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

18 Comments »

1. 

   The truth is Womens’ Refuge and the Family Court utterly failed this woman and her family.

   They are busy fishing for violence where it is not and thus destroying innocent families, and letting it, where it is rough, to prosper.

   Because their intent is on punishing and not educating.
   I am sure this woman has probably refused the kiss of death of woman’ refuge.

   Women’s refuge is a gender lobby. Its current incarnation has nothing to do with womens emancipation. They play a big role in putting young male Maori in jail or death as is this case.

   I changed radically my views about them when I got first hand experience about how they go about destroying families.

   Poor man, poor woman and poor kids. It is sad.
   This man gave her the best gift she could ever receive: 6 children.

   Comment by tren (Christchurch) — Tue 31st August 2010 @ 5:39 pm

2. 

   “Mr Hirini had been stabbed by her previously and had lost an eye when she hit him with a bottle….”

   Just in case anyone missed it, Mr Hirini was the one who got murdered.

   His wife had already half-blinded him and stabbed him before (and he obviously didn’t take her eye out, or murder her).

   And Women’s Refuge are trying to tell us the murderess is the real victim here? There’s only one way to put this.

   Damn them. Damn them all straight to hell.

   The same goes for all the idiotic men who go along with this rubbish.

   Comment by rc — Tue 31st August 2010 @ 5:58 pm

3. 

   Oh my God!
   Thanks for the posting Scrap.

   I know men in NZ who’s upbringing was even more brutal than that described by Wihongi’s lawyer, who committed LESSER crimes than murder AND got longer sentences than her.
   The ‘judge’ gave her the standard pussy pass I see.

   Incidentally in femiNZt Hawkes Bay Wihongi was unlike men there spoilt for choice with government funded agencies she could have gone to for assistance with her ‘self medicating’.

   Comment by Skeptik — Tue 31st August 2010 @ 9:42 pm

4. 

   Women’s Refuge spokeswoman Kiri Hannifin said…

   Given the horrendous life she has led…**

   As distinct from the life her victim no longer leads?

   If Women’s Refuge had anything to do with this family prior to the murder then that event stands as an indictment of their service.

   If – as is more likely – they have become involved since that event they have clearly “chosen sides” on the basis of only the killer’s version.

   At the very least they stand exposed before us as excusers of abuse extending to murder and possibly even as enablers of such.

   I’ve frequently seen the ad hominem “rape apologist” thrown at those who are sceptical about anything to do do with rape. I find myself wondering what would constitute a well deserved, analogous portrayal for Ms Hannifin and Women’s Refuge and this callous performance. I’ll leave that to more competent wordsmiths.

   Meanwhile I’ve perused the odd document on the Women’s Refuge website. Much like the material from many other similar organisations I’m afraid. Almost like it’s franchised. They don’t seem to have any view of men that doesn’t automatically equate to monster.

   Their “Code of Ethics” was what perplexed me. I have lengthy involvement with a rape crisis and counselling service that serves a huge region. Women’s Refuge’s “code” contains a great deal of language about commitment and respect and tolerance toward those who are amongst the de jeur darlings of the politically correct. BUT nowhere does it mention victims of abuse. NOT ONCE. There’s an early, fleeting reference to “a policy of creating a violence-free environment and community” but other than that it really stands as a statement of political solidarity. Silly me. I was expecting an organisation serving a similar demographic to my own ie all victims of abuse. Seems they have a different agenda entirely.

   ** Endquote due to increasing nausea.

   Comment by gwallan — Tue 31st August 2010 @ 11:10 pm

5. 

   This story appeared after Wihongi was convicted back in June:

   A man left scarred, without an eye and eventually stabbed to death with a kitchen knife by the mother of his children, has been called “the battered woman” in their relationship.

   Millie Hirini said yesterday that Jacqueline Elaine Wihongi, 33, “got what she deserved” for killing her brother.

   A jury in the High Court at Napier took 1 1/2 hours to find Wihongi guilty of murdering Vivian Sinclair Hirini, 37, on June 5 last year. She stabbed him with a kitchen knife after a drunken argument.

   After the verdict, Ms Hirini said her brother had a scar on his face caused in another attack by Wihongi.

   “He was the battered woman in that relationship. He lost an eye through her. She hit him with a bottle.”

   He had not gone to police about those attacks because he wanted to protect his partner, she said. The couple had five children.

   “He was a good father, partner and brother,” Ms Hirini said on behalf of family members. “He made sure if he was drinking that the kids were fed.”

   Comment by rc — Wed 1st September 2010 @ 12:04 am

6. 

   Womens refuge are responsible for many murders this country has seen. Keep counting those shoes. And have innocent boys from schools do the fund raising for them. Blood money that is.

   Comment by tren (Christchurch) — Wed 1st September 2010 @ 7:40 am

7. 

   Great comments by Dr Viv Roberts in the Dominion Post today:
   
   Judges ‘treat violent women differently’
   By MARTY SHARPE – The Dominion Post

   A woman’s eight-year jail term for murdering her partner reflects the judiciary’s lack of understanding towards male victims of domestic violence, a men’s rights spokesman says.

   Hastings GP Viv Roberts was commenting on Monday’s sentencing of Jacqueline Wihongi, 33, in the High Court at Napier.

   The mother of six stabbed her partner of 17 years, Vivian Hirini, in the chest with a kitchen knife in June last year.

   In sentencing, Justice John Wild said Wihongi had a tragic “history of victimhood” and it would have been “manifestly unjust” to have given her life imprisonment.

   The couple had a violent relationship and frequently assaulted each other. Mr Hirini had been stabbed previously by Wihongi and had lost an eye when she hit him with a bottle. The court was shown a ringbinder containing about 500 pages of police reports on domestic callouts involving the couple.

   Women’s Refuge spokeswoman Kiri Hannifin praised the judge for considering the “appalling violence” Wihongi had suffered.

   But Dr Roberts said this was “clearly a case where there has been a lot of violence both ways”, which the system had failed to address.

   “Men are frequently the victims in domestic violence and, even when they end up dead, the perpetrator of the violence is treated differently if they happen to be female.

   “Mr Hirini is not available to tell his side of the story but, if he were, the story he would tell may well paint a different picture to that painted by Ms Wihongi’s defence team.”

   A 2006 report by the Dunedin Multi-Disciplinary Health and Development Study (The Dunedin Study) said there was “a tendency to discount the harm attributed to violence carried out by women … but the argument of the relative benignity of female violence does not match our data on distress, nor our informal data on severity”.

   Dr Roberts said police figures on reported incidents were not an accurate picture of the perpetrators as studies had shown men victims reported less than 5 per cent of violence and women about 30 per cent.

   A quote from American author Patricia Pearson’s book When She Was Bad: How and Why Women Get Away with Murder best summed up his thoughts. “She wrote, `the denial of women’s aggression profoundly undermines our attempt as a culture to understand violence, to trace its causes and quell them’.

   “I believe that is the number one reason that a couple like this can have 500 pages of incidents with the police and the violence continues to escalate to the point where someone ends up dead.

   “The responsibility for this lack of understanding lies primarily with the judiciary and the law makers, and to me this sentence reflects that lack of understanding,” Dr Roberts said.

   Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 1st September 2010 @ 9:21 am

8. 

   “I believe that is the number one reason that a couple like this can have 500 pages of incidents with the police and the violence continues to escalate to the point where someone ends up dead.

   “The responsibility for this lack of understanding lies primarily with the judiciary and the law makers, and to me this sentence reflects that lack of understanding,” Dr Roberts said.”

   The problem is, the lawmakers are increasingly female. In all the time women have had political power, not once has any law been passed to restrict whatever freedom women believe they have a right to – and I doubt you could find a single lawmaker who would publicly support equal penalties for men and women in practice.

   Unlike men, women tend to see themselves as their gender first, and whatever other identity they assume (including impartial compassionate human being) comes second. This couldn’t have been more obviously on show than in the U.K. recently, where a government proposal to allow anonymity for rape suspects prior to being charged was so opposed by women M.P.s that they deserted their posts, flung party loyalties to the wind and defeated the proposal as sisters, Conservative and Labour alike. It is hard to imagine a clearer flaw in the parliamentary system than this – a network of individuals prioritising their own private sympathies over the interests of those they were elected to represent.

   If women will corrupt the parliamentary process over such a relatively minor issue as this, we can be fairly certain that they will resist any measure that denies them the Pussy Pass.

   Comment by rc — Wed 1st September 2010 @ 10:31 am

9. 

   At least the Aussies have still got enough spine left to jail some serious female offenders. Today they put away a woman for 27 years after the murder of her two sons. Note the standard appeal for a Pussy Pass: Fitchett claimed she was not guilty by reason of mental impairment…

   MELBOURNE – An Australian mother twice convicted of killing her two young sons was sentenced to 27 years in prison today for what the judge called “the greatest act of betrayal.”

   Donna Fitchett was first convicted in 2008 of murdering her sons in 2005 and sentenced to 24 years prison. She appealed her conviction and was granted a retrial in May, but a jury again found her guilty after she admitted drugging her sons and then strangling one and smothering the other.

   The boys were 11 and 9 years old.

   “You were their mother. Your responsibility was to nurture, care for, love and protect them and over the years you did that,” Justice Elizabeth Curtain said in sentencing Fitchett. “But in the greatest act of betrayal and in a profound breach of (trust) you robbed each of them of their precious lives … in an act of unfathomable selfishness.”

   Fitchett claimed she was not guilty by reason of mental impairment but Curtain called the murder premeditated, citing a letter Fitchett had written before the murders.

   No details on the letter were released, and a motive was not given during the trial.

   Fitchett’s lawyer, Patrick Tehan, told the court that the mother was depressed and suicidal when she killed her children.

   She must serve at least 18 years before she is eligible for parole.

   The boys’ father, David Fitchett, said he had hoped his ex-wife would receive two life sentences.

   “Thomas and Matthew deserve justice,” David Fitchett told reporters outside court. “Today’s sentence has been extended from the first one. Whilst in my mind it is nowhere near enough … it is better than what it was last time. My boys, I love them and miss them.”

   Comment by rc — Wed 1st September 2010 @ 6:14 pm

10. 

    Well done Dr Roberts.

    Comment by dad4justice — Wed 1st September 2010 @ 10:45 pm

11. 

    The Daily Mail in the U.K. is breaking rank and publishing the truth about domestic violence:

    Four in ten domestic violence victims are men

    Four out of ten victims of domestic violence are men, a report claimed yesterday.

    But it added that men who complain of being attacked at home are often ignored by police who prefer to believe that a woman is the real victim.

    The study comes at a time of complaints that men are treated unfairly by the justice system.

    A new set of guidelines for judges on fairness in the courts has been criticised for playing down the likelihood that women attack men and pushing for judges and magistrates to go easier on women offenders…

    Full story here

    Comment by rc — Mon 6th September 2010 @ 3:44 pm

12. 

    Great find rc,

    Thank you.

    Comment by Skeptik — Mon 6th September 2010 @ 8:24 pm

13. 

    Men in the U.K. were also able to announce a (small) victory in respect that British Airways is now allowing men to sit next to children without being supervised by a woman!!!!
    And it might have been an accomplishment of internet activism by MRA’s!
    See: http://antimisandry.com/articles/british-airways-change-anti-male-policy-53.html

    Comment by Max — Mon 6th September 2010 @ 11:50 pm

14. 

    It wouldn’t do any harm to let Air New Zealand know of this particular development – their contact details are available on their web-site.

    I did it myself a week or two back. A few but frequent reminders that their policy is both discriminatory and completely unfounded on fact keeps it fresh in their minds. Eventually they will fold. Don’t expect an intelligent response though – or one at all if emailing.

    It would be interesting to find out who is influencing this decision, given that so few other airlines practice it. There is a feminist bogey in there somewhere, either within the company itself, on the board or in those other companies it gets advice from (eg lawyers). The large government share-holding is the most obvious candidate.

    Comment by rc — Tue 7th September 2010 @ 10:48 am

15. 

    Thanks for the suggedtion rc.

    Here’s the letter I just sent to Air New Zealand via their ‘contact us/feedback’ page
    (https://airnz.custhelp.com/app/ask)

    Feel free to copy and paste it to them to add your voice to the message.

    Dear Madam/Sir,
    I look forward to flying with Air New Zealand (instead of other airlines) without being discriminated against for being male – when I receive a response similar to that shown below which this man in the UK recently received from British Airways.

    quote from :
    http://antimisandry.com/articles/british-airways-change-anti-male-policy-53.html

    I received this reply from BA today:

    Dear Mr Purnell

    Thank you for your email. I am sorry that you are unhappy with our response. I understand that you feel disappointed with our policy about seating for unaccompanied minors. Please also accept my sincere apologies for the delay in our response.

    I can confirm that all feedback we have received relating to the unaccompanied minor seating policy has been carefully reviewed and has led to us reassessing the policy in full. The new policy for seating unaccompanied minors who travel with British Airways does not make any distinction between male and female passengers.

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your feedback. Your business is invaluable to us and we appreciate that you have a choice when it comes to booking your flights. Thank you again for getting in touch and for giving me the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
    Best regards

    Victoria Holland
    British Airways Customer Relations
    Your case reference is:8308357.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 7th September 2010 @ 11:48 am

16. 

    More detail about the Parity report (which prompted the Daily Mail article) is available here, along with references to other related efforts to reveal the actual truth about D.V.

    Comment by rc — Tue 7th September 2010 @ 12:39 pm

17. 

    Thanks for posting here that reply from BA that was on Anti-Misandry Skeptic. I didn’t appreciate its significance until I saw it just now.

    I would like to have included a copy of it in my own communication with Air New Zealand – it would have shown to them that their competitors are actually responding to concerns about this issue, and front-footing it in a way that can be respected.

    I’ll be sure to include it next time I let them know this issue hasn’t gone away.

    Comment by rc — Tue 7th September 2010 @ 1:50 pm

18. 

    More on the apparent complete feminist takeover of the U.K. The comments, as usual, are far closer to common sense.

    Judges ordered to show more mercy on women criminals when deciding sentences

    Judges have been told to treat female criminals more leniently than men when deciding sentences.

    New guidelines declare that women suffer disadvantages and courts should ‘bear these matters in mind’.

    The rules say women criminals often have poor mental health or are poorly educated, have not committed violence and have children to look after.

    Women’s experiences as victims, witnesses and offenders are in many respects different to those of men,’ according to the Equal Treatment Bench Book.

    ‘These differences highlight the importance of the need for sentencers to bear these matters in mind when sentencing.’

    The controversial advice comes from the Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for training the judiciary.

    In the past, the board has caused upset by suggesting Rastafarians have religious beliefs which allow them to use cannabis.

    It has also tried to ban words such as immigrant, asylum-seeker and even West Indian from the courts on the grounds they are offensive.

    The latest guidelines have also caused anger, this time among campaigners for male victims of domestic violence.

    Full story here.

    Comment by rc — Sat 11th September 2010 @ 6:53 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.