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

Provocation and Hopelessness Cause Terrible Reactions

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:11 am Thu 30th July 2015

Tony Robertson committed seriously disturbed sexual and sexually motivated offences against children and was sentenced to eight years prison. It may well be that he would have committed the horrific running down, injuring, rape and murder of Blessie Gotingco after his release if given half a chance. However, it may also be that if he had been able to get on with his life after his sentence as used to happen, he would have found some worthwhile way of supporting himself and choosing a better life. Even if he committed further sexual offending this would probably not have been fatal and he would soon have been caught and imprisoned for another long duration, to the relief of the community. Instead, what happened was that on the basis of fortune telling about his future behaviour, after he had served his entire 8 years for his previous crimes he was given a further 10-year sentence of ‘extended supervision’ and he gave up caring about anything.

As is the case with Protection Orders, the naive belief is that by depriving men of their civil rights and hammering men with unjust methods of attempted state control, this will increase safety. That always seemed unlikely. Men (and it has only ever been men) who have served their entire sentence and are then sentenced again for the same crimes to another 10 years of constant close and imposing surveillance and intimidation by agents of the state, in which where they live, what they do, whom they have contact with and most everything else about their lives is controlled and restricted by those state agents, can be expected to be very angry about this. It’s most unlikely those men will develop any sense of belonging, respect or appreciation regarding the society in which they live. Also, they can be expected to feel backed into a corner, defeated, hopeless about their ability ever to live a tolerable life, . Under those circumstances a good proportion of men will give up any idea of achieving an acceptable life.

Tony Robertson gave up. He decided to go all out in one last and ultimate splash of self-pleasuring exploitation, knowing he would be caught. He knew that by cutting off his ankle bracelet he was certain to go back to prison for a long time. He no longer cared.

Under feminist demands that men be treated with increasing injustice and repression, Western countries have embarked upon a dangerous cycle of provoking men into worse reactions that are then seen to require even greater increases in repressive dehumanization. We are headed for a situation in which men are treated increasingly like Hitler’s Jews, Mugabe’s Whites, Saddam Hussein’s Kurds and the ‘witches’ of Salem. This mentality has already become so extreme that our parliament is currently seriously considering a law that enables women to deliberately kill men in their sleep without consequence.

The inquiry into Tony Robertson’s case should look carefully at the role of the 10-year extended supervision order (ESO) in contributing to this terrible outcome. It should look carefully at the effects of treating men badly in general. Perhaps if ESOs were for 1 year at a time and could only be renewed with good cause, they would work more safely. Perhaps if the Probation Service were legally required to work cooperatively, respectfully and supportively with those on ESOs rather than behaving unreasonably and superstitiously as they currently often do, a system like this would work more safely. Just as the role of the Protection Order itself needs to be assessed for provoking many murders and acts of extreme violence that otherwise may not have happened, the same investigation needs to be done regarding ESOs.

This is not about excusing Tony Robertson. Regardless of the provocation his behaviour was barbaric and totally unacceptable, and he really doesn’t deserve to be housed and fed by our society any more at all. But if the ESO contributed to his latest offence it’s important to ensure this doesn’t keep happening for other men. Treating men fairly and respectfully will always ultimately achieve a safer outcome on average and a better functioning society than what we are getting from our current misandrist direction.


  1. Totally agree with your “Treating men fairly and respectfully will always ultimately achieve a safer outcome on average and a better functioning society than what we are getting from our current misandrist direction” conclusion.

    Obviously in the Robertson case the media highlights the heinous crime and not the circumstances giving rise to it, plus the current SERCO debacle allows that Samoan over-stayer and his cabinet colleagues license to misrepresent the truth about our prison system. Those corrupt individuals within JUSTICE and CORRECTIONS delude the public into believing prison is all about rehabilitation when in reality the opposite prevails. The primary objective of Police, Corrections and Courts is to get released prisoners back behind bars asap by whatever means. Prisons and the entire criminal [in]justice system is no different to any other commercial entity. Survival (and profit) depends upon REPEAT CUSTOMERS!

    Comment by JONO — Thu 30th July 2015 @ 4:48 am

  2. you make some very interesting observations regarding protection orders. You mention the word Surveillance, do you believe that men who have protection orders against them are under Surveillance?

    Do you think they are put under Surveillance as soon as they make an application to the Family Court? Even low level, say the web sites they go to, contacts in their cell phone that can then be referenced against a data base of un desirable people?

    Comment by paul — Thu 30th July 2015 @ 5:56 am

  3. Article A
    Article B

    Art B
    ‘He’d been to see his father, who had nothing to do with his upbringing, earlier in the day.’
    Notice how they didn’t expand on why, other than they grew apart? Or did they?
    ‘She remembers how young she was when he arrived, just 17’
    No surprise, stage one to developing a male criminal.

    ‘Robertson appeared to conform to prison standards through the year, but when parole was declined in March 2011 he went off the deep end.’
    So actually he did try and play by the rules, but due to his denials etc he was arbitrarily going to be rejected by the system.

    ‘The week before his aunt Cherie Fyfe had died.’
    ‘He wasn’t allowed to travel so couldn’t get to her funeral, or see his mother who had suffered a mild stroke.’
    This is cruel and inhumane treatment. He, now out of prison, got less rights than a person in prison, who may have had an escorted attendance to the funeral.
    A free man is supposed to have freedom of movement.

    ‘The preferred option release was Matamata, with an uncle on a farm. It was rejected.’
    So here we have a real issue. The community has complained about his closeness to parks and schools etc. Madness considering this fact, as he found a home, in the country, where a mature adult would be keeping an eye on him, and the nut jobs at corrections rejected it. MOMA your assertion that Corrections wanted this man to fail is sounding real. Yes they wanted him in a little dungeon so the oppressive conditions would brake him.

    ‘Then there was the apartment in Birkdale, over which there was also a scrap. It was a huge disappointment. The apartment had been furnished – everything made ready for Robertson to have as fine a reintegration to society as a prisoner ever had.’
    Rejected, they wanted him in their own little dungeon. There was no intent to have a ‘have as fine a reintegration to society’.
    ‘Robertson, instead, was assigned a pokey flat in central Auckland.’
    The other two options may have been more successful, but no, only the little, pokey dungeon would be OK.

    ‘Then came the breaches. The first was when a cousin came to stay – a breach of the flat rules.’
    Yes there it is, Power and Control provided by the rules, forced on him by the dungeon. What? a free man can’t have a cousin sleep over the night.

    ‘ Mrs McWatters says there was a technical breach – Robertson and his girlfriend near a dairy, not realising he was on the edge of the park.’
    So corrections decided that while in the presence of his girlfriend, that because he came, unintentionally, near a park ‘unavoidable in the city’ that he should be arrested and dragged back to court. What kind of nut jobs work at corrections? Why didn’t the judge censure them for being idiots? Oh yes they wanted him to fail, that was the intent of their decisions all along.

    ‘Mrs McWatters saw her son as a pawn in a rigged game. “It was like they were baiting him and pushing him so he would end up back in jail.”‘
    “They just wanted him to sit at home and be nobody.”
    I agree with her. Its obviously true.

    Art A
    ‘Inmates released and isolated were a greater danger.’
    So they isolated him on purpose, increasing the danger.
    Pertianing to the being near a park.
    ‘On the one occasion it did, about six weeks after his release.’
    Wow so despite being surrounded by out of bounds areas, he did a great job at not breaching the rules, which shows he was being very compliant. It took 6 weeks to make a mistake, under the idiotic, oppressive, conditions imposed on him. Then was arrested?
    ‘not counting the five weeks Robertson went back inside for breaching release conditions.’
    So he got 5 weeks in prison for nothing. What a bunch of corrupt mongrels colluding together. Corrections, Police, Judges.

    ‘The best the Parole Board could have done was put in place strict release conditions which last for six months and bolster those by going to court to seek an ESO so he could be GPS-tagged and watched for a decade’
    So they tried him, sentenced him, fully punished him, and then imposed the most oppressive original release conditions on him that they could.
    Then retried him. Without him committing another crime. Double jeopardy. Then sentencing him to another 10 years without trial. That was not part of his original sentence.

    And the title ’10 reasons system didn’t get it wrong on Blessie killer Tony Robertson’

    From whos perspective. Those that cant fogive and wanted him, no matter what, to be punished forever.
    Yes the system won. They manipulated their victim to get what they wanted.

    They killed a women in the process, but its OK, they get to blame a bad man for it.

    Bigot fools.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 30th July 2015 @ 5:15 pm

  4. Totally agree with your ‘Treating men fairly and respectfully will always ultimately achieve a safer outcome on average and a better functioning society than what we are getting from our current misandrist direction’ conclusion.

    All first responding police officers will now be armed with tazers.

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 31st July 2015 @ 1:52 pm

  5. Here we have another example of the crown being purposefully oppressive with the intent of provoking desperate responses by the oppressed.

    The issue is how much the activities of the crown becomes qualified with this piece of law. The Crimes Act 1961
    Aiding and abetting suicide
    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who-
    incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit suicide, if that person commits or attempts to commit suicide in consequence thereof; or

    Obviously getting Roberston to commit suicide, was a target for corrections just as it is for this man. The key word is incite.
    Unfortunately for corrections sometimes they chose to reoffend to go back to prison, for the social environment that it offers. The insanity caused by these oppressive conditions imposed on these men needs to be looked at as they are clearly being used, not to stop further offending, but to further punish and control the offender who has already served the sentence for the crime they committed. If they can’t handle it and commit suicide, they win. If they can’t handle it and commit a crime to return to prison, they win.

    Logic dictates that if corrections do not want these men to commit suicide that they would act to decrease the risk. This is not the case, they knowingly increase the risk.
    Logic dictates that if corrections do not want these men to commit further offences that they would act to decrease the risk. This is not the case, they knowingly increase the risk.

    Stage 1: Find a wild dog.
    Stage 2: Cage the dog for many years, while poking it with a stick.
    Stage 3: Let the dog think its imprisonment is over.
    Stage 4: Make a new cage for the dog.
    Stage 5: Cage the dog for many years, this time with the door open, while poking it with a stick.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 7th August 2015 @ 11:00 am

  6. I met a male in the weekend who has just got their bracelet off after 12 months. His offending was for dishonesty charges, car conversion etc.
    He began life well. He got trade qualified and did well financially. However something terrible was taking place in his life, he came across an Oxytocin abuser.
    He admits his brain was over-ruled by sexual drivers. His words, ‘she was especially hot’.
    Anyway he financed them into a house and they had two children.
    They broke up and it was not amicable. He was pushed out of his kids’ lives. All his assets were seized by her.
    He spent everything he had with lawyers in fighting to see his kids.
    He became destitute and suicidal from his experience.
    He went down the wrong road, and began doing bad things, and was caught.
    He was given 12 months home detention. Under his conditions he was allowed to work.
    However his parole officer refused to let him work, despite him having a job that was suitable to his home D conditions.
    He became locked down 24/7.
    He found it extremely depressing, and often felt like giving up and breaking out.
    He now has to start again in his fight to see his kids.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 10th August 2015 @ 11:13 am

  7. Insightful comments thanks DJ Ward.

    For the record it’s important to comment on the hysteria caused by the authorities and media concerning Daniel Livingstone. He committed an awful crime many years ago when he abducted and raped a child. That was his only sexual offence but he had a history of theft, burglary and traffic offences plus one ‘male assaults female’. We all know that very often ‘male assaults female’ means ‘female assaults male equally or worse but only the male is prosecuted’, so we can’t read too much into this, his only other offence involving violence directly against a person.

    Livingstone’s sexual offence was appalling and he deserved a long sentence. If we had the death sentence for such crimes he would understandably be seen as a good candidate. But a long prison sentence is what he got, similar to the sentence any other male could expect for the same kind of offence in NZ. As a child sex offender in prison he will have lived in constant fear of violence from other inmates who like to believe they’re morally superior. He served his entire time, then was re-sentenced for the same crime to a further 7 years ‘extended supervision’ involving electronic monitoring with an ankle bracelet.

    The basis for an Extended Supervision Order is a form of fortune telling by a Dept of Corrections psychologist. This fortune telling uses ‘risk assessment’ tests that are better than chance at predicting the future but not a lot better. The Courts allow themselves to be blinded by science when the Dept of Corrections psychologists tell them “Our scientific tests show this offender is at high risk of offending sexually again and he will probably rape another pre-pubescent girl”. However, the judge does not understand the science behind those tests and does not know how to evaluate the reliability and validity of the tests or the extent to which the psychologist’s subjective judgement contributed to the result. The judge is also not told the exact meaning of ‘high risk’. Depending on the test this can be anything from 16% to about 40% risk of such reoffending in the next ten years, or more correctly, of the group of people who scored within a range of test scores containing the offender’s score, 16% (according to some tests’ definition of ‘high risk’) will reoffend in the next ten years. So the psychologist’s fortune telling will be wrong for 84% of those people. Yet they will all be resentenced in double-jeopardy fashion to many years of further partial imprisonment via ankle bracelet. Of course, 16% of those assessed as ‘high risk’ will reoffend and when they do, Corrections psychologists will say ‘See we told you so’ but they will make no comment about the 84% who don’t reoffend or, more likely, whose only reoffending will be against the unjust additional sentence and the newly manufactured ‘crimes’ thereby created (e.g. keeping to a curfew, keeping the ankle bracelet on year after year, turning up for frequent, worthless appointments with probation officers year after year, maintaining tolerance of state gangsters invading one’s privacy and disturbing one’s sleep at all hours, living where and how directed, not being allowed to enjoy a beer, not being allowed to associate with friends unless approved, and so on).

    A few years ago, before Extended Supervision Orders were allowed, Livingstone would have been released after his initial prison sentence and given an opportunity to make a viable life for himself, perhaps find a job and a fulfilling relationship. Given his history he could be expected to commit more thefts, burglaries and traffic offences but such offending does generally reduce with age and maturity and there was a chance that his wish to maintain his freedom and some of the good things in life might also have helped to discourage such offending. Even if he committed further such offences this would have been dealt with routinely by police and reported in a low key manner or not at all by media. However, because of the Extended Supervision Order he was treated as if a dangerous wild animal that had escaped from the zoo and almost certain to kill and eat people. School principals were warned and contemplated going in to lock down, people were warned not to let their children walk home from school or play at playgrounds or outside at all. The whole thing was a circus with little rational content.

    Did Livingstone kill and eat people, or head to the nearest playground to abduct and rape children? We have heard nothing of this even though he was ‘free’ for several days. As far as we know, his only crime was to cut off his ankle bracelet and abscond, and this was a crime that only occurred because of the Extended Supervision Order. He left a suicide note and it may be that was his true intention in response to his circumstances. One assumes he might have stolen to keep himself alive during his few days of freedom but there has been no suggestion he committed any sexual predation or other very serious offence. After all, he was scored in a group of which a good proportion, perhaps 84%, would never reoffend seriously.

    The treatment of Daniel Livingstone after he had escaped his ankle bracelet was irrational and comparable to any witch hunt. It was another step in the demonization of men and we will see more and more ridiculous examples of this under our regime of misandrist propaganda.

    Further, Extended Supervision Orders (ESOs) are heavily overused and unjustified in a large proportion of cases, and what the authorities don’t mention is that it will be only males who have ever been given them. ESOs are based on largely junk and misrepresented science. Many of those males don’t deserve them on any rational grounds. However, because they’re males, fairness and justice isn’t seen to matter. Let’s just keep kicking them and making their lives untenable, set them up for failure by inventing the new ‘crime’ of refusing to submit to the kicking or by provoking them into some desperate acts of rebellion that otherwise may not have occurred, then put them back in prison and claim this shows the ESO was justified.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 13th August 2015 @ 10:14 am

  8. Male MP has just used the term “Double Jeopardy” and “Bill of Rights” in describing new attempt by a female MP, and her co-man-haters to further oppress males.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 13th August 2015 @ 3:30 pm

  9. The lies and propaganda continues on this monitoring bracelet issue.
    At least those that actually want crime to be reduced can see the faults in the system.

    The media (group of people who want people to be punished forever) continue to say the system is not working. Yet the article says this.
    ‘Mr Smith said home detention was not always a popular policy, but it was Corrections’ most successful programme for reducing reoffending.
    People on home detention had a recidivism rate of 19 per cent, compared to the overall rate of 30 per cent.’

    Then there is this propaganda.
    ‘Electronic monitoring has come under heightened scrutiny following two high-profile breaches by high-risk sex offenders. The inquiry into one of those cases, the management of killer Tony Robertson, will include a broader investigation of electronic monitoring for high-risk offenders.’
    So what was the Tony Robertson breach? He never removed the bracelet. He never breached the conditions of the bracelet, knowingly. His breach was that he and his girlfriend stopped at a diary near a park that he did not know was there. Would his girlfriend have let him breach his conditions if she knew they were in an out of bounds area? In fact the bracelet did the job it was supposed to do. It detected he was momentarily in breach of his conditions. He got 5 weeks in prison for this. Offending requires knowledge and intent. He had none, so did not breach his conditions. His other breach was because a cousin stayed the night. This has nothing to do with public safety, or his bracelet, it’s just good old fashioned bully’s justifying their desires to be cruel and vengeful.
    The only possible conclusion of the investigation is that corrections, due to the oppressive behaviour towards this male was the principle cause of his reoffending, and therefore the murderer.
    The bracelet had nothing to do with it.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 20th August 2015 @ 1:57 pm

  10. Provocation.. .. Encouraged to incite conflict and retaliation…..and create more criminals for the corporate system….

    Tracking and surveillance….. Are you ready for what this seeks to justify…… Bracelets are no good so we need to microchip you…..!!!!!!

    Trials have already been conducted on old folk with Alzheimer’s…which I am sure helped with getting consent…. . Tracked using an app when they go walk about from the rest home…. It’s real and now they want an excuse to implant one in you!!!!!!!!!

    The mark of the beast is here!!!!!!

    Comment by Hornet — Thu 20th August 2015 @ 4:15 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar