Revise abuse guidelines – Amy Adams
This news article disturbs me on many fronts. To allow a new or current partner secret access to someone’s historical police record that is sealed will only end in corrupting relationships and could potentially end in male suicide.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11491411
Criminal history is defined as conviction history. That is going to court and being convicted for criminal acts. Usually sealed under the clean slate act after a period of time. Even police staff can’t browse or gain access to sealed historical criminal history because of the damage it could do to someone’s reputation, employment and family relationships.
A police record is quite different as it would contain items such as alleged assaults and not guilty verdicts and anything else like demerit points and hearsay. These are not covered by the clean slate act.
Allowing the investigators of allegations (that is the police) not the courts will sidestep Judges who seal such information including false allegations and will undoubtedly end in more adversity for men. The police are never impartial when it comes to providing truthful information that a court would or a jury has decided.
What this new proposed law means is in some cases, without trial or being proven not guilty or a situation where a man argues or fights with a woman to defend himself, but only the man wears the allegation, or conviction. These things could be disclosed.
This whole law is seriously fraught with such with danger and loss for not only men but their families, partners and children as well.
Think about it!! Once known by one will soon be discussed by two, then four, eight, sixteen….. How would the victim cope with that and what do you expect the outcome would be.
What a nightmare.
I guess we can assume that a man will not be able to go to police and find out if his potential partner has made allegations of assault or abuse against other men as she left prior relationships. Wouldn’t that be nice.
Comment by Voices back from the bush. — Tue 4th August 2015 @ 3:46 pm
‘MPs have rejected calls to further relax the rules on reporting of suicides, and have tightened one aspect of the law in a bid to prevent copycat deaths.’
Interesting when the open release of DV information is acceptable but reporting about the deaths of men is out of bounds. Why?
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11491828
So let’s look at how corrupt the coroner’s office actually is.
‘We consider these amendments would achieve a balance between providing for the freedom and role of the media in suicide reporting, and the need to prohibit the publication of the problematic elements of suicide reporting,” the committee’s report said.’
Actually this is all just bullshit. They continually make the point that they don’t want the public to know the method of suicide chosen, to avoid copycat suicides. At present NZ media has no freedom in reporting suicides as no information about the suicide is allowed to be released, obviously to protect those that caused, influenced, encouraged, and plotted to cause the suicide. The how? the suicide took place is a smokescreen so that the why? Is never discussed. The ‘why’ for example is missing from this propaganda article. In fact nothing is known about NZ suicides because the coroner’s office does everything possible to prevent the public learning the truth. So what is the problematic elements of suicide reporting? You guessed it, how many men committed suicide after coming in contact with the family court, or a police officer, serving a protection order, finding out you have been stitched up, young fathers pushed out of their children’s lives, child support, etc. etc. Interesting how they dragged in mental health services to push the coroners offices pram, we all know how deadly mental health services are in NZ, especially those attached to the family court. Nod Nod Wink Wink.
‘The law changes would also remove a requirement for coroners to hold an inquest if a person died in official care or custody.’
So now if they impose conditions that cause suicide they don’t even need to have a look and find out ‘why’.
‘If a coroner decides that a death is suicide, the only information that can be made public is the person’s name, job and address and the fact that the death was self-inflicted.’
Notice the ‘why’ is missing. All the truth is hidden within closets full of the family courts stretched ropes. This law just protects Mass Murderers.
So Amy Adams wants no information to be made available if it exposes bad things done to men.
But its open slather on releasing information about something bad done by a man.
I think tomorrow we will get to have a good laugh at Amy Adams.
Maybe they needed to tidy this suicide law up before the devastation that one can predict will follow, DV changes, by the idiocy of the man hating DV industry.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 4th August 2015 @ 4:20 pm
Merely legalising long standing practices.
Comment by Peadar — Tue 4th August 2015 @ 7:44 pm
This review however provides an opportunity for us to make submissions. Our views and the truth may end up being overridden but the more people who make submissions the more likely it will be that these perspectives will be aired in the select committee.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 4th August 2015 @ 8:57 pm
Excellent observations DJ Ward about the ongoing cover up of the reasons for the male suicide rate that now exceeds the entire road toll, while male denigration on the basis of no justice process is promoted.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 4th August 2015 @ 9:06 pm
wow I just want to puke its so bad, awesome article for awareness
I also feel for Families that may have to choke on a Father been killed in self defence by his partner or wife. I mean its common knowledge perjury committed by woman in the family courts is protected. So how frightening will it be for Men or Family members when they go too court and hear that their Son, brother, had an altercation with his woman, so she killed him, an then got off. I mean just reading that last sentence is a huge threat in itself
Great awareness.
Honestly mobile cameras are saving Mens lives in America. As challenged as it is that people that video an event or assault are accused of been cowards. UTube mobile bandits, or gutless bystanders..however
Youd have to ask yourself how many black men in America have been gunned down and it always went the Police way through self defence.
Not now, Video don’t lie, and is saving lives. Its also highlighted cold hearted murder is committed by the very people who are trusted and armed to protect.
I mention this because its very important for Men in a stressful or altercation with a woman,too push record, if you can video it even better,
Its extreme even some Men may be reluctant, only with extreme laws need extreme measures. Perhaps Men may need to train themselves for self protection , by instead of shutting down, become passive or stomp off, perhaps if we are able to push record on our mobiles it may save their lives or at least provide evidence on what the hell actual went on
Thank you DJ, Lukenz and hi Bushman..
Hope you are all safe, holding your children close 🙂
Comment by joseph — Tue 4th August 2015 @ 9:40 pm
And if I split from my wife, I would like to be able to know that any new boyfriend/flatmate they will be living with can show that they are safe around children.
In saying this I am well aware that most violence is situational and therefore we need safeguards to prevent injustice.
A true dilemia, we can only hope they get it right?
Comment by JnF — Tue 4th August 2015 @ 10:14 pm
‘Protection’ (attack the male) orders are unlawful extreme abuse against children and their fathers.
Any verdict or (arrest) kidnapping by government MAFIA forces called ‘police’ is unlawful without a trial by jury of our peers. therefore this proposed statute and all statutes are unlawful child abuse.
Anything other than automatic 5050 parental rights of man and child is kidnapping. Any police who don’t enforce this are child abusers.
Comment by phil Watts — Wed 5th August 2015 @ 8:26 am
Hi Phil and others,
The difficulty you face Phil is that Protection orders are lawful.
Arrest by the police is not kidnapping.
Jury trials are extremely rare in DV matters.
These proposed statutes will need careful consideration and responding to.
Kidnapping is not defined how you have above and most consider the police as a protective agency rather than as child abusers.
We will need a deeper analysis in responding to these proposals than you suggest.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 5th August 2015 @ 3:28 pm
Have your say right now to the “NZ Department of justice” as they look to draw up even more Draconian DV laws which will make parental alienation even easier, its very bad news for all dads especially.
Here is your chance, if you do one thing this year let it be this.
https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/p“¦/family-violence-law
“ª#‎notyourright”¬
To make false allegations of abuse
To prevent my access to our kids
Key Dates
Consultation is Open
Runs from 5 Aug 2015 to 18 Sep 2015
Other Information
Audience: All New Zealanders
.
Comment by Dominic NZ men — Wed 5th August 2015 @ 3:28 pm
oops this one works better !
https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/
Comment by Dominic NZ men — Wed 5th August 2015 @ 3:33 pm
Why world its not my day today !
https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/family-violence-law
Comment by Dominic NZ men — Wed 5th August 2015 @ 3:35 pm
Got there in the end Dominic.
Thanks for posting this link.
I hope many men will take this oppertunity to respond. !
Comment by Voices back from the bush. — Wed 5th August 2015 @ 5:48 pm
Thanks heaps Dominic for posting this link and reminding us of this rare opportunity.
I hope many other men will respond.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Wed 5th August 2015 @ 5:55 pm
Let’s look at the details in the FV consultation discussion document
Propaganda works by making you look at one thing while they are doing something else. An example will be the response from #7 JnF who has responded to the media presentation of what Amy Adams and her co-conspirators want people to argue about. Getting information about your ex’s new partner plays on people’s emotions. I myself can see in some situations, were a Judge has come to the reasoned conclusion, that it is required that a convicted DV offender should be subject to conditions where the police are required to inform new partners of the offenders history. I don’t agree to the open slather end of the argument on this though, but that’s the smokescreen. Look at what they don’t talk to you about in the media. This part of this DV review, unlike the media presentation that sounds agreeable, is actually terrifying. Because it’s not part of this PDF.
From the page PRE3 titled, A fresh look at our family violence laws
“As a Government, we are committed to reducing family violence and keeping victims safe, particularly women and children”. That’s not a fresh look!
Yes its the standard indicator of the underlying bigotry of the DV industry. Supported by this comment. “we’ve established a Ministerial Group on Family and Sexual Violence” Can you imagine who the participants are in that group. The Minister of Justice and the Minister for Social Development, as co‑chairs. Both have appalling records of sexual bigotry.
Be scared of this comment. “laws that work as part of an integrated approach across the government and non-government sectors.”
From page3 Introduction
Be scared of this comment. ” help to stop violence escalating, without having to go to court”
“improving protection orders, including how applications are funded” this is propaganda as NGO’s will get funding plus other rights that men’s groups will be excluded from having. Men seeking protection orders will still face denial of funding.
The real nightmare starts with this “creating a new framework of family violence offences”
From page 7
“Developing shared understandings of what the problems are, what outcomes we want and how we measure these – led by the Ministries for Women and Social Development. This means that what the problems are, are problems that only women experience. The outcomes is to oppress men, and as it is now, men will be excluded from research. Look at the references on the bottom of the pages, no male research. It is also the role of the Ministry for Women to prevent laws that may have bias against women. This will result in female versions of DV and sexual violence being arbitrarily excluded from law changes. PS don’t forget that in the years from the creation of the Ministry of Women to the creation of the DV act, male suicides doubled, female rates did not change. What have we got to look forward to now, after all they just did the suicide reporting scam, so we can’t find out how murderous they are.
Page 8 gives an outline at how comprehensive the changes will be. As you can see, this document is just a blip in an established set of already planned out changes.
Page 9 “The Law Commission is currently progressing work on 3 projects related to family violence” These are excluded in the review, but, they get to add them in later.
Page 13 “The substantial majority of intimate partner violence involving coercive control occurs against women.” Bullshit. How is forcing a male to stay in a relationship by getting pregnant without consent not coercive control? With around 32000 male victims per year. Another 4500+ abused by females that use the birth certificate process to control their victims, and another 6000 that have lied on the birth certificate, but still use it to control a man for their own desires of power and control.. Then there is the use of sex to control men such as Oxytocin abusers.
OMG it goes on and on with feminist ideology. The only positive, and very small, is that they consider giving men kicked out of their homes a place to stay. Possibly one of those power and control homes that they put Mr Roberston into.
What do they intend to do?
Make a protection order a charge that arbitrarily results in men being banned from seeing their children.
Giving police the right to charge and convict on the spot for domestic violence charges.
Allowing NGOs to create protection orders that, also they will be paid to do.
All male activity defined in law as domestic violence, and all female activity defined as actions of a victim.
Increase all penalties for male versions of domestic violence.
All males accused of domestic violence to be electronically monitored.
Men to be banned from communicating.
Secret committees to examine and instruct Judges on DV cases.
DV history to follow a person for life.
DV history to exclude men from as many employment opportunities as possible.
Increasing property law share for DV victims.
What else is being hidden from us?
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 6th August 2015 @ 2:13 pm
More of what this is DV change could cause
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11492249
‘created the opportunity to fix all the problems with the current law.’
Opportunity yes, unfortunately there is such a thing as reality.
‘She welcomed all the document’s main proposals around making protection orders more accessible and better enforced.’
IE protection orders against men become arbitrary even if the actual offender is female, and to increase male suffering.
‘But the new proposal could enable women’s refuges to initiate protection orders themselves’
Due diligence now to fly out the window.
“That would be a huge boon for refuge workers,”
Yes it’s not about DV, there excited about the money.
‘The paper also suggests that when a protection order is breached police might be either required to arrest in all cases or required to take some action’
Many men on MENZ have talked about how women manipulate men ‘come get the kids’ or track them down to force a breach. Justice is becoming blind.
‘She also welcomed the proposed requirement for police to take some action when called out to any family violence incident, even when they could not see anyone at fault.’
IE men will be written in the report as the offender, no matter what took place.
“The home should be a safe place for all”
Not in NZ, they contain female sexual predators.
‘but do not want to go through the court system.’
That’s because they intend to convict and punish men without the courts helping, or giving a voice to the male to hear his version of events.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 6th August 2015 @ 3:27 pm
More from the FV consultation discussion document
CASE STUDY
Protection orders – Accessibility
Lisa has been living with her partner Todd for over a year. Lisa is becoming increasingly scared by Todd’s behaviour towards her. He has a temper and is quick to yell and curse at Lisa, and has threatened to hurt her. Lisa knows Todd’s behaviour is wrong and that she is in a dangerous situation. She has looked at the protection order application forms online, but they are long and complicated. Lisa isn’t confident about what information to put in her application, or whether she will be able to explain her fears to the judge. It seems like it will be an expensive and complicated process. She’s not sure if she can afford a lawyer.
Solution: Leave Todd, learn to take responsibility for those things that she did that induced bad behaviour by Todd so she does not repeat her mistakes with future partners. No protection order was necessary, and no lawyer is needed to fix the problems she is having.
CASE STUDY
Safety and parenting arrangements for children
After months of criticising and threatening to hurt her, Olivia’s husband Nathan grabs her throat and tries to strangle her. The next day, while Nathan is out visiting friends, she leaves with their two sons and moves in with her parents. She applies for and is granted a protection order, which prevents Nathan from having any contact with her. Nathan applies to the Family Court under the Care of Children Act 2004 for joint day‑to‑day care of the boys. He sends her text messages saying ‘she will regret it’ if she opposes his application. She is worried that if he is granted joint day‑to‑day care she will be forced to meet him regularly to exchange the children, and that he will use the opportunity to continue to scare and abuse her, despite the protection order. During the settlement conference Olivia feels pressured to agree to Nathan having joint care of the children because it’s clear other people think it’s important that the children see their father who has never physically harmed them. She agrees to Nathan having joint day‑to‑day care, despite her fears for her own safety.
Solution: Make a plan designed around letting the exchange of children to take place, eg she drops the kids at school in the morning and he picks them up after school so they never have to meet. Make shared 50/50 care normalised in law, only child abuse convictions able to remove this condition. Then Nathan will not fear ‘and respond to’ being bullied and subject to power and control by Olivia for her belief that she is somehow superior in regards to being a parent just because she is female. Also it is clear that Olivias perceptions of reality revolve around herself and not the children’s needs, and risks to them are not being considered. Olivia should be required to do a Living without Violence programme as she shows clear behaviours that risk the development of DV responses in others.
CASE STUDY
Prosecuting psychological violence
Yuki and Sefu have been together for six years. Yuki is a fulltime mum to their eighteen‑month‑old daughter Violet. Sefu is outgoing, charming and has many friends. Within a few months of moving in together he begins to criticise Yuki and lose his temper with her. He accuses her of lying to him about where she is going and who she is with. He often puts her down in public. Yuki has stopped seeing her friends because Sefu always gets angry when she goes out. She speaks to her family, but has never mentioned what is going on. Sefu has taken away her mobile phone and has changed the password on their joint bank account and bank cards so she can’t access any money. Yuki can’t remember a time when things weren’t this way and sometimes thinks she cannot trust her memory of what’s happened over time. She doesn’t think she can call Police because Sefu has never physically hurt her or Violet, and she’s pretty sure they won’t arrest someone for being angry and controlling.
Solution: Make Paternity testing compulsory so that men don’t need to fear that the sexual behaviours of their partners will result in them being forced to raise another man’s child. Bring an end to the endemic committing of dishonesty crimes against children by women for their own personal financial gains.
CASE STUDY
Information sharing
One of Dr Evan’s patients, Mark, seems agitated. When Dr Evan asks Mark what’s wrong, he says his partner Miriama ‘needs to be taught a lesson’ for going out to a movie with her friends. Dr Evan is worried about what Mark is thinking of doing. She knows that under the Privacy Act she can disclose personal information if she thinks it’s necessary to prevent a serious threat to someone’s life or health. But she’s not sure whether Mark’s comment on its own is serious enough, and she doesn’t want to lose Mark’s trust. In the end she decides it’s better not to tell anyone.
Solution: Make Paternity testing compulsory so that men don’t need to fear that the sexual behaviours of their partners will result in them being forced to raise another man’s child. Bring an end to the endemic committing of dishonesty crimes against children by women for their own personal financial gains.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 7th August 2015 @ 9:33 am
Those considering putting in ideas, this should be on your list. Even some police want this change.
The crimes act 1961
128 Sexual violation defined
(1)
Sexual violation is the act of a person who-
(a)
rapes another person; or
(b)
has unlawful sexual connection with another person.
(2)
Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of person B’s genitalia by person A’s penis,-
(a)
without person B’s consent to the connection; and
(b)
without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.
———————————————
(2) should be changed to say.
Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of the vagina by the penis,-
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 7th August 2015 @ 12:15 pm
DJ Ward (#17). That seems a strange alteration. Wouldn’t it be better to change it to a gender neutral form such as ‘Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of any part of person B’s anatomy by any part of person A’s anatomy or any other object held or controlled by person A…’.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 7th August 2015 @ 1:47 pm
There could be a few ways to describe forced sex ‘rape’ in regard to the penetration of the vagina by the penis. Your version adds in sodomy, oral sex, digital penetration, and use of sex toys. Those things are covered with different charges, not to say that sodomy should not be viewed with the same severity, IE the same sentence.
Obviously the intent of the change would be to allow the police to charge females with rape. They cannot at present due to the laws definition. There have been some cases were this has occurred, especially to vulnerable teenage boys by older women. The police have been stuck using unlawful sexual connection, by stupefying etc to hold these females to account. They would use the rape charge ‘on rare occasions’ if it was available to them.
Here is an example of how your version runs into problems.
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/entertainment/the-girls-lift-their-skirts-up-and-put-mens-hands-underneath-jesinta-dishes-on-the-footy-chicks/story-fnj94hgr-1227288854306
The comment.
‘I have seen things in clubs that would make mothers’ skin crawl. I’ve seen girls lift skirts up and put men’s hands under their skirts.’
Obviously it would require that his finger slips a bit to qualify for your version. But is that rape? It’s presently dealt with other charges.
Interestingly this means that male sports stars are without doubt, the most sexually abused members of our community.
Can you name any female group that is constantly sexually abused like this without there ever being charges on the offender?
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 7th August 2015 @ 2:28 pm
There is no need for the charge of rape in this day and age.
It’s original intention was to stop unwanted procreation not to protect women from unwanted sex.
Now we should quite simply have gender neutral sexual attacks, whatever form they may take.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 7th August 2015 @ 5:06 pm
This if for those that support the DV industry, presently in possession of teaspoons.
During a visit to the mental asylum, I asked the director how they determine whether or not a patient should be institutionalized.
“Well,” said the director, “we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub.”
“Oh I understand,” I said. “A normal person would use the bucket because it’s bigger than the spoon or the teacup.”
“No.” said the director, “A normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a bed near the window?”
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 10th August 2015 @ 12:03 pm
#21 Downunder
Some countries use the term, degree of sexual assault.
That’s fine but if First Degree Sexual Assault includes rape, that does not mean it does not have a definition.
Presently rape can only be committed by males.
Just as it was the case until 2007 that females could not be prosecuted for having sex with children because the legal definition excluded them.
This DV review will not look at an overhaul as you suggest, but they may consider minor definition changes.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 11th August 2015 @ 10:28 am
Very disturbing times indeed – what are the ulterior motives – further erode your rights to PRIVACY for the benefit of the Corporation.
Have we all noticed what is happening here – Many RIGHTS for Citizens – which were historically protected by the BILL or RIGHTS and the MAGNA CARTA are being systematically REMOVED. WHY?
If we all look at the Corporate BUSINESS which is FAMILY COURT and CHILD support – A Business which THRIVES on CONFLICT – and attacks a parents RIGHTS on many levels – Right to see your own kids, right to earn a decent wage, right to privacy, right to own property, right to Due process and a right to be free from persecution and intimidation – Many on this web site are all VICTIMS – having RIGHTS Deprived on many levels as you have been taken for a ride by the CORPORATE CONFLICT BUSINESS.
We as a people – are fast losing our rights to LIVE Free and Independently.
The Police historically should only be there to PROTECT the PEACE, and to Protect LIFE and PROPERTY – these are SERVICES to each Community – Services to Society and to the people – which are slowly being removed – in favour of REVENUE COLLECTION for VICTIMLESS CRIMES – which ultimately IMPOVERISH society, and force more STATE CONTROLS on us ALL.
We have seen this change in our life time – with the police being changed from a SERVICE to the People – to a CORPORATION targeting citizens as CUSTOMERS for REVENUE. Services costs money so they are removed.
The Exact same concern has now arisen with the PRIVATE PRISONS – who need more CUSTOMERS for PROFIT.
These are very dangerous times for us all – because RIGHTS which we all historically ENJOYED – are being systematically removed and in many cases not supported or enforced at all.
A “MOCK” Debate will be held soon to discuss the relevancy of the MAGNA CARTA and whether it is relevant today. The will ask in this MOCK debate – Was it even implemented correctly – god forbid this Document – gave CITIZENS NATURAL BORN RIGHTS. And formed the very basis from which the BILL OF RIGHTS – and the Constitutions for FREE people were created. The US Constitution is perfect example of a document which DEFINED a CITIZENS RIGHTS – NATURAL RIGHTS given to ALL HUMAN BEINGS.
So here we come to the FLAG Debate – a Flag defines our nation – and the FLAG defines our Constitution which governs us. In 1840 when the Union Jack was inserted into the NZ Flag – this was the symbol which represented the Governance and Protections of the RIGHTS we now have – as protected by the Monarchy – Protections of the very BILL of RIGHTS as founded from the MAGNA CARTA……..
My concern with the FLAG debate is this – if we change our flag – do we LOSE the current protections? – which are NOT being enforced anyway as my current case before the Ombudsman has highlighted – ( my complaints to the Ombudsman directly relate to all the rights I mention above – and they have refused to investigate these concerns for going on 2.5 years now.
If we change flaw – then what replacement in so far as “RIGHTS” is going to be offered to the PEOPLE when changes occur?
If its hard now to get our own local government to uphold rights in NZ – can you imagine how hard and costly it will be to get an offshore corporate entity to be held to account!!!
Will this lead to a Global Corporation in the future granting rights to citizens as it thinks fit – rather than the people having rights as of Natural Right and as currently protected by Natural LAW and the current Bill of Rights and Magna Carta?
I am concerned that our most basic of Rights are under further attack – the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the rights to own property, the rights to privacy, the right to SELF DEFENCE, the right to Due Process – the right to see your own children…….
Does anyone else share these concerns????? I hope we all DO……Every HUMAN BEING should be concerned…..
http://www.postmanproductions.org/?p=2785
Comment by hornet — Tue 11th August 2015 @ 5:21 pm
As for my complaints to the ombudsmans office – who refuse to even answer my phone calls now = I can only presume they are procrastinating in anticipation of these changes occurring = after which my complaints become null and void because I will then no longer at law have these rights as protected by the current Bill of rights, Constitution, and Treaty as represented by our current FLAG. That is the only current logic I have for them not wanting to action a legitimate and substantive complaint which exposes the serious breaches to RIGHTS – that are affecting ALL PARENTS – who have been VICTIMS of the FAMILY COURT and CHILD SUPPORT Conflict BUSINESS.
This seems to be the tactic today, simply change the law ( to legalize corruption ) so they are no longer able to be held to account – all designed to do one thing and one thing only – to protect CORPORATE PROFIT.
This is TYRANNY at its worst and if you read your history of the American Constitution – this is exactly what its Founders warned the American People about – and its exactly why the American Constitution was written and worded as it was…..to PROTECT the PEOPLE from Govt TYRANNY………and this is yet another freedom document defining peoples RIGHTS which is under serious attack today………
Comment by hornet — Tue 11th August 2015 @ 5:43 pm
Obviously this is an example of bigotry by MSD as there research excludes males, and shows no intent to make the lives of teenage fathers and their children better, or even understood.
Study called.
Resilience in teenage mothers: A follow-up study
Mentioning of males falls into the category of material support, and how females find it difficult because the fathers want to be involved in the child’s life.
Then there’s this.
‘Young mothers may also avoid naming an unreliable father or accepting his money to prevent him later asserting rights to the child’
That’s interesting considering that the study exposes how teenage mothers have appalling negative resultants and personal negative traits IE unreliable. Maybe unreliable means not being the puppet that the female wants him to be. Where is his teenage parenting unit? That’s correct, MSD does not give a shit about fathers. They even completely ignored the fact that the females are in effect breaking the law in not naming the father. As for the accepting his money, bullshit, they threaten the males that they will name them on the birth certificate, unless they top up the DPB. Otherwise if they don’t comply to the DV committing female, CS will be sent to crush them completely. They also don’t name the father to avoid the risk that a court will decide the father would be a better parent, and give custody to him, or shared care.
Where MSD is the teenage father study, and the follow up study, and the solo fathers study, etc etc
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 12th August 2015 @ 11:34 am
They say in the report that $1,400,000,000 is spent on DV. There is ’rounded up so the maths is easy’ 10,000 male assaults female every year. That’s an investment of $140,000 per alleged offence. Great value for the taxpayers of NZ, not. Or for every DV event ’rounded’ at 100,000 events, thats $14,000 per event. Just systematic coruption, not justice. No wonder the review excludes talking about spending.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 14th August 2015 @ 3:14 pm
Wow, reading Amy Adams’ consultation paper is upsetting. So much ignorance and false propaganda underlies it. There will need to be many responses to turn any of this around. The paper starts by quoting WRONG figures about how many women, men and children are killed by family members each year. It goes on deliberately to define protection order applicants and police safety order ‘persons at risk’ as ‘victims’, while defining protection order respondents and ‘bound persons’ of police safety orders as ‘perpetrators’. This is a form of criminal labeling in the absence of any tested evidence or trial.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 16th August 2015 @ 10:02 am
The main concern I have about the labels “Victim” or “perpetrator” is they then assume Victim = white = angelic and perpetrator = black = demonic. One that labeling is adopted then it misses the thousands of shades of grey which are real life.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 16th August 2015 @ 3:17 pm
Hi Mr Harvey,
I don’t mean to split hairs or diminish the point that you’ve made but often “Perpetrator” isn’t what accused men are most commonly “labelled” as.
I was assaulted last year and then falsely accused of violence in retaliation.
The situation seemed completely bizarre to me as there was ample evidence including a confession that I had been attacked including weapons but there was no evidence of any retaliation.
I couldn’t understand why I was charged and spent days in cells.
The point you made above has helped me with this understanding to some degree.
From 3 may 2014 I was not referred to by name anymore.
I had a new ‘legal’ title that required no prefix of Mister, I was – “THE OFFENDER”.
By dictionary definition a perpetrator is- “someone who has committed a crime, a violent or harmful act”.
Yet ‘offender’ is defined as “to cause displeasure, anger, resentment ,or wounded feelings”.
There was no evidence that I had committed a physical assault in retaliation so this label was considered necessary.
And its true- That by not answering her adequately that morning after getting a blindsided whack to my head, I did cause her displeasure and anger.
I was evicted from my home and my belongings , reputed with abhorrent character, and spent thousands of dollars defending a charge of MAF.
There was no injury to her so obviously my crime was ‘offending’ a woman by not answering her- causing displeasure and anger.
There’s lessons that can be learned here…
Always answer a woman when expected to.. because otherwise you “offend” against her and if she gets even angrier and attacks you further- with accusations.
– Your gonna need a lawyer son, better get a real good one.!
Comment by voices back from the bush — Sun 16th August 2015 @ 9:45 pm
Please call me Allan.
We need to be extremely careful with words.
I suggest you challange words like you have done above.
Labels are used to group people into “good” and “bad” and help judges, coppers, simpletons understand the world knowing who to prioritise and who to demonise.
Allan
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 16th August 2015 @ 10:18 pm
Example for #19 and #21
Example of rape by digital penetration.
Is it correct to call this person a rapist?
In NZ this would be Unlawful Sexual Connection by stupefying.
Looking forward to the day a judge says to the female population, ‘to show men will get full protection of the law regardless of intoxication’. Especially males who become the target of female sexual predators, who wait for the male to become drunk so they can have unprotected sex with the intent of getting pregnant without consent.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/uni-student-jailed-for-digitally-raping-friend-to-show-women-will-get-full-protection-of-the-law-regardless-of-intoxication/story-fni6uo1m-1227487027744#itm=newscomau%7Chome%7Cnca-homepage-masthead-feature%7C4%7Cheading%7Chomepage%7Chomepage&itmt=1439868817808
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 18th August 2015 @ 3:47 pm
Oh now I get it.. I thought digitally raped was when A woman was offended by an email.
Its hard to keep up with this stuff.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Tue 18th August 2015 @ 7:34 pm
This shows how nuts the government is.
It exposes the true intent of the crown in regard to its concept of having offender registers.
It tells the public it’s for child sex offenders but in reality, it’s really about all offenders.
This is madness and irrational.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=11501791
Quote from the article.
‘$146 million over 10 years’
‘Police estimate that, over 10 years, the register could prevent between four and 34 child-sex offence convictions.’
So $146 million /4 equals $36.5 million per prevented crime.
So $146 million/34 equals $4.29 million per prevented crime.
Did I say they were nuts.
Who gets the contract for the IT?
If an offence takes place in a community the police can already press enter on a PC and get a list of suspects who live locally, so what is gained by this register?
Specific high risk offenders already have conditions and monitoring, so what is gained by this register?
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 24th August 2015 @ 3:12 pm