- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
Child abduction laws were originally proposed and introduced based on the ideology that fathers would take their children overseas in order to prevent courts separating them from their kids. The reality is that most international child abductors are mothers. This often causes embarrassment for courts who find themselves forced by international law to return children to daddy.
However not so in Japan.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
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.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
Japan does have a reputation for favouring local abductors over foreign nationals.
However, if we were honest about ourselves, the same comment applies to a large degree to all of the countries of the western world too. NZ does not have a particularly good reputation in this regard either, probably among the worst of the western world. Don’t be deceived by just reading the published judgements. You also need to know what is happening in the judgements that they don’t supply to the legal publishers!!!!
I suggest that NZ men do need to take an active interest in this issue, as the fraction of acrimonious separations that end up in international abduction out of NZ is just under 1%!!!!
When we consider that the cost to Government of each of these abductions is often in the range $100,000 to $500,000, we do have a destructive an expensive problem, to say nothing of the damage to the children. This is also why NZ “judges” are so unwilling to make non-removal orders, as illegal removals are a substantial source of income for legal “workers”!
Do not wait for the legal workers to solve this problem. They are the beneficiaries of it!!!! The problem can only be solved by the public demanding that the familycaught honestly and diligently apply the existing legislation, as it already stands!!!!!
Secrecy is a major barrier to the honest application of legislation, particularly when the manipulative application of legislation can put soooo much money into grubby hands. As a foreseeable consequence, the lives of these children are being sacrificed on the altar of financial greed. Open courts is an essential element of managing the conflicts of interest, that otherwise can so easily render caughts completely ineffective at doing their job.
Lets apply publicity to these abduction cases as they proceed through the familycaught. This is the only way that these children can be protected from the exploitation by the legal “workers”. We must learn from the ongoing failures in the recent past.
Perhaps the next largest barrier to the honest application of NZ law, is the apparent expectation by familycaught “judges”, that the left behind parent should privately prosecute the abducting parent. What a destructive expectation, on the part of these “judges”. What are they and the police for?
If they don’t want to do their job, then they should resign and let someone who wants to protect children take the job. The legislation does provide solid deterrents, so why are they almost never applied in NZ in prosecutions and sentences?
Kay Skelton was eventually prosecuted, but only after flouting familycaught orders for 6 or 7 years, an international abduction plus a within NZ 6 month abduction. Hundreds of other international abductions were never prosecuted at all!!! When will our greedy “judges” learn that parliament DOES want children protected from abduction?
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 8th March 2011 @ 7:56 am