Our Prime minister reading a speech which was written by Amy Adams or which feminist politician ?
WATCH: Major government Family violence announcement (Elections coming soon ……… )
- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
WATCH: Major government Family violence announcement (Elections coming soon ……… )
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.
Apart from a slip of the tongue by Amy Adams it all SEES good except tht TVNZ edited the PMS speech. A complaint has already been sent to TVNZ.
In the item on the Government’s new domestic violence initiative TVNZ showed a clip of the Prime Minister John Key saying “A good father, a good step father and a good man does not hit, intimidate or control his spouse…”. In the speech that John Key made he immediately went on to say “The same goes for women who are abusers, you do not gain respect by hitting them, belittling then or making them live in fear of you”.
TVNZ by editing this speech to show only the part of the speech where Mr Key spoke of male perpetrators is not showing balance on this controversial issue of public importance. In fact they are deliberately painting a picture that only men can be violent.
Consider for example the false impression that would be given if TVNZ only showed the latter part of that part of Mr Key’s speech indicating women as abusers. That would be unbalanced therefore so is the way TVNZ portrayed this issue.
TVNZ has a responsibility under the broadcasting standards to present issues that are controversial and of public importance with balance. I submit by editing the statement from Mr Key to highlight men as perpetrators TVNZ has not addressed this issue with the required balance. It would have taken only a few seconds to show Mr Key’s awareness and concern for women as perpetrators and thus uphold its responsibility to balance. By not showing those additional few seconds there was a deliberate editorial policy to make out it was only men who these measures were aimed at.
Independent academic research for example Magdol et al based on the world leading cohort study out of Otago University have found that more women than men were violent to their intimate partner. TVNZ never portray the issue of family violence from this perspective. Balance could be achieved by other programmes showing the alternative view but this does not happen. In this case though I submit the only reasonable way to show balanced would have been not to edit Mr Key’s speech with a gender bias.
A few more would help.
@Alastair. Yes I saw that on mainstream news. Same old misandric tone, msm must appease the witch lords. This country can go to hell with Alison Mau, and Clementine Ford leading the charge. Those two could teach the devil a trick or two about treachery.
Same old story.
Until good, ok and could be good fathers are helped, encouraged and in the first instance valued, nothing will change. This will make our serious child abuse worse.
The mothers new partner is 50 times more likely to abuse the child than the natural father, a decent father is a protector.
Any initiative which makes it more difficult for the decent, ok or could be good father is a backwards step in terms of fixing our child abuse because good fathers leave, give up and get pushed out of the game. We know why and how this happens.
If there is no accountability for mothers to adhere to parenting orders and no recourse other than for the father to apply for an order to enforce the order they will continue to give up, leaving the way clear for mummy’s new partner to abuse away.
You want to fix it:
False allegations should be dealt with
No recourse for mothers not adhering to parenting orders must change.
Decent fathers should be helped, encouraged and supported.
Obstructive , mothers should be dealt with via a process which ensures that they understand their obligations to the child/father relationship.
The mothers new intimate partner should have the same vigour applied to them tha the court process applies to the maturlal father.
Lawyers abusing the process and rules should be held accountable. The Law Society process and the lcro does not cut it.
Juducial complaints commissioner. Does this process inspire confidence and encourage fathers to committee to the family court process?
These things are required if we want to lower our child abuse and father less child statics in my view.
Our pm was prepared to comment on women/mothers so good on him.
If there are no care and protection issues and there are hearings after hearings with the father as the applicant who is being obstructive ? But on and on it goes.
We await the details. I’m hopeful that the changes might show a bit more realism about some of the issues, but we’ll see.
This does not bode well for men in my opinion. The only positive idea I can see might be access to stopping violence programmes without needing a protection order.
Apart from that it looks like less due process and more power and funding for feminist agencies, who seem to be pleased with this initiative:
Herald: High praise for family violence law revamp and Changes to Domestic Violence Act welcomed
The Law Society reports that changes include:
• Getting help to those in need without them having to go to court
• Ensuring all family violence is clearly identified and risk information is properly shared
• Putting the safety of victims at the heart of bail decisions
• Creating three new offences of strangulation, coercion to marry and assault on a family member
• Making it easier to apply for a Protection Order, allowing others to apply on a victim’s behalf, and better providing for the rights of children under Protection Orders
• Providing for supervised handovers and aligning Care of Children orders to the family violence regime
• Making evidence gathering in family violence cases easier for Police and less traumatic for victims
• Wider range of programmes able to be ordered when Protection Order imposed
• Making offending while on a Protection Order a specific aggravating factor in sentencing
After several decades of responses based on man-hating feminist ideology, NZ has one of the highest rates of domestic violence in the world. John Key’s plan to “do it more” is likely to make things worse for families and children.
The Herald helpfully includes a list of resources – can anyone spot what’s missing?
Where to go for help or more information:
• Women’s Refuge: Free national crisisline operates 24/7 – 0800 REFUGE or 0800 733 843 http://www.womensrefuge.org.nz
• Shine, free national helpline 9am- 11pm every day – 0508 744 633 http://www.2shine.org.nz
• It’s Not Ok: Information line 0800 456 450 http://www.areyouok.org.nz
• Shakti: Providing specialist cultural services for African, Asian and Middle Eastern women and their children. Crisisline 24/7 0800 742 584
• Ministry of Justice: http://www.justice.govt.nz/family-justice/domestic-violence
• National Network of Stopping Violence: http://www.nnsvs.org.nz
• White Ribbon: Aiming to eliminate men’s violence towards women, focusing this year on sexual violence and the issue of consent. http://www.whiteribbon.org.nz
Yes What’s missing from the heralds list of DV helplines is any that offer help to male victims of abuse or assault.
Although males make up 40% of victims and females are equally violent in relationships, the facts are inconvenient so never mentioned . More women admit to being violent towards their current partner than claim they’ve ever been hit in their lives by a male.
I was accused of domestic violence in 2014 it was harrowing and although no evidence existed there were many ways that I was presumed guilty without any consideration of facts.
Seemingly things are increasingly becoming worse for males accused as a result of these new changes.
It’s fine to look after victims.
But ITS NOT OK- to presume someone is victim because she is female and the accused is male.
IT’S NOT OK to have a court hearing for a protection order before any fault of the accused has been proven.
I was a passive guy before I went through their wringer.
Not so much anymore.
This is my very first post – ever, anywhere, and on any topic! I had heard of the PM’s comments but didn’t realize they were taken out of context – case in point! I am currently going through hell with the mother of my children after a 7 year period of shared custody. Now that I have a new partner, it would appear she wants to take the kids from me. First came the interim custody notice without notice, now accompanied by an application for a protection order. The cherry on the top is that the police are now at my door more, I suspect more often than say they would be at a drug dealer or similar. To hear that changes are in the pipeline doesn’t lift my spirits in any way. Instead I have some solace in knowing that there are other people out there who have the insight to see it how it really is.
Good post martin @ 7. Such a common story. The FC does often end up recognizing that an application for a protection order was a ploy to bolster a woman’s case regarding children or property, but it can take a long time to get there with much financial ticket-clipping on the way. Unfortunately, if the woman is an especially good liar or the evidence isn’t so clear, the FC will tend to err on the side of the female.
You seem to be literate and intelligent, so consider representing yourself whilst buying some sessions of advice from a suitable lawyer to consider the other side’s affidavits and to proof read your own. That will save you money while the other side’s costs accumulate; for example every letter her lawyer sends to you will cost hundreds of dollars. Also, one can often do better in FC without a lawyer arse-licking the judges, the process and the feminist ideology underlying family law. The advantages of self-representation seem usually to outweigh the insider knowledge and experience of a lawyer through the FC process.
Protection Order, presumably its a temporary one at this time ? Is it?
The children will be identified in it
The mother will be identified in it
You will have 90 days to defend it.
Cost to defend – about $6,000
Are there any special conditions relating to access or care arrangements for the children?
Are you able to see the children under the terms of the protection order?
The with out notice application to remove shared care after 7 yers
Who was the e judge who granted it?
Who was the mothers lawyer who applied?
What were the grounds for the with out notice application ?
Far too many with out notice applications – legal aid applies for the with out notice application
What are the conditions of the iIntrium Sole Prenting Order?
If the order to change shared care with out notice has been granted with out good good cause this appears to be coming more common.
It may well be a glaring abuse of the process.
Do not expect the law society to hold their member to account.
Do not expect the lacrosse to be able to look at it for three years.
You will need to deal with the parenting order and the protection order or how old are the children?
You might be better to tell the children what has happened
Explain you love them and are there for them when they are ready to see you ( basically they would be voting with their feet and not caring about orders but more about what they want to do)
Then give up on the process.
This approach would perhaps depend on the children’s age.
I had this myself recently but it was after about 20 hearings, it took 13 to achieve shared care even though the first hearing established that “there were no care and protection issues”.
If the mother is an ardent nut then the process will support her and you will have a shit time of it for a long time so do consider giving up and the older the children are the easier that becomes. She can have as many orders as she likes if the children are with you because they want to be and they are old enough to tell a cop that and they are sure that’s what they want in terms of access or care arrangements.
Let’s see, how long have we had the Women’s Refuge movement in NZ? … about 30 years or so? And we have ended up with the highest rate of domestic abuse in the OECD. So, since that succeeded so well, let’s do a lot more of it! Yes, that’ll fix it!
Good point Ted (#10). Did anyone notice on the photo of Ms Ang Jury, head of Women’s Refuge, on the wall behind her was a poster of the ‘Duluth Power and Control Wheel’. This wheel uses gender-specific language as if the only violent people are men and victims are women, and that’s because the underlying ideology has it that ‘the patriarchy’ seeks to maintain power and control over women. The wheel has contributed hugely to feminist mass hysteria and victimhood paranoia by suggesting it’s ‘abusive power and control’ for a man to
– threaten to leave a woman
– threaten to report her to ‘welfare’
– making her afraid using looks, actions and gestures
– putting her down
– making her feel bad about herself
– using jealousy to justify actions
– making her feel guilty about the children
– making her ask for money.
Labelling these things as ‘power and control tactics’ is a good trick in that it seeks to impose power and control over men, for example, making it morally unacceptable for any man to inform a woman he wants to leave the relationship.
Under the rules of engagement set by the ‘Power and Control Wheel’, it’s unacceptable for a man to inform his partner that he will go to the authorities if he comes home again to find his children unsupervised while she’s out of it on alcohol, opiods or meth; this might ‘make her feel guilty about the children’. It’s unacceptable for his facial expression to show his disgust at discovering his partner’s secret romantic communications with another man. It’s unacceptable for him to ever give any critical feedback to her no matter how stupid or inadequate her actions were; this is ‘putting her down’ and might ‘make her feel bad about herself’. It’s unacceptable for him not to keep on tap all the money a woman might ever dream of using, because otherwise she might be ‘made’ to ask for money.
The Wheel assumes that women never do any wrong and that men will never have any basis for being dissatisfied with a woman, or if they are they should never speak up. It also assumes that women have no responsibilty for their own feelings and behaviours, and that if a woman feels guilty or uncomfortable in any way this is the man’s fault.
The Wheel has long been discredited for both its false ideology and its uselessness in addressing relationship problems, yet here we see Women’s Refuge who receive lots of our tax money still displaying that stupid wheel prominently and no doubt applying its false ideology in their thinking and responses.
Although some of the other behaviours on the wheel will amount to abuse or violence, by including the stuff above the wheel can be used to label almost anything a man does or says as ‘power and control tactics’. Many men have been on the receiving end of such accusations when they simply attempted to stand up for themselves or their children.
Um. High levels of reported domestic violence is bad, and we need to be concerned. But high levels of reported domestic violence is good, and we should congratulate ourselves on our success.
I always wondered why politicians get paid so well. This sort of reasoning is well above my pay grade.