Thinking About Mayor Brown’s Affair
Oooh, Shock Horror, How Exciting, A Scandal! Auckland’s newly elected Mayor Len Brown confirms allegations made on the WhaleOil blog site that he participated in a 2-year extramarital affair with a younger woman who served on a council advisory board. This revelation immediately became the top news story around the country.
But how silly it is for people to be surprised. Our no-fault divorce system, demanded by feminists wanting to ensure that disloyal women still got their loot, tells us that it’s fine to be disloyal and that marriage now involves no real contract or commitment of any kind (except that you will allow yourself to be fleeced of your life’s savings by your disloyal spouse). Your Family Court fiercely protects the right of your spouse, especially if she’s a woman, to screw around, even to entertain the new beau in your own bed, without penalty of any kind. If you are a male and criticize her for this you will be the one treated as a wrongdoer, and of course if you so much as raise your voice in objecting to it you will be treated as ‘the violent party’, ordered out of your house either by the police through their affectionately called ‘safety order’ or by the Family Court through their dishonestly called ‘protection order’. Our laws now give partners and spouses a right to be sexually unfaithful and our Courts defend that right, treating extramarital fucking as perfectly acceptable and as meriting no punishment whatsoever. So it really is silly for anyone to be surprised when their partner screws around behind their back, or their neighbour or their mayor does it to their partner. The law promotes this stuff.
MoMA says that extramarital sexual behaviour should be a criminal offence, and so should sexual behaviour knowingly with a married person.
MoMA says that the penalty for these offences should not be severe, perhaps a maximum fine of $500 to $1000, but the law should make it clear that such behaviour is not condoned.
MoMA says that extramarital sexual activity causes significant harm, both to the cheated spouse and to the children who are at high risk of losing their family as a result. The harm is serious, ALMOST ALWAYS involving:
– anxiety
– sleep disturbance
– loss of trust in others
– damage to self-esteem
– reduction in work or school performance;
OFTEN including:
– clinical depression or other mental illness
– development or exacerbation of alcohol and/or substance abuse
– behaviour involving poor self-care or risk to self;
and SOMETIMES involving
– serious self-harm
– suicide attempts
– successful suicide
– violence to others
– homicide
– harm to children.
MoMA says that the harm caused by marital disloyalty is much more serious than many behaviours now considered to be domestic violence and punished by our Courts.
Many laws are designed to stimulate change in the population’s behaviour towards a better norm, so why don’t we have any laws that promote respect for marital vows and a marriage contract? Why don’t we have any laws designed to protect as many children as possible from the emotional harm caused by parental separation? Why don’t we have any laws aimed at promoting family stability or ethical partnership behaviour? The answer mainly lies in the F word. MoMA calls for such laws, urgently.
We make a few other comments about Mayor Brown’s scandal:
(i) The WhaleOil author acted like a White Knight Prat by refusing to publish the name of Mayor Brown’s ‘other woman’. She was subsequently identified by other journalists through careful deduction and named as Bevan Chuang. Bevan Chuang. Bevan Chuang. Bevan Chuang. Bevan Chuang. Bevan Chuang. Bevan Chuang. Bevan Chuang. Bevan Chuang. Beware all men.
(ii)
Ms Chuang spoke to the Herald last year about seeking a sperm donor to help her make a ‘dragon baby’. She said at the time she was desperate to have a “dragon baby” – and determined not to let the fact that she didn’t have a partner hinder her plans.
The Hong Kong-born woman was seeking a donor to give her a child through artificial insemination.
This shows Ms Chuang to be self-serving, self-entitled and disregarding of her proposed child’s right and need to have a father in his/her life.
MoMA would outlaw all forms of deliberate conception or attempts to conceive in the absence of a stable partnership in which both parties agree to the pregnancy.
(iii) Ms Chuang was reported as having prepared a ‘sworn affadavit’ claiming to describe her affair with Mayor Brown in intimate detail, and it appears she took it to news media. This appeared designed to cause maximum harm to Mayor Brown and his family. Although we don’t know the reason she did this, her actions showed her to be a thoroughly horrible, selfish woman. Such behaviour is often tantamount to extortion (e.g. “If you don’t leave your wife for me / make me pregnant / pay me I will punish you…”) but rarely treated that way especially when done by a woman. MoMA would treat Bevan Chuang’s vindictive actions as an aggravating factor in her crime of sexual behaviour with a man she knew to be married.
(iv) News media have already focused on Mayor Brown’s behaviour as scandalous and immoral without holding Ms Bevan Chuang responsible for her own choices and participation. This is typical especially in this gender configuration, women being treated as though they were children incapable of making their own decisions or of understanding the moral impropriety of their behaivour. Or alternatively as having some other excuse.
Support the Ministry of Men’s Affairs and demand laws that promote the integrity of NZ families!
MoMA’s suggestion that infidelity be criminalised sounds like an exeedingly bad idea to me.
Remember that about a third of men and a quarter of women behave in this way at some time in their marriage (actual figures vary widely depending on definitions and research methodology).
Who would enforce this new law? Is this what we want our police force to be spending time on?
I can imagine that lawyers might be keen to support the proposal.
There is some merit in considering infidelity to be a form of domestic violence, or at least a mitigating factor if violence occurs, but I don’t think it should ever affect a person’s suitability to parent children.
I do think we may need some new laws regarding sperm theft, which should include false claims about contraception.
As for prohibiting single women from deliberately getting pregnant – here in the UK there are numerous adverts for women’s clinics offering sperm to single woman. I personally don’t think it is a good idea, and I don’t think government benefits should be available to women who make this choice, but I think we have to accept it is going to happen.
I suspect these are issues where there will be a wide range of opinions among NZ men.
Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 16th October 2013 @ 3:55 am
I have never read a more right wing christian crock of shit in all my life. People make mistakes, some people are in relationships they have real trouble getting out of, and some just fall in love with others. When this kind of thing happens the punishment to the so called offender is usually huge on many levels starting with the guilt (which can kill you) and then moving towards all kinds of pain and other suffering.
As one who has been in this situation and lost everything, except the person i was actually in love with, i was punished on so many levels by friends family and my own children who did not suffer at school, but certainly made me suffer and still do. I am not a bad person, I did one bad thing and that was getting my timing wrong. I should have left my ex wife before it all came out, for that i have been punished ever since.
If it was a so called crime i would have done my time by now but no i still suffer, I don’t get to see my kids, I own nothing, I have no assets, I am in debt and I paying a lot of money every month to a woman who earns nearly double I do.
Don’t talk to me about crime and punishment, i am punished every day and so will len brown. His own guilt is where it will start. Frankly if that is the attitude of MoMA then MoMA is an arse.
Len Brown was not innocent here, he said yes !!!!! he could have said no, so don’t come this Masoganistic bullshit about its all her fault, because its not, they both shagged in the council chamber, she didn’t do it by brain washing or any kind of feminist mind magic.
Knowing men as i do, as i am one, he was probably flirting and all over her as that’s how we tend to be when we find something we want to sleep with, its in our very nature. Add to that same power and some influence and the rest are easy. No one can blame her they are both to blame and to be honest its old and boring news.
Don’t worry he will suffer, just not publicly.
Why can’t we just be man enough to say to our partners that it’s over and do it properly. That’s what MoMA should be teaching us, how to be men, and have the guts to be honest and let our partners know that its over and not lie to them.
I did a bad thing i am not a bad person and i am certainly not a bad parent but to be a parent you must have kids and that’s what I lost. More than anything else. That is punishment enough.
Comment by Invisible man — Wed 16th October 2013 @ 6:26 am
If a man is happy at home he doesn’t look elsewhere. Then again some women agree to their husband having a mistress.
Having the police investigate every allegation of extra-marital affair (unless of course you are suggesting they are investigated by MoMEA) is just plain silly.
It is bad enough that the Police investigate every allegation of rape and fail to prosecute those women who make false complaints.
Trial by media is bad enough. Even if Len Brown’s wife ‘forgives’ him, as I have seen in circumstances like this before, he will pay for a very long time.
She would be a brave woman if she holds her head up and continues the role of the Mayor’s partner, which is a substial public role that she has already established over the last three years. Many people’s votes would have been influenced by her success in that role.
This little bitches very public and personal dislosure is as much an attack on her as him. After the Deputy Mayor’s comments yesterday I would have to wonder if these two women weren’t in it together.
Invisible man you should probably accept that regardless of how you handled the situation the outcome would have been the same.
If it is any consolation my ex wouldn’t let me into the house one evening because she was pissed off that I had gone out with a mate.
She knew where I would be and even rang me next the morning (spent the night on mates couch) to elaborate on her fury (still pissed off because I had gone out).
When I got home I was confronted by our children who had been told I had spent the night with another woman.
Woman are nasty vindictive creatures when they don’t get their own way. She would go on to do everything she could to destroy those relationships after separation, with the help of the Family Court of course.
You’re not alone in what you’ve lost and neither are your children.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 16th October 2013 @ 7:59 am
Yep-i lost my kids my home and everything i owned wth the exception of a hammer. WTF i took that i don’t know.
I have had the ex telling the kids all kinds of things about me and the reason for my leaving. Infidelity, not caring, self centred etc etc but the truth of the matter is, i was arrested for MAF (not convicted) after being assaulted by her!!!
As i lay in the cells under the courthouse, i thought “so it has come to this and i think it’s time to get out” (not lacking in intellect huh?)
Thereafter, i embarked on a terrible voyage in which my character was assassinated at every turn, and whereby complete strangers furnished the courts with affidavits as to how i was a complete ass hole, and akin to shit on the bottom of a shoe.
After having everything taken, i was then assessed, reassessed and admin reviewed to buggery, to the point that i could barely afford to feed myself.
I left her with the bulk of matrimonial property, as i (foolishly) thought that this would be more of a seamless transition for the children. When i applied for shared custody, i was informed that i was less stable (because she had the house, i was renting)and had a history of being violent (one charge-discharged)
I do see my children, and despite their constant brainwashing from mum (i could write a book) they are beginning to figure stuff out for themselves without any coaching from me.
Despite all she has done, i wish her no ill will, however i note with some sadness that she will end up alone and abandoned, not i.
Comment by shafted — Wed 16th October 2013 @ 10:43 am
@2.. its not about women its about both men and women.. and what you generally term as a mistake is usually an excuse the unfaithful ones make because they cannot commit to their responsibility and duty and hence use “it was a mistake” excuse to get off scot free and make others around them suffer.. isn’;t marriage about commitment?..
Comment by kiranjiharr — Wed 16th October 2013 @ 12:06 pm
1. John (#1), thanks for your comments. We happen to think that it would be an exceedingly good idea for the law to discourage infidelity and to encourage respect for the marital commitments people make to each other and for other people’s marital status. Currently the law does absolutely nothing towards such aims; on the contrary, it defends people’s right to breach their marital commitments and to be unfaithful to their partner who may be the other parent to their children. The child abuse in breaking up children’s family units for the sake of some new nooky is considerably more damaging to children than much of what is currently punished as child abuse. The harm caused to a partner by unfaithfulness and the deceit and fool-making involved is considerably worse than the harm caused by most acts of domestic violence that are currently punished.
By having a legal avenue to respond to a partner’s unfaithfulness, this is likely to reduce significantly the frequent, sometimes extreme, violent reactions that people can have towards others or themselves upon discovering partners’ disloyalty. If we weren’t able to call upon police concerning theft, assault or rape then many people would respond with great violence to deal with those behaviours. Having the law to turn to stops most such violence and provides an avenue for redress and vindication regarding the impropriety of what was done.
We can scarcely think of a better use of police time than discouraging people from actions that wreck marriages and families. The high proportion of people who currently indulge in extramarital sex or affairs do so in the context of current law that promotes the practice. That proportion is likely to reduce greatly if the practice is made unlawful. Also, not everyone whose partner cheats on them will want to put it through the law enforcement system. Nevertheless, knowing it is against the law will discourage many from cheating. If married people want a new fuckbody legally, all they will need to do is to abandon the marital contract first.
As for parenting, we agree that single incidents of infidelity should not in themselves be seen as reducing a parent’s fitness to parent. However, if infidelity burdens children with troublesome experiences, secrets or collusion against the cheated parent (all frequent features of extramarital affairs), such behaviour should be seen as relevant to parenting fitness. Further, repeated incidents of extramarital sex (by either a married person or imposter) in the knowledge that such behaviour will almost certainly result in children losing their family unit can only reflect the offender’s low ability to put children’s welfare ahead of his/her own indulgences, something that is definitely relevant to parental fitness.
Yes, these suggestions will seem radical given the degenerate attitudes we have become accustomed to, but that doesn’t make the suggestions a bad idea. And of course, there will be many different opinions. Respectful debate can only be healthy.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Wed 16th October 2013 @ 9:51 pm
Invisible man (#2): Respectful debate may be healthy but your rude insults are neither healthy nor welcome. But hey, we can quite enjoy sinking to your level and we will give as good as we get. Your writing was the only crock of shit here to date but we realise you may well be capable of little else to shovel this way. Although it will almost certainly be a waste of time attempting to communicate rationally with you, we nevertheless respond to some of your arguments as follows.
First, we are neither right wing nor christian, so you can shove those assumptions up your own arse.
Second, you argue essentially that because an action resulted in guilt, pain and suffering for the person who commits it as well as for others, therefore it shouldn’t be treated as an offence or punished further by law. That’s a silly argument. If someone causes an accident in which their car is also damaged, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be prosecuted and punished for causing the accident. Of course, Courts in sentencing are able to take into account any suffering the offending may already have caused the offender.
Third, if an unfaithful partner can be prosecuted and given a modest fine this would vindicate the cheated partner’s sense of wrongdoing done to them which would in turn be likely to reduce the cheated partner’s motivation to carry out ongoing acts of revenge etc. You may well have had an easier ride if you had simply been punished for your ‘mistake’ by the Court.
Fourth, many offences were mistakes but that doesn’t mean the law should not deal with them.
Fifth, your position appears to be defensive and related to the guilt you feel about your own ‘mistake’. That apparently distracted you from actually addressing most of the arguments we made in support of our position. That’s one of the things that made your writing such a crock of shit.
Sixth, your suggestion that we saw Mayor Brown’s affair as being “all her fault” was gross misrepresentation of our post. We saw both parties as being responsible.
Seventh, we disagree with your portrayal of the affair as something for which Mayor Brown was more responsible than was Ms Bevan Chuang simply because he had power and influence, and we disagree with your statement “no one can blame her” though we agree with your inconsistent qualifier “they are both to blame”. If they are both to blame then we can blame her at least as much as we blame him. Regardless, we never said anything about blaming her primarily for the affair and in no way did we suggest that Mayor Brown was innocent. We would like to see them both prosecuted and punished with a small fine, as an example to others in the appropriate function of the law as moral guide. We do however blame Ms Bevan Chuang additionally for her subsequent vindictiveness through the media and we see that as a separate matter showing her to be a very nasty person. Any man stupid enough to become involved with her can expect to suffer her violence.
Eighth, if you are going to falsely allege that we wrote “masoganistic bullshit” we suggest you first consult a dictionary for correct spelling and meaning because your grasp of the term appears to be seriously ignorant on both counts.
Ninth, we disagree with your misandrist comments about men, such as “Knowing men as I do…he was probably flirting and all over her and that’s how we tend to be when we find something we want to sleep with, its in our very nature.” In fact, some women can be equally or more persistent, manipulative and/or dishonourable in attempting to get what they want. Stereotyping men as generally having poor characteristics has been a major weapon used by feminists and we are concerned that you would come here using that same weapon to disparage men.
Tenth, we object to your use of the term “something we want to sleep with” in referring to a member of the female gender. We respect and value women as humans of equal worth and would not refer to them as ‘things’.
Finally, we would encourage you to read and try to understand both our post and this reply before showing yourself to be even more stupid in future.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Wed 16th October 2013 @ 11:23 pm
Thanks for the update MoMA
… could you point us to the research that supports this conclusion.
Also
I think this would be less confusing if you had ‘partner disloyalty’.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 12:00 am
MoMA, if you intend to respond to other posters like this, you should probably be banned for the site.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 12:11 am
Please remember that discussion about moderation is specifically banned on MENZ.
I agree that MoMA’s comment was disrespectful, as was Invisible Man’s.
This site may well be quoted by mainstream journalists keen to keep this story spinning along. Can we all please try not to look like a bunch of angry nutters?
We should also stay alert to the possibility of trolls attempting to provoke extreme emotional reactions, and/or encourage misogyny.
Comment by JohnPotter — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 1:03 am
I am not from Auckland and I know little of the local politics in that area.
However I do not think much of woman who willingly has an affair with a man and then makes a public announcement about it.
She knew what this would do to Len and his family yet her need to get it out seemed in her mind greater than his right for privacy.
The real nub of the matter is the both of you had a fling and when it was over or slowing down you decided to deal it out. What you have done is a real incitement of who you really are.
Zero thought to his children
Zero thought to his wife
Zero thought to his career.
What a nasty thing to do!
The only good thing to come out of all this is the world now knows what sort of person you are Ms Chuang.
Comment by Lukenz — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 7:41 am
The light of day has brought up some interesting revelations about Ms Chuang.
Stuff story
The this from the Herald
I have to wonder if Chuang made money out of these two incidents.
“I accept that I was very naive by offering to help and certainly wasn’t thinking about the consequences. I have no excuse for what happened and take full responsibility. I can only express my deepest regret for my actions and confirm this will never happen again.”
Comment by Downunder — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 8:46 am
Downunder (#8): Thanks for your question and stylistic suggestion. Concerning the high proportion of people who currently engage in extramarital sex, we were responding to John Potter’s statement (#1):
Your request for ‘research’ supporting our ‘conclusion’ seemed a bit unfair because it requires valuable time from us concerning what has long been obvious. However, we will indulge your challenge.
Our statement
was self-evident: all extramarital sex over recent decades has occurred in the context of no-fault divorce and various laws that now treat reactions to infidelity as unacceptable but not the infidelity itself.
We accepted John’s figures as a general indication of rates of unfaithfulness because we recall various announcements about research having measured the phenomenon of extramarital sex. For example, see this MENZ post referring to a large survey by the Durex condom company. This 2004 survey in the US showed high rates of infidelity, as did this one: Weiderman M W (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research 34:2, pp 167-174
(The Durex survey also found that NZ women are the most promiscuous in the world and this was widely publicized (and gave rise to amazing mental gymnastics that found ways to blame men for this). An Otago University study published in the New Zealand Medical Journal showed high rates of promiscuity among university students. While promiscuity is not a measure of relationship sexual infidelity, one can assume that some of that promiscuity involved unfaithfulness and that rates of promiscuity are correlated with rates of infidelity.)
As for our claim that the law promotes unfaithfulness, we are not aware of any research as such but clearly no-fault divorce specifically prevented infidelity from being taken into account in so-called ‘relationship property’ division when previously it was. (In practice of course no-fault divorce usually becomes man-at-fault divorce, but generally there was removal of any penalty for sexual unfaithfulness). And in practice Courts will punish responses to extramarital sex but never the infidelity itself, essentially condoning infidelity and defending people’s right to do it without harassment from their partner. We see frequent examples in which a partner, usually a man, has a protection order imposed forcing him out of his own home because he responded with anger (often simply yelling) at his wife when he caught her having sex with someone else; the woman’s right to have extramarital sex is defended by the Court while the man’s response is treated as an offence. Removal of the partial defence of provocation further reduced any legal recognition of impropriety or emotional harm caused by sexual infidelity, when in the past discovering one’s partner having sex with another was often the basis of that partial defence. See also this case previously discussed on MENZ in which a man was actually prosecuted and convicted for ‘making an intimate recording’ for obtaining evidence through hidden camera to record his wife having sex with someone else in his own bed; the unfaithful wife received no penalty or disapproval from the law. All such changes in law over recent decades can only have encouraged sexual infidelity.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 10:38 am
Downunder (#9): We would very much prefer debate here to be respectful, polite and rational and a review of our previous posts and responses will show that we strive for high standards in that regard. Unfortunately, sometimes we have seen contributors reply to us or others with ad hominem attacks, insults and even threats. We have seen those attacked respond in various ways such as objecting to or ignoring the rude attacks, but unfortunately those methods never made much difference to the offending behaviour. Our current policy is to respond in kind. You try to belittle us, you will find yourself being belittled and you can be pretty sure we will do it better and we will quite enjoy playing that game. We would prefer that others did not draw us into such games.
Surprisingly, you have seen fit to criticize us for a put-down statement that was in response to another contributor’s serious rudeness and derogation. However, you previously responded only supportively (#3) to that contributor’s rude comment. Why would you overlook ‘Invisible man’s’ statements
and
and
yet you see fit only to criticize our reply? What’s that about Downunder?
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 11:14 am
Thanks Downunder (#12) for alerting us to further statements from Ms Bevan Chuang. Her claimed remorse and pretence of taking responsibilty for her participation seemed at odds with other information including statements attributed to her by the blogger to whom she fed her story in order to put her knife into Mayor Brown.
Statements made by Ms Bevan Chuang were not the statements of someone taking responsibility for her own behaviour. Instead, she portrays herself as some kind of helpless victim of his magic spell and status. The portrayal of her account by the WhaleOil blogger minimized her own responsibility for unfolding events and this was likely to reflect what she told them. For example, “…the relationship turned sexual” and “…but the affair continued” suggested that the relationship, not Ms Chuang, was somehow making the decisions. She also complained that she had derived no financial profit from the relationship; that may be consistent with her subsequent expression of “deepest regret” (that she didn’t profit!) but surely discredits her subesquent claim that she took “full responsibilty” for what happened.
That last piece of information perhaps provides the key explanation for her subsequent vindictiveness.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 12:02 pm
MoMA -(Ministry of Men’s Affairs)
Any other enlightened policies you want to share with the world.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 1:22 pm
Downunder (#16): Have you any other sarcasm to share with the world? Even though your sarcastic response ignored the main points in our comment #14 (as well as failing to acknowledge our courteous and time-consuming responses to your other postings and question you put to us in this thread), it does show that you understand our position and for that we’re grateful. The approach we currently take has proven to be the most effective one available to curtail unprovoked rudeness and personal attacks from others on this blog. If you can suggest a better approach we would be keen to hear it.
Can you please answer the question we put to as to why you saw fit to criticize our response when you had provided only a supportive reply to Invisible man’s missive that contained various forms of unprovoked rudeness and put-downs? What’s that about?
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 1:49 pm
More relevant revelations concerning the Brown-Chuang affair.
So Ms Bevan Chuang showed her gratitude to Mayor Brown’s kindness in supporting her job application by colluding with his political opponents and preparing a sworn affidavit to embarrass Brown and damage his family. Great stuff!
Here’s a few telling pieces:
And it comes to light that Ms Bevan Chuang also has a criminal conviction for fraudulent use of a computer in contributing to an attack on someone else.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 2:16 pm
MoMA wrote:
I should have given a source for my figures, but I was on a train using a tablet. You can read more in this paper by Helen Fisher: INFIDELITY: WHEN, WHERE, WHY.
My understanding is that infidelity is a universal human behaviour, occurring in nearly all societies throughout history, even in situations where the participants face a potential death penalty. The rate may have increased in recent years, but this is probably as much to do with the availability of contraception as current permissive laws.
I accept your argument that it is a breach of contract, but this is not a criminal offence in other areas of contract law, and I don’t see why this should be treated differently.
My view is that in principle, criminalising common behaviour is always counter-productive. The “war on drugs” for example, is widely recognised to have failed in its purported objectives.
Making infidelity illegal would clog up the already overloaded courts, would distract enforcement authorities from doing useful work, and would ultimately just create more criminals. Judging by the way current laws are enforced, I suggest these new criminals would be disproportionately men.
Please everyone, keep your comments on-topic. The reason why I ban public discussion about whether people’s comments are appropriate is because I observe in other forums that it goes on forever without resolution, and it gets really, really boring. My finger will be hovering over the ‘delete’ button from now on.
Comment by JohnPotter — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 8:07 pm
Thanks for that John (#19). Well, perhaps sexual infidelity could be a misdemeanour. Really, if parking in a disabled zone or forgetting to relicense your vehicle are seen as needing discouragement through fines, surely wrecking marriages, families and children’s lives deserves some official condemnation.
We also favour some recognition of infidelity in relationship property settlements, perhaps a 10 or 20% penalty. If you breach most contracts you can expect to yield some penalty for this.
Of course, relationship property as currently defined is ridiculous, often amounts to legalized theft and the whole concept needs serious revision, but that’s another matter.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 17th October 2013 @ 11:26 pm
Oh yeah, and repeat offenders shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a shagging licence for 30 days.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 8:28 am
Downunder (#21): Your disrespectful reply is not appreciated. There is no such thing as a shagging licence and we would not support that notion. You have employed sarcasm and a straw man argument that does not refute our case. Your aim appears to be to belittle us and to create conflict, for some reason known only to yourself. This in no way will advance any cause of the men’s movement.
As we shall probably see, our objection to your rudeness will probably achieve little useful influence on your behaviour and we will need to resort to our policy as previously outlined.
Can you please answer our earlier question now put to you twice already in replies #14 and #17? We went to some effort to answer questions you put to us, so it only seems fair you would show the same courtesy.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 9:50 am
John (#19): We appreciate your respectful, rational debating style about what will often be contentious issues, and we encourage others to follow your role modelling in this respect.
Thinking further about your arguments against criminalizing marital infidelity, we don’t think they hold up to scrutiny. They certainly look quite weak compared with the advantages of providing leadership through law towards family-protective behaviour.
The same could be said for most behaviour that has been made illegal. Murder, rape and theft also have occurred and continue to occur in nearly all societies throughout history, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws against those behaviours.
Criminological research long ago established that offending rates generally do not respond much to increased harshness of penalty. However, making any behaviour illegal will bring about a reduction in the rate of that behaviour to a lower level that is then generally resilient to increases in punishment. Other measures such as increasing the risk of detection do have a significant downward effect on offending rates.
We doubt that societies that maintain a law against marital infidelity show the same levels of ‘affairs’ and resulting family breakdown as do societies that have no such law. Western societies have laws against bigamy which as a result is very rare there while countries that allow multiple spouses see significant rates thereof. The law against bigamy is an interesting phenomenon, an anachronistic aberration perhaps in our law that otherwise defends people’s right to have multiple sexual partners regardless of marriage and punishes anyone who objects too loudly. If we are to maintain the offence of bigamy, let’s get the law to be consistent with this in providing an influence towards increasing marital fidelity generally.
But the marital ‘contract’ is treated differently from other contracts in that there is now no penalty for breaching it. Our families and children are paying a heavy price for that change. Anyway, we are not suggesting that ‘breaching a marital contract’ should be a criminal offence, only ‘extramarital sexual activity and sexual activity with someone known to be married’. We argued that the breach of contract involved and other significant breaches of the particular contract for each marriage should be considered in relationship property settlements. We already criminalize various types of sexual behaviour and despite our ‘no-fault’ divorce you can be sure that our Family Courts will find every way possible to facilitate a separating partner’s plunder of someone who is convicted of those sexual offences.
Not a very strong argument I’m afraid. In that case we would only have laws against behaviours that are naturally uncommon. If there were no law against driving an unwarranted or unlicenced vehicle then you can be sure that would be ‘common behaivour’, and the same probably applies to most criminal behaviour including tax evasion, theft such as ‘borrowing’ cars, and sexual harassment and rape. Indeed, in times of war when normal laws and law enforcement are suspended, all manner of behaviour becomes ‘common’ and remains so until some law enforcement is reinstituted. Just visit some African nations to see this is true.
Yes, but that is a phenomenon with unique characteristics. Firstly, it is primarily a victimless crime and people who use recreational drugs tend to feel little moral discomfort about doing so. They will openly indulge in the behaviour around other users with the only reservation being the possibility of detection by authorities. The same cannot be said of infidelity; it definitely victimizes a current partner who has been led to believe promises of faithfulness, and it definitely victimizes the children who lose their family unit and otherwise have their lives disrupted. It tends to be a secretive behaviour, its practitioners recognizing the moral problems at some level. A law against it would tend to support that recognition and to encourage resistance against lust and opportunity when they inevitably arise.
The war on drugs also went over the top in a foolish determination to wipe out recreational drug use through draconian intervention and penalties. Countries that have abandoned that foolish aim and instead treated some drug use (or all drug use as in the case of Portugal) in a routine way with at most a minor penalty and perhaps some education about risks and harm minimization, have achieved positive results. It is unclear what would happen if all drug laws were simply scrapped but that may not be the best approach either.
The fact that enforcement is troublesome in various ways is not a good reason to legitimize harmful behaviour. As we already argued, it would be difficult to find a more ‘useful’ role than reducing family breakup, mental illness, homicide, suicide and devastation of children’s development, these being common consequences of marital infidelity.
One would ‘create’ criminals by criminalizing, for example, a particular race. When it comes to illegal behaviour that any person has the ability to do or not to do, one could say that each offender creates his or her own criminal history.
Yes you’re probably right but that also is not a reason to legitimize harmful behaviour.
This debate causes us to confront some of the most serious issues that have long been debated on MENZ Issues. Will you continue to condone family breakdown and the resulting damage to children’s lives and relationship with one or both parents? Or will you call for measures to protect the integrity of families? If so, what would you propose? We have made some proposals and we will no longer sit on the fence or our hands.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 9:57 am
Dissenting opinion not allowed – not feeling the love here MoMA.
Infidelity is a breach of contract between the two parties. You’re suggesting it is made a breach of the licence. Fornication Under Consent of the State or your FUCS licence as it would probably be known.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 10:14 am
I have noticed with alarm, the drop in libido as age advances. I am sure that when I get to 57 years, I would be desperate enough to pay any woman to report on my fallibities, to cover my lack of capabilities.
I don’t think aural sex counts as real sex, in terms of complaining.
If testosterone is essential to competitive spirit, then shouldn’t we be happy with our choice as Mayor?
If all of this seems unfair to women, it can be pointed out that, what The Gods chose not to give them, can be purchased at a reasonable price, so shut up.
My birthday is in a couple of weeks, if I live that long and I will turn 57, scary…… MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 10:36 am
We used to have the ability under civil law to sue a party who damaged ones marriage through adultery. This civil legal remedy was specifically removed in 1975. Why, I dont know, but I can guess.
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 12:20 pm
No Fault divorce saved some embarrassment and legal costs, but it also opened up no responsibility parenting, whereby a mother could unilareally remove children from the marital home. Although the legislation had an appearance of guardianship decisions being the responsibility of both parents, the familycaught$ doesn’t honour these provisions when they matter.
Skeptic first brought knowledge of these issues to me. His comments may be found using the search pane at top right on menz pages, by searching for either no fault divorce, or Skeptic. MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 1:46 pm
Yes, it saved the public view of disolution, gave women legal aid, saddled men with higher legal costs and provided a home for the lazy and incompetent slinkers on the legal game.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 2:20 pm
I rather suspect MoMA’s post amy have been somewhat tongue in cheek and provocative!
A wise person once asked me “Why does one become unfaithful to their spouse? They have a beautiful Rolls Royce at home, why go searching for a clapped out Toyota”
A good answer was heard from the group, Maybe the RollsRoyce has broken down!
Comment by Alastair — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 3:32 pm
I am not sure that MoMA is really comprehending the licence issue. Look at the issue from the point of view of the recent covert camera case.
If we have a couple and either her or him hire a private detective to follow the other in public that is not a problem. But they own half a house and half a bed and either is not allowed to film inside the house without the other’s knowledge.
So the marriage licence now says that what each of you do privately in the marital home is none of the other’s business and cannot form part of the contract.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 18th October 2013 @ 5:46 pm
hmm I wonder what MoMA think should happen to the care of children who are created as a result of an affair…..
Comment by Ken — Sat 19th October 2013 @ 4:54 am
MoMA says:
I don’t believe that if the police stopped enforcing laws against rape and murder 30% or more of us would begin doing this on a regular basis. Surely the purpose of enforcing laws against these sorts of crimes is so rapists and murderers get locked up so they are not able to continue offending?
However I have to concede that there are social engineering laws where the benefit to society is worth the price in loss of personal freedom. I don’t have a problem with my vehicle getting stopped to see whether I have a WOF, or whether I have been drinking. I even accept the law that resulted in me getting a fine for doing 112 KMPH on an empty Southland road a year or so back.
I certainly agree with you about this – the perceived likelihood of getting busted is the only thing likely to change behaviour. But even though rates of infidelity may be higher these days, it was still common decades ago before the days of no-fault divorce, when there was a whole industry of private detectives with cameras collecting evidence. By its nature, infidelity occurs in private, and most people believe they won’t get caught.
Which brings me back to my original question about what you are proposing with regard to enforcement? I don’t imagine dawn raids by police to see who is in the wrong bed are going to be politically acceptable. And as Downunder observes, hidden cameras are more likely to result in convictions of the video maker than the subject unless we make major changes to privacy laws.
I can see that a $500 instant fine per illegal bonk might have appeal to some politicians as a revenue gathering method, but I don’t think it is feasible without the sort of social system of everyone spying on each other like the Stasi set up in East Germany.
Comment by JohnPotter — Sat 19th October 2013 @ 8:12 am
Looking at it from the point of view of human behaviour the court system deals with the animal instinct for retribution.
Even in our own early history we can look at the sinking of the Boyd and the military retribution dealt out to some tribes; we did eventually establish a court system.
But back to the case at hand retribution plays a part here too.
Ms Chuang wanted retribution because in her view she got nothing from the affair except bad sex and some cheap black lingerie that was the wrong size. (and it appears she forgot to mention the reference for the job at the Art Gallery)
Put that together with Whale Oil, who seems dead set on retribution for his own reasons. Then we arrive at the situation of trial by social media and then media.
This is the court system for infidelity in politics. Don Brash, another recent example of a politician at the mercy of his enemies. Rooting pig shot in Ngaio – PM safe. The MP for Epsom, I can’t recall his name just now.
This is a ramped up version of what any person or persons might experience in a family situation or a community.
The punishment at the very least is shame, if not much more. It is an issue of morality and individual contract.
I see this as being very different to crimes such as rape, murder and theft, crimes against the social contract, which without the court system would certainly lead to disorderly retribution.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 19th October 2013 @ 9:50 am
MoMA you may remember a time when rape was not a crime within marriage. I am not passing an opinion of this but if you recall the debate at the time the primary catch phrase bandied around was ‘marriage is a license to rape’.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 19th October 2013 @ 9:57 am
John (#33):
30% or more of us don’t have extramarital sex on a regular basis. The limited research available suggeste about 20 to 40% of people in the last few decades have at some point been unfaithful to their spouse or committed partner. That will include drunken one-night stands and trying out the services of a prostitute. Those rates have occurred in the current regime of no-fault divorce and punishment of those who object to having their partner breach the relationship agreement without punishment of those who do the breaches.
The purpose of laws against rape and murder isn’t only to lock up those ‘other people’ who might otherwise rape and murder. It is also to encourage all of us to maintain better self-control over our emotional drives and thereby to reduce the incidence of rape and murder in society. As we previously said, just look at places and situations where the rule of law has broken down and you will realise that it’s not just those few ‘other people’ who can find ways to let their emotions control their behaviour.
In this debate we have still not heard any other suggestions about ways to encourage respect for marital commitments either by those who made them or by others who could entice breaches. The current situation is of marital non-contracts that are treated with contempt, probably increasingly so. It is quite legal to marry and to commence or to continue extramarital sex from the wedding night onwards without formal consequences from our society.
Enforcement of domestic violence laws don’t generally involve hidden cameras or dawn raids. A complainant calls police, police attend and if they find evidence of violence they can prosecute. Police also specialize in interviewing skills and many prosecutions are based on resulting confessions. People will tend to confess extramarital sex as indeed Brown did. (The reality of discrimination against males with regard to police ‘safety orders’ and Family Court ‘protection orders’ is a separate issue. Where real violence has been committed and there is prosecutable evidence for this then prosecution is appropriate.) There was a time when domestic violence was largely considered a matter private to the family, and similar objections and straw-man arguments were mounted in response to calls to treat such violence as criminality.
That decisions will need to be made about the exact forms of enforcement is not a reason to avoid making a law that will reduce the amount of seriously damaging trauma currently caused to individuals, families and children through fashionable beliefs that following our sexual and romantic urges should take priority over relationship and family commitments.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 20th October 2013 @ 9:52 am
Ken (#32):
No different from the current situation with regard to such children (although as a general matter we would like to see changes to care of children, e.g. the presumption of equal shared care).
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 20th October 2013 @ 9:56 am
Alastair (#30): No, we are quite serious, surprising though that may seem. What’s surprising to us is that the idea of promoting family stability and legally discouraging behaviour that both threatens family stability and causes major harm to partners and children, would be considered so radical, unimaginable or unacceptable.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 20th October 2013 @ 10:01 am
MoMA if you are going to have a law against extramarital sex, who is entitled to make the complaint – any person or only the aggrieved party?
If it is only the aggrieved party; that would simply be a criminal charge/fine/insult to add to the divorce proceedings. People are hardly going to resort to the use of the law and stay married.
If anyone can make the complaint and does, that would interfere with a couples life, particularly if they, for whatever reason had previously agreed to the situation or they chose to carry on their marriage without telling the children that they had encountered some difficulty. Your idea embraces the idea that public disclosure will do no harm.
Your idea also embraces the concept that only the party who has the affair is the only person who has any responsibility for encouraging its beginning. For example take a woman who is married to a slightly older man who gets depressed and becomes an alcoholic. They agree not to divorce for the sake of the children and financial security and she finds another sexual partner but otherwise remain happily married.
I am not supporting or agreeing with infidelity, it would be nice if all couples lived happily ever after but these situations occur. Perhaps you are suffering professional blindness from observations of collateral damage rather than observations of life.
A law like you are suggesting is not going to help what goes on in the home any more than White Ribbon visiting schools will do. The catalysts for affairs and subsequent separation are learned behaviours that fail those relationships.
It’s not ‘radical and unimaginative’ it’s ridiculous and lacks imagination and it would appear that most people commenting here find the idea unacceptable.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 20th October 2013 @ 10:59 am
Downunder (#39): Your rudeness doesn’t stop, now calling other people’s ideas ‘ridiculous’. Your motivation seems to be personal rather than rational, for whatever reason that might be. There is little point responding to your arguments (which anyway are clutching at straws as well as often being unintelligible) because you have shown yourself to be unwilling or incapable of debating reasonably or responding to points and questions in good faith. The “most people commenting here” you refer to isn’t many and certainly only two have resorted to the personal insults and rudeness you seem to rely on. As for calling other people’s ideas ‘unacceptable’, that says a lot about your attitude.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 20th October 2013 @ 11:47 am
Ministry of Men’s Affair has policy or a position on something. Which one of you took my response to MoMA personally.
Really sorry if anyone up there was offended by my opinion.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 20th October 2013 @ 12:04 pm
MoMA says:
This is the percentage of men who admit to infidelity. The true figure is likely to be higher, especially if you count prostitutes and drunken one night stands.
My reading of the data I referred to above is that infidelity occurs in all cultures and has done throughout history. I accept the actual numbers are unknown.
Yesterday I visited Ruislip Manor, where there was a display about justice in the middle ages. I noticed this judgement:
As I have said previously, even very harsh punishments do not stop this behaviour, and never have.
MoMA again:
I don’t accept that rates of rape and murder in our society would be anything like that of infidelity if laws were not enforced. Where it happens in Africa, it is in the context of a war where it is being used as a deliberate instrument of terror. Much of it is perpetrated by 12-14 year-old boys with AK47s who are following orders, from what I’ve read.
If your proposed law is going to reduce the incidence of infidelity, there will have to be some way of increasing the perception that you will get busted. I don’t see how this is possible without a degree of official surveillance that would be unacceptable to NZers. Almost everyone who commits adultery thinks they will get away with it, and in most case they do.
The damage to partners and families happens if they do get caught, especially if it is made public, so new legislation which somehow increases that possibility may do more damage than it prevents.
One of the reasons for introducing no-fault divorce was the lurid publicity given to adultery. The “NZ Truth” newspaper made reports from the divorce courts a mainstay of its business. People love to read about sexual misbehaviour. Apparently Whaleoil’s web server has been pushed beyond its capacity on a number of occasions since he posted Mayor Brown’s story.
I regularly counsel men whose wives have been unfaithful. Yes, it is extremely damaging and painful. Yes, once broken, trust is very hard to regain. But it doesn’t have to automatically mean a relationship is over. Many couples successfully come to terms with one partner’s unfaithfulness.
I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t officially discourage infidelity. I just don’t see how MoMA’s proposal would improve matters. As you are promoting this legislation with a collective voice, I think it is important to make it clear that many of us wouldn’t support it.
Comment by JohnPotter — Mon 21st October 2013 @ 7:42 am
In other words, Lucy Mill was run out of town. The judgement of Cameron Slater is to run Len Brown out of the town hall.
Even collecting reliable data would be problematic.
If you take the current situation and were to ask Len Brown’s first wife and current wife if they had ever had an unfaithful partner both could answer yes but they would be talking about one man.
Then, if this affair hadn’t happened, Len Brown could have said that he had never been unfaithful in his marriage, even though he had been unfaithful in a previous marriage.
Then if you asked Len Brown’s current wife and his mistress if they had ever been the other woman, both would have to answer yes, yet they are both talking about the same man.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 21st October 2013 @ 9:48 am
Full Story
The military standards certainly vary from the civilian. I have watched with interest the number of high-ranking American male serviceman who have met a similar end.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 21st October 2013 @ 12:56 pm
Len is on a promise. “I have promised my wife I won’t do this again.”
It reminds me of something I haven’t heard for a while. Some fellow saying,
“I gotta go, I am on a promise.”
Comment by Downunder — Mon 21st October 2013 @ 3:59 pm
Here’s the celeb side …
Full Story
This is highlighting the negotiations around sex and reproduction.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 21st October 2013 @ 4:35 pm
John (#42): Our “collective voice” is only a few people who at this stage agree with introducing some legal barriers to breaching the contract in marriage and marriage-type relationships. The Ministry of Men’s Affairs (a community group because successive governments have ignored the voice and welfare of New Zealand men) may well initiate a process of seeking wider membership and in that case any policy would no doubt become subject to some democratic process.
Your claim to “make it clear that many of us wouldn’t support” our proposal appears somewhat exaggerated. I counted three people who clearly argued against it in this thread. One of those has a history of disagreeing with most anything we write or at least niggling at our contributions. Whether that policy is motivated by personal issues, tall-poppy jealousy or some other cause we don’t know and no longer care.
I respect that you will have your own opinion on any matter and I readily change my position when presented with good evidence or argument, but your arguments in this matter have not been convincing. The fact that you don’t see how our proposal would improve matters doesn’t mean it wouldn’t; we continue to believe it will improve matters in all kinds of ways that we have explained, from encouraging respect for marital-like contracts, to reducing infidelity and the harm this causes to partners and children, to providing public vindication for a cheated partner’s hurt and a safer alternative response than violence.
We have refuted your points one by one but you simply repeat some of them. For example, you repeat that even the harshest punishments haven’t stopped infidelity even though we previously pointed out that the same applies to all offending, that other factors than harsh punishment are influential in reducing behaviour but ‘stopping’ a behaviour is unrealistic in almost all cases, yet making something illegal does tend to reduce that behaviour. Also, the issue of harsh punishments is irrelevant because we have clearly advocated for very modest maximum punishments.
Many of the other arguments against our proposal are of little relevance or assume particular things that would not necessarily apply. The Commodore Keat case highlights the navy’s law against certain sexual relationships between consenting adults, yet the navy doesn’t appear to be conducting bedroom surveillance to enforce this law. Arguing against our proposal by assuming it will involve various draconian measures does not provide valid objection. Suggesting, for example, that any such law would “automatically mean a relationship is over” or even increase relationship harm is also invalid. Often, relationships continue when a partner is convicted of, for example, (true) partner violence; indeed, the redress obtained through the Court and the discouragement this provides for future repeats of the behaviour can be what enables the relationship to continue.
I don’t believe this claim. Do you have any evidence to support it? In my experience adultery usually comes out sooner or later and causes considerable harm whenever it does. Also, our proposal may well reduce the likelihood of disclosure because the ‘other woman’ or ‘other man’ will be less likely to disclose vindictively because (s)he would then also face prosecution.
You state “I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t officially discourage infidelity.” Great! So how would you suggest we do that?
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 12:15 pm
Downunder (#41): Nobody is offended by your opinion and you’re very welcome to it. However, we were offended by unprovoked, deliberate disrespect, rudeness and wind-ups from you such as:
Referring to someone’s proposal, or your invalid extrapolations from their proposal, as “just plain silly” will tend to cause offence.
Some criticism was fair enough though calling to ban someone was extreme and your motivation for that unclear. However, making that comment and calling for a ban after responding only with positive support to an earlier poster who made similar personal insults to which our reply was clearly directed, was offensive. Your subsequent contempt by ignoring our repeated question as to why you had been positive towards the earlier poster but saw fit only to criticize our reply was also offensive.
Sarcasm tends to be offensive and we’re sure you intended it to be so.
More disrespectful sarcasm.
More sarcasm as well as some unfair misrepresentation about our response to “dissenting opinion”. Clearly, scrutiny of the thread will show that we have invested a lot of time and effort in responding carefully and respectfully to dissenting opinions. It was not dissenting opinions but rudeness and schoolboy wind-ups that we objected to.
To echo your sarcastic method: Any more erudite diagnostic assessments Downunder? We may well offer some in return, probably more accurate. Offering denigrating diagnoses about other posters is personal and offensive.
Yeah, thanks for the respectful, rational debating Downunder! Have you some more denigrating pronouncements on other people’s opinions?
Yeah right, sounds a bit like Ms Chuang’s heartfelt remorse.
It’s disappointing to be wasting so much time and effort responding to insults. We are out spending our October Saturdays pounding the pavements to raise awareness of mens’ issues and concerns, investing our time and no small amount of financial resource in this process. We have seen only two people who write at MENZ Issues even visit us at any of the venues. We frequently show appreciation and encouragement to posters here on MENZ Issues for what they provided or wrote. If we disagree with someone we almost always provide respectful, careful and often well-researched responses in refutation. We respond to other writer’s questions. Yet we are quickly treated with rudeness, personal attack, denigration and contempt by some others here as soon as we offer some opinion they happen to disagree with. What the hell is that all about?
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 1:36 pm
This certainly did not offend me.
I believe the Matrimonial property act is where the ammendment should be.
Suggest, Where one party leaves a relationship in the nature of marriane the deserted party retains all assets of the relationship. The only time a departing spouse can claim is when the last child leave’s home.
In the meantime the departing partu retains their liability for debt and entitlement to assets less improvements and essential maintanence.
Comment by Alastair — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 2:53 pm
It turns out that the source of this story, Mr Cameron Slater, doesn’t want to discuss his relationship with Family Court lawyer Debbie Brown, being married with children and all that.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 8:52 pm
Source
Maybe those people in Auckland City Council, and there must have been a few of them who knew what was going on, weren’t quick enough in making sure that Len Brown didn’t embarrass himself and the council.
Bit late for that now.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 1st November 2013 @ 3:53 pm
But wait, could there be more. The date on the above report is 10 June. The child support amendment passed on April 9th. How long had Dunne held this infatuation.
If he emailed Vance 20 times while on holiday with his family, it is clear that she completely occupied his mind. Even Fairfax had a word to him and told him to back off. Vance obviously had concern enough about the amount of attention she was getting from Dunne to mention it to her employer.
This is this what Dunne was thinking about when he stood up in parliament and said he was proud of his Child Support Bill.
The man couldn’t even focus on his own family let alone the many families that now have to live with this mess of a law he created.
Maybe there should be a harsh penalty for both national and local body politicians who have affairs, although I couldn’t see that one actually getting debated in the house. One could only imagine what might come out in that debate.
It will be interesting to see how the electorate responds to Dunne who says he will stand again in 2014.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 1st November 2013 @ 4:51 pm
Did anyone listen to Ms Chuang defend herself on TV last night. This the ‘first’ interview since news of the affair broke a couple of weeks back.
A finely polished performance. 12 out of 10!
If I heard her correctly, she comes from a “powerful” family, where her own father had an affair when she was a child.
If I heard her correctly, her recent affair (or the mess that followed, at least)was a tangle of “5 men and one woman”.
And if I heard her correctly, she was the ‘victim’; taken in by the all-powerful and amoral Len Brown. Used, abused, and cast aside like a second-hand condom.
If I heard her correctly, she did not front-up in Len Brown’s presence when he was inaugurated mayor last week, out of respect for his wife and children! Respect?
Correct me if I’m wrong, Ms Chuang; but you entered into this affair knowing full well Len Brown was married – and probably also that he had children. You were a willing partner. If you weren’t, then it would be rape.
This woman, Ms Chuang, is nothing more than a cold calculating deceitful woman, who is crying butterfly tears.
Sexism is alive and well: Sleep with the big-boss to get a reference!
Now, Len Brown has personal (relationship) issues to sort out. He is guilty in all of this; But so too is Ms Chuang. This “powerful family” woman with personal experience of parental infidelity, knew exactly what she was doing.
That “5 men” caught up in this scandal abandoned her in the aftermath? Well hello, Ms Chuang. Welcome to the real world. At least they’re not playing the victim card. Women’s Refuge must be proud of you.
The only consolation prize in all this? Well hopefully now every man in New Zealand knows you; recognises you; and you will never find a sucker-doormat-sex-boy-toy on your way to the top, again.
Comment by OMG You're *&(^%^$&*^ — Mon 4th November 2013 @ 9:14 am
There were 1375 calls and texts to Chuang from the Mayor’s council provided phone between 19 November 2010 and 21 October 2013. Oops.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 13th December 2013 @ 1:45 pm
Does any one know how much of Mr Brown’s work hours were devoted to receiving, reading, responding, making, answering, talking on all these texts and phone calls?
If I go to my office, and spend all day answering endless texts, taking endless phone calls (and of course, that assumes I am only the recipient; that I don’t text or make any phone calls), my boss will eventually get fed up, and I will inevitably receive a verbal or even written warning, for not doing my job!
Comment by OMG You're *(&^%^* — Fri 13th December 2013 @ 8:36 pm