Gulags for NZ Men
Justice Minister Amy Adams and Social Development Minister Anne Tolley this week announced that the government is to provide temporary housing for ‘abusers’ who are ordered out of their own homes through police safety orders and/or protection orders. The reason given is to reduce the likelihood that such ‘abusers’ return to their homes because they have nowhere else to stay, leading to further family violence incidents.
The rhetoric used by Adams is dishonest stereotyping and amounts to propaganda. She refers to the emergency housing as being for “people who commit violence against their partners or families”, “perpetrators of domestic violence” or “abusers”. She refers to those who were allowed to remain in their homes as “victims”.
So how is this dishonest propaganda?
Well, the police safety order legislation when passed was said to be designed to deal with cases in which there was not the evidence to prosecute anyone for anything, but where police considered that a ‘cooling off’ period would be desirable. The relevant legislation, the Domestic Violence Act 1995, states
124B Qualified constable may issue Police safety order
(1) A qualified constable may issue an order against a person (person A) who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with another person (person B) if the constable—
(a) does not arrest person A for an offence against any enactment involving the use of violence against person B; but
(b) has reasonable grounds to believe, having regard to the matters specified in subsection (2), that the issue of an order is necessary to ensure the safety of person B.
(2)When considering whether to issue an order against person A, the constable must have regard to the following matters:
(a) whether, in the circumstances, he or she considers it is likely that—
(i) person A has used, or is using, domestic violence against person B:
(ii) person A has used, or is using, domestic violence against any other person with whom he or she has a domestic relationship:
(b) whether there is a likelihood that person A will use, or again use, domestic violence against person B:
(c) the welfare of any children residing with person B:
(d) the hardship that may be caused if the order is issued:
(e) any other matter the constable considers relevant.
The legislation does not refer at all to ‘abusers’, ‘perpetrators’ or ‘victims’ but only to “person against whom an order is issued” and “person at risk”. Those terms emphasize that no finding of fault or guilt is necessary for an order to be issued.
Even when a constable ‘considers it likely’ that person A committed domestic violence against person B, this is in no way proof or sufficient basis for labeling person A as ‘an abuser’ and person B as ‘the victim’. One may as well simply allow police to enter a conviction for any suspect they wish.
Even when a constable considers it likely that person A used domestic violence against person B, no consideration need be given to whether person B also used domestic violence against person A or the relative seriousness of each party’s violence. Indeed, we have heard many accounts from men who claim that the evidence clearly showed them to be the only victims or the main victims of violence but were still the party ordered out of the home. This is entirely legal for the police to do under the legislation. They might believe that if the violent female continues her violence after the police leave, the man might eventually be provoked into retaliating so they see her as being at risk.
We know from unbiased research that most partner violence involves both parties being violent towards each other, although the most serious partner violence including homicide is committed mainly (80%) by men towards women. In the case of serious violence police will generally prosecute, so cases dealt with by police safety orders will mostly have involved violence by both parties against each other. For Ms Adams to claim that those issued with safety orders are the ‘abusers’ and those not issued are the ‘victims’ is simply fallacious labeling.
Further, whether or not the constable considers it likely that anyone has been a perpetrator or victim of violence is but one consideration for the constable but is in no way necessary for a police safety order to be issued. Police are allowed to consider ‘any other matter’ in their decision about whether to issue a safety order and against whom. They might decide that it would cause the woman and/or her children too much hardship to be ordered out of the home for her violence whereas the man can suck it up. It cannot be assumed that those issued with safety orders were abusers at all and for Ms Adams to claim so is incorrect and offensive, actually abusive especially towards those many people issued with police safety orders on grounds they saw as unfair.
The article further went on to state “In 2010, police introduced special orders which required abusers to stay away from the family home for up to five days.” This was another piece of dishonesty with regard to its implication that men will only need the ’emergency accommodation’ for five days. In fact, the police usually encourage or pressure the ‘person at risk’ to apply for a permanent protection order in the Family Court, and anyway the District Court can issue its own protection order that is treated as if a Family Court issued it. So many of the men ordered out of their homes on police safety orders end up being homeless for much longer periods than five days.
Incidentally, the many news articles and other publicity concerning homelessness make no mention of the degree to which police safety orders and protection orders contribute to the homeless statistics, said to be one in a hundred NZers now. It’s likely that a large proportion of homeless, those living in their cars or sleeping on friends’ couches, are men who have been evicted from their homes on police safety orders or protection orders.
Getting back to the announcement, it may seem as though the government is generously providing accommodation and showing some caring for those it has allowed the police to throw out of their homes and deprive of many other normal civil rights without any fair trial or judicial process. However, the exact basis and intention of the accommodation plan is unclear. Given the unfair, stereotyping nature of the announcement by these feminist politicians, we can expect the reality to be far from generous or caring. Previous mention of such ‘men’s refuges’ suggests the funding may be given to Women’s Refuge or similar male-hating groups to provide accommodation that includes ‘programs for abusers’. There may be an intention to amend the legislation to enable police to order men to stay in the ‘abusers’ accommodation’, turning this into a kind of prison without trial or judicial process. Even if police are not given that power they will have other ways of pressuring men to stay in these feminist gulags. A man can be told that being seen in the same town will be treated as psychological abuse of the protected person for which the man can be arrested, but if he remains in the gulag this will be acceptable.
Mark our words.
Link for this article has been forwarded to Isaac Davison of the Herald, he is the political reporter who was the messenger without question of the Adams/Tolley rhetoric.
Might start to open the other eye slightly.
Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 18th August 2016 @ 3:05 pm
Unfortunately there is a high probability that these measures will be applied more frequently “against” males. It is certain that there will be cases where males will be unjustly treated. It will be interesting to hear of any cases where these measures will be used “against” females. From the commonly known case histories there should be at least 20% usage of these measures against females. Regrettably this 20% threshold will not be met.
Comment by andrew mccarthy — Thu 18th August 2016 @ 8:09 pm
andrew mccarthy (#2): Actually, we know that partner violence in general is committed approximately as frequently by women and men, so fair application of police safety orders would see around 50% made against females. It’s only the small category of violence causing significant injury or death that is committed by men 80% of the time, and in those cases police would almost always prosecute rather than issue a police safety order. I.e. the situations involving violence and appropriate for police safety orders will involve approximately an equal number of male and female violent parties.
According to an evaluation of Safety Orders (‘An Outcome Evaluation of Police Safety Orders’, E Mossman, V Kingi & N Wehipeihana, Commissioned by NZ Police, dated 11/06/2014), 81% of such orders were made against men.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 18th August 2016 @ 9:54 pm
My 14 year old daughter has decided to live with me rather than her mother.
Is it possible that;
My daughter could call the police on me and have me removed from our home.
Her mother might then need to come and look after her as she is a min or, thus her mother and her just took my house?
Worried dad
Comment by Simon grant — Sat 20th August 2016 @ 12:49 am
Simon grant @ 4: Yes, your daughter would be in a ‘domestic relationship’ with you according to the legislation, and could have you ordered out of your home once she is living there.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 20th August 2016 @ 11:34 am
This can only mean tha to suffer no potential loss;
Do not live with a female in your house or your joint house.
This would include your daughter because she may complain to police and when the 22 year old constable arrives and “finds that you are an abuser” or ” has reason to believe that you could be an abuser” she can have you removed for 5 days until she applies for a temporary protection order with out notice.
If I can’t find $6,000 to defend that then she gets it.
Her mother moves in because the daughter is a minor and together have you shut out for your own home.
You could live with a female in her house, should you be orderd from the house by the 22 year old constable to be put up in a motel until more permenante orders to prevent you going back to the house are put in place this won’t matter because it’s not your house.
Guys, we are not going to be able to live with them, it’s not safe.
.
Comment by Simon grant — Sun 21st August 2016 @ 12:11 am
Its about time they started teaching boys at school what could be in store for them in their future and how the NZ government has this huge revenue raising industry of broken families where the man has no rights whatsoever .
The lure of the pussy isn’t worth the long term misery at the end of the day .
Comment by Bunyip — Sun 21st August 2016 @ 10:27 am
They actually don’t want men to know what’s in store for them, they like to keep it a surprise. Who would have thought that counsel for the children would recommend an independent change over venue run by a convicted fraudster, drug dealer with ex psychiatric patients living there.
Who would have thought that he would write letters on behalf of the children’s GP, send them to her, have her print them on her letter head sign them send them back to him so that he could attach them to his submission to the court copied to me and the mother so that I could never achieve shared care as its essential that the same GP is used. (as a guardian the GP sent me the letters, but they were not signed but the ones to C4C were) some will understand the implication.
C4C Had overnight access removed ( GP said in the letter to C4C overnight access is compromising their attachment to their primary caregiver who is their mother)
Apply to the court to be reappointed using a Memoranda seeking clarification (which I was not privy to)
Question me in court ” are you aware you have been under survalliance (why ? to find leverage over me to shut me up, cover his arse and because is closely associated with the police and behaves like they do)
Do a deal with the mother, dobb in your gang mates re meth or we will remove the children and place them with the father.
Go into business with the mothers counsel.
Not even get off his arse when the dead body was hanging in my children’s garage found by my son – but that was ok because it was the mothers house.
This guy was supposed to be a senior counsel.
That is what we are dealing with guys, why on earth would you bother?
That is what we have become.
Good natural fathers have gone.
The mothers new boyfriend is free to abuse our children.
Many would say how come? For so long?
Because this is the desired outcome of many in their industry.
A simple review of this file, publish the finding, gain some credibility in the eyes of the public.
Instead, we get told of reforms, perhaps an inquiry – wow that will restore confidence, yeah an inquiry – perhaps it could be lead by a family court lawyer, how neat we will all believe the outcome.
I have begun to think that the fathers who give up early, after their first hearing in the Family Court are the smart ones, don’t hang around to try to do the right thing by your children because you might end up with a Counsel for the child like the one we had, right Peter?
Stay away from women, go see a hooker
Comment by Simon grant — Sun 21st August 2016 @ 11:43 am
#7 I totally agree we should warn our boys what may be in store for them, I have. Hopefully it will help prevent them falling into the same traps that we did. Will the feminist hogwash stop when the man drought turns into a once in a hundred year dry spell? Probably not but who cares, look after yourselves guys.
Comment by Doug — Sun 21st August 2016 @ 5:57 pm
A good friend of mine has two daughters and a son, all are over 30 years old. My friend has a great relationship with his children and he has really suffered at the hand of his ex wife.
He has been arrested several times, removed from his home more than once but he hung in until his youngest daughter was around 12 years old then he left and never went back. He kept close and lived near by for his children, he is a hero given what he put up with and his children saw much of it.
His daughter became a prominent investigative journalist and she did a feature on the Family Court Process several years ago which is well known and available on google. This young lady became very senior in her profession holding high level jobs in NZ and Australia and a solid advocate of fathers and the terrible treatment many recieve, perhaps reflecting her own situation. I tell this to provide an example of the close relationship and respect for him his children have.
Sadly her dad said to me recently ” I would never do it again” ” I couldn’t do it again” ” I would tell any father who was in a similar situation to just walk away”.
This is a man with this behind him and now grand children, he is a great guy and a family man who has all the rewards of a loving family and he is in a position to reflect on how horrible and debilitating this process was and can compare the wonderful benefits and joy he receives from his family to the horror he endured, yet seemingly nothing has really changed.
He still says he would walk away knowing what he now knows in terms of what he had to endure.
Anyone who has been through this process at length knows what is required to fix it.
Where is the will to fix it?
That is more the question.
Comment by Simon grant — Sat 27th August 2016 @ 12:16 am
Simon grant @10: What specific changes would you make to the law and its practice to fix things?
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 27th August 2016 @ 5:50 pm
I would just like to butt in here and say that there should be a cost per child amount per week based on actual averaged costs and then split that cost right down the middle , THAT would be fair .
What we have to pay currently is basically just alimony the way it is income based and the way they enforce it is extortion which last time I checked is a criminal offence .
Comment by Bunyip — Sat 27th August 2016 @ 8:09 pm
The thing that bugs me is there there is no incentive for lazy wenches to get a job or a career just open their legs and pop a few sprigs out to live of the fathers .
Comment by Bunyip — Sat 27th August 2016 @ 8:11 pm
*sprogs
Comment by Bunyip — Sat 27th August 2016 @ 8:15 pm
Man X Norton: Re what specific changes would be made to the law to improve things.
Shared care as of right (assuming no care or protection issues)
It may be that the family court is not the best place for matters of care arrangements at all as it needs to function as a court. Eg evidence then directions based on evidence.
It may well be that in order to support specific outcomes the necessary evidence has been manufactured in certain instances perhaps by officers of the court thus the process of a court appears to be up held. This situation might mean that evidence which is not accurate must be produced by say,
A GP who is of a certain bent
A court appointed psycologist
The Concept Of Conflict
How many of us have had to listen to some bullshit simply seeking to establish “interperantal conflict” – thus the judge has to consider that there is “comflict between the parents” and an impediment to increased time in the care of the father. Yeah, yeah we get it but hey every mother and father of a child or children is there (in the court process) because why? They get on and agree with each other? I suggest this nonsense is removed as a consideration. The fact is they are there because there is a level of conflict and disagreement and every couple who go to court have that issue or they wouldn’t be there would they?
The Process and Rules
The with out notice application, why the dramatic increase in with out notice applications ? These do attract legal aid – so why do we think there is the huge increase in with out notice applications? There are rules around the use of such applications but who is looking?
Is it the law society complaints Committie ? Yes when a complaint is made.
Do we have faith in the law society complaints process as it is?
If you are not happy with a standards committie decision not escalate it to the LCRO. Last time I looked at their web site they were three years behind in dealing with complaints to their office. So if you don’t have satisfaction with the law society escalate it to the lcro but nothing will come of your complaint for at least three years.
Do we think law society members are aware of this?
Who funds this office? (the lcro)
The Law Society does.
Confident in that process?
Are you confident in the process should you feel a family court judge has not acted in accordance with their role?
You can appeal it if you have a submissions only hearing but you must seek leave of the court from the judge who’s directions you are seeking to appeal and pay an application free of around $ 2000.
Does that seem like a fair process?
In the case of a substantive hearing you can appeal it to the high court with out obtaining leave of the family court.
You might also complain to the juducial conduct commissioner, there is much information around about this process and the number of complaints made and complaints upheld.
If you feel that a psycologists report is rubbish and perhaps just evidence needed to support a particular outcome then you can complain, to the family court.
The Court Coordinator
The person who selects the psycologist
The person who selects the C4C
Any men in this role in NZ Family Courts?
We understand that 5 years ago there was one out of about 50, and now ? Do we know?
Judges make directions on the evidence produced, it is not their job to sanction lawyers who missuse the process.
So is it the law that needs to be changed? Maybe not at all
Can we say the judges are unfair to fathers? Maybe not at all
Perhaps it’s several aspects which relate to the described process.
Perhaps basic day to day care arrangements are better out of the court process altogether.
All of this depends on the objectives, so what are the objectives?
If an objective is to have decent caring fathers consistently having and providing meaning full care and input for the children who will stick around then I suggest aspects of the process are seriously broken because when people realize that they are being “spoofed” they will and do say ” this process is a crock” guess what happened, then they leave and give up. If this is a caring father, a protector of their children then this leaves mummies new boyfriend (who is 50 times more likely to abuse a child than their natural father) to abuse away, and we see it time and time again.
If an objective is to have fathers dissolousioned with
At times totally inaccurate rubbish form a court appointed psycologist
Cost
Delays
No adherence to directions by the mother
Over zealous police policy.
Evidence to support an outcome
Directions with out evidence
Where so called professionals have abused the process, rules, it would not be difficult to fix this and should be fixed.
Accountability, that is in my view first and foremost in terms of change required.
Comment by Simon grant — Sun 28th August 2016 @ 10:31 pm
Simon (#10). I am sorry to hear how your friend feels. I totally relate to the exhaustion he felt during this process, as i too have experienced it. My success at persevering, has been mixed. My two oldest children (21 and 18) do not talk to me, and have cut all contact with me. The only way i can get in touch with them is to send correspondence to the ex’s husband’s work. Letters cards and emails remain unanswered. I did get one mention this year in which my daughter announced on facebook to all and sundry that (my name) is a c***. Nice.
The youngest 2 enjoy their time with me, and seek out my company. I have had more involvement in their lives, as i have been allowed it (after a great deal of $$$ and angst to be allowed that). I guess my point is that we cannot be sure of the outcome for our children. Some are turned against us, or become such very different people to us that we no longer have common ground. My oldest 2 have been brought up permissively, and have never heard the word no, have never learned compassion or care for others, and the youngest have. I don’t know what i would advise somebody else to do, because i know that the stress and upset of it nearly finished me off-financially and emotionally.
On reflection, i would advise fathers to do what they can to have access to the children, avoid petty arguments with the ex (you will never win) but live your life aside from the things you cannot control. never bag them mother to the kids (2 have worked it out) and above all else, put them first when you are able.
Comment by shafted — Mon 5th September 2016 @ 2:59 pm
Well said Shafted.
Your older kids will reflect when they have children of their own.
I would not write off your (and their) relationship. Things change, people reflect, maturity takes a while.
Some don’t consider matters until similar experience happen to them or their friends.
Biology has something magic about it. We have just one real Dad and one real Mum. That makes you special in a way no one else can be.
Yes Live your own life, be open for contact if it happens.
Kia Kaha.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 5th September 2016 @ 5:28 pm
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/124110462/rare-full-court-for-human-rights-test-case-about-postsentence-detention
Never underestimate the evil minds of the persecutor.
He was judged guilty, and punished.
Now the punishment is finished.
They magically persecute more.
My sentence is finished.
Justice has been delivered.
What then is my punishment, as I still breath.
We shall persecute until it stops.
What is next for the persecutor.
Internment of anybody, the imaginary mind creates.
So even imaginary crimes, are real.
No jury required.
What next for the human judge.
And it’s hatred, and it’s immoral mind.
Did it help up the wounded.
Or is it’s forgiveness, blind and ignorant to justice.
These people, these persecutors.
Hold out there hand for money, a poisoned bureaucracy.
And stand on pedestals of righteousness.
And imprison the free.
What then of the free, criminal.
The punishment delivered, and served.
Can they not see justice.
That if they offend, they be punished.
……………….
The stupidity of this is the cost.
$100,000 for a free man, in prison.
Where do I buy shares?
Or even the same for a community mentor.
Who may have 10 former inmates they help.
Not to offend.
Or the persecution of the mentally ill.
Geez, is that not everybody in some way.
I recently heard, I couldn’t understand it.
Therefore to say it, defines mental illness.
Rather than the intellectual capacity of the listener.
Someone else wrote about that.
And was called mentally ill.
Written in plain site, in the bible.
So he is not actually mentally ill.
Otherwise he would be sectioned.
Unless that in the desire of persecution, is false.
But has a condition, needing help.
But no.
They wrote it in the argument.
He has a mental health condition.
He must be persecuted.
They desire risk aversion.
The slippery slide.
To mutually assured self destruction.
……………
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300219622/repeat-rapist-murray-robertson-admits-fresh-sex-abuse-charges-on-morning-of-trial
This person is different.
As had done the crime and did the time.
Was given freedom.
And abused that privilege.
As each opportunity is given.
And the offending happens.
Then the structures to help stop offending can increase.
Until like him, risk aversion has justified reasons.
Another principle applies.
Rather a thousand go free, than one innocent be made guilty.
They make the innocent, become guilty.
With there own fears.
……….
Sadly people do reoffend.
But the good work of bright minds.
Making strategy of help, not power and control.
Can improve things.
Weeding out those that cannot be helped.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 2nd February 2021 @ 8:50 pm