- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
Not sure if anyone had read this family violence review/ submission? Every statement is all “her” “she” and it’s absolutely rubbish!
Link below from the NZ psychological society website. Their submission and review of the DV act 1995.
PDF link: Family violence Law Review Submission .
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
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.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
What a load of half baked drivel! Lets hope the radical feminist who wrote it isnt a true representation of all involved in the mental heath industry of New Zealand.
I particularly liked how she would like to see mandatory arrests for breaches of a protection order without evidense.
Comment by Jono — Tue 21st June 2016 @ 7:51 pm
Great article, It becomes a parody almost. I liked this bit, of legislation. Basically gives all men a way to charge their unfaithful partners. Think about it financial abuse caused by coercive actions that they knew would happen after the offending. CS is that financial abuse!
Definition of Domestic Violence
(1) For the purposes of this Act, “Domestic Violence” means-
(a) Controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour,
(b) Physical violence, or
(c) Abuse, including but not limited to, psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality.
(2) For the purposes of the definition in subsection (1)-
“coercive controlling behaviour” shall mean a course of conduct, knowingly undertaken, making a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.
“coercive or threatening behaviour” means a course of conduct that knowingly causes the victim or their child or children to-
(a) fear that physical violence will be used against them,
(b) experience serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on the victim’s day-to-day activities.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a person shall be deemed to have undertaken a course of conduct knowingly if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would conclude that the individual ought to have known that their course of conduct would have the effect in subsection 2
Comment by too tired — Wed 22nd June 2016 @ 12:26 am
After reading into this article it’s an amazing situation where the Auther has simply written the opposite view point to everything men’s rights are fighting for. It’s the other side of the coin I guess. But both sides are fighting in their own way for the same thing an equality approach. Fairness under the law. Protection from unjust or untenable situations.
The only real solution is for everyone to never offend against each other. For the lives of everyone to be all rainbows and sunshine.
But in reality unlimited resources need to be given to the police to deal harshly with all evidence based offending. Real violent offenders need dealing too. An eye for an eye. Stop the involvement of currency in domestic disputes. Like most crime without money propping it up, it wouldn’t exist.
Comment by too tired — Wed 22nd June 2016 @ 1:33 am
The authors conspired with man-hating groups to produce this inaccurate document mainly expressing feminist opinions. No men’s representatives were consulted it seems. Men matter so little, huh?
The authors also ignored a large body of research such as the Dunedin longitudinal study and a lot of international corroboration of its findings that most intimate partner violence is indeed by both partners against each other when experiencing conflict. The NZPsS submission addresses a small proportion of domestic violence, generally but not entirely the worst proportion, as if this represents all domestic violence according to current definitions. This is misleading propaganda.
The submission is an embarrassment for a profession that is trained to understand research. It corrupts principles of science in favour of feminist ideology.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 22nd June 2016 @ 10:00 am
From my perspective (a man that was once a victim of serious female violence but was put in a cell and charged as a solution to the problem) this stuff makes my stomach churn. This holistic ignorant summary of the ever expanding bias against men is at least useful to rebut, protest against and some day consign to the rubbish bin.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Thu 23rd June 2016 @ 1:52 am
In Nz the police charge arrest the man. Often their case/evidence is so pathetic that they are compelled to drop the charges.
Defend the charges
Elect a jury trial
These are the few rights that we have.
If the police have a decent case against you they may go for it.
If not and their key witness or yours (the woman) is a flake, nut case then cross examine her. She has to convince 12 members of the jury not just one judge.
I told a senior retired policeman of an instance where a person was arrested, clearly not in breach of a protection order (dished out like confetti these days)
elected to defend it by jury. This guy was locked up for the weekend.
The police with drew the charges.
The guy was therefore locked up for nothing, that is likely a breach of power of arrest.
The policeman (retired) explained that; they broke the law but adhered to police policy. They will not be held accountable unless taken to court for breach of powers of arrest.
They rely on people not taking them to court.
To be fair, the police are in a difficult position, if they are called don’t arrest and the woman comes back and kills the man in this country she may be considered a hero and him a bastard and rapist who just hasn’t been caught yet(but good job the prick is dead.(couldn’t resist that)
If the woman calls the police, they don’t arrest him, he goes and harms her, the police are called all sorts of things in the press arise, they may have to then roll out Greg O’Conner to perhaps tell us all how lucky we are. This is a bad look and someone has lost their life. The police are in a difficult position in any such instance so they bat for safety, arrest first and save their reputation and in their view potentially a life.
Does any one see a down side to this approach? (David Bain, Tenea Pora, Aurther Allen Thomas need not respond)
Comment by paul smith — Thu 23rd June 2016 @ 11:52 pm
Read it and fuck what a cracker that is.
Its simple really guys.
Wear a bhurker. (blue for boys)
Do not talk to women.
Do not look at women.
Always look at your shoes when you see a woman approach.
Have your penis removed.
Tell your neighbour to have his penis removed.
Get breast implants.
Practise affirmations like; you bastard, you will never see your kids again, get out you fucker, I am calling the police. This will help to condition you to live the life of a “new age good kiwi bloke”.
Ban Viagra
Just as well the requirement for Psychology is an “Arts Degree” and as we might expect what a picture they paint, so colourful.
Wow what an impartial list of contributors to this paper. Perhaps there is a few they missed;
The Helen Milner admiration society.
Midweek Tania Witiko discussion group.
The Leigh Ann Sabin comedy collective.
Comment by paul smith — Fri 24th June 2016 @ 12:33 am
paul smith @ 6: The police almost always arrest the man, and any man present will do it seems from this case. Note also that neither the police officer who made the wrongful, careless arrest nor the police dog handler who let his dog unnecessarily bite the wrongfully arrested man will be prosecuted, the former due to ‘personal reasons’. Women in NZ get a pussy pass, police officers get a policey pass.
Interesting that the wrongfully arrested man was an ex police officer. It’s a good thing that those associated with police experience something of the white knight discriminatory behaviour routinely practised by police.
Note the news story stated the man was wrongfully arrested
Um, well actually, no. He looked nothing like the ALLEGED offender who was earlier ALLEGED to have threatened his daughter etc. Police arrived and arrested someone without having checked out the situation or obtained any evidence that a crime had been committed at all. This is routine police behaviour in their white-knight support for the feminist war against men. Comparisons with SS actions towards Jews, although hackneyed, are difficult to avoid.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 24th June 2016 @ 10:17 am
Perhaps the best thing to do fathers is to;
Do nothing, let the court, mother sort out the children
You wil end up with fuck all influence any how.
They will grow up the mothers children and her new partners children.
You will be arrested.
You will be chastised.
You will be blamed.
You will be allinated.
You will always be in and out of the NZ Family Court Process
You should leave her to do wha the does.
A positive outcome for us fathers is to work on ourselves and learn to accept that the children are hers. You were just passing through and dropped off a little sperm on the way.
Move on
These are not your children – at all.
They are her’s
Go and have a life
Abomdan the children as she wishes.
This is the only way.
Boycott the court process.
Leave the psychologists to write reports on their own roman sandles or rug munching girl friends for free.
Let counsel for the children contrive shit on his dog for practice.
Go get a woman who likes you as you are, who does not need to change you or need all of your change.
Get someone who admires you for what you do.
It’s funny really when you go to the Internet dating sites, how many lonely old fart boxes are seeking “their soul mate”, they need to get real. After they have worked over the ex, who the fuck wants them? What has the NZ woman become? Appealing guys?
Let them enjoy what they have created
Well they created it.
Comment by Paul smith — Thu 7th July 2016 @ 12:35 am
Hi Paul,
The question may be what is best for your kids?
It may be they do best with a passing sperm donor.
However many children would love a father who is more involved.
Learning the art of when to be available, when to be there, when to retreat is the tricky part.
Good luck with that.
Your kids know where you are; they will return/visit/be in touch!
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 7th July 2016 @ 9:39 am
The family court uses psycologists and has referred to them as “specialist reports”
A psycologist produced a report the father has bonded with the children, the children has bonded with the father, the mother has not bonded with the children.
The father applies to be the primary care giver as it is implicit tha the children bond with the primary care giver.
A hearing is set down
Two weeks prior to the hearing and 12 weeks after the first report , with no professional intervention , guess what ? A miracle. The mother has bonded with the children.
The hearing was held, her honors judge Johnson makes directions, the time tha the children are in the care of the father reduces.
The boy becomes hysterical at his kindly with three teachers consoling him .
The father applies to have the psycologist back.
He rhonor judge Johnson makes directions with out evidence.
Finally 18 months later the. Same psycologist comes back, oh gee the mothe hasn’t bonded with the boy after all.
This bullshit put the little boy through hell.
Imagine collecting your son week after week seeing this happening to him. Counsel for the children Peter Harrison wouldn’t even get off his arse to go and see for himself.
The psycologist was Jo Leach who we might applaud for her last report, however three kindy teachers were about to give their evidence in a hearing. Time for a little honesty Jo.
Jo leach is regarded as an expert and was a key note speaker on report writing. For the court at a workshop in. 2015
This process was a scam and absolutely had detrimental outcomes for the children, the young boy especially.
Things have changed though. The complaints process for bull shit reports is now less existent whereby you must make a complaint to the judge who has just made directions based on the report you are complaining about.
Confident in the process guys?
Why would you be based on the. Crap submitted by these people.
Comment by Paulsmith — Tue 12th July 2016 @ 3:46 am
You need to login to facebook first to see details about a child psychologist in wellington. It is unbelievable.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/265939243568684/permalink/675433339285937/
Comment by kumar — Tue 30th August 2016 @ 1:08 pm
At 7:50am today [Thursday 8th June] – the Dunedin Longitudinal Study is being cited on National Radio as if its a reliable authoritative study. Naturally the topic is not family violence – that is too inconvenient to take seriously. This topic is child obesity. So they are cherry picking which aspects of this study are worth respecting.
Comment by Jerry — Thu 8th June 2017 @ 7:55 am
Haven’t read the report in full but I don’t know what you guys are complaining about – the evidence speaks for itself as per the submission:
“…It continues the misogyny in our law which has been present for hundreds of years and is based on men asserting that women frequently lie and are “vindictive” ” Research has shown that women don’t lie….
Now go back to being redundant.
I found it interesting that Family Violence and or Domestic Violence always has a man as the perpetrator. How can a society of psychologist which must contain some men, allow such an article to be published?
Comment by martin — Thu 8th June 2017 @ 9:21 am