Men Blamed for Women’s Wrongdoing
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.
More reason to keep Labour far far away from Government.
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.
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.
Doesn’t sound very ‘funny’ Dominic, except for the lawyers!
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.
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’.
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?
I have just got myself a 1967 copy of the little red book.
Quotations from the Chairman.
Lin Piao’s version of the great socialist state, near reality.
Died in a plane crash.
December 16, 1966.
“Strive to build our country into a great socialist state with modern agriculture, modern industry, modern science and culture and modern national defence.”
I highly doubt I will be converted by reading it.
But I have seen some of what I call compliant arguments.
The writing has a very dictator like tone.
In his words on women.
Those of the masses.
He advocated for equality.
He talks of men’s role, changing due to the rise of the peasant movement.
Using the word tottering.
But no comments on a solution.
Other that that, no chapter, actually about males.
Except as willing, or otherwise soldiers.
I’m about to read lots, on war.
Finished the book, and was not converted.
It actually has lots of good, philosophical arguments.
I found it important to look at the dates, of the comments.
Giving them better context.
The philosophy, of equals and opposites, is unavoidable.
Neither communism, or capitalism immune.
It looks at contradictions, and mistakes.
Inherently it has its own contradiction.
It’s own argument points out you can’t be 100% positive, or negative.
Everything far more complex, than absolutes.
A socialist society, needs some capitalism.
A capitalist society, needs some socialism.
A contradiction it doesn’t resolve.
A big dislike is its concept of liberalism.
A society where freedom, and responsibility are not balanced.
A person can be free, to not be responsible.
Forcing dependency, on others.
Anarchy, riots of protest, the predicted resultant.
The politics trending to polar opposites.
Even if good, the opposition will say it is bad.
It doesn’t seek the truth.
But what the self interested majority, supports.
He presents the need for criticism, of everything.
Advocating facts governing decisions, not ideology.
A very different version, of democracy.
Every person, assigned a position in a ladder of authority.
Not actually a society of equals.
The masses voting, at the lowest level of authority.
The highest level, removed from its criticism.
A contradiction every society must face.
A problem has many parts to its whole.
A person in authority, for each part.
A person in authority, of the whole.
The masses, organised for production.
Even our democracy has the same framework.
The bureaucracy, running everything in the background.
Both have the person, with authority over the whole.
The dictator is everywhere, in its many parts.
Promoted by there compliance, to the bureaucracy.
Just as one gets promoted, by compliance to the party.
Judith, and Jacinda, examples.
Both systems with the same flaw.
The majority oppresses the minority.
But one can swing widely, while one is more stable.
The minds of the voters, manipulated, in both.
The power given, to hire and fire, in our democracy.
No power exists, in communism.
From Trump to Biden, an example.
The politician, the party, did not want.
The politician, the party, put in power.
Trump is an example, of a politician.
That communism, will not create.
The counter revolutionary, to bureaucracy.
And they hated him, for it.
If you always go left, you will travel in a circle.
Returning back to the start.
If you always go right, you will travel in a circle.
Returning back to the start.
You then cannot reach, your solution, or destination.
Every intersection, has its own decisions.
No ideology, is immune.
For men, we are subject, to one sided decisions.
Behaviour the chairman, warns against.
Only the women’s perspective, allowed.
Each part, a decision, beneficial for women.
Each part, damaging the whole.