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

On trial for the truth

Filed under: General — Vman @ 10:07 pm Sun 15th January 2012

“Most of you have probably read tons of articles about Western society’s war on fathers and families. How fathers are forcefully separated from their children against their will, falsely accused of despicable crimes, shamed, and discriminated against by the family courts. Well, Sweden is of course no exception to that rule; quite the contrary. Neither is my story particularly unique in that regard I, guess. I challenged the system and went public with proof of the corruption. Now they are prosecuting me for it. A court date has already been set.”

Read more here:


  1. Yes V Man,
    Thanks for posting this.
    Sweden is one hell of a feminist basket case –
    click on the link then watch the video for clear evidence (warning – not for the faint hearted)

    Sweden is also a place the current Director of The United Nations Development Program and former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clarke has lauded as being a model for NZ.
    She should know. She has plans for Africa which may have been inspired by Swedish attitudes –

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 15th January 2012 @ 10:35 pm

  2. Whew, that story really winds people up, although actually it’s not that different from the stories of many fathers.

    I have signed the petition that I hope will shine light and put pressure on the Swedish authorities.

    Here is the petition:

    Unfortunately, after all their complicity in wrecking a child’s life, their errors, chivalry and sexism, those authorities are prosecuting Mr Ramstedt for breaching the secrecy of their Family Court system and on that ground he may well be guilty. Of course, those authorities haven’t ever prosecuted the mother for her repeated perjury or frequent child abuse, nor the various agencies that colluded with her.

    Family Court secrecy is claimed to protect the children involved, but of course the opposite happens because secrecy allows that court to abuse children and parents with no public accountability.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 15th January 2012 @ 11:01 pm

  3. Hans, which story are you saying winds people up?

    Thanks for the link to the petition and recent moral support.

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 16th January 2012 @ 4:05 am

  4. Skeptic (#3): I was referring to Mr Ramstedt’s story in the original posting here. The SCUM video showing women celebrating the murder of a man was shocking too. The cannabalism in it seemed inconsistent but I’m sure reflected more the poor theatrical skills of those feminists than any wish to dilute the misandrist, dehumanizing advocacy of violence. It’s great that AVfM listed the names of the perpetrators and I hope that natural consequences are brought to bear on them in due course.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 17th January 2012 @ 10:20 am

  5. How about SCUFF, the Society for the Cutting up of Filthy Feminists? No, of course that would simply be sinking to their level of stupidity. But when do we get to the point that we need to fight fire with fire?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 17th January 2012 @ 10:23 am

  6. heres some truth

    women alone allowance
    Domestic Purposes Benefit-women alone clients have the following obligations:

    they must advise of any change in circumstances that affect their entitlement or rate of benefit payable and
    if required, they must meet planning obligations

    Note that clients receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit – Women alone are not required to take up or accept employment as a condition of receiving the benefit.

    For more information see:

    Change in circumstances
    Planning obligations
    Employment Plan

    Comment by Ford — Wed 18th January 2012 @ 6:38 pm

  7. Domestic Purposes Benefit – Women alone provides income support for women with no dependent children who have lost the support of their partner or have finished caring for their children after they turned 50 years old. Clients receiving Domestic Purposes Benefit – Women alone also have specific planning obligations

    Comment by Ford — Wed 18th January 2012 @ 6:58 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.

Skip to toolbar