, excusing them from my test on them that they viewed my complaint under the wrong codes. They viewed them under the code of advertising to people and ethics. I said that it was about the code of advertising to children and because it was editorial material and not an advertisement the advertisement should have never have gone to air. It is mind numbing that the ad went through. I think anyone who views the CD would be hard pressed to disagree.

    Special attention at this stage shold be given to the “where to from here” situation. The general codes cater to the responsibilities of bodies like the HRC and the ASA. I didn’t mention these in the Bank’s Court case really because they are not my responsibility. But they are teh leading component of my amended statement of claim. Justice Randerson has already determined for me what it should look like, so it is not as if I haven’t been given a new set of legal instruments in the substantive court proceedings. The HRC have not got back to me for my coimplaint which is wrong. They should have acknowledged it in my view: so teh muddy wates of gender discrmination in New Zealand appear to simply be getting thicker and thicker, deeper and deeper.

    Respectfully,
    Benjamin.

    Advertising and Marketing Communication Practice Consolidated ICC Code.

    Article 1

    Basic principles

    All marketing communication should be legal, decent, honest and truthful. All marketing communication should be prepared with a due sense of social and professional responsibility and should conform to the principles of fair competition, as generally accepted in business.

    No communication should be such as to impair public confidence in marketing.

    Article 2

    Decency

    Marketing communication should not contain statements or audio or visual treatments which offend standards of decency currently prevailing in the country and culture concerned.

    Article 3

    Honesty

    Marketing communication should be so framed as not to abuse the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of experience or knowledge. Relevant factors likely to affect consumers’ decisions should be communicated in such a way and at such a time that consumers can take them into account.

    Article 4

    Social responsibility

    Marketing communication should respect human dignity and should not incite or condone any form of discrimination, including that based upon race, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. Marketing communication should not without justifiable reason play on fear or exploit misfortune or suffering. Marketing communication should not appear to condone or incite violent, unlawful or anti-social behaviour. Marketing communication should not play on superstition.

    Article 5

    Truthfulness

    Marketing communication should be truthful and not misleading. Marketing communication should not contain any statement, or audio or visual treatment which, directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggeration, is likely to mislead the consumer, in particular, but not exclusively, with regard to:

    ???? the extent of benefits for charitable causes.

    Article 8

    Substantiation

    Descriptions, claims or illustrations relating to verifiable facts in a marketing communication should be capable of substantiation. Such substantiation should be available so that evidence can be produced without delay and upon request to the self-regulatory organisations responsible for the implementation of the Code.

    Article 9

    Identification

    Marketing communication should be clearly distinguishable as such, whatever their form and whatever the medium used. When an advertisement appears in a medium containing news or editorial matter, it should be so presented that it is readily recognisable as an advertisement and the identity of the advertiser should be apparent (see also Article 10). Marketing communication should not misrepresent their true purpose. They should not be presented as, for example, market research or consumer surveys if their purpose is commercial, i.e. the sale of a product.

    Article 10

    Identity

    The identity of the marketer should be apparent. This does not apply to communications with the sole purpose of attracting attention to communication activities to follow (e.g. so-called “teaser advertisements”). Marketing communication should, where appropriate, include contact information to enable the consumer to get in touch with the marketer without difficulty.

    Article 11

    Comparisons

    Marketing communication containing comparisons should be so designed that the comparison is not likely to mislead, and should comply with the principles of fair competition. Points of comparison should be based on facts which can be substantiated and should not be unfairly selected.

    Article 12

    Denigration

    Marketing communication should not denigrate any person or group of persons, firm, organisation, industrial or commercial activity, profession or product, or seek to bring it or them into public contempt or ridicule.

    Article 17

    Safety and health

    Marketing communication should not, without justification on educational or social grounds, contain any visual portrayal or any description of potentially dangerous practices, or situations which show a disregard for safety or health, as defined by local national standards. Instructions for use should include appropriate safety warnings and, where necessary, disclaimers. Children should be shown to be under adult supervision whenever a product or an activity involves a safety risk. Information provided with the product should include proper directions for use and full instructions covering health and safety aspects whenever necessary. Such health and safety warnings

    Article 18

    Children and young people

    The following provisions apply to marketing communication addressed to children and young people, as defined in national laws and regulations relevant to such communications. Special care should be taken in marketing communication directed to or featuring children or young people. Such communications should not undermine positive social behaviour, lifestyles and attitudes. Products unsuitable for children or young people should not be advertised in media targeted to them, and advertisements directed to children or young people should not be inserted in media where the editorial matter is unsuitable for them. Material unsuitable for children should be clearly identified as such. For rules on data protection relating specifically to children’s personal information see Article 19.

    Inexperience and credulity

    Marketing communication should not exploit inexperience or credulity, with particular regard to the following areas:

    1. When demonstrating a product’s performance and use, marketing communication should not

    a. minimise the degree of skill or understate the age level generally required to assemble or operate products;

    b. exaggerate the true size, value, nature, durability and performance of the product;

    c. fail to disclose information about the need for additional purchases, such as accessories, or individual items in a collection or series, required to produce the result shown or described.

    2. While the use of fantasy is appropriate for younger as well as older children, it should not make it difficult for them to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

    3. Marketing communication directed to children should be clearly distinguishable to them as such.

    Avoidance of harm

    Marketing communication should not contain any statement or visual treatment that could have the effect of harming children or young people mentally, morally or physically. Children and young people should not be portrayed in unsafe situations or engaging in actions harmful to themselves or others, or be encouraged to engage in potentially hazardous activities or behaviour.

    Social values

    Marketing communication should not suggest that possession or use of the promoted product will give a child or young person physical, psychological or social advantages over other children or young people, or that not possessing the product will have the opposite effect.

    Marketing communication should not undermine the authority, responsibility, judgment or tastes of parents, having regard to relevant social and cultural values. Marketing communication should not include any direct appeal to children and young people to persuade their parents or other adults to buy products for them. Prices should not be presented in such a way as to lead children and young people to an unrealistic perception of the cost or value of the product, for example by minimising them. Marketing communication should not imply that the product being promoted is immediately within the reach of every family budget. Marketing communication which invite children and young people to contact the marketer should encourage them to obtain the permission of a parent or other appropriate adult if any cost, including that of a communication, is involved. For specific rules on marketing communication to children in the electronic media see Chapter D, Article D7.

    Article 23

    Responsibility

    These general rules on responsibility apply to all forms of marketing communication.

    Rules on responsibility with special relevance to certain activities or media can be found in the chapters devoted to those activities and media. Responsibility for the observance of the rules of conduct laid down in the Code rests with the marketer whose products are the subject of the marketing communication, with the communications practitioner or agency, and with the publisher, media owner or contractor. Marketers have overall responsibility for the marketing communication for their products. Agencies or other practitioners should exercise due care and diligence in the preparation of marketing communication and should operate in such a way as to enable marketers to fulfil their responsibilities. Publishers, media owners or contractors, who publish, transmit or distribute marketing communication, should exercise due care in the acceptance of them and their presentation to the public. Individuals employed by a firm, company or institution falling into any of the above categories and who take part in the planning, creation, publication or transmission of a marketing communication are responsible, to an extent commensurate with their respective positions, for ensuring that the rules of the Code are observed and should act accordingly. The Code applies to the marketing communication in its entire content and form, including testimonials and statements, and audio or visual material originating from other sources. The fact that the content or form of a marketing communication may originate wholly or in part from other sources does not justify non-observance of the Code rules.

    Article 24

    Effect of subsequent redress for contravention

    Subsequent correction and/or appropriate redress for a contravention of the Code, by the party responsible, is desirable but does not excuse the contravention.

    Article 25

    Implementation

    The Code and the principles enshrined in it, should be adopted and implemented, nationally and internationally, by the relevant local, national or regional selfregulatory bodies. The Code should also be applied, where appropriate, by all organisations, companies and individuals involved and at all stages in the marketing communication process. Marketers, communications practitioners or advertising agencies, publishers, media-owners and contractors should be familiar with the Code and with other relevant local self-regulatory guidelines on advertising and other marketing communication, and should familiarise themselves with decisions taken by the appropriate self-regulatory body. Requests for interpretation of the principles contained in this Code may be submitted to the ICC Code Interpretation Panel.7

    Chapter B — Sponsorship

    This Chapter is to be read in conjunction with the General Provisions found in

    Part I.

    Scope of Chapter B

    This Chapter applies to all forms of sponsorship relating to corporate image, brands, products, activities or events of any kind. It includes sponsorship by both commercial and non-commercial organisations. It does not apply to product placement, or to funding which lacks a commercial or communication purpose, such as donations or patronage, except where there is a sponsorship element.

    Terms specific to sponsorship

    The following definitions relate specifically to this Chapter and should be read in conjunction with the general definitions contained in the General Provisions:

    ???? the term “audience” refers to the public, individuals, or organisations to which a sponsorship property is directed;

    ???? the term “donations and patronage” refers to forms of altruism where money or goods may be given, with limited or no benefits, recognition or commercial return;

    ???? the term “media sponsorship” refers to sponsorship of a media property (e.g. television or radio broadcast, publication, cinema, internet, mobile or other telecommunication technology);

    ???? the term “product placement” refers to the inclusion of a product so that it is featured within a programme, normally in return for payment or other valuable consideration to the programme producer or licensee;

    ???? the term “sponsor” refers to any corporation or legal person providing financial or other sponsorship support;

    ???? the term “sponsorship” refers to any commercial agreement by which a sponsor, for the mutual benefit of the sponsor and sponsored party, contractually provides financing or other support in order to establish an association between the sponsor’s image, brands or products and a sponsorship property, in return for rights to promote this association and/or for the granting of certain agreed direct or indirect benefits;

    ???? the term “sponsored party” refers to any individual or legal person owning the relevant rights in the sponsorship property and receiving direct or indirect support from a sponsor in relation to the sponsorship property;

    ???? the term “sponsorship property” refers to an event, activity, organisation, individual, media or location.

    Article B3

    Imitation and confusion

    Sponsors and sponsored parties, as well as other parties involved in a sponsorship, should avoid imitation of the representation of other sponsorships where such imitation might mislead or generate confusion, even if applied to non-competitive products, companies or events.

    Article B9

    Social and environmental sponsorship

    Both sponsors and sponsored parties should take into consideration the potential social or environmental impact of the sponsorship when planning, organizing and carrying out the sponsorship. Any sponsorship message fully or partially based on a claim of positive (or reduced negative) social and/or environmental impact should be substantiated in terms of actual benefits to be obtained. Parties to the sponsorship should respect the principles set out in the ICC Business Charter for Sustainable Development.8 Any environmental claim made with respect to the sponsorship should conform to the principles set out in Chapter E, Environmental Claims in Marketing communication.

    Article B10

    Charities and humanitarian sponsorship

    Sponsorship of charities and other humanitarian causes should be undertaken with sensitivity and care, to ensure that the work of the sponsored party is not adversely affected.

    Article B13

    Responsibility

    As sponsorship is conceptually based on a contract of mutual benefit, the onus for observing the code falls jointly on the sponsor and the sponsored party, who share the ultimate responsibility for all aspects of the sponsorship, whatever its kind or content. Anyone taking part in the planning, creation or execution of any sponsorship has a degree of responsibility, as defined in Article 23 of the General Provisions, for ensuring the observance of the Code towards those affected, or likely to be affected, by the sponsorship.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 18th July 2009 @ 7:05 pm

22. 

    We in South Africa are watching very closely. Benjamin has the courage to stand up and say it as it is. He is a true Daniel. Perhaps those men using this bank and who are denied access/contact to their children through false Protection Orders etc., should find themselves another bank.

    Comment by Jacqueline Anderson — Tue 21st July 2009 @ 10:11 am

23. 

    I recently wrote to Westpac complaining about their new TV advertising campaign in which the main figure – a father – was trivialised, humiliated and portrayed as a fool beyond anything I’ve seen yet. He can’t even pull up his fly without getting his privates caught in the zipper, and even then the best he can do is wince and ask his son to ‘go get mum’.

    You don’t need me to go on any further about the lack of any real humour in it all.

    I made it clear that men are watching these ads, and although we may not be big complainers, we notice them all the same. If Westpac believes the future is female and doesn’t want the custom of men, that’s its business failure, not mine. But I wouldn’t want to own shares in such a company, or have them looking after my money when they demonstrate such lack of care or respect.

    They did respond and stated that my complaint had been passed on to their marketing team.

    I suspect they’ve had lots of complaints, because in the last few days a new ad has appeared in which a wife was introduced, and – this may be a first for quite some years – she’s less than perfect. But the father continues to be treated less as the object of humour, but someone so pathetic as to be beyond pity. It is a hate message, pure and simple.

    These corporations need to be told where they are going wrong, and told with the same nicety and respect they are showing us. They need to be financially punished, and hard.

    Comment by rc — Tue 21st July 2009 @ 2:19 pm

24. 

    I believe remedy is available if the Human Rights Commission is involved in taking action against, here, say, the BNZ. I wanted half of the BNZ cut to go to the HRC so that they could begin to distribute funds relative to the damage caused by long term discrimination. Preventing Violence in the Home Trust earned $200,000 for the charity. The prayer, (this is what it is referred to in Court as I am aware) would not have been accessible to me even if I had standing.

    This is to say that it is better that the HRC run the proceedings because they can seek active remedy against the perceived damage of the advertisement. The Bank is sensitive to loss at the moment, for not only have they just been stung by me, in theory at least at this stage, but just done massively by the IRD. If the HRC bring them to court and are successful the impact will be extraordinary.

    The telephone call to Dads on Air went all over the place and the call was terminated mid session. The producer rang me twice on two different phones to check the connection but the audibility went haywire, where I couldn’t hear him and just had to run the story on my own bat. At their end apparently I was too loud. The interview will be redone but this time on a landline and prerecorded. They are pretty keen to get the story, which is good because the Bank has done bad and should lose a lot of face.

    We will combine the Wellington protest outside the Families Commission tomorrow with a protest outside the BNZ. The protest today at Manners Mall went well. There are two Councilors down here who are sympathetic to the kinds of issues I am dealing with in Wellington. My idea is that if fathers cannot get to the respect of a democratic system built off the male, war torn forefather, then bring the democracy to the father.

    http://www.nzpaimages.co.nz/events.php?event_id=8459&show_all=0&page_no=1

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 22nd July 2009 @ 3:36 am

25. 

    Women’s Refuge has put out an advertisement on domestic violence. It features noise of argument alone without portraying any individual.

    Craig Jackson rang me this evening stating his interest in placing a complaint and would I support him in this. I am certainly happy to assist him. Now that I am reasonably experienced, I know what to do and how to prosecute an institution that survives off perpetuating a myth.

    So far, however, the challenges on gender discriminatory advertising in New Zealand, has been tackled by Craig and I alone — (no disrespect rc — good for you for taking it to Westpac!). It has been pretty lonely work turning up into a Court with a bevy full of top lawyers, carrying a briefcase where only one clip works containing no case law to present to the Court because I cannot afford to print a bundled copy for every party. Yet that loneliness engaged in argument with these top lawyers is made bearable, with Craig sitting in the Court, half deaf stretching to keep up with the arguments as they are presented. For such a lightweight team we have done amazingly well as this thread is credit. But it is really time for others to take an account of what has been achieved and to lend their support into the future or our reasonable challenge.

    In the matter of this thread the Bank of New Zealand have been put to a test and have effectively lost that test. The Chief High Court judge has not ruled against them but he has positioned my argument in such a way, so that someone with “standing”, like the Human Rights Commission, or the Advertising Standards Authority, will be able to bring the advertisement to its rightful judicial test. These proceedings continue of August 31st, where a judicial conference is to be heard between me and the HRC. In that conference I will have pursued the Commission to file against the bank: If not in the immediate proceedings, then separately.

    The experience I have gleaned from this process of Court and review is what is needed against the advertisement run by the Women’s Refuge. They are kicking up their fervour of fear and storm in fiction, about domestic violence, and singularly how only women and children must be protected as the victims of the violence and only men must be positioned as the perpetrators.

    Craig, supported by anyone else with courage enough to take a stand against this advertising regime should lay complaints with both the Human Rights Commission and with the Advertising Standards Authority. What should be brought to test are the statistics on domestic violence. The fiction (if indeed it is a fiction) that only men commit domestic violence against women and children must be challenged on mass and the figure to claim that it is not a fiction produced.

    After a period of going head to head and toe to toe with an unlawful administration in New Zealand of gender discrimination against men and fatherhood without the direct support of the body of those men (not disrespecting the marvellous unfailing support of Paul Catton), the word coward keeps on creeping into my thinking. I feel like calling Mr Curry of the Families Commission and the executive of Radio New Zealand, and the executive of the Human Rights Commission, let alone the National Australian Bank and the Bank of New Zealand — cowards. How dare they disrespect freedom by persecuting the male and marketing favour off a condition of his loss?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 1:50 am

26. 

    What if I put in an injunction on the smacking referendum, until the matter of the advertisement by the BNZ is run in court against the HRC, or the ASA, testing it? In this way its negative influence against smacking where only putting Pakeha dads on the cake, telling NZ to “break the cycle” can go against the Women’s Refuge’s naked marketing against the referendum?

    I would have to do it this week — and no later than Friday. Think about it and please reply.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 2:27 am

27. 

    I have a better (And easier) solution. Let men vote with their feet, and find another bank. Keep it out of the Aussie cartel. Though painful stick to our own Kiwi Bank, or call up the TSB.

    I would love to support you Ben but – Distance! Lawyers, especially high court ones go out of their way to belittle us amatures. Aren’t we the ones costing the breteren even more fees!

    Remember no-one can make you feel worthless without your permission. Have a quiet talk to our own professional PR man. He may even wordsmith your press releases (He is a professional) However he will have to stay in the background, you could even take the credit!

    Comment by alastair — Mon 27th July 2009 @ 8:42 am

28. 

    Today I met with the HRC. I met with a data analyst because other staff were on a course in Auckland. I had asked to meet with someone senior as I was effectively describing for the HRC what Justice Randerson’s decision said. There can be no doubt about what I say in respect of the judge’s decision. The information is straight forward even if it may appear obscure and double meaning to a lay observer.

    I borrowed a highlighter pen and made the observations clear with written text for the very pleasant employee given the task of meeting with me. She appeared to comprehend my points exactly: realistically they are straight forward.

    The next proceeding is August 31st for a judicial conference.

    Complaint against Paul

    Benjamin Easton phoned the Commission’s Infoline on (Confirm DATE) Tuesday 28 July 2009 to arrange a time to speak to someone in the Wellington office about a complaint he currently has with the Commission (M68753). They arranged that he and Craig Jackson would come to the Commission at about 1pm on Friday 31 July and would meet with Tina Chiles.

    Mr Easton spoke with Paul and wants to ensure that the content of the Tuesday phone call was transcribed accurately and efficiently.

    He would like to complain about several aspects of his phone call with Paul. Mr Easton says:
    1. He was not advised by Paul that the Wellington office has moved, and as a result Mr Easton went to the old office. This was particularly inconvenient, because he had arranged to meet Mr Jackson in the foyer at 1pm, and because of the lack of advice of the new address, it meant that Mr Jackson was unable to get to the new office due to problems with parking. Because the foyer was inaccessible they did not meet up at the old office.
    2. Paul was rude and patronising, openly laughing at Mr Easton for stating that proceedings before court are about the Commission’s behaviour.
    3. Paul asked if Mr Easton is aware that he sends the Commission 100s of emails. Mr Easton said that yes, he is aware of this.
    4. When Paul was advised by Mr Easton that his tone was patronising, Paul suggested in the same tone of voice that perhaps he’d like to make a complaint
    5. Paul asked Mr Easton if he had legal advise and suggested that no one in the Commission believed Mr Easton had any merit to his case. He also suggested that if there was an argument that he would know about it.

    As well as lodging this internal complaint against Paul, Mr Easton would also like to request that the Commission contact Mr Jackson to invite him to come in again. Mr Jackson’s intention on 31 July 2009 had been to lodge a complaint on a related matter, and Mr Easton believes that given the issues around a Commission staff member not notifying them of the change of Wellington office, that the Commission should contact Mr Jackson…

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 31st July 2009 @ 7:03 pm

29. 

    19 August 2009

    Dear Mr Easton,

    I have just returned from an extended period of leave and received a copy of your complaint from Tina Chiles.

    I was very concerned to learn of your concerns. You have raised serious issues that were the subject of a number of conversations with Paul immediately upon my return. With reference to your complaint, I note the following:

    1. Paul sincerely apologises for his clear oversight in failing to inform you of the change of the Wellington office address and the inconvenience this has caused. Paul will be contacting Mr Jackson apologising for failing to advise about the change of address and inviting him to another meeting with the Commission, as a priority. I have also made sure that Infoline staff are aware of their responsibility to advise change of address in order to prevent this from happening again.

    2. We are very concerned that you felt Paul was rude and patronising. Paul has reflected on your feedback. He understood the tone of the conversation was good natured. He did not intend to be patronising and apologises if he was experienced in this way.

    3. Paul has clarified that he mentioned the hundreds of emails in the context of responding to your concern that you had sent us an email and not received a response. He recalls saying that you send us hundreds of emails and it could be on one of those. He did not intend this to cause offence.

    4. I understand from Paul that he apologised at the time you mentioned his patronising attitude in the phone call. Again, Paul has confirmed that he did not intend to be patronising in referring you to his manager if you had any concerns and apologises if he was experienced in this way.

    5. Staff commenting on the merit of your case would clearly be a serious matter. I questioned Paul at length about this. He does not recall making any comments regarding any opinions by staff regarding your complaints. We apologise if you were left with this impression. I have reminded Infoline staff of the inappropriateness of this.

    The Commission is committed to providing a high quality service to every person who calls or writes. I regret that your experience was unsatisfactory. We welcome suggestions for improvement and complaints that identify weaknesses and areas for development and appreciate you raising your concerns with us.

    Paul will be continuing to reflect on your feedback in relation to improving his practice.

    Feel free to contact me to discuss anything further.

    Yours sincerely,

    Shae Ronald
    Manager External Relations
    Kaiwhakahaere Whanaungatanga

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 24th August 2009 @ 5:12 pm

30. 

    Dear Human Rights Commission:

    Please get more real blokes.

    Yours sincerely,
    Benjamin Easton,
    The Political Busker.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 24th August 2009 @ 5:22 pm

31. 

    Tena koe Robert,

    My replies are in bold, indented paragraphs and italics after your inquiry.

    Respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton
    The Political Busker
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    From: Robert Hallowell
    Subject: Easton v. Human Rights Commission & anor CIV-2009-485-726
    To: “[email protected]”
    Received: Wednesday, 26 August, 2009, 10:20 AM

    Hello Ben Easton,

    It’s Robert Hallowell, Legal Counsel at the Human Rights Commission.

    As you are aware the above proceedings are set down in the Judges Chambers List for Mention on 31 August 2009. In order to prepare for that I would be most grateful if you could confirm the following:

    1. That you still wish to proceed with this judicial review proceeding;

    BME Answer: Yes – I will seek a section 10 direction (JAA 72), from the judge. With the BNZ now apparently free from court review, for lack of my standing the matter, corporate/public complicity and corruption is the focus of controversy.

    2. That the issue in the proceeding is your challenge to the decisions made about the Biggest Morning Tea advert by the ASA (in response to your complaint) and by the Commission (in response to complaints by two other people);

    BME Answer: No — this will be discussed on Monday — the commission is subject to a review on statutory obligation to protect fatherhood as long abandoned and with the commission acting in consistency with victimization (s66 of the HRA) of dads.

    3. That you are aware of the Commission’s view that all the other issues mentioned in your amended statement of claim about the Commission are about the background and context to your challenge to the Commission’s decisions about the two complaints concerning the Biggest Morning Tea advert;

    BME Answer: Unclear – I am not sure what this sentence means and regardless, — I am not responsible for the Commission’s view.

    4. That you are agreeable to the Commission completing and filing its evidence in response by 7 September on its treatment of the two complaints about the Biggest Morning Tea;

    BME Yes: Nor am I adverse to any request for any extension subject to the August 31.

    5. That the case is suitable to be brought on for hearing at short notice;

    BME Answer: Subject to August 31.

    6. That nothing else is required from the Court before the hearing of your application.

    BME Answer: I will seek section 10 admissions of fact and interrogatories. These applications will be made on Monday

    Would you please provide your confirmation of the above by noon tomorrow, 27 August 2009. You can provide that confirmation either by sending me an email to me or alternatively you can call me on 09 375 8644 or you can call Craig Linkhorn at the Crown Law Office on 04 494 5592.

    Yours sincerely

    Robert Hallowell
    Legal Counsel

    DDI: 09 375 8644
    Email: [email protected]

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 11:05 am

32. 

    Dear Human Rights Commission,

    I rang the 0800 496 877, this moring with a request. I spoke with Neil. He was having trouble with his phone. Maybe he is new there – and getting settled in? He was very helpful – thank you.

    Kind regards,

    Benjamin Easton
    The Political Busker
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 11:11 am

33. 

    EASTON v NZ CORRUPTION

    On Monday August 31, Wellington ’s Political Busker, Benjamin Easton’s name appears on the High Court Judge’s Chamber’s list twice. Mr Easton uses all of his time while unemployed, employed to bring cases before the courts; and other complaints before New Zealand ’s acting bureaucracy.

    The busker is already known for court challenges against the Broadcasting Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Most recently he was in a judicial review matter with the Bank of New Zealand, for funding an openly gender discriminatory advertisement. One of the cases before the court on Monday is to do with this. The Bank successfully appealed to the Chief Judge of the High Court, Justice Randerson, that Easton did not have standing to bring them to review. This decision did not excuse the Bank from responsibility for funding the openly discriminatory advertisement but instead that Easton couldn’t complain. Costs were applied for by the Bank and awarded against the unemployed busker. The Human Rights Commission have dismissed Easton’s follow up complaint against the Bank saying that there is no provision in the Human Rights Act giving them the authority to engage the Bank. “That is just a load of dog’s bollocks” says an unreserved Easton .

    “The reason I am in all of these proceedings is because the errors I complain about are simply indefensible. What we have instead and in place is this intricate system where those who run it elect how it will function for their own benefit and protection rather than administrating through due process, natural justice and fairness. It is simply mind boggling that anyone wants to let the Bank get away with what they did. They abused the intelligence and integrity of all New Zealand saying only white dads hit children”.

    Easton also accuses the media of playing a game against the public interest, protecting those who are abusing the country’s democracy. “The stuff I am putting to the courts is really heavy material. It shows everyone who observes it where there is a serious and active corruption working in New Zealand society. The media simply don’t want to know about what I am showing them. I watch advertisements or other like claims by the media on issues of their integrity and the irony of ignorance is nauseating”.

    Easton also claims that the second case before the court in which he takes on the Wellington City Council over a decision to run buses through a pedestrian mall is indefensible. “The executive have openly cheated the public of their rights to be fairly and properly consulted” he says. “You have a bunch of power built individuals who want what they want irrespective of what anyone else might think or how they may be adversely affected. No matter how any would interpret the concept of consultation the executive cannot excuse that they have heralded their absolute arrogance. They either admit they do not know what consultation means or have otherwise acted in bad faith — which is very serious. Just like with the Bank no matter the damage done to me I cannot lose the moral argument. They will just look to bust me financially” says an already impecunious Easton .

    The proceedings in the High Court are on the introduction of the cases and are not the substantive hearing. They are called sometime after 10am.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 27th August 2009 @ 4:09 pm

34. 

    Happy birthday to my father. I filed this with the High Court, Human Rights Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority on 14 September 2009. The date for the proceedings is still to be set.

    The matter with the BNZ is still inherent.

    Kind regards,
    Benjamin Easton
    The Political Busker
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Statement of Claim against the HRC

    26) (Unfair) In decisions made by the HRC, replying directly to Easton’s correspondence and claims (representative of father’s in coalition), the HRC have not shown reasonable regard to gender equality or gender equity relative for;

    – Men, against protections for women; and
    – Children, against rights in procreation for women; and
    – Sons’ and daughters’ associations with natural their father; and
    – Heterosexuals against homosexual parenting.

    a) That the applied policy of the HRC, is unbending to arguments of gender equity or equality relative to natural fatherhood and abrogates natural associations ordinarily statutorily protected; and

    – That these examples are structural where the HRC has not responsibly identified the controversies, thereafter upholding its responsibilities to use the protections of the higher courts; and

    – (Unlawful) That to stay protected the HRC have had to reinterpret fundamental principles and protections of democracy; and

    – That following and committing to such policies gives wrongful exception for the HRC to victimize Easton, as male, (perpetuating the demonisation of fatherhood).

    RELIEF

    27) That the Court directs a return of correspondence to the HRC, for reconsideration and further reply consistent with the Statement of Claim to 08/417 with direct regard to the statutory function of the HRC to generally inquire into the matter; and

    (a) To the 18 May 06, letter by Solicitor David Peirse, and the controversy of how children are not protected to an association with their natural fathers and that the interpreted legislation puts single women and lesbian couples in a place of right over the child and heterosexuality; and

    (b) To the correspondence of 12 October 2006, by Chief Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan, relative to the introduction and circumstances surrounding the introduction of the Care of Children Bill 2003, with regard to those matters raised on constitution detailing an approach relative to the seriousness of those matters and the abrogation of sovereignty function.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 15th September 2009 @ 7:46 pm

35. 

    sorry that is supposed to be with their natural father.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 15th September 2009 @ 7:48 pm

36. 

    HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SITED – (EASTON V HRC/BNZ/ASA) AS GATE KEEPERS OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION AGASINT FATHERHOOD IN NEW ZEALAND IN STATEMENT OF CLAIM FROM EASTON v FAMILY COURT IN PALMERSTON NORTH PROCEEDINGS.

    The Palmerston North, Paint the Complaint protest was successful.

    While the numbers of public at the Palmerston North Court were not high on a Friday, the support from those public around was obvious. Protesters were held in long and engaging conversations with some public and asked relevant questions from a genuinely interested story taking photographer.

    The matter that could not be reported was the unlawful publication by Benjamin

    Easton of a Family Court case that was the primary subject of the protest. The statement of claim Easton has filed in Easton v Family Court (not his case but that of a local), is highly sensitive, where the proceedings against the Palmerston North registry is an alleged ‘proof’ of gender discrimination and bias against men and fatherhood as exists within that jurisdiction of family law.

    A second ‘Paint the Complaint’ protest will be held in Waitakere City sometime in the near future. This protest will not be announced publicly, conveyed to the media instead only on the morning of its event.
    It is guaranteed that there will be a far greater number of attendee protesters at the Waitakere Paint the Complaint.

    http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/77789/paint-complaint-pn-equity-fatherhood

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 4th October 2009 @ 10:51 am

37. 

    IN THE PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND. THE HIGH COURT REGISTRAR HAS STATED THAT HE WILL REJECT IT A SECOND TIME AS EASTON APPARENTLY HAS NO STANDING. EASTON HAS REJECTED THE REGISTRAR’S CLAIM SAYING HE DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION OR DISCRETION TO EXCUSE THE APPLICATION. SUCH A DECISION IS JUDICIAL AND BELONGS TO THE JUDGE UNDER THE JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT 1972.
    CIV

    UNDER: Judicature Amendment Act 1972

    IN THE MATTER: A judicial review of LCRO/01 decision.

    BETWEEN BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON
    Applicant/Plaintiff (Wellington)

    AND THE FAMILY COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
    First Respondent (Palmerston North)

    AND LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICE (CROWN)
    Second Respondent (Auckland)

    STATEMENT OF CLAIM

    Dated: 2 October 2009

    Next proceeding: Unknown

    Benjamin Morland Easton
    (of a) father’s coalition. PO Box 24415 Manners St Wellington
    Ph: 0273902169 [email protected]

    TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT

    I, Benjamin Morland Easton, applicant for the above proceeding seek a judicial review of the Legal Complaints Review Office LCRO 01 / 08 12 March 2008.
    I do so on the standing that:
    – I have compiled, filed and made submissions on and to all documents.
    – I have made these submissions because L does not have the skill or the experience to bring this challenge before the Court.
    – I do so directly relative to challenge the ‘environment’ of gender discrimination within the Family Court, where the only jurisdiction open to challenging that discrimination is through judicial review and I am the most able individual relative to this case to bring such proceedings.
    Quarantine Waste (NZ) Ltd v Waste Resources Ltd [1994] NZRMA 529

    – I have a protection order against me protecting me from my son and daughter where I am a trained early childhood educator of supervisory level and it is accepted I have never been violent, physically, sexually or emotionally to either my son or daughter or my ex-wife.
    o That my former wife has openly perjured herself in court on two occasions but remains protected for those actions of misleading court.
    o Those proceedings are identical in nature, where while the Family Court is invulnerable from allegations against its discrimination gross injustice can and has been supervised and maintained.
    – To excuse these proceedings on the grounds of standing would breach natural justice and be an unfair extension of the inherent practice.
    – That the only other institution capable of bringing these proceedings to the attention of the Court is the Human Rights Commission and the commission is under judicial review for its protection of gender discrimination failing to use its jurisdiction and powers of general inquiry under the Human Rights Act 1993 s5 (2) (h).
    CIV 2009 485-726 Easton v Human Rights Commission and ors,
    – That any lawyer taking the case would have a natural conflict of interest as the substantive proceedings are relative to a faulted application of the Law Society and the Ministry of Justice in self regulatory roles.
    – That in all matters under the Care of Children 2004, s4, the welfare and best interests of the child are the first and paramount consideration overriding the power of the Court and the society of law to protect itself from fact based criticism in respect of how family law processes are applied.
    Peter Joseph Burns v Department of Child, Youth and Family Services & ors [2005] NZHRRT 7 (4 April 2005)
    Review on the grounds:
    – The decision is made from errors of fact; and
    – The decision is not fair and is biased; an
    – The decision is ultra vires
    General description
    Relative to the First Respondent
    1. 1 October 2007, a lawyer from Winter Woods Lawyers (WW) of Palmerston North applied on behalf of D, to the First Respondent, Palmerston North Family Court (the Court), under s7 and s13 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 (the DVA), and under section 47, 48 and 49 of the Care of Children Act 2004, (the COCA) for a Without Notice protection order and a parenting order. The application was made against L. The application carried a signed application by D, on behalf of C, being the natural biological and infant son and only child of L and D. The application for a without notice parenting order stated that there were s60 DVA concerns. S60 deals with without notice applications relative to and limited by physical or sexual violence.
    1.1 Under s16 of the DVA, Protection of persons other than applicant, if granted, C would be protected from L by any protection order
    1.2 The Court dealt with the matters on paper and satisfied with the jurisdictional matters in respect of domestic violence, being that there was a domestic relationship and the need for protection (ss3, 14 respectively – DVA) and in respect of delay that would or might entail a risk of harm or undue hardship if proceeding on notice (s13 (1) DVA), made a temporary protection order on the without notice basis.
    1.2.1 An interim parenting order pursuant to s48 (1) 54(1) of the COCA was made granting the day to day care of C to D. As a specific application had not been filed by WW an application under 48 (1) was directed to be filed.
    1.3 Leave was reserved for L to apply for supervised contact on 48 hours notice.
    1.4 The jurisdiction provided was s27 DVA and/or s48 (1) of the COCA.
    1.5 No application specific application under 48 (1) was filed.
    Other relevant information
    2. On the 3 October 2007 a lawyer from Fitzherbert Rowe (FR) was appointed for C.
    2.1 On 23 October a report by FR was filed. The content of the report advised that D now said there were no physical violence allegations against L. FR dismissed the need of s60 DVA concerns. The report also recognised that D was agreeable to unsupervised access. It noted that L wanted ‘shared care’ and had undergone counselling claiming further ‘specialist counselling’ was in consideration. It observed that L accepted that he was at times suicidal. The summary stated that while D had no concerns about supervision FR had those concerns relative to mental health and such wellbeing.
    2.2 L would contest the accuracy of the FR report.
    2.3 No further Court proceedings had been filed for by either L or D.
    2.4 Mark Dobson Lawyers, (MD) first met with L on 31 January 2008. L terminated MD’s legal services on 30 June 2008.
    Relative to the applicant
    3. On 6 June, L corresponded with the Applicant, Benjamin Easton (BE). On 29 June L met BE. BE then wrote to WW and on that day. (For the purpose of clarity of this document BE is assigned to all actions or signatures in L’s name).
    Relative to the original complaint
    4. On 9 September BE wrote to the Manawatu Standards Committee, (MSC) complaining about WW.
    4.1 On 16 September MSC dismissed the complaint.
    Relative to the Second Respondent
    5. On 18 October BE wrote to the Second Respondent the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO).
    5.1 On 28 October LCRO replied to BE. Thereafter there was considerable correspondence.
    5.2 On Wednesday 17 December a teleconference was convened. In the conference BE raised concern that D and C may no longer be residing in Palmerton North and instead may be living in Christchurch.
    5.3 L was advised by WW, soon after the conference with confirmation.
    5.4 A hearing was then convened on 17 February 2009.
    5.5 A decision was given 12 March dismissing BE’s complaint.
    6. 2 October 2009, BE files for judicial review.
    Statement of Claim against First Respondent
    Relevant grounds
    – Unfair decision and inconsistent with natural justice
    – Biased decision against men and fathers
    – Decision made on errors of fact
    7. The decision of the Court on 1 October 2007 to grant the application of a temporary protection order and an interim parenting order against L was inconsistent with natural justice, it was unfair and biased against men and fathers; made from obvious errors of fact.
    7.1 The very nature of without notice orders, impede fundamental rights enshrined to the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990: for example: s9 right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment; and s14 freedom of expression; and s17 freedom of association; and s18 freedom of movement; and s24 rights of person charged / to be informed promptly of charge / to consult a lawyer / to have time and facilities to prepare a defence; and s25 to be presumed innocent until proved guilty / to be present and present a defence / to examine evidence and question witnesses under the same conditions as the prosecution; and s27 to a fair trial and right to natural justice.
    7.2 Under this one sided jurisdiction the party subjected to the without notice application is already at a heavy disadvantage. In the case of L, as the events unfolded, compared against the behaviour of D, in fact removing C from Palmerston North to Christchurch, he, (along with infant C) is already a committed victim of unfairness, prior to any subsequent facilities of access to justice.
    7.3 Under r3 of the Family Court Rules 2002 the purpose of the Court is to act fairly:
    Purpose of these rules
    (1) The purpose of these rules is to make it possible for proceedings in Family Courts to be dealt with–

    (a) as fairly, inexpensively, simply, and speedily as is consistent with justice; and

    7.4 Under r13 any practice that is not consistent with the rules must not be followed.
    13 Practices must be consistent
    (1) A practice that is not consistent with these rules or a family law Act must not be followed in any Court.

    7.5 Under r 17 (1) (a) any failure by WW beginning proceedings for without notice orders must be treated as an irregularity. The Court recognised a specific application had not been made under s48 (1) of the COCA. The direction by the Court requiring WW to make this application can and should only be interpreted under the jurisdiction of r17 (2) (b).
    17 Failure to comply with rules
    (1) If these rules have not been complied with in beginning or purporting to begin any proceedings, or at any stage in the course of or in connection with any proceedings, that failure to comply–

    a) must be treated as an irregularity; and
    2) If these rules have not been fully complied with at some stage of any proceedings,–

    (b) whether or not he or she acts under paragraph (a), the Judge may make any other order (for example, as to costs, or adjourning the proceedings) he or she thinks appropriate.

    7.6 Given WW’s failure, then inconsistent with the practice and purpose (fairness and consistent with justice) of the Rules; and given that s60 concerns were raised, alone, in the signed application by D, in relation to physical and sexual violence by L against C; and no such claims or evidence presented exists; and s60 concerns were later dismissed as unwarrantable by the lawyer for C; and given that the Court did not of its own consideration draw reference to the s60 allegation: strong indicators existed for the Court that r17 (2) (a) (ii) could and should prevail over (b) and the without notice part of the application should be set aside.
    a) the Judge may set the proceedings aside entirely or take any or all of the following steps:

    (ii) set aside, wholly or in part, any step in them:

    KLB v DT (Unreported) FAM 2008 000002 &58

    7.7 Furthermore, on reasonable study of the affidavit the Court could determine that paragraph 41 (c) was a sub paragraph that had been compiled from different parts of the affidavit and the meaning of “if he had a gun he would use it’ was directly scaremongering and placed out of context with the surrounding text.
    7.8 Additionally, the Court has overstated s13 of the DVA where the concept of s13 ss1 (b) “”undue hardship” is independent and discretionary. S13 ss1 (a) “risk of harm” is the weighted or plausible cause for action. S13 ss1 (b) cannot be sustained on the evidence for its lack of presentation.
    13 Application without notice for protection order
    (1) A protection order may be made on an application without notice if the Court is satisfied that the delay that would be caused by proceeding on notice would or might entail–

    (a) A risk of harm; or
    (b) Undue hardship–

    to the applicant or a child of the applicant’s family, or both.

    7.9 Where fathers and men are the predominant respondents and associated respondents to protection orders, any indicator of inconsistency with practices must be given serious consideration as fault damages the integrity of men and fatherhood.
    Peters v Davidson [1999] 2 NZLR 164
    7.10 Where the obvious victim of any bias, are the sons and daughters of the men and fathers the paradoxical without notice removal of the fathers from their association is directly inconsistent with the child’s interests as protected by s4 of the COCA:
    4 Child’s welfare and best interests to be paramount
    (1) The welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration–
    (a) in the administration and application of this Act, for example, in proceedings under this Act; and
    (b) in any other proceedings involving the guardianship of, or the role of providing day-to-day care for, or contact with, a child.

    Daganayasi v Minister of Immigration [1980] NZLR 130
    Remedy
    8. That the Court reissues the application for the original protection order rescinding the without notice status.
    Statement of Claim against the Second Respondent
    Relevant grounds
    – Ultra vires; and
    o Rigid application of predetermined policy
    o Giving credibility to irrelevant factors
    o Lack of consideration to relevant factors
    9. The second respondent made a decision that could not be substantiated by the evidence before it. The decision was directly inconsistent with the powers within its jurisdiction. In making the decision the LCRO overstepped its authority as a Lay Observer and rewrote law.
    9.1 The behaviour is inconsistent with the powers conveyed on the LCRO and in breach of its function under s192 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.
    192 Functions of Legal Complaints Review Officer
    The functions of the Legal Complaints Review Officer are–
    (a) to exercise the powers of review conferred on the Legal Complaints Review Officer by this Act:
    (b) to promote, in appropriate cases, the resolution, by negotiation, conciliation, or mediation, of–
    (i) complaints; or
    (ii) such issues relating to complaints as the Legal Complaints Review Officer specifies:
    (c) to provide advice to the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers and the Minister on any issue that the Legal Complaints Review Officer identifies in the course of carrying out reviews (being an issue that relates to the manner in which complaints are received and dealt with under this Act or any rules made under this Act).

    Remedy
    10. The Court should return the LCRO decision to the MSA for reconsideration and under such terms that the Court deems appropriate.

    DATED this the second day of August 2009.

    ………………………………………….
    Benjamin Morland Easton
    (Applicant)

    TO: Registrar, High Court of New Zealand Palmerston North
    AND Family Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North
    AND Legal Complaints Review Officer (CROWN) Level 10, Unisys House 56 Terrace

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 4th October 2009 @ 5:54 pm

38. 

    Tomorrow at 11.00am the HRC have asked to meet me relative to the case. Robert Hallowell will I presume be flying down from Auckland for the meeting at the Crown Offices. Craig Linkhorn Crown Solicitor will be at the meeting as well.

    In all what is critical is how they respond to the particulars of my arguments – relative to my questions of effect on the basic principles of the/my case. This is to say that there are things I know that are indefensible.

    At the very top of my argument on full admission of HRC capacities coupled with a focus and given reason to further investigations relative to gender discrmination against fatherhood in New Zealand (by way of general and statute statements of acceptance) it is possible the proceedings could be draft resolved tomorrow, with me withdrawing the Commission as a respondent.

    I have a bit of thinking to do tonight and will post after the meeting.

    Respectfully,
    Benjamin Easton
    The Political Busker
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 5th October 2009 @ 7:42 pm

39. 

    The discussion went well and close to the hour allocated. Confusion relative to the statement of claim and what I perceive is submitted in that claim has been identified. Crown Law as solicitors for the Human Rights Commission will begin a process to identify a memorandum of agreement. That process will mature to see that the points not agreed on by the hearing date of January 28, 2009 will be what the judge will consider.

    For my part I have another engagement that I would like to fulfill from January 28th. So my penultimate view if a hearing is required is that I will be required only in perfunctory duty, or otherwise the role I play will be considerably different from the time required to prove the case I have against the Human Rights Commission.

    Craig Linkhorn of Crown Law will compile a first draft memorandum of agreement.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 6th October 2009 @ 12:23 pm

40. 

    I am in the high Court today at 10.00am about an radio broadcast on Feb 27th 2008 between a FC lawyer and 9 – 12.

    It is an important post here because the two cases can now be drawn in together. While it appears that the matter is only about security, rest assured it is not. The principal matter is whether or not gender discrimination in the Family Court as protected by media is a matter of the public interest.

    Respectfully,
    LAOS New Zealand

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
    WELLINGTON REGISTRY

    CASEFILE: CIV-2008-485-001465
    UNDER: Broadcasting Act 1989
    IN THE MATTER OF: Appeal of Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) Decision No: 2008-029
    BETWEEN BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON
    Appellant

    AND RADIO NEW ZEALAND
    Respondent

    MEMORANDUM OF APPLICANT

    Dated: 12 October 2009

    Next proceeding: 12 October
    Case officer: Michaela Stack

    Benjamin Morland Easton
    PO Box 24415 Manners St Wellington
    Ph: 0273902169
    [email protected]

    TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT
    1. This memorandum relates to the matter of an appeal by Benjamin Easton against a broadcast aired by Radio New Zealand (RNZ) on Nine to Noon (NTN) February 27, 2008. The broadcast complained about was a programme between the host Kathryn Ryan and a Family Court lawyer Catriona McLeenan about a Ministry of Justice review of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. The appellant (Easton) complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) that the broadcast was unbalanced and gender discriminatory. The complaint was dismissed.
    2. Easton was granted leave by Justice Wild on 8 September 2008 to bring a judicial review relative to the matter. On 1 December 2008, Dobson J struck out the proceedings of review. Easton then appealed. The matter concluded in the Supreme Court where on August 5 2009 the application seeking leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal and Justice Arnold’s decision on security was dismissed.
    3. In the High Court in Wellington, on 2 November 2008, Justice Simon France allowed 10 minutes for the matter of security of the original appeal to be heard at the first call over.
    4. Easton paid $800 and inexperienced applied at the same time for security to be waived on the grounds of public interest.
    Grounds for waiving security
    – Impecuniosity
    ? Merit of appeal
    – Public interest
    – Admission by lack of defence.

    Impecuniosity
    5. On 17 June Arnold J accepted that the appellant is impecunious. Easton’s circumstances have not changed 1. While a payment of $800 is an exception to the nugatory argument the value in a context of impecuniosity is considerable.
    “It is relevant to consider whether the appellant’s appeal rights will be rendered nugatory if no waiver is granted, but it is also relevant to consider the merits of the appeal to see whether the appellant has an arguable case.”

    Merit of appeal
    6. The Authority directly re-interpreted the complaint mitigating its value failing to establish or consider the controversy.
    The complaint
    “Whether or not you feel in balanced journalism that Catriona McLennan should have been entitled to continually, directly discriminate against men through her assumption men commit all notable violence in New Zealand?”

    Findings
    Principle 4 (balance) — not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could be the victims of domestic violence — not upheld

    7. The Authority failed to consider the complaint in whole under s13 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, by testing the complaint in respect of openly gender discriminatory comments.
    13 Decisions on complaints
    (1) If, in the case of a complaint referred to the Authority under section 8, the Authority decides that the complaint is justified, in whole or in part, the Authority may make any 1 or more of the following orders:

    (1) The Authority accepted openly discriminatory commentary from a Family Court lawyer, (the court being a jurisdiction controversially challenged as biased and gender discriminatory against men and fatherhood) as ‘opinion and experience’, without wholly paying due regard to the accuracy or disingenuous nature of those controversial comments.
    Standard 7 Discrimination and Denigration Broadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

    Guideline 7a
    This standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material that is:
    (ii) a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion; or

    (2) On considering the complaint for the misleading nature of the programme the Authority should have found for an early correction of the broadcasted information.
    Standard 5 Accuracy
    Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming: is accurate in relation to all material points of fact; and/or does not mislead.

    Guidelines
    5c In the event that a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it at the earliest appropriate opportunity.

    Public interest
    8. A matter of gender discrimination against men being unashamedly applied by an officer of the Family Court as invited and accommodated by a public broadcaster, then condoned by the national judicial broadcasting authority must be of significant public interest.
    (1) The pattern of bureaucratic behaviour is not uncommon and should be opened up for its scrutiny and public exposure 2.
    Justice Randerson [20] “If the decision by the Bank of New Zealand to fund the advertisement is susceptible to judicial review then, arguably, the Bank of New Zealand should have taken into account some or all of these principles”.

    Admission by lack of defence
    9. Radio New Zealand relies solely on the affidavit of Jane Anthea Hughes, 26 August 2008 for its defence, which is little more than a compilation of the appellant’s letters exposing how the patterns of behaviour have been allowed through the neglect of the matter to mature and fester.
    Relief
    10. The security order should be rescinded, the security waived as a matter in the genuine public interest and the sum of $800 returned to the appellant.

    1 Statement of Income 9 September 2009
    2 Easton v Human Rights Commission & ors CIV2009-485-726 13 July 2009

    DATED this the twelfth day of October 2009.

    ………………………………………….
    Benjamin Morland Easton
    (Appellant)

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 12th October 2009 @ 6:33 am

41. 

    The Poison Exposed

    EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE
    29 October 2009

    I am compiling my evidence for the proceedings against the Human Rights Commission and I read through one of my many complaints with the Commission. This was made against the HRC supporting the Women’s Refuge funding campaign for a slogan that is preposterous and openly gender discriminatory

    “Domestic violence is not a woman’s issue it is a human right’s issue”.

    I could not see how domestic violence could possibly be thought of as a ‘woman’s issue” unless it was being piloted that way by women. Craig Jackson and I went to the launch of this and I discussed the matter with Commissioner Joy Liddicoat, after her speech which gave yet another example of how men are directly demonized by these powerful women. The complaint was not upheld but that isn’t my immediate concern.

    I wrote a letter addressing it to Allan Harvey of the Union of Fathers. I copied the letter to, among others, the Women’s Refuge and the HRC. It was a fairly straight forward letter with nothing extreme. My concern is the correspondence between the Commissioner and the WR CEO, Heather Henare.

    On 22 July 2009 Commissioner Liddicoat wrote to the Chief Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan. “Hi — FYI and Rosslyn, I’d be delighted to discuss this when you receive it. Cheers Joy”. This correspondence was listed directly after an email was sent to her from Heather Henare — who wrote “”As you predicted the Union of Fathers true to form. Thanks for yesterday Joy you were spot on”.

    How is it that the WR/HRC do not know the make up of the UoF? I am not UoF and have never claimed to be. What is this alleged “form” does the UoF have where it is mainstream in its purpose of engaging Family Court matters? And what is it that Joy said to Heather about what she expected as being “true to form”? How is it that where I write (of a) father’s coalition at the bottom of the letter I am mistaken for UoF?

    My complaint is about gender discrimination within the institution of the Commission. Letting this unbridled discrimination live and thrive in an institution as important to the public interest as the Commission is a crime against the public.

    Respectfully,
    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand
    (of a) father’s coalition

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 8:16 am

42. 

    EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE
    29 October 2009-10-29

    To Robert Hallowell

    Tena koe Robert,

    I refer to the correspondence below as received first from Tina Chiles and second from Shae Ronald. In the substance of my complaint to the Commission at paragraph 5, Paul was inferring his position of knowledge was from conversations he was having with you. As I am aware you both work at the Auckland offices. Can you advise me please of any conversations you have had with Paul about my case?

    Respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand
    (of a) father’s coalition

    31st July 2009
    1. Today I met with the HRC. I met with a data analyst because other staff were on a course in Auckland. I had asked to meet with someone senior as I was effectively describing for the HRC what Justice Randerson’s decision said. There can be no doubt about what I say in respect of the judge’s decision. The information is straight forward even if it may appear obscure and double meaning to a lay observer.
    I borrowed a highlighter pen and made the observations clear with written text for the very pleasant employee given the task of meeting with me. She appeared to comprehend my points exactly: realistically they are straight forward.
    The next proceeding is August 31st for a judicial conference.
    Complaint against Paul
    Benjamin Easton phoned the Commission’s Infoline on (Confirm DATE) Tuesday 28 July 2009 to arrange a time to speak to someone in the Wellington office about a complaint he currently has with the Commission (M68753). They arranged that he and Craig Jackson would come to the Commission at about 1pm on Friday 31 July and would meet with Tina Chiles.
    Mr Easton spoke with Paul and wants to ensure that the content of the Tuesday phone call was transcribed accurately and efficiently.
    He would like to complain about several aspects of his phone call with Paul. Mr Easton says:
    1. He was not advised by Paul that the Wellington office has moved, and as a result Mr Easton went to the old office. This was particularly inconvenient, because he had arranged to meet Mr Jackson in the foyer at 1pm, and because of the lack of advice of the new address, it meant that Mr Jackson was unable to get to the new office due to problems with parking. Because the foyer was inaccessible they did not meet up at the old office.
    2. Paul was rude and patronising, openly laughing at Mr Easton for stating that proceedings before court are about the Commission’s behaviour.
    3. Paul asked if Mr Easton is aware that he sends the Commission 100s of emails. Mr Easton said that yes, he is aware of this.
    4. When Paul was advised by Mr Easton that his tone was patronising, Paul suggested in the same tone of voice that perhaps he’d like to make a complaint
    5. Paul asked Mr Easton if he had legal advise and suggested that no one in the Commission believed Mr Easton had any merit to his case. He also suggested that if there was an argument that he would know about it.
    As well as lodging this internal complaint against Paul, Mr Easton would also like to request that the Commission contact Mr Jackson to invite him to come in again. Mr Jackson’s intention on 31 July 2009 had been to lodge a complaint on a related matter, and Mr Easton believes that given the issues around a Commission staff member not notifying them of the change of Wellington office, that the Commission should contact Mr Jackson…

    1. 19 August 2009
    Dear Mr Easton,
    I have just returned from an extended period of leave and received a copy of your complaint from Tina Chiles.
    I was very concerned to learn of your concerns. You have raised serious issues that were the subject of a number of conversations with Paul immediately upon my return. With reference to your complaint, I note the following:
    1. Paul sincerely apologises for his clear oversight in failing to inform you of the change of the Wellington office address and the inconvenience this has caused. Paul will be contacting Mr Jackson apologising for failing to advise about the change of address and inviting him to another meeting with the Commission, as a priority. I have also made sure that Infoline staff are aware of their responsibility to advise change of address in order to prevent this from happening again.
    2. We are very concerned that you felt Paul was rude and patronising. Paul has reflected on your feedback. He understood the tone of the conversation was good natured. He did not intend to be patronising and apologises if he was experienced in this way.
    3. Paul has clarified that he mentioned the hundreds of emails in the context of responding to your concern that you had sent us an email and not received a response. He recalls saying that you send us hundreds of emails and it could be on one of those. He did not intend this to cause offence.
    4. I understand from Paul that he apologised at the time you mentioned his patronising attitude in the phone call. Again, Paul has confirmed that he did not intend to be patronising in referring you to his manager if you had any concerns and apologises if he was experienced in this way.
    5. Staff commenting on the merit of your case would clearly be a serious matter. I questioned Paul at length about this. He does not recall making any comments regarding any opinions by staff regarding your complaints. We apologise if you were left with this impression. I have reminded Infoline staff of the inappropriateness of this.
    The Commission is committed to providing a high quality service to every person who calls or writes. I regret that your experience was unsatisfactory. We welcome suggestions for improvement and complaints that identify weaknesses and areas for development and appreciate you raising your concerns with us.
    Paul will be continuing to reflect on your feedback in relation to improving his practice.
    Feel free to contact me to discuss anything further.
    Yours sincerely,
    Shae Ronald
    Manager External Relations
    Kaiwhakahaere Whanaungatanga

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 11:29 am

43. 

    It is sad that Union of Fathers and other groups get labelled by actions of a few. Thankfully Heather Henare , Joy Liddicoat and the Families Commision are aware that Ben and the so called fathers coalition have no association with Union of Fathers.

    Comment by [email protected] — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 2:14 pm

44. 

    Thesaddest bit Allan is if we could harness the power house, and focus it, what a tower of strength Ben and the “Father Coalition” would be for the good of us all.

    Comment by Alastair — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 3:53 pm

45. 

    That of course was the vision that Union of Fathers was launched as.
    The vision of Darryl and others was that UoF could be a banner all could use and collect under. Unfortunately we are a divisive bunch who prefer to work in small factions. Union of Fathers is one of the few groups that attempts to be a national organisation. To date it is the most successful at this goal although even that is shakey at times.
    For those who don’t know the history UoF has a set of rules and a membership structuure that some object to. Matters came to a head back in 2004 and 2005 when some wished to protest outside of individuals homes which did not have the sanction of UOF executive and hence the “of a fathers coalition” was born.

    Comment by [email protected] — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 5:22 pm

46. 

    I think we should go back to the Gramatics of the title. I note it is presentes as “A Father’s Coalition” The expression to me is presented in the singular. This ofcourse is totally in conflict with the word Coalition, meaning as it does a grouping of 2 or more. There cannot be a coalition of one!

    No wonder they are confused!

    Comment by Alastair — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 6:01 pm

47. 

    I think you have missed my point guys.

    Joy Liddicoat (a Commissioner) compromises her core function by engaging with the Heather Henare in this way.

    19 Duty to act independently

    Except as expressly provided otherwise in this or another Act, the Commission must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties, and exercising its statutory powers, under–

    (a) this Act; and

    (b) any other Act that expressly provides for the functions, powers, or duties of the Commission (other than the Crown Entities Act 2004).

    Functions of Commission

    (1) The primary functions of the Commission are–

    b) to encourage the maintenance and development of harmonious relations between individuals and among the diverse groups in New Zealand society.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 6:30 pm

48. 

    Alan,

    the second point is that clearly Heather Henare, Joy Liddicoat and the HRC have no idea what separates the Union of Fathers from individuals in coalition with other dads – This is the point I have made on your behalf.

    Respectfully,
    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand
    (of a) father’s coalition

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 6:33 pm

49. 

    Thank you Robert,

    for confirming your conversation with the info line staff.

    My concern is that Paul left me with no doubt that the Commission was under the impression that I had no case – was not using a lawyer and that if I had a case he would know about it. I do not see how Paul could have known that I was not using a lawyer if the conversation between you was not more elaborate than simply giving an instruction to pass on information.

    It appears to me instead that my Court challenge of the Commission that there is a ‘culture’ of opinion that is discriminatory against men like me is qualified by these circumstances. This is to say that Paul’s response to my complaint is a simple nonsense against the facts of the conversation.

    With this in mind I look to my other letter relative to the complaint against Joy Liddicoat and its dismissal. I cannot see how the email correspondence between Ms Liddicoat and Ms Henare is consistent with the independent function of the Commission. I am entitled to be treated with respect by a Commissioner and not prejudicially referred to predicting my behavior in some private conversation with the CEO of the Women’s Refuge.

    1. 19 Duty to act independently

    Except as expressly provided otherwise in this or another Act, the Commission must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties, and exercising its statutory powers, under–

    (a) this Act; and

    (b) any other Act that expressly provides for the functions, powers, or duties of the Commission (other than the Crown Entities Act 2004).

    5. Functions of Commission

    (1) The primary functions of the Commission are–

    b) to encourage the maintenance and development of harmonious relations between individuals and among the diverse groups in New Zealand society.

    I state you should be aware that my claims that the Commission is not treating me fairly on this information alone: Holds merit. To excuse my complaint that this consistent behaviour is not an indicator of the Commission abrogating its own core function would be completely wrong. My complaints hold substance.

    For example on the substantive matter of the Biggest Morning Tea advertisement where figurines of four children were put on top of a cake being assaulted by four adult white males (recognized by the advertiser as fathers) not an abrogation of a fundament principle when advertising using children?

    Advertising and Marketing Communication Practice Consolidated ICC Code.

    Avoidance of harm

    Marketing communication should not contain any statement or visual treatment that could have the effect of harming children or young people mentally, morally or physically. Children and young people should not be portrayed in unsafe situations or engaging in actions harmful to themselves or others, or be encouraged to engage in potentially hazardous activities or behaviour.

    Please advise me for my own assurance that your conversation with Paul and other info line staff, did not inform him or them that I was representing myself in my proceedings.

    Kind regards,

    Benjamin Easton

    LAOS New Zealand.

    — On Thu, 29/10/09, Robert Hallowell wrote:

    From: Robert Hallowell
    Subject: RE: More about victimisation
    To: “‘Benjamin Easton'”
    Received: Thursday, 29 October, 2009, 2:45 PM

    Hello Ben Easton,

    It’s Robert Hallowell from the Human Rights Commission.

    I informed Paul and the other members of the Infoline staff that you issued judicial review proceedings in the High Court against the HRC and others. I also provided a brief outline of what the issues are in the case.

    From time-to-time there are overlaps between the issues you bring to the HRC’s attention and the litigation so I asked the Infoline staff to forward me a copy of your emails.

    Yours sincerely

    Robert Hallowell
    Legal Counsel

    DDI: 09 375 8644
    Email: [email protected]

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 7:30 pm

50. 

    Who is Paul?

    There are 4 very well known and reputable “Pauls” in the overall view of things. Which one is it.

    Comment by Alastair — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 8:00 pm

51. 

    I don’t know he never gave me his last name.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 29th October 2009 @ 8:59 pm

52. 

    ACCEPTED

    Hello Ben Easton,

    It’s Robert Hallowell from the Human Rights Commission.

    In my conversation with the Infoline staff I did not talk about you representing yourself in the proceedings. The conversation was about the need to pass on information to me.

    Yours sincerely

    Robert Hallowell
    Legal Counsel

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 30th October 2009 @ 9:48 am

53. 

    Tena koe Robert,

    further to establish my position with the Commission and before the Court I wish to inquire on the 3 complaints that I laid with June Crane and the Commission on 30 of May 2008.

    About s17 (2) (3) Care of Children Act and the capacity for single women or lesbian couples to exclude for a child an association with their natural father or developmental male influence. This is inconsistent with s4 (1) of the Act and the child’s interests (not the parents) being the paramount consideration.

    About s194 (b) of the 1961 Crimes Act and specifically the gender discriminatory language and application of the assault by a male on a female.

    3. Reading back over the third complaint I realise it does not consist of the information I though it would and acts more as an extension of the first complaint. The purpose of that complaint with its reference to the Interpretation Act 1999 should have been to challenge s31 of the Act, in respect of s194 (b) of the Crimes Act 1961 and how the use of masculine gender in enactments passed or made before commencement of this Act In an enactment passed or made before the commencement of this Act, words denoting the masculine gender include females, are not purposefully compatible.

    Can you advise me please why these complaints were never processed and what is the schedule for them to be processed?

    Respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 30th October 2009 @ 12:49 pm

54. 

    Bump

    Comment by julie — Fri 30th October 2009 @ 8:15 pm

55. 

    Tena koe Robert,

    I have no intention of dropping the proceedings. I am going to fight the abuse of fatherhood (as well) and the associated commercial exploitations failing to protect our inherent function until my end.

    You have said that the evidence of my victimisation is not clear and I have asked you to provide me with the evidence that is already in the files. I cannot compile evidence that you have not yet given me and I cannot detail what I would complete in my substantive submission if I do not know what has happened to the files.

    What has changed is that you have not been clear on my victimisation in our agreement. I have responded to this unlike how you present the information. You are simply arguing that you cannot see how I have been victimised. There are three principle points that all need qualification.

    1.Paul’s response to my complaint is not true. In your reply you have stated that you did not give him information that allowed him to be patronising — but I wonder where that ability for him to be confident that he could run down my case came from. How did he know these things?

    2.Commissioner Liddicoat was evidentially engaged in a conversation about men like me with the CEO from the Women’s Refuge — I want to know if this information is consistent with the practice of the Commission as relative to function. I say this is a serious breach of the independent functions of the Commission and exposes the poison that men and fathers have had to put up with for year upon year, identifying collusion in thought and agendas between the Commission and the Women’s Refuge.

    3.Where are my 3 massively significant complaints — how where they processed and why the year’s delay. Did they just dissapear? If you have not picked this out of the details I have already provided then I will have to engage a more extensive review of the evidence I submit.

    As I have stated I am applying for a change of Court date from availability — but I want this to now include the provision of the information I am asking of the Commission. I think it is more up to the Commission to seek the adjournment while you figure out these questions if we are to agree on the memo because the point we do not agree on is whether or not I am victimised. Let’s sort that out first.

    Respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton

    LAOS New Zealand

    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Hello Ben Easton,

    It’s Robert Hallowell from the HRC.

    Are you intending to continue the proceedings against the HRC and the Advertising Standards Authority?

    I note that:

    1. You are well overdue in serving your evidence; it was due to be served on 27 October

    2. You have said that you intend to make an application to vacate the hearing date but do not appear to have done so; the uncertainty about the hearing date needs to be resolved as soon as possible

    3. You have not yet provided a final response to the proposed Joint Memo on the Issues for Determination.

    If you prefer to discontinue the proceedings the HRC would be prepared to consider each party bearing their own costs to this point.

    I look forward to receiving your response and ask that you provide one to me by 3:00 p.m. tomorrow.

    Yours sincerely

    Robert Hallowell

    Legal Counsel

    DDI: 09 375 8644

    Email: [email protected]

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 6th November 2009 @ 1:27 pm

56. 

    Is the ‘bump’ the sound of the Commission falling on the floor or the sound of HH and JL’s heads knocking together?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 7th November 2009 @ 1:13 pm

57. 

    Alastair,

    For my part I do not intend to leave this comment unanswered because it is a principal misrepresentation of what teh coalition is – and as well for your lack of comprehension it shows that to get the point, you need more information.

    There is no capitalisation of either the word Father/father or Coalition/coalition. A capital incorporates a body, hence – Wellington the Capital City of New Zealand.

    Your point argues the constitution of the coalition without gettign that you have no exemption from its existance or responsibilities. There is no requirement for you to do anything other than be a father to be in coalition and unless you want to escape from that primary function no reason for you to take exception for being a part of it. It is while you argue teh point you demonstrate the lack of coalition – not as you point out that more fatehrs do not seem to be a part of it. This is to say that your argument is the thing for men to overcome not my actions protecting fatherhood.

    It is like you are saying “I am not human”.

    Respectfully,
    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 7th November 2009 @ 1:23 pm

58. 

    Is the ‘bump’ the sound of the Commission falling on the floor or the sound of HH and JL’s heads knocking together?

    😀 It was my way of making sure readers noticed new comments on the thread.

    Comment by julie — Mon 9th November 2009 @ 1:23 am

59. 

    The following information will be served to the High Court as soon as the HRC have commented.

    MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT

    1. This is an application for an order to vacate and then reschedule the proceedings hearing date of January 28 to any date after February 18, appropriate to Court and suitable to the respondent.

    On the grounds

    – Plaintiff will be in Auckland from January 28 until February 18 2009

    – Parties cannot agree on issues and matters that require (in part) resolution of claim and plaintiff is waiting on information to be provided before being able to compile the necessary evidence.

    Issues to be resolved

    2. In discussions to establish a memorandum of agreement and prior to the plaintiff filing evidence it was stated by the respondent that the claim of victimisation by the respondent against the plaintiff was not clear.

    3. This statement requires clarification for the respondent by the plaintiff.

    4. The matters and issues still to be resolved are:

    – Was Commissioner Joy Liddicoat acting appropriately and consistently with the function of the Commission engaging in a gender discriminatory conversation about the plaintiff, with the Women’s Refuge Chief Executive Officer, Heather Henare predicting the plaintiff’s behaviour prior to the issue of a complaint about the Commission acting inappropriately supporting a gender discriminatory logo for a Women’s Refuge funding campaign?

    – How was a Commission telephone receptionist able to engage in a patronising conversation with the plaintiff about his court proceedings exchanging information that should have been private and confidential for the plaintiff?

    – Why were three complaints made on 30 May 2008 by the plaintiff not processed and why have they still not been processed since being filed in affidavit evidence in the amended statement of claim June 08 2009?

    DATED this the twelfth day of November 2009.

    ………………………………………….
    Benjamin Morland Easton
    Applicant/plaintiff

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 2:19 pm

60. 

    Yawn,
    Who cares? This is a crusade of one!
    What purpose does this serve? It clearly shows you pursue vexatious litigation but for what purpose?
    Litigation like this does our wider interests a dis-service.
    This has nothing to do with children and I do not see it serves the interets of men and fathers either.
    Allan

    Comment by [email protected] — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 2:44 pm

61. 

    Quite obviously you don’t care Allan.

    You are entitled not to care. Who cares that the Human Rights Commission do not prosecute gender discrimination complaints – for the period of a year – that expose that there is gender discrimination in the Crimes Act 1961 which dictates that men are the primary perpetrators of violence which is automatically carried through into the Family Court – and that a single woman and lesbian couple are given rights to remove for the child access to their natural father – and that a Commissioner is openly abrogating the Commission’s direct and primary function: One could say quite obviously not the Union of Fathers.

    Respectfully,
    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 3:55 pm

62. 

    Frankly neither do I. I would sooner do something to progress the mens movement! What about countering all the lies in the current white feather campaign Ben – Go do something useful!

    Comment by Alastair — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 3:59 pm

63. 

    Alistair – do you have any idea what I have exposed in relation to the self regulatory dysfunction of the Manawatu District Standards Committee – and how the Legal Complaints Review Officer had to moderate a decision out of its outright incompetence? Did you know as is published on this site that I discovered that Judge Twaddle approved an ex-parte order going through where the lawyer filed for s60 violence against the child and there was none – not even a partial allegation of sexual or physical violence against the child?

    Do you know that on the examination of my argument from Palmerston North a ‘top’ lawyer half shouted about the first LCRO NZ decision when he realised what I had discovered saying “they are not allowed to change the law”.

    Do you care that I found – the most significant fault as it was caused by the Attorney General Margaret Wilson that Justice McGhecan prayed such jurisdiction would never be met – do you know that it exposed ‘rights’ considered by Lord Cooke of Thorndon claimed that go so deep that not even parliament can override them?

    No matter – but please do not insult my abilities.

    Respectfully,
    Benjamin Easton
    LOAS New Zealand

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 4:16 pm

64. 

    Please continue your campaigns to expose the wickedness against men and families. I enjoy and appreciate reading about the progress that you make with exposing those evil bastards whose ideology overrides our laws, both national and international. I am glad that you bother.
    Thank-you!
    … from my son, my two daughters and me.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 4:34 pm

65. 

    Thank you,

    if I spent all of my time telling you all what I do, I would not have any time left to do what it is that I am doing.

    Kind regards,
    … from my son and daughter who still love me dearly despite my daughter not seeing me for now over 3 years, probably 4 and my son with whom I have had some contact recently that he has turned 17 – whom both I have never hit, hurt or harmed – and for whom there are no allegations to say that I have.

    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand
    The Political Busker
    (of a) fathers coalition

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 12th November 2009 @ 4:51 pm

66. 

    Victimisation and further questions of performance
    14 November 2009

    EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

    Tena koe Robert Hallowell,

    Further to my inquiries for information in respect of my Victimisation, under s66 of the Human Rights Act 1993, I request you comment on my inquiry and about a statement made in the Human Rights Commission Annual Report 2009.

    Can you please advise:

    Point 1: What the response was from Hilary Unwin’s December 19 2008, reference to the s5 Consultative Group for my inquiry; and

    1.Why I have not received any reply from this consultative group even though I have had matters referred to them on three occasions?

    Friday, 19 December, 2008 12:49 PM

    Dear Ben,

    Thank you for your email. You have requested that I inform you if your assessment and expectation under section 20L is reasonable and if it is reasonable, you have requested that the Commission explain, “why it should not upgrade its assessment and response to the recognised discrimination to an inquiry under s5 (2) (h) of the Act”. I have quoted from your email, but the italics are mine.

    Let me begin by explaining the way the Commission exercises its different powers under the Human Rights Act, as you are aware the Commission can approach important human rights issues in two ways: reactively and specifically through its complaints mechanism or proactively and generally through its broader mandate.

    Unlawful discrimination jurisdiction

    In the first instance, for the Commission to progress any complaint of unlawful discrimination, the complaint needs to have happened in the certain areas and on the certain grounds identified in the Human Rights Act 1993. In your case your complaint was identified as one the Commission could progress. This does not mean that that the Commission agreed that the Family Violence Intervention Guidelines (“the Guidelines”) formed a “recognised discrimination”. The Commission has no investigative or opinion forming role in considering complaints of unlawful discrimination, it considered that the complaint came within the scope of Part 1A of the Human Rights Act ( “the Act”) in that it raised an arguable issue of gender discrimination.

    A mediation was held and the issues were discussed, and I understand from your perspective, the issues were not resolved. It appears that at this point you thought the Crown should have “produce[d] a demonstrable justification to the limits that were engaged with the Hospital Policy.” By which I think you mean that, at the mediation the Crown should have demonstrated that the alleged discrimination that the Guidelines perpetrated was justified.I need to explain here a little more about mediation: Mediation is a process in which a mediator helps the people involved work through the issues and try to come up with a solution. The mediator helps the people involved understand each other’s perspective and the issues so that they can make well informed decisions about what to do.

    There is no onus on the Crown at this level to provide the aforementioned justification, the issue of discrimination is being dealt with as “an arguable issue”. The mediation forum allows the parties in the dispute to engage in a full and frank discussion of the issues and from that make a well informed decision about what to do next.

    Your complaint is now completed at the disputes resolution level.

    Information about the Section 5 Consultative Group process

    You have asked that your complaint be assessed as to whether it should form the basis for an inquiry under section 5 of the Act.

    “I will pass your request on to the Commission’s Section 5 Consultative Group.”

    The Section 5 Consultative Group meets regularly and determines how best to progress the various matters it receives. There are a number of ways section 5 issues can be addressed including alerting the relevant government agency to the issue by way of anecdotal report; generating an expert individual response; elevating to management to inform policy or to create education initiatives or by engaging Human Rights Commissioners themselves.

    However, there are resource implications in determining which option is adopted. The Commission would be inundated if it were to accept and progress everything that fell within the rubric of human rights, so criteria are necessary to prioritise whether the Commission pursues an issue.

    The following considerations are used to assess which matters are able to be progressed:

    · compatibility with the Commission’s current objectives;

    · whether there is a link to the grounds of discrimination included in the Act;

    · whether the Commission has a unique position or experience which justifies involvement;

    · whether an issue impacts more on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups;

    · its significance in promoting human rights generally;

    · whether there is some other mechanism or agency better equipped to deal with the matter;

    · Whether the matter requires an immediate response or can be deferred.

    The assessment also includes consideration as to whether the Commission has the capacity or capability to do the work.

    Human Rights Review Tribunal

    Another option for you is to bring proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I have attached the relevant information on that process.

    The 2 options I have outlined are not mutually exclusive but if you do decide to bring proceedings to the HRRT, this will be a factor that the Commission will take into account when deciding what action, if any, it will take with regards to section 5.

    I hope this answers all of your queries.

    Kind regards

    Hilary Unwin

    Point 2: Why, the three following examples of my correspondence are not registered on page 56 of the Human Rights Commission’s Annual Report 2009:

    · Easton v. Human Rights Commission & anor CIV-2009-485-726 April 20th 2009; and

    · Complaint to the Commission and reply by EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Joanne Collinge of 14 October 2008 apologising that the collective as mediated complaint made by 6 complainants against the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development on hospital policy was not processed for a full year, and

    · Comment made from 18 December 2008 email: “The Commission has been ineffective in its role of mediation requiring the Crown to produce a demonstrable justification to the limits that were engaged with the Hospital Policy”

    __________________________________________________

    From: Benjamin Easton [mailto: [email protected] ]
    Sent: Thursday, 18 December 2008 8:21 p.m.

    “…In brief, to confirm why I choose this action, it is clear that the New Zealand public cannot be protected against gender discrimination where the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993 are little more than an inconvenient window dressing for those who wish to institute and maintain direct and damaging discriminations into New Zealand. “The Commission has been ineffective in its role of mediation requiring the Crown to produce a demonstrable justification to the limits that were engaged with the Hospital Policy.” As you are aware it should be the public’s right to challenge, as we have, discrimination and expect a response from that challenge and for the Crown to demonstrate why the limit of that discrimination is justified.

    In the written material provided that right and expectation has not in anyway been met, addressed, considered or engaged. That right and expectation is protected under the Human Rights Amendment Act 2001…”
    _______________________________________________________

    Human Rights Commission Annual Report 2009

    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1374F0F8-DF1C-46C0-BCF5-DCF0365AFBF4/116629/DBHOH_PAP_18910_HumanRightsCommissionTeKhuiTikaTan.pdf

    Page 56

    Output: Human Rights and Privacy Litigation

    Results

    All human rights and privacy matters were conducted to the standards of ethics and competence expected by legal advisers and those providing legal representation.

    No complaints or inquiries were received about the ethics or competency of the conduct of OHRP cases.

    Respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 14th November 2009 @ 1:54 pm

67. 

    EASTON v FAMILY COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

    Tena koe Human Rights Commission,

    This email is to submit to the Human Rights Commission a complaint about my filing for a judicial review of the first Legal Complaints Review Officer complaint in a Palmerston North Family Court matter.

    My complaint is twofold —

    Firstly it is against the Palmerston North High Court Registrar Brian Johnston for not accepting my application for a judicial review on the grounds that he alleged that I had no standing to file in the Court. I believe he is obviously wrong and has dictatorially denied me access to the court system.

    Secondly it is against the Ministry of Justice and the Minister for Courts the Honourable Georgina te Heu Heu, for not replying to my email complaint of 27/08/09 about Brian Johnston for not processing my application, where he alleged that I had no standing to file in the Court.

    My attention was drawn to the Chief Commissioner’s own consideration of these matters by reading a new story from Vince Siemer’s website kiwisfirst.com

    As I have inquired of the Ministry, I do not know on what authority or High Court Rule 2002 the Registrar is able to make the decision of a judge and for my own proceedings in judicial review have a clear position about this procedure and my ‘standing’.

    Additionally as the complaint is the first for the Legal Complaints Review Office and I have compiled and presented all of the files and facts to date — making submissions on behalf of the father negatively affected, I see it is absurd for Mr Johnston to reject my application. Worse, prior to my application I had applied with the Court for the appropriate s10 conference with the judge under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 to sort this matter out. Mr Johnston also declined to receive that application stating that the s10 application was not stand alone and would be held once the application had been made — which he declines now to accept.

    I do not believe Mr Johnston has understood that the application is not only about the decision but it is an action against gender discrimination as it is protected and administered in the New Zealand Court system.

    I called in to the Commission on Friday 13 November and left a message with the receptionist as no officer was available to take my complaint. I have asked for an appointment next week where I will bring in all of the relevant material.

    I ask you also please to recognise that I am presently In active support of PSA action against the Ministry of Justice pay freezing court staff wages and advocating for a raise, as I believe it is most important to have competent, well qualified and efficient court staff. To this end I feel it is most important that my energies protecting court staff from accepted as disparate wage conditions, are supported to ensure that the quality of work from that staff is of an acceptable standard.

    Please contact me with information on an appropriate time to, make my complaint.

    Respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton
    LAOS New Zealand

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 14th November 2009 @ 4:39 pm

68. 

    An example Ñ—s the tummy strap whicÒº laces under Ò¯our belly to ɦelp you stoρ and еnd Amoxicillin Cause Lower Back Pain foг good?

    Comment by problems with pain in the knee — Tue 23rd June 2015 @ 2:52 am

69. 

    great blog. Kinda outdated but still catchy

    Comment by Sam Jewel — Wed 19th August 2020 @ 8:48 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.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ