In the news
Bennett: New Children’s Commissioner Appointed
17 April 2009 – Child care and protection expert John Angus has been appointed Children’s Commissioner for six months while a permanent appointment is sought, Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett said today.
“I have decided to make an interim appointment to allow time to find the right permanent appointee for this important position,” Ms Bennett said. “I am grateful that we have someone of Mr Angus’ ability and standing available while we work to fill the role long-term.”
John Angus is a former front-line social worker, and was later a senior public servant. More recently he worked on the review of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, and he led inter-departmental work on preventing child abuse and neglect for the Taskforce for Action on Violence Within Families.
“Mr Angus has high integrity and immense respect within the sector for the policy research and academic work he has done on child care and protection over many years,” Ms Bennett said. “He is regarded as thoughtful, considerate and a safe pair of hands.”
Ms Bennett thanked outgoing commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro for her commitment to children and young people over more than five years in the position.
“Dr Kiro has been a strong advocate for the rights of children, and she has left a lasting impression. I congratulate her on her achievements,” she said.
John Angus takes over as Children’s Commissioner on 2 May.
Paula Bennett is Glen Eden’s (my) MP. She is one among many MPs who are supportive of men’s rights.
………….
Turia: Company Needs Language Reality Check
17 April 2009 – It’s outrageous that a company based in the Wellington region’s Polynesian capital has told its workers they can only speak to each other in English – even when on a break in the staff tearoom, says Tariana Turia – the minister responsible for Maori and Pacific employment.
“This is a kick in the face”, says Tariana (Turia) and personally I am really sad that she has to face such a dilemma. Maori were beaten by Pakeha as children if they spoke their language in schools at one stage in our history. They were even given English names and forbidden to use their own.
What a horrid thing for them to see happening to another culture.
…………..
Cosgrove: Race Based Prisons Have No Place In New Zealand
Thursday, 16 April, 2009 – 13:58
Punishments for those who commit crimes should be the same no matter what race they are Labour Law and Order Spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove says.
“Creating different standards of punishment and rehabilitation based solely on race are wrong, Clayton Cosgrove said.
“Punishments for violent offenders who commit crimes against ordinary New Zealanders should not be based on an accident of birth and that is exactly what the Government is proposing.
“Targeted rehabilitative programmes delivered within the mainstream prison system are appropriate and their benefits should continue to be explored.
“Unfortunately the Government is not proposing to do this; it is proposing to develop an entirely separate set of punishments and of privileges based solely on race.
“Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples stance is an insult to victims of crimes.
“A rape victim or victim of any violent offence should know that their offender will be punished equally no matter what their race.
“Dr Sharples seems to care little for victims of crime if he believes that allowing violent offenders to go flatting or be given special privileges based on race is an appropriate punishment.
Clayton Cosgrove said Dr Sharples also needed to get his facts straight when it came to Labour’s record on rehabilitation of prisoners
In 1996, under a National government, 80 percent of those released from prison were reconvicted within 2 years, in 2005, under the Labour Government, that figure had reduced to 55.4 percent.
“That significant reduction in reducing reconviction rates was managed without having a separate and prison system for Maori,” Clayton Cosgrove system.
This news article is quoted in full. It is good to keep up with the Maori way of doing things and the feminist way. Maori don’t send their men to anger management groups as mainstream does. You are treated as a man and not some scum of the earth.
Related news…
Sharples: Labour Committed To Failed Corrections Policies
“We are planning an extension of the Maori Focus Units concept. When the pilot project can show it is effective, then it will be opened to all inmates who can demonstrate their commitment to change their ways. Labour’s fears of a separate system for Maori are quite misguided, and blind them to Maori-based approaches that can work for everyone,” said Dr Sharples.
Hehehe. You can only push people so far. Let the people have the power.
“one of many MPs who are supportive of men’s rights”??? Who are they? Why have none of them raised any voice at all against misandrist campaigns? Why have none of them voted against male-bashing legislation? Why have none of them raised any objection to the child-tax male enslavement system?
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 19th April 2009 @ 12:45 am
Yes, Hans!
Well done in voicing pertinent questions.
The last MP I can recall who spoke up for men’s issues (especially fathering I recall) to some extent was Muriel Newman.
She unfortunately got pigeonholed by many according to the leftist media’s portayal of her at the time as some kind of new-right fanatic.
Those of us who looked more deeply and in a less partisan way at her politics could see her outspoken abhorrence of policies that dismantled the nuclear family could see she was talking common sense.
It’s interesting to think about how the nuclear family has been squeezed by both the right and left of the political spectrum.
Big business likes the creation of consumers that comes about as more and more households get created when families get torn assunder. Big government likes the creation of dependant ‘clients’ to serve when families fracture too.
That’s why these days I’m a firm advocate of small government and wary of big corporations who have also been conspicuously silent as society fractured!
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 19th April 2009 @ 1:34 am
Hans, do you not have a men’s representative on the council where you are? I thought Tauranga UOF was well up and running and even had a men’s refuge.
But if you are unsure about which politicians, you could ask the NZ prostate group. I think with you being a member of a political party, you may have kept away from close relationships with others.
From a men’s health meeting, the audience was told a whole lot of names and that the problem was that men are not contacting their representatives.
I would also think many politicians would be unaware of the things you are speaking about as I found out 2 years ago that the world misandry isn’t even known to most groups let alone politicians.
Comment by julie — Sun 19th April 2009 @ 1:49 am
How quickly MP Judy Turner has been forgotten. So sad.
Comment by julie — Sun 19th April 2009 @ 1:50 am
It was hard for me to recall Judy Turner.
She didn’t appear to me to have the staying power of Muriel Newman who stood steadfast and VERY alone for a
l.. o.. n.. g time in defense of males in NZ well before Judy turner came to prominence. Muriel did so in a culture then much more hostile to her stand than the one Judy did.
For that reason she will always stand out in my mind as the more readily remembered advocate of Men’s rights.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 19th April 2009 @ 4:13 pm
Skeptic,
I think you do both Muriel and Judy a dis-service. Muriel served 9 years as an MP, the last three concurrent with Judy’s 6 years. Judy effectively took over the batoon from Muriel. Muriel did make the running and it was really her issue that Judy picked up after Muriel’s party didn’t get sufficent votes to keep her there. It also shows that ACT didn’t value her contribution highly enough to give her a better place on the list. Judy has always lived in Peter Dunne’s shadow and the whole party was arguably an aberation when the worm turned in one TV debate.
ALL politicans are first party people and secondly personal issue advocates. The default position for shared care has never won wide support in any party. Despite many male parlimentarians none have chosen to run with the issue. The kindest noises (regretably murmurs) at the moment perhaps are coming from Simon Bridges (National MP for Tauranga). I wonder if the prominence of UoF in that city has something to do with his advocacy but it is early days and neither National or Labour have been friendly to a shared care position in the past.
I don’t think that either Muriel or Judy would like the term Men’s rights. They both saw shared care as sensible, good for kids and fair.
Comparisions such are you seek to make are odious, you draw a L O N G bow and I think your analysis is weak and misses whatever target you aimed for.
The useful debate would be how do we encourage any parlimentarian or party or media to take up the batoon that Muriel carried and Judy picked up. What do you suggest now skeptic? Can you pick up the batoon and make some useful running? The issue is not which runner is strongest but how we can as a team get across the finish line that we seek.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 19th April 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Allan,
“Odious”
—adjective
1. deserving or causing hatred; hateful; detestable.
2. highly offensive; repugnant; disgusting.
Oh well, suit yourself.
I was merely making some subjective observations.
Thanks for your summary of Muriel and Judy’s political history.
It actually reinforces my view.
Muriel was not only a forerunner of Judy but was also in a minor party – double mana to Muriel in my book.
“I think your analysis is weak and misses whatever target you aimed for”
– since you don’t know what target I was aiming for it makes no sense to claim I missed it LOL!
“I don’t think that either Muriel or Judy would like the term Men’s rights”
Oh well, too bad. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call shared parenting something the Men’s rights movement strongly advocates for.
“What do you suggest now skeptic? Can you pick up the batoon and make some
useful running?”
I not only can.
I am doing so educating many people who visit this site.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 19th April 2009 @ 9:36 pm
This seems very silly to me Skeptic.
Perhaps your education should be extended.
“Comparsions are Odious”
The earliest recorded use of this phrase appears to be by John Lydgate in his Debate between the horse, goose, and sheep, circa 1440:
“Odyous of olde been comparisonis, And of comparisonis engendyrd is haterede.”
It was used by several authors later, notably Cervantes, Christopher Marlowe and John Donne.
In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare gives Dogberry the line ‘comparisons are odorous’. It seems he was using this ironically, knowing it to be a misuse of what would have been a well known phrase by 1598/99 when the play was written.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 20th April 2009 @ 11:32 am
Allan,
The threads about political representation of men’s interests!
Threads on neo-Barthusian psycho-physics and the erradication of nostalgia in Southern Alaskan cultural enclaves can be found elsewhere.
So can I until we get back on topic.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 20th April 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Exactly,
Perhaps you have ideas how we reach those who are not already converted?
What group(s) are you involved with and what are they doing?
Which pliticans are you lobbying? I’m meeting with Nathan Guy at 1pm today.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 20th April 2009 @ 1:17 pm
“Care and protection expert” must be a euphamism for CYFS worker. Their idea of care and protection is to rip children away from parents and thereby cause them psychological harm often much more damaging than anything risked by supporting the parent-child relationship.
Comment by blamemenforall — Mon 20th April 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Allan,
I have my own networks and frankly don’t trust you enough to share that
information with you.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 20th April 2009 @ 10:13 pm
You could have just left it at, “You have your own networks”.
You are not living/working in NZ and maybe Allan forgot that.
Comment by julie — Mon 20th April 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Julie,
After the kinds of responses I’ve gotten on this thread I’m not interested in sharing my networks with Allan regardless of his memory or wherever I may be.
I want that known.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 12:47 am
Skeptic,
It goes back and forth. And that is why I said that silly joke about the dick to sectretsocieties. It doesn’t help to pull each other down. Everyone has done a lot of good stuff, we are just all … different.
Comment by julie — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 12:59 am
Julie,
It’s not a matter of pulling people down.
It’s offering opportunities for people to pull themselves up.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 1:40 am
Hi Allan. If you have any references to kind murmurs from Simon Bridges I would be grateful. Even any vague memories you have of things he has said would be of interest to me.
If Bridges is showing any recognition of men’s and fathers’ issues, this may well be related to an active and strong UOF in Tauranga. Another possible factor is that he was present in several public meetings in Tauranga at which I spoke when I still thought I was standing in the election last year. Aside from perhaps hearing useful perspectives, he observed a positive response from audiences to my challenges against family-wrecking trends in our society. I realise though that my soapbox efforts did not result in much voter support for the candidate who took over the campaign.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 10:55 am
There’s such a thing as being upfront with people too Julie.
Not hiding behind a strategically chosen silence.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 11:50 am
“Paula Bennett is Glen Eden’s (my) MP. She is one among many MPs who are supportive of men’s rights.”
Is she really? I’d be most interested to know.
Comment by Dave — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Child care and protection expert? John Angus – lol…sounds like bull to me.
Comment by SickOFnz — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Simon asked some helpful questions when I was before the Justice and Electoral Select Committee recently. He could clearly see where I was coming from and his questions allowed me to reiterate my points orally to the committee.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Then go and see her. (smile)
I am not wanting to say all I have found out about this in Waitakere. I am not going to give the other side info and I know the other side is worried. Lyn Pillay is holding a meeting for the area and I will attend as long as it is not tonight.
There is so much to this politically and it has been going on for a few years. I have just stumbled into it by being the nosy person and speaking out.
Anyone can get involved no matter where they are in Auckland. The doors are open for any men’s groups or men interested.
Comment by julie — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Strategically eh? Do you mean planned?
Comment by julie — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 5:04 pm
I had no idea skeptic wasn’t from New Zealand. What is he (or she) doing here? What benefit to New Zealand issues can he (or she) be? Does he (or she) understand the issues we confront?
Back in 2003 I submitted an affidavit that said;
It also said;
I have little time for those who run out on their children or their obligations as citizens.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Allan, why did you write what you did?
You have known Skeptic for some time and he has been an active member of the men’s movement. I don’t know why he changed his name but he is a valuable man to have on this site.
Comment by julie — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Allan,
I choose not to use my real name for reasons I’ve stated on another thread at this website. Namely that NZ is a relatively tiny place where the whispering classes can very easily conspire against those who dissent with their political views.
The end result is that dissenters then ‘mysteriously’ don’t get the promotion they’re due, or the bank loan they applied for, or the position they sought in an organisation etc, etc, fill in your own blanks.
I’ve been there done that.
It’s instructive that there are now MANY posters here who also choose not to use their real names, but you’re only interested in knowing the identity of one – Skeptic.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 21st April 2009 @ 10:45 pm
I have no idea who skeptic is?
I deal with about 10-20 cases a week and if I did know about his case I don’t remember it
My name, e-mail address and contact details are available to almost anyone here.
I am not in the mens movement myself. I belong to Union of Fathers and am passionate about parenting. Frankly I find all this rather tiresome.
What irks me is those who snipe at those of us who are working hard.
You may not agree with me, that is your choice, but stay out of my way and don’t act as an extra load to be carried.
I do work quite hard at making personal contact with those who are doing significant work in the interests of fathers and children.
There are costs for being involved in the work I do. It costs; time, money, status, etc etc. I do what I do because I passionately believe that children do better when both their parents are actively involved in their lives.
Comment by allan Harvey — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 12:00 am
Allan,
Oh so now I’m a ‘case’ that can’t be remembered.
That’s hilarious!
Get out of your way.
That’s daft.
I think you need reminding of certain facts – namely this is clearly a site where free speech is the norm. That means you’re free to say what you please, meet who you please and take the costs as you please.
However, chest beating about disctionary definitions, the size and scope of your office,and ludicrous personal attacks aren’t going to stop me or anyone else from debating with you here on this site.
That’s the nature of MENZ and long may it be so.
If that’s a burden to you, if it irks you, if it’s tiresome…………….. then tough.
Here in a democracy that’s how things are.
You have political aspirations for the cause of fathering – good.
Now get out of your own way and get on with it.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 2:28 am
I always get the impression that this Alan Harvey guy is really part of the establishment, do you ?
i don’t quite trust him
Comment by secret societies — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 7:52 am
UoF is a well respected organisation throughout NZ and one of the best hopes for fathers. Their protests and documentaries were/are wonderful. I don’t know how you can say such a thing? I sure trust all of them.
Did you have a bad experience with UoF?
Comment by julie — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 9:01 am
Absolutely part of a system that helps children and their parents connect, and have meaningful relationships. Trust me if you wish, distrust me if you need to hide behind secret societies. UoF is the only group in NZ seeking to work nation wide.
Comment by allan Harvey — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 9:07 am
Anger sounds like frustration – lack of options?
Put in the effort to find out about the world, so you can choose from all of the available options.
Moaning is quite easy to do and doesn’t contribute much to making our situations better.
Moaning is so easy, that even the dumbest can do it!
It is true, that by trying to help other people, you gain a wider perspective. This alone doesn’t solve problems, but it can make them much easier to bear.
Moaning doesn’t do much to understand the other side of your problem. If you can help to solve their problem, then your problem might just disappear?
Moaning doesn’t sound much like taking responsibility for your own part in your life outcome….
Through trying to understand your own contribution to problems, then you give yourself the best opportunity to make the changes you desire most.
I’m not saying to take more responsibility, than you contributed to the decisions, just the right amount of responsibility.
I respect Allan Harvey’s contribution to helping parents face difficult and unpalatable situations. Doing and helping improves life far more than just moaning.
I challenge you moaners to step up to helping yourself, by trying to help others.
Trying to help people who aren’t very good at helping themselves, sometimes its rewarding, sometimes you think – why do I bother?
Hiding behind false names looks weak and irresponsible. Are you unable to face up to the challenges, fair and foul, of our world?
I am very happy to give my respect to people who put in their time, petrol money, creativity and their heart, to helping other people.
MurrayBacon the compulsive axe-murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 10:52 am
Wow! So much personal growth shows through in your comments.
But I have to laugh abut the axe-murderer bit. I guess all I can say is, “You wish!”lol
You’re a wonderful man Murray with a beautiful heart.
Comment by julie — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 11:20 am
Allan is a fine man, a hard worker for children and their families, very aware and realistic about men’s and fathers’ issues but strives to provide practical and effective help to those going through the system while contributing to change and development of the system from outside it through proper channels. His position on various matters often provides important alternative considerations and is usually the voice of reason. There is no basis for mistrust.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 11:25 am
Murray,
I could rightly claim that most of your post was simply a good moan.
That’s an easy charge to lay at the feet of anyone expounding ideas, and a convenient way to sidestep actually responding to them.
It’s true that men of action are often to be respected, and it’s easy to deride men of ideas as relatively ineffective. Yet neither prosper without the other, and history is littered with people of good intent who take action without good ideas.
It’s your choice to look at contributors here using psudonyms as being weak. I oftentimes don’t as I can empathise with those who do as I have another view on the matter as you can deduce from other postings at this site attest.
Calling folks weak is just alienating them, not drawing them to your cause.
Questioning thier responsibility without full cognisance of thier circumstances is itself irresponsible and an insult to thier intelligence.
Now after an intersting divergence, let’s bring this back more to the initial topic of the thread.
Just how long do you, Allan and Julie imagine it will take with all your contacts, mutual support and resourcesfulness for men in general and fathers more specifically in NZ to get a fair shake.
5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
The question isn’t meant as a poke in the eye either, but a serious attempt to understand how optimistic you folks are.
Here’s another request that seems pertinent too – Please list below ALL the MPs and other high ranking members of society who are supportive of men/fathers having equal reproductive, justice and welfare rights with women in NZ.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 11:53 am
It depends on what you mean by a fair shake. To satisfy some, forever, for others it is about their own mindset. UoF works on the latter assumption. We find supporting people with where they are at, empowering them to be pro-active, and inspiring them that their kids deserve to have a relationship with both parents can be very enabling. Change what you can now and work on the more difficult tomorrow.
Every single one of them professes this when asked. Again it is a question of mindset and approach. If presented in a open pro-active manner UoF finds a welcome door and good vibes from all. If we go in aggressive and expecting to be marginalised the exchanges become confrontational.
Yes we want change and UoF is very much into encouraging small steps while we await seismic shifts and paradigm change.
If that is recognised then people may understand me better. I’m openly about change (Incrumental maybe) as well as revolution. I am more than happy that others think differently and I wish them well.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 2:06 pm
It’s one thing for NZ MPs and other people in positions of authority to profess to be sympathetic to the cause of father’s having rightful access to thier kids, for men’s health to be funded equitably to women’s, for men’s reproductive rights to ACTUALLY exist, for an open accountable ‘family’ court, for sentencing equity with women in the justice system etc.
But what I’m actually driving at is how many MPs and other powerbrokers actually back up thier words with action?
Come on.
Anyone name those out of the hundred’s of NZ powerbrokers who’ve come and gone over the last few decades who have actually say put up private members bills that try to address men’s issues.
I dare say you’ll find as I have there have been and are VERY VERY FEW, NOT EVEN A HANDFUL and even then they appear to get ignored or villified by many.
I’m yet to see in many years of watching NZ society ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION that has overturned feminist jurisprudence and made NZ a fair country for it’s menfolk.
Even our newly elected so called centre right government in a recession won’t get rid of the wimmin’s affairs (feminist propoganda)department, and won’t touch the ‘family court’ and ‘child’ support for fear of upsetting legions of female voters.
Frustration doesn’t describe it.
I despair that things will change much in my lifetime in NZ, and life’s too short life’s too short to wait for even more decades for those in power in NZ society to get thier shit together on men’s issues.
It’s overworked and overtaxed menfolk, it’s glib pussywhipped MPs who are afraid of the female voting block, it’s welfare queens and solidly entrenched feminist beaurocracy.
It is a beautiful pastoral country with some outstanding people AND now a longstanding gynocentric socialist-feminist shithole, wrecked, that’s decade by decade sliding inexorably economically from where it was in 1970’s – 3rd after USA and Switzerland.
(Notice any links between both phenonomenon?)
Good luck to all who choose engaging directly the NZ feminist leviathan.
I think you’re going to need it.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 22nd April 2009 @ 10:36 pm
Skeptik is right about MPs professing to care for fathers, but not doing anything of value about it.
Heaping insults onto MPs is failing to see the situation from their perspective.
They have people complaining about familycaught, but when asked what is the problem and what is a practical solution, no clear answers come back. People are slow to respond, fail to respond at all, or respond in a manner that they don’t engender trust (eg false names). All of the cases submitted to Minister of Justice a few months back, were cases that had been tidied up months before.
There were no fresh people coming forward saying here is my case, ready to submit.
Many people will pull out half of their paperwork and want to hide the other half! They are as useless as the familycaught “judgements” with their falsified names and other details. Through the falsity, they become useless for any valuable investigation, as you don’t know what is real and what isn’t. The old Alice in Wonderland problem, that Dr. Bob Moody ran into in the hIGH cAUGHT!
For people to get MPs to trust what they are saying, their is a need for people to put all of their cards on the table and then talk practically to MPs.
Men are not very good at playing the sympathy card and where they lack sympathy, then their is a real need for evidence to prove the points. Women have been able to make “good” use of sympathy.
Unfortunately, the crazies among them have abused this sympathy and the tolerance is wearing thinner by the year. As far as I can see, in 10 years time, rape trials will be back to where they were 15 years ago and keeping on heading in the same direction.
Most people aren’t generous with sympathy for men, as their hipocracy cannot handle forcing men to go to war, at the tip of a bayonet or the coward word, if necessary. How can you show sympathy for people you treat like this? Then, when they return from war, won’t listen to what they were forced through or help with their rehabilitation?
However, although pointing out shortcomings on the part of politicians, I cannot really hope for quick improvements on their part. I can put public pressure, but their response will probably be slow.
Most social legislation is about 25 years out of date and of low quality at that. The low quality is due to conflicts of interest that politicians don;’t declare and rushing legislation through the Subcommittees, without full and informed debate. Lational and Nabour have both been disastrous in this regard, due to over inflated leader’s egos.
I can hope for quick improvements in the actions that I take, if I am well informed and if I can make wise decisions, on the issues that I can take part in decisions.
If I am my own worst enemy, then I will never be able to move forward.
Mr. Skeptik, I do challenge you to identify options open to you, to help drive positive change. To be practical and likely to fly in the political environment, suggestionas must respect women as well as men.
Moaning is just pacing around waiting to die. Please look to your resources and available options for action NOW and lift yourself out of your defective self pity and do something to protect your family and yourself. Dying slowly when there are better alternatives is dismal.
If you cannot see anything constructive, to protect your own family, then help another family. (Maybe someone else will be doing something that will help your family.)
By all means, let out your frustrations in a safe manner, but don’t forget to do something useful.
Even if you disagree with other people’s actions, try to learn from them, so that you can do actions that you believe are constructive – SOON.
I think we have gone full circle?
MurrayBacon – swings axes in circles
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 23rd April 2009 @ 9:10 am
Murray,
You’re right to point out that men being treated as expendable success objects means they don’t get the sympathy women get.
The inner workings of parliament I won’t quibble about.
I have no expertise on such matters.
That said I won’t make excuses for NZ politicians, nor apologies for my
description of NZ politicians as IT’S THIER JOB (paid for by every taxpayer) to be knowledgeable about what’s going on in the country.
Hell’s Bells, if I were so innept I’d expect to be fired pronto.
Good grief it is after all a piddle amount of people in any case they monitor.
When you compare it to other nations it’s an overgrown village!
You reckon politicians need folks to go to them like to a lawyer with reams of evidence.
Do they need every t crossed and i dotted before they can see what’s under their noses. Have they NEVER in all these decades had a good male relative get the shaft from the family court, get falsely acused of abuse, miss out on a scholarship etc?
Good grief I can’t believe that would be the case. It’s preposterous.
And make no mistake in casting off my comments as merely moaning either.
I’m aware that the MENZ site gets considerable readership internationally.
Describing all or part of the problem accurately is the first step in addressing it.
I reckon I’m doing valuable service in regularly evoking NZ men’s issues
and sparking debate but still depair that the political dynamics of the place.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 23rd April 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Whoops, Sorry, some typos – the last posting should have said in the final sentence –
“but still despair at the political dynamics of the place”.
__________________________________________________________________
To add to what I said in the last post –
I’ve been thinking quite a bit today of what I wrote in the last post about there being links between the destruction of the nuclear family and the slide by NZ from 3rd place in OECD rankings in the 1970s to where it is now – 22nd place (and trending downwards!)
Jim Bailey reports 300,000 kids living without thier fathers.
That’s a ton of fractured families, many of whom would otherwise all occupy the same house, travel in the same car, share the same heating, lighting, gas etc, support one another emotionally, economically and thus mean society would need LESS infrastructure, welfare, prisons, psychiatric wards (fill in your own items here).
Add to those numbers the burgeoning numbers of people living alone for whatever reason.
Now I can just hear the critics harping on about other places which have as high a divorce rate as NZ but are higher up the economic ladder than NZ – perhaps Sweden for example as it’s many socialist’s pet country to quote.
From what I can gather though Sweden has a population bolstered by large numbers of immigrantst being seen as an affluent and therefore attractive destination.
Also it’s literally next door to huge markets and isn’t rife with a subcurrent of racial/ethnic tension. Compare that with NZ still not producing much in the way of high value added products but basically for the most part a farm outlet selling low value commodities in bulk.
The upshot of social fracturing would be as I’ve alluded to above a less affluent place with strained infrastrucure and human capital costs heading upwards.
That’s not a pretty picture.
Now factor in one more thing.
300,000 kids without fathers in the home must surely also represent a MASSIVE amount of discord and anguish amongst those emroiled in divorce/seperation.
All those hundreds of thousands of men and women preoccupied and consumed with such expending mental energy they could otherwise be expended on building NZ up economically.
And that’s before we factor in all those billions of dollars squandered by a divorce industry replete with
Judges
Court staff
Counsellors
lawyers
Administrative staff
Psychologists
Social workers
prison staff
Anger management staff
Child support staff
People who build and maintain the worksites of all of the above.
etc
etc
etc. fill in your own blanks again folks
to produce what?
more fractured families……more households needed…….more inefficiency……more strain on infrastructure…….leading to more stress on intact families…….leading to……..?
tick….tick……tick…….
23rd place?
tick….tick…
26th place?
tick…tick…tick…..
Wake up NZ politicians.
The alarm is going off!
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 23rd April 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Dear Skeptik, I don’t think that you appreciate the chaos and confusion in the stories that get passed to MPs. However, many of the complainers are obviously showing only part of the story, so that in the absence of cards on the table, their “story” becomes essentially unreliable and worthless and has little influence on the politician.
Your story may sound clear to you, but how well has the listerner understood what you are saying? Have you answered all of the listener’s questions, to their satisfaction?
On the subject of whether NZers get the politicians that they deserve?
I believe that in general NZers get considerably better politicians than they deserve!
When you discuss issues with many voters, they don’t even read the newspapers carefully, let alone do further reading and study. It is said that those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it.
This is why I say that NZers get better politicians than they deserve.
I put the emphasis on providing practical solutions. Feminists have laid proposals on the table and made a case that they were practical. While the men’s advocates were arguing among themselves and failing to make coherent and complete submissions, these defective Acts have been passed into law. Party leaders flouting the Parliamentary Sub Committees also stifles investigation and in the end legislation quality.
I am aking if anyone would like to work with me, to put in Parliamentary Submissions. I have had considerable help from 1 man, after several requests for help. It does take time and a willingness to put in effort, in the face of some derision from fools and wise men, no immediate results and using time that could have been used for surfing, ice skating, swimming or murdering innocents.
Any takers?
If you have some interest, send me an EMAIL stating your interests and I can send you old submissions, that you can argue over with me…
MurrayBacon – the submissive
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 24th April 2009 @ 12:13 am
Murray,
Thanks for the offer.
However I have no faith in the political elite of NZ.
I think they have too much of a vested interest in the status quo.
A single case in point amongst many would be the head of the Family ‘court’ Boshier.
Men’s groups can talk to him until they’re blue in the face.
They can also offer mountains of evidence ranging from academic
large scale longitudinal studies to common sense anecdotal reports to support father friendly policy and an open and publically accountable family court – and then as history shows he will continue to politely and eloquently shit all over them.
It’s instructive that since I put out the question on this thread –
“Anyone name those out of the hundred’s of NZ powerbrokers who’ve come and gone over the last few decades who have actually say put up private members bills that try to address men’s issues.
I’m yet to see in many years of watching NZ society ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION that has overturned feminist jurisprudence and made NZ a fair country for it’s menfolk”.
Nobody has come forward to meet the question straight on.
Instead I get excuses about MPs not being able to effectively listen, I get excuses about the political process, I get excuses about people not being able to tell their story clearly…….excuses, excuses, excuses….and yet know from personal experience that I can go to any town or city in NZ and hear the same horrific stories of institutionalised misandry.
Therefore I will decline the offer.
I prefer to meet with ordinary NZers and build at grass roots level.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 24th April 2009 @ 1:28 am
You can read the first MENZ posts from years back, men were saying the same thing then, NOTHING HAS changed, it is getting worse, WHY WILL NOBODY DO ANYTHING to change this GROSS GROSS injustice of that we have all experienced ?????????????????????????????????????
Comment by secret societies — Fri 24th April 2009 @ 6:24 am
THIS IS A MEN’S SITE, he has NO real interest in furthering mens rights from what i have read from his posts. He has a very high opinion of himself and seems to dismiss anyone else’s views as triviasl
Comment by secret societies — Fri 24th April 2009 @ 6:41 am
Money is the reason that nothing has changed.
I would advise people to leave and take your children, your future tax contributions, your children’s future tax contributions and don’t bother coming back to this shit-hole-of-a-country.
I whakapapa to Kai Tahu and am tangata whenua and I don’t even want my
family growing up in this shit-hole of a society run by thieves and whores.
Turn your back on New Femiland. They don’t give a flying fuck about
males disgusting plight and they never will.
If they only understand MONEY then starve them of yours!
I’ve finally got my passport. Once the children’s passports are ordered and paid for you’ll see more tangata whenua driven from the shores of Aotearoa by a government who are still stealing from the natives in 2009.
My son will be saved. My daughters children (my grandchildren) will also be
spared the oppressive bullshit being forced upon families here. Save your family. Get out!!
Comment by SickOFnz — Fri 24th April 2009 @ 10:25 am
It takes a somebody to do anything.
The best somebody to start seeking change is you.
No change will happen if you wait for others. The laws of the universive indicate that things will get worse unless you, I and others get organised and do something.
That is why some of us try and don’t hide who we are and what we do.
Even if that gets us slagged off by others.
Comment by Alan Harvey — Fri 24th April 2009 @ 12:36 pm
I get why some here choose to go by nom de plumes.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 24th April 2009 @ 8:15 pm
Some people deserve it though don’t they ? Men must beware of so called “leaders” of mens’ groups , i have read that Matt O’Connor who started Fathers for Justice in UK, is an alcoholic and regularly raided the coffers of the F4J funds. They are frequently devious but sociable people who have only their own interests at heart
Comment by secret societies — Sat 25th April 2009 @ 7:03 am
I take offence at Matt O’Connor being attacked by Secret Societies here.
Matt offered a huge input at significant personal costs and got dragged back several times after he wished to exit. Your allegations are nothing but slander and don’t give him any chance at a response.
Comment by allan Harvey — Sat 25th April 2009 @ 8:20 am
I agree with Allan about Secret Societies’ attack on Matt O’Connor, unless it can be substantiated (like reports of a conviction for example). I predict there isn’t actually an authoritative source for these allegations, but I offer you the chance to prove me wrong.
Spreading these kinds of negative stories about people is a favorite radical feminist tactic. It isn’t acceptable on MENZ.
I also must note that “raiding the coffers” of voluntary agencies is not a phenomenon exclusive to men’s groups as Secret Societies implies:
Comment by JohnPotter — Sat 25th April 2009 @ 11:31 am
There have been many comments on this thread about injustices against the writers (and by implication – to the relationships between their children and them).
Are you ignoring that life in our culture can have many “injustices” to women too?
Two wrongs doesn’t make a right!
Our politicians are also being bombarded with somewhat similar complaints from women about how they have been treated, by men, by employers, by familycaught, by CYFs, by WINZ and the list goes on. Many women complain that politicians aren’t listening to them enough.
Politicians can only act, when there is a practical suggestion, that most people will agree is an improvement. This is one reason why legislation tends to be so far behind the needs of society.
Almost all of us have suffered to some degree from traumas. The only place safe from them, is our grave, so it seems while we want to live, we must make the best we can of the real world around us, as we find it.
I suggest that we have more immediate control over our own behaviour, than we have over legislation or “judges” misbehaviour, so surely this is the most productive place to start looking at changes.
I suggest then, to look at what changes we can get into legislation and to replacement of “judges” with real ones. If the majority aren’t willing to agree that our requested changes are fair and practical, then we have no chance of getting them implemented.
This is why we need to show as much care for women’s rights, as our own.
If we are lost in our personal traumas, we will not be effective at persuading politicians of anything, as we are probably not showing a sensible amount of respect for the other side of our problem. Alcoholism is a common response to extreme trauma. Matt O’Connor has risen above his problems and tried to pose solutions. I can only respect him for that.
I am not trying to turn a blind eye to anyone’s traumas. I am saying that we can only make our environment better, when we eventually manage to put our traumas behind us and work together, for the improvements that we seek.
I share frustration with NZ, particularly the familycaught. However, what other country is significantly better? I just see the familycaught “judges” as ignorant relationship vandals and heartless thieves.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 25th April 2009 @ 4:28 pm
“Anyone name those out of the hundred’s of NZ powerbrokers who’ve come and gone over the last few decades who have actually say put up private members bills that try to address men’s issues.
I’m yet to see in many years of watching NZ society ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION that has overturned feminist jurisprudence and made NZ a fair country for it’s menfolk”.
Still nobody has answered this question straight on.
All I’ve gotten so far are excuses about politicians and the political process in NZ.
Tick…tick….tick…..
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 25th April 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Last year Matt was selected as the London Mayoral candidate for the “English Democratic party” but was forced to withdraw because of his alcohol problems. Not a good candidate for a party that advocates limits on alcohol.
The other stuff was heard from former members of F4J UK, and which may or may not be true, but that is what i have heard. That was the real reason behind the abandonment/resurrection of F4J several times in it’s history
http://www.tiemo.co.uk/id44.html
or google “Matt O’Connor alcohol problems”
Maybe the mens’ movement needs a charismatic leader, but all i want to say is that leaders are usually devious and charming people with their agendas, we must keep them in check, we should not replace one great injustice with another
Comment by secret societies — Sun 26th April 2009 @ 7:35 am
This is the post i have about him from a F4J member :-
It’s Matt’s ball and he can take it home if he wants to, as he has done in the past, he will be back when he runs out of Jack Daniels or his ice cream venture needs a cash injection from subscriptions from new gullible dads shafted by UK family courts and cafcass, the cycle will continue until they get wise.
First time it took from 2002 until mid 2005 until he was rumbled, Matt was summoned to a meeting in Bromsgrove of activists and regional coordinators, guys wanted to discuss accounts, management issues and strategy (along with loads of other stuff like why he was expelling those who asked difficult questions), he didn’t show up and there was an overwhelming vote taken of no confidence in him.
That was the start of Real Fathers for Justice, made up from the top activists and most of the regional coords, basically the ‘real’ people behind F4j mk1, those who where running branches, organising fund raising activities and pulling off all of the stunts.
The plan was to continue as F4j and offer Matt an ambassador role, wheel him out when he was sober enough to deal with the odd press conference or interview.
His response was to threaten litigation if the F4j Ltd brand name or any image or intellectual property associated was used without permission, he then closed every branch and sacked every coord, citing something like ‘The tail doesn’t wag the fecking dog’, he later shut it down 6months later in 2006 and blamed us for the alleged Leo Blair plot
So Real fathers for justice was born in June 2005, spouting countless quotes from Matt of ‘dark underbelly, expelled around 30 members etc’, truth was we already had resigned and left him with a handful of sycophants, he has used the few activists he had left and his marketing skills to maximise membership revenue again in an F4j mk2, but still he continues to stiff the guys who made him all this cash, promises of activists fines being paid were false, expenses for flights to launch F4j Ltd usa remain owed to a top activist.
Why they continued to promote his brand with the stunts despite knowing all of this is beyond me?
I know he has threatened Jamil’s F4j.com usa with litigation too as he did not want a ‘not for profit’ brand, he will do the same to anyone else who dares use the F4j Ltd brand, that’s his cash cow.
Rffj has continued with the protests and demos since then, notably Corrie parental alienation crane protest, Westminster abbey crucifixion, Wimbledon centre court, Tiger Woods open, Ruth Kelly egging, Beverley Hughes handcuffing, Tyne Bridge hanging man to name but a few.
We remain democratic and accountable to our members, Nigel Ace and a few others from F4j mk2 have set up another splinter group, this time ‘new’ fathers for justice, i wish them well, Rffj are in contact with them and network with other like minded activists and groups such as fassit, grandparents apart and m4j.
Tonight i’ve read a few of your comments on wikivorce and on your blog about a cessation of stunts, that prompted me to join to this unofficial supporter group and comment as part of the senior management team of Rffj.
Rffj will not subscribe to a suspension of our activities, we may not be the group that gets to sit in front of the serious decision makers but our actions and those of our misguided brothers from Matt’s brand of F4j Ltd have opened doors for more moderate groups like fnf, fassit, Jimmy’s Grandparents apart etc,
But we believe that without the protests the debate and public awareness of the issues will stop, there are many activities that anyone can do to raise awareness without getting involved in high profile action, it takes pressure from many angles to force change, our group fulfils one of those.
If you subscribe to our beliefs and methods then join us and get involved, if not perhaps you could concentrate your efforts on raising awareness using another strategy?
Perhaps by using your Arnie blog to highlight the injustice in your own case, publish your family law judgement and offer other parents the same opportunity?But please come up with something new rather than slate those who do something, there are plenty of critics from the feminist ‘all men are violent’ brigade without the cause taking flak from a dad who has been through it and actually understands the issues and changes needed.
Despite the history our group has with Matt, I will not accept to ridicule him personally in the press, captain pugwash on youtube or anti O’Connor sites on the web is the way forward (although very amusing!), it reflects badly on the movement as a whole , that’s why our members have never done the hatchet job in the red tops even though we have had numerous offers.
Comment by secret societies — Sun 26th April 2009 @ 7:51 am
F4J UK 12,000 members @ 30 GBP membership per annum = 360,000 GBP = 1 MILLION NZD
Comment by secret societies — Sun 26th April 2009 @ 8:47 am
I acan see Sketik’s complaint.
I do believe that the Guardianship Act 1968 was a significant step forward, in that it required “judges” to consider parents on an equal basis, NOT just by their gender!
My own experience with “judge” green on 6th October 1992 and “judge” robinson 3rd February 1995 showed that even on those dates, the familycaught did not follow the Guardianship Act 1968, that was by then about 14 years old! On both occassions, the “judges” approved my ex-wife abducting our children from my care, to reagin custody. The “judges” just ripped up the now worthless custody orders and wrote new ones, to give legal effect to the success of the abductions.
Thus, even 14 years after the Guardianship Act 1968 was passed by Parliament, it hadn’t yet seeped into the practices of familycaught “judges”.
I guess they are a brilliant examples of slow learners!
The Care of Chidren Act 2004 repeats the requirement that parents should be taken on their merits as parents and not judged by their gender! I have seen familycaught “judges” ignore this clause, every bit as much as they ignored the matching clause in the Guardianship Act 1968!
Additionally, the CoCAct also gives “better” protections to children’s rights to have access to their fathers, whether the parents are married or not. Some of these ideas are acted on by these “judges”, more than just occassionally, just a little bit more.
Certainly, the performance of familycaught “judges” is frequently at their dismal worst, when attempting to work the Domestic Violence Act 1995. This Act came into force gradually, staring about 5 years before it was passed by Patrliament! I know, because I met it with “judge” kendall on on 13th May 1992.
I am trying to make two points:
(a) most legislation affects the rights of women and men
(b) legislation is only window dressing, it is what happens in “caught” that really matters
Is it worth appealing, when appeals rarely address the finding of facts, which is where the largest defects in “judicial work” usually lie (excuse the pun!).
Even more importantly, will the appeal “judge” have the same defects at interpreting legislation as the first?
Most probably!
Thus appeals are generally a rip-off, even worse than the initial hearing.
Appeals are only worthwhile, if the original hearing was conducted so as to preserve your right of access to later appeal (and most self litigants are not good at doing this – especially where “judges” can arrange to lose and destroy audiotapes when it suits them).
So the real challenge isn’t just getting sensible legislation through Parliament, it is using appeals a large number of times, to help these “judges” to understand what Parliament wrote and intended.
Angry and frustrated men, such as axe-murderers like my good self, often give excuses to “judges” for not following the law!
Anyway, despite these fun and games, my children certainly are not the worst mangled by familycaught. One of the two “judges” I mentioned above, allowed a known child abductor to take her son out of NZ, on a 3 week holiday. This holiday has now lasted about 5 years and looks set to last until the child is 16 years old. This “judge” has now been appointed as an assoiate “judge” of the hIGH cAUGHT!!!!!!
These are the reasons why I warn people, that the familycaught hurts most, people who take it seriously. These people expose themselves to the “judges” more and this gives the “judges” more things they can do to damage them!
The real point is, if you give up, you were defeated by the one person who could choose to keep fighting!
Dredging up these things raises my frustrations, which can only be released by frenzied exercise, with an axe.
Don’t defeat yourself!!!!!
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 26th April 2009 @ 9:44 am
Further research shows that the alcoholism accusation originates with ex-campaign manager Steve Uncles with whom he has a political dispute.
There is a fairly balanced account of O’Connor’s split with English Democrats at Quaequam Blog which includes a campaign video by O’Connor, who is certainly a very slick communicator.
Comment by JohnPotter — Sun 26th April 2009 @ 1:51 pm
John, yes he is a VERY slick communicator, that is the general point that i wish to get across, these “leaders” are clever , devious, slick, good talkers with a total wish to dominate, when they do not get their own way, they are dangerous even violent in the extreme. They have a particular extreme character flaw (alcoholism/dependency is related), crave power, they do not really care what group they get involved to achieve this, one minute it is a Mens’ group, next minute it is “English Democracy”. I just want men to be aware of the dangers of being exploited, as men like us are desperate and may blindly follow “leaders” who appear to be our salvation.
Governments also deliberately pick these sort of people to infiltrate groups that they see, as a danger to them.
Comment by secret societies — Sun 26th April 2009 @ 9:08 pm
What can we do then, MurrayBacon ?
1. If you go to the cops about your violent wife, they laugh at you,
2. She can go to a solicitor and claim that she is “scared of you” and you can be thrown out of your house and your kids’ lives,
3. The judges do not follow the law, (wow did a judge really do that about the audio tape?)
Comment by secret societies — Sun 26th April 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Bugger, have I been unmasked? Is my psyche, ego and id showing?
I confess to having earned nearly $24.55 in seven years of Father activism and the tax man has allowed me nearly $15,000 in depreciation on my old bomb of a vehicle. My extreme character flaw has been to drive 1,000kms every second weekend to spend a depraved weekend with my two children. I wonder if my lust for power might get me selected as candidate for Family First in Mt Eden.
Oh wow is me to have sucked on the wicked apple of leadership.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 26th April 2009 @ 9:35 pm
I haven’t claimed to have all the answers, at all.
I have listed my own repeated failures above, in trying to get “judges” to follow legislation.
However, I fought on my own and was deterred by public condemnation of disgruntled fathers. I was an idiot, to listen to “judges” comments and women’s refuge comments, about fathers support groups. I did quite a big disservice for my children.
I later joined Men’s Centre North Shore and was impressed some of the things that I heard. I am happy to sort wheat from chaff.
Listening to many men telling their stories, some had failures and some had success, at least in part.
Over time, a pattern emerged of how best to approach the familycaught, what behaviours are guaranteed to disadvantage you in front of familycaught.
Similarly, I observed that most men are relatively poor at negotiating relationship issues, especially when under high stress. Worst, many of these men believe that they are good negotiators and don’t need to improve their skills. They may be good in a business negotiation sense, but relationship negotiations are fairly different territory.
One of the most important aspects of negotiating, is to listen carefully and listen long. Listen to the other party, listen to what other people around suggest.
Many men don’t listen carefully and expect things to be one way, when this isn’t how the present world actually operates. Our father’s experiences are of only limited guide to the world we are in now.
My suggestions are as follows:
1. listen much more carefully, to the people some call enemy
2. listen to our friends, family and workmate, for the suggestions they offer to us
3. meet with people who are going through similar issues and learn from them too
4. try humbly to help other people, in similar situations
5. where we are being kept from out own children, keep up our parenting skills by caring for siblings and friends children
6. develop our listening and negotiating skills, from all around us
7. ask for help, if we even suspect that we may be out of our depth
8. don’t give up, but fight to enjoy life and family
9. be very careful to have separate watertight compartments, so disaster in one part of life doesn’t damage the rest of our life
I suggest that most men are just trying to get through these challenges and then go away and forget about these problems, until it is too late to help their children, or they cannot see their son’s children, because the daughter-in-law is barring access.
I am trying to persuade men to listen respectfully and work together, to make positive changes. I see more putdowns, than offers to work together. We behave more like rats on a ship we know is sinking. It seems to be very selfish behaviour, rather than helping.
Can we do any better?
Too often, we are own own worst enemies.
I have seen many cases, where men have done more damage to themselves, than their ex-wife or her legal-worker, or “judge” ever did. They have over-reacted, in ignorance and in anger.
we have to get our own house in order, but where people will not listen, it ain’t easy.
Over several years, I have been bought a pina colada once and some other small thanks, by two people only out of a fairly long list. (Embarrassing isn’t it, they were both XXs.) All of them men were purely selfish. Most other people who offer a bit of help, have similar experience.
Best regards, Murraybacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 26th April 2009 @ 11:27 pm