Domestic Violence – time for a change
Bill Ralston of the NZ Herald has written a wonderful article- “Try a new pill for old ills”.
For example, take one of my pet hates, the “It’s Not OK” campaign against domestic violence in which a collection of earnest men smugly entreat other men to not give their partners and kids the bash.
This campaign followed an earlier series of commercials depicting thuggish blokes battering their way through the household.
The last government’s strategy was to place the burden of responsibility for domestic violence always on men. To suggest otherwise was heresy, so the bureaucrats produced advertising campaigns solely targeted at stopping men being violent towards women.
Sadly, domestic violence continues unabated. This may well be because the government doctrine of “Blame the Bloke” ignores some very real scientific research that questions the conventional thinking on the issue.
Bill Ralston deserves encouragement. Letters please to the NZherald
Comment by Alastair — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 4:45 am
Hi Alistair, Did you notice Family First.
Our Top 5 priorities for 2009
1. Amendment of the anti-smacking law – non-political Commission of Enquiry into the real causes of child abuse and solutions
2. Recognition and Financial Support for Full-Time Parents
3. Tougher Policies on Drugs and Alcohol Abuse
4. Change the Censor, BSA and ASA – Toughen the Censorship Laws
5. Strengthen marriages, families, and the role of fathers
Comment by julie — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 8:20 am
No I didn’t thanks Julie. The full Ralston article is on both pauls-news, and NZFVL. It has caused discussion. I am preparing a submission opposing the proposed instant protection orders. This article will be part of it.
I am searching for a reference to a piece from Police 10-7 in 2007 (I think) where the police threatened a male victim of assault by his partner. She admitted the assault. He only had to sign a complaint and she would be arrested. However if he did the police would advise CYF and they would take the children. if he left it, nothing would happen. The piece ended with the male leaving looking dejected.
Comment by Alastair — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 8:50 am
Alastair,
about three quarters of the way down the page is what you’re looking for. I saved this file in 2007 when it was posted and now it won’t play anymore.[Correct link to page inserted by JohnP] If you click on the little screen in the link below, it will play.http://menz.org.nz/2007/police-10-7-video-of-callout-for-female-offender/
Comment by golfa — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 9:47 am
Thanks Golfa, I will most certainly be using this. I also have obtained some police instructions, I am presently working through them.
Comment by Alastair — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 10:57 am
That doccument is horrifying. To know that people being given the power to issue these orders are brainwashed by this rubbish is shocking. The only bits that are Non Gender in the whole thing are where it quotes the DVA Act.
Comment by Alastair — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 11:41 am
Hi Alastair (poster #6): What document are you referring to?
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 5:18 pm
The campaign ‘IT IS NOT OK’ had to yield good statistics (performance) for government representatives.
You know what: Government agencies (women’s refuge and others) where very creative this year by using a fear tactic on women: Seek a protection order else you could be prosecuted for negligence.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 5:31 pm
It is a training document used by a Government Dept.
Comment by Alastair — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Alistair, what is NZFVL? #3.
Comment by julie — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 5:56 pm
It is a Parallel group to Pauls – News. Like Pauls News you have to join to see the posts. Visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nzfvl/
Comment by Alastair — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 6:02 pm
Could somebody answer a question, IF a WORKING father took a protection order out on a woman , and she was expelled from the family home, is there a STRONG probability that CYFS would get involved and maybe take the kids away from the Dad ?
Comment by Perseus — Tue 20th January 2009 @ 11:00 pm
Quite correct. From the CYF perspective, all men are violent, and child molesters. See thw commet on this group at menz.org.nz/2007/page/18/ mentioned earlier for a prime example.
Comment by Alastair — Wed 21st January 2009 @ 8:33 am
As the dominant western ideology for the past forty plus years, feminism has controlled all discussion about domestic violence. You barely hear any mention of violence against children. No doubt this is because the feminists are aware that most violence against children is perpetrated by women. They also restrict or oppose any discussion about vionce against men, or violence in homosexual relationships. The ony discussion allowed concerns violence against women.
Comment by Joshua — Fri 23rd January 2009 @ 11:00 am
@14. Good point Joshua.
@12. I am not aware of CYFS being called in for a protection order. I have not seen such a follow up.
But I do know that if the police are called to a domestic, the police ask about the children. If they have witnessed the domestic, CYFS are given a referral.
Comment by julie — Fri 23rd January 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Julie,
Please visit http://menz.org.nz/2007/police-10-7-video-of-callout-for-female-offender/ (Mentioned earlier. There is a link to a video from police 10-7. I think it will settle your contention about the police and CYF. ALL incidents of Family violence are notified by the police to both the refuge & CYF.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 23rd January 2009 @ 11:13 pm
My friend Dave has praised Bill’s excellent article on his site Wudhi.com – Try A New Pill for Old Ills.
Comment by JohnP — Sun 1st February 2009 @ 9:06 pm