Historic Meeting with Human Rights Commission
A tide change is building further with a recent invitation by the Human Rights Commission for several groups to provide submissions concerning discrimination against men. MoMA provided submissions towards this. An historic meeting was held yesterday involving David Rutherford (Chief Human Rights Commissioner), Peter Jackson (Operations Manager Human Rights Commission), Kerry Bevin (MoMA), Craig Jackson (Family Advocate), Jack Gielen (Suicide Prevention Trust) and Bruce Tichbon (Families Apart Require Equality). Amazingly, the Chief Commissioner acknowledged a number of the men’s groups’ concerns and discussed ways forward. A further meeting was planned for about February next year.
This may not seem earth shattering but the fact is that men have been left out in the cold for a long time now, most men’s movement issues have been ignored and most advice disregarded. It’s heartening to be taken seriously.
Incidentally, the Broadcasting Standards Authority is shortly due to consider a complaint from MoMA that Radio NZ published fallacious family homicide statistics then refused to correct them even after being informed they were wrong. Their figures misrepresented family homicide as being something that women suffered 2.3 times more often as men, when in fact men suffer 43% and women 57% of family homicides.
Keep up your efforts, they are adding to the tide.
Whilst I support gender equality it is an indictment on society that the feminist movements push for equality upset the balance in all the wrong areas whilst 99% of women still don’t have the equality they were supposedly fighting for. Of course this isn’t helped by having females in charge of Police, Corrections, Justice and Education. Ironic that Judith should return to Cabinet after supposedly serving her time for being “not guilty” whilst her mate Amy still considers David Bain needs to prove his innocence after being declared “not guilty” by a jury of his peers. If “not guilty” does not equal “innocent” what does “guilty” equal?
Comment by JONO — Thu 10th December 2015 @ 11:01 pm
This IS earth shattering news to me.
It IS a HUGE sea change in attitude from an organization who historically for decades not only left men’s issues out in the cold but ACTIVELY blocked men’s voices from being heard by deliberately obfuscating and ignoring applications made to them for clear cases of misandry.
I should know. I wrote to them several times in the politest of terms about various instances of misandry and was fobbed off every time.
To give but one of many examples for now, I wrote complaining about how Whittcoulls Bookstore in central Auckland placed books entitled “All men are bastards” right next to the children’s section on a low shelf where children could read it!
Their response was shocking. They said it wasn’t within their mandate to deal with such matters!
Such blatant, bigoted hypocrisy! for imagine how lightening fast they’d react and what a huge issue they’d make of it if the books had been entitled “All Maori are bastards” or “All women are arseholes”.
I stopped believing they cared about men years ago as a result.
So, let’s say I’m skeptical.
I have to wonder what on earth could have made them change so radically that they would seek a meeting with NON-FEMINIST MALE representatives for men’s issues? The cynic in me has answers to that question.
Kia kaha! Keep their feet to the fire guys!
Comment by MGTOW — Fri 11th December 2015 @ 1:45 am
This is great news. About time. Our sons as well ad our daughters deserve equity, and this us so overdue.
Comment by Joseph — Fri 11th December 2015 @ 6:31 am
Well hell, that’s a bloody big turn around since days of old when Ben Easton took them on.
They were absolutely determined not to acknowledge anything then.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 11th December 2015 @ 8:37 am
Fantastic work! This is really encouraging and gives me a glimmer of hope that the pendulum CAN return to the center after such a long swing to the left in favour of women. Well Done!
Comment by GIJoe — Fri 11th December 2015 @ 9:58 am
It may be of interest to any working group to look back at the responses from the HRC to Ben Easton. There was a significant amount of documentation which would still be on record as it was in the form of replies to a complaint.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 11th December 2015 @ 10:29 am
Good news.
From the number of guys around me being slowly taken apart by the Matrimonial Property Act and seeing the massive destructive effect it is having on families maybe its a start.
With Adams announcing a further review of the Matrimonial Property Act action will be required for males to get heard for a start.
Comment by allan — Sat 12th December 2015 @ 6:42 am
Gosh, do you think Amy Adams will blow the winds of change. We’ll wait and see.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 13th December 2015 @ 7:19 pm
From Adams’ public statements and the content of the discussion document for the review of DV laws that she initiated, we can only expect that she will be looking for ways to kick and steal from men more than the law currently allows.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 13th December 2015 @ 9:11 pm
Maybe one day she will see the error of her ways and realise that hurting men in the long run only pays the bills for a few shit heads, but hurts many more women and children.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 14th December 2015 @ 6:01 am
I met with Pele Walker the Chief Mediator for the Human Rights Commission in July this year. I requested the meeting after Dr Jackie Blue and the Human Rights Commission official account had made or supported a number of tweets that promoted feminism. In addition both Dr Blue and the HRC had favourited a tweet that was disparaging towards me “… despite people like you”.
I received an apology from Dr Blue
“Dr Blue wishes to sincerely apologise regarding the tweet she favourited. This was not personally aimed at you and Dr. Jackie Blue admits that ‘favouriting’ the tweet was done much too hastily and only later on when it was pointed out by yourself, the latter part of the tweet was extremely inconsiderate and insulting.”
The apology was reiterated by Ms Walker at the meeting.
In the meeting I presented a 20 something page document regarding my perception of the Human Rights Commission’s action and lack of action on gender issues and their apparent gender bias. I questioned whether they had any mandate to support feminism.
Dr Blue’s profile on the HRC webpage says she is the commission’s lead on violence against women. I asked them who their lead is on violence against men? I pointed out that there was more violence against men than against women. Ms Walker asked you mean violence perpetrated by men? I said I don’t care, I do not see how the gender of the perpetrator affects the human rights of the victim.
I argued against feminism being promoted by the HRC but I also covered my bases. I said
“There are two options:
1. Feminism is not about human rights and therefore beyond the brief of the human rights commission
2. Feminism is about human rights but if that is so then so would Men’s Rights advocacy.
If the latter case: the Human Rights Commission do not champion men’s rights issues. Why not? Dr Blue does not champion Men’s Rights issues as part of her brief as Equal Opportunities Commissioner. Why not?
Men have equal right to equal opportunities. They have equal rights to come home safe from work but they do not have equal chance because men are discriminated against in society by being forced into the most dangerous occupations. This week we have had a crane crash and a man be seriously injured and a man go missing off a boat in Lyttleton Harbour. Where is there equal opportunity to safety in employment.
Why does Dr Blue not send out media missives championing causes in which men are disadvantaged and therefore do not have equal opportunities.
Dr Blue and the Human Rights Commission take one and only one view of equal opportunities and that view is that women are disadvantaged. The reality is there are many measures by which men are disadvantaged.”
Ms Walker did seem to listen to all my arguments and made notes and acknowledged some of my points. The meeting was scheduled for one hour but we talked for more like 90 minutes without her wanting to rush me making my points.
I do not know if any of this was a catalyst for the meeting. However we do need to be vigilant and question them whenever they make gender biased statements leaving out men or a male perspective.
Comment by WayneBurrows — Mon 14th December 2015 @ 10:49 am
Fantastic Wayne Burrows. Thanks for keeping us informed of all these achievements.
I appreciate your efforts.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Mon 14th December 2015 @ 11:45 am
High Five Wayne.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 14th December 2015 @ 12:44 pm
Good on you Wayne! Looks like you had some impact. The HRC has been receiving some straight talk from multiple fronts. This is a very good time if others are prepared to communicate with their MPs and government departments.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 14th December 2015 @ 9:16 pm
Congratulations for finally being listened to, to some extent. Most of all, for having the patience and persistence!
It sounds as though the HRC is now so desperate for friends and funding, that they would even offer coffee to men?
I guess it all points out that the arguments are so lost in ideology and lazy greed, that everyday realities are lost completely.
Deprivation occurs as a consequence of poor parenting skills, mental health problems and poverty to some extent. If you give the wrong medicine or supports, you can waste a huge amount of resources. Poor parenting skills is so hazardous to children’s development, that we cannot afford to keep damaging children and then trying to repair them afterwards.
Although there is some correlation between deprivation and gender, gender more clouds the issue than clarifies it. Worth understanding, but not worth dishing out supports solely by gender. (Example: Housing Corp/WINZ funding housing for women and guns for men? Ashburton I was told yesterday about a man in Auckland, apparently facing the same type of treatment. Mental health appears to be an important factor, but isn’t being addressed as part of support.)
A good example was the article by the lady at UN. It was all emotional appeals, but nothing that measured quality of life, to lead to balanced and appropriate official actions to support equitable outcomes in everyday life.
If NZ applied clear standards for quality of life and equality of opportunity, then official responses could improve equity of opportunity. Our system of social supports is so fragmented and untargeted, that they are as often wasted as valuable to equity of opportunity.
Interest groups are just fighting for funding for their pet groups, not for standards of services that would bring equality into action, rather than adding to inequality.
It reminds that we jail beneficiaries for $30 million of benefit fraud a year and partly ignore several $billions of white collar fraud and tax evasion. The latter restrict provision of Government services far more than beneficiary fraud. Where is the equity in that? So who has got good mates in high places?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 18th December 2015 @ 8:07 am
Murray, this is what is called doing the vacuuming.
When ‘they’ get sick of the pestering, ‘they’ let you have a little rant, then write it up, and write it off.
The is no historic event. The Human Rights Commission is littered with the complaints of men, and has been since it opened.
Very few of those complaints are even mentioned on this site, because it has mostly been concerned with the Family court and Child Support.
Let’s get things in perspective here. Good effort, but no one ever discovered anything new by pissing in the wind.
Do you see it reported anywhere else but here?
Comment by Downunder — Fri 18th December 2015 @ 8:37 am