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

Men Blamed for Women’s Wrongdoing

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:02 am Thu 17th July 2014

Here’s an interesting case. A lawyer is suspended for 9 months (is that a pregnant pause in his career?) for certifying a separation agreement that he knew the woman was being forced by her husband to sign. It seems from the Tribunal’s decision that the woman approached the lawyer to have a separation agreement signed that she knew contained falsehoods. On the basis of some of the woman’s comments and the fact that her husband phoned her twice while she was with the lawyer, that lawyer was concerned she was signing under duress. He advised her she didn’t need to and advised her against signing if the document contained falsehood, but she insisted on signing it. The NZ Lawyers and Conveyancers Tribunal then decided it was proven that the woman signed under duress, and the media turned this into a finding that she was ‘forced’ to sign it. A vague reference was made in the Tribunal decision to the risk the wife might be emotionally or physically abused, but there was no mention of any evidence to support this risk. Certainly, nothing approaching reasonable proof of this was evident. Never mind, let’s just decide that the woman was another victim of a man’s complete control so no blame can be directed her way.

This would be the problem with any written consent to have sex. Women will simply claim they signed under duress. The rape would then be seen to be aggravated by the written consent.

The general trend of men being blamed for women’s behaviour seems to be increasing. It is a return to the pre-feminist era in which the law held men accountable for their wives’ behaviour, financial and legal arrangements. This trend was heavily reflected in the law that came into force at the beginning of this month making men financially responsible for benefit fraud that their partners commit. The justifications offered in support of this law would equally apply to female partners of burglars and drug manufacturers; the female partners can reasonably be assumed to be aware of the criminal behaviour and they enjoy something of the spoils thereof. But, surprise surprise, the law was not extended in any way that might balance its intended sexism. You won’t see any woman being held accountable for her partner’s wrongdoing, no matter how closely she was involved in it. Even our draconian Proceeds of Crime legislation (which was one of the ways the state first extended the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ principle beyond the Femily Court) will protect the female partner’s share of ‘relationship property’ from seizure by the state, regardless of whether ‘her share’ came directly from criminal activity that she knew about.

7 Responses to “Men Blamed for Women’s Wrongdoing”

  1. ashish says:

    More reason to keep Labour far far away from Government.

  2. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    It was a National government that made men financially responsible for their partners’ benefit fraud, and that law uses the ‘guilty until he can prove himself innocent’ principle. It’s a National government that intends to use ankle bracelets and GPS monitoring of men on protection orders. There’s little sign that National is any better than Labour. Fascional and Labiar.

  3. funny enough, I have been through this in Australia,

    I got my ex ex to sign a separation agreement which was more than fair , she kept the 1 million dollar property on acrerage on the nerang, river I kept the commercial office at varsity lakes worth 650 K , I continued to pay for both while she still had the family home ,I had the office and 6 months later her lawyers claimed that it was signed under duress,, so she lost the house, I lost the office no one got anything but the lawyers, Great. what a dumb ass. Even when you have pre nups and any form of agreements ,the family court seems to be able to overturn anything, so just be smarter next time.

  4. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    funny enough, I have been through this in Australia,

    Doesn’t sound very ‘funny’ Dominic, except for the lawyers!

  5. Downunder says:

    This is another aspect of the Fourth Estate debate.

    The fourth estate being a balancing force in society (as opposed to simply the media as we look at it these days) with lawyers at certain times in history being considered the fourth estate and responsible for the protection peoples freedoms as opposed to rights.

    Once again we see the integrity of an institution (in this case the law) being compromised and disposed of for the convenience of women.

    I noticed a similar thing when Tania Billingsley’s lawyer spoke on behalf of his client – a complete load of crap that attempted to support her position.

    It makes us look ridiculous; a society suffering a compete lack of common sense and logic.

  6. Men seem to be the witches of the feminist age since the 1970s designed anti-male feminazi era, and women are the priests and children are their staffs (weapons/tools).

    Governments have designed breaking up of the family unit, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao all set out to set women against men & children and neighbours reporting on any ‘wrongdoing’ or not toeing of the party line.

    The ‘domestic violence’ and ‘child abuse epedemic’ myths are used to dupe selfish females into giving away our human rights and presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

    Governments use taxpayer funded propaganda studies (designed to reach a pre-ordained conclusion) and tame feminist reporters to do an all-court press on the country just before more laws are passed that take away human rights under the guise of protection and safety.

    see: ‘Police-State’, ‘Government owns your children and you are merely the slave taking care of them until they can produce $ and labour for the government.’ ‘Babylonian Slave Driving Techniques’.

  7. OMG! You're *(&^*$^&* says:

    Interesting read this, “Christchurch police were called to the incident at about 1.20pm in response to reports that a firearm had been used to threaten a female at the address“.
    Did the Police assume a man was presenting the firearm?
    Was this woman on woman DV?
    Will a man eventually be charged with the incident? Maybe he threatened with a firearm first?
    She got it off him, and by the time Police arrived, she had the weapon in her hands?
    She was provoked by a male relative?
    She finally ‘lost it’ after herself receiving years of DV at the hands of a violent man?

Leave a Reply

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