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

Attendance at assessment and non-violence program

Filed under: Domestic Violence — martin @ 8:46 pm Wed 14th June 2017

I am sure some of you have attended these. I myself have attended one some 7 years ago. I will start with a question – what is this about?

Let me explain. I have a custody order already allowing supervised access. In the last “programme” I went along (I think it was supposed to be a group activity) and ended up only agreeing with the guy over one thing – pointless waste of time for us both and so ended up on a one-on-one programme – which also turned out to be a waste of time.

So I would have thought that under the Human Rights Act, I have the right to freedom of thought. Am I to go along and be re-programmed by some git who wants to force me to assimilate propaganda like I might have expect in somewhere like China or the former USSR? Surely the old adage about leading a horse to water must apply here?

Has anyone got a good understanding of how this works?


  1. Martin

    You seem to be adversarial on issues that are rearly insignificant other than obtaining shared care of your kids?

    Programs are designed to enlighten you on your actions, and yes they can be a bastard, irrelevant and a waste of time as I am doing right now. Guess what, 2 weeks left of one hour chit chat at SHINE and I am done, a glowing report will go to the Family Court and I can say “Whats Next!”

    Play the game and tick the boxes. If you haven’t discovered, its all designed to fuck you off, haha are they winning.

    Admittedly its only 6 weeks and costs me money through lost work hours but tick that one off.

    Now that my son wants to live with me full time the ex has now stated I am psychologically abusing my son. I can’t wait till he answers the Judge on that one.

    How is your stock pile going (Whiskey), or have you decided to go it alone rather than pay someone to CONTROL YOUR OUTCOMES.

    Comment by Buster — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 5:19 am

  2. Some previous comments on MENZ Issues:

    Forced treatment programmes not only don’t work but can be counter productive, leaving participants resentful at the society that forced them. The ethics of forcing people into indoctrination programmes are highly problematic. The fact that those programmes are feminist approved does not make the forced indoctrination any more ethical than if they were Taliban approved, Guantanamo Bay approved or Church of Scientology approved.


    Our family law system is now rotten with similar injustice in service of women’s rights. Protection orders subject men to removal of various civil rights on the basis of nothing but a woman’s accusations. Even when those usually unevidenced accusations contain nothing about the man’s behaviour towards the children, the men are routinely separated from their children and are automatically sentenced to a form of periodic detention through enforced attendance at regular feminist indoctrination sessions.


    Further, the man will have been aware that the moment he touched or picked up the female child he would place himself at risk of child-abuse allegations from this woman who obviously would observe no honour or fairness in seeking to punish him, or from passersby who didn’t see the woman’s violence (because feminist propaganda about men being to blame for all evil has so effectively captured our population)… Also, the whole idea of men imposing their judgements and control on women’s behaviour is now considered sexist and bad; in fact we have nationwide indoctrination centres telling men that they are bad for exerting “power and control”.


    … sending those males off to feminist ideology indoctrination programs whilst requiring nothing from the ‘victim’ women is not going to address the true causes or reduce the problem of violence.


    Technically you are supposed to have your defence heard within 42 days (6 weeks) of filing your paperwork but normally it takes longer.
    I often advise using delay to complete the Living Without Violence indoctrination course, get the certificate of completion and then negotiate with the other side for undertakings. Keeping matters out of Court is often an expedient strategy that saves money and heartache.
    Judges are extremely reluctant to discharge orders made by other judges. More times than not it is a complete waste of time and money to attempt to fight a Protection Order after the Temporary PO has been made. My experience is that Judges take the defence more like an appeal and that is about judges covering for other judges no matter if the temporary order should have been made or not. Judicial thinking is that my fellow Judge decided it was neccesary and rightly or wrongly I will uphold their decision (just like the uphold my dubious decisions.)
    Fighting protection orders is normally just a way to keep your lawyer updated with the current model of BMW.


    Protection order legislation in NZ contravenes fundamental human rights, and stricter enforcement of such legislation will cause greater human rights abuse. The rights to occupy one’s own home, to enjoy the possessions one’s own labour has earned, to be treated as innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to raise one’s own children, and to hold one’s own political and philosophical beliefs, are all trashed under the Domestic Violence Act. Men (mainly) are thrown out of their homes on to the street on the basis of unevidenced allegations, are restricted from contact with their children even in the absence of any evidence they have ever caused a risk to those children, and are forced under threat of imprisonment to attend indoctrination centres dishonestly called “anger management” programmes. NZ is going down a very dangerous path.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 9:36 am

  3. Man X – you’re a legend!! I thought it was just me that was going crazy – it turns out that we have an FC that could be compared to One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest – “Medication Time!”

    Has anyone brought this up with an MP or The Human Right’s Commission? – Let me guess, no MP is interested, and not under jurisdiction of HRC?!

    Comment by martin — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 4:42 pm

  4. Buster is it only 6 weeks? (not that only is a short time). Can I make it more, like what if I don’t get it, or if I want to stay and learn more – can they extend it for me?! Like if I say “can you explain why giving her the bash is wrong again, I didn’t quite get that?” will that help me?
    Irish spelling of Whiskey, is that your ancestry coming through?

    Comment by martin — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 4:46 pm

  5. You know I might be out of touch and I am sure many of you have seen this before: DV Hui
    where it state that these (compulsory anti-DV programmes)are effective and worthwhile – once again I am feeling like an outsider or in the words of the “Boss” in the movie Cool Hand Luke – “What we got here, is a failure to communicate!” because I’ve been on one before, it sounds like Buster collects them like trophies, and they don’t seem to be working. Now I can’t speak for anyone else, but I find this report by Boshier insults my intelligence not because of his report as such, but based on what I would consider to be bullsh*t studies and research.
    So correct me where I am going wrong – never hit or charged with any form of “violence” in my life until I married this “thing” and now am faced with being labelled violent person. So you can’t say that I “turn on the violence when I am with her” as I am not with her, as far as I am concerned she is just the mother of my kids, lives separately and I have little to do with her. Why then is she different than the rest of the world – it’s all a crock – I think we are heading into another “dark ages”.

    Comment by martin — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 6:29 pm

  6. I’ve done on of those courses too.
    Only about 3 of 12 people doing it needed it.
    Some being voluntary participation.
    Rest forced on them.
    Not one partner or ex partner required to do a course as well.
    It has some good points and some bad.
    On balance it was condescending feminist bullshit.
    Even then Women’s Refuge wanted the course closed down.
    It wasn’t demeaning and biased enough.
    Had to watch a Women’s Refuge indoctrination video.
    Had 3 examples of experiences women had.
    Hell I could have put a dress on, told my story, playing all three parts and nobody would have noticed the difference.
    But I’ve got a penis so I was the offender.
    No course for the ex.

    While we are threatened with imprisonment if we don’t attend.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 7:02 pm

  7. Thanks DJ Ward. So does anyone know of anyone imprisoned for not attending?
    But here’s the thing 3 of 12, needed it. I know what you are saying, but I’m saying you only need it if you will learn from it – we could send everyone to school cert maths refreshers – we all need it, but wouldn’t many attend and learn little to nothing?
    Now I realise (and too late it is) why the judges have been suggesting I attend a “non-mandatory” course before I hit the hearing – so they could say “hey Toby, you is such a good house nigg*r, you do as massa says!” Our country needs a good firm talking to (in a non-violent PC manner, while asking for it’s opinion and considering that opinion as being equal or better if it’s transgender or female).

    Comment by martin — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 7:18 pm

  8. Dear Martin,
    your comment struck me as very astute.

    But here’s the thing 3 of 12, needed it.

    But the painful reality, would those 3 people actually benefit in the intended way, from that course?
    My guess is that maybe 1 might and also maybe none would benefit.
    So for a huge expenditure of time, effort and cost, surprisingly little value is delivered.
    What “evaluations” as have been prepared, have just evaluated courses against their intended deliverables in class, not on long term social value. These evaluations have also neglected to study and measure perverse outcomes. One example is a man who feels aggrieved deciding, I will kill the b(woman) when I get the opportunity.
    Serious propensity for explosive violence needs to be addressed in a much more careful and intensive way, than an hour a week.
    Then we also need to consider the damage done by seeking perpetrators from only among men. Could we be neglecting a large proportion of perpetrators and parties to mutual violence? What consequences are caused in our society, by a jUSTICE sYSTEM that is so slow and dense?
    Maybe we would do better to leave violence between adults not addressed at all and make sure that children are protected from not competent parents, both mothers and fathers. Maybe surprisingly, a lot of women have a lot to fear from a successful, working child protection system.
    I suggest that a few more women would be not allowed to care for their children while very young, if judged on actual skills, than fathers?
    Shoot me, if you need to!

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 15th June 2017 @ 10:28 pm

  9. shoot me if you need to!

    Well, the positibility of a loose axe head ricocheting off a backswing is a big ask!

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 16th June 2017 @ 7:15 am

  10. if judged on actual skills

    I know what you’re saying, but it is only in some cases, for various reasons, that they already have the skills.

    But given the opportunity, most would still try and succeed, while the mother was still throwing her toys out of the cot, and the baby out with the bathwater.

    This was an observation I made through UOF

    “MUM, she’s not looking after the baby, show me how to do it.”

    I remember a very good example of this where Judge Jan Dogue (fucking idiot) issued a warrant and gave a baby to the sole care of a drug addicted mother who was lapsing in and out of 48 hour benders/comas.

    When it comes to shooting people, I’d be more than happy to put a bullet through Dogue’s head for what she put that child through.

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 16th June 2017 @ 7:30 am

  11. Reading RNZ this morning:

    An Otago University academic Sue Bagshaw says: (regarding youth suicide)

    There is also a big issue in terms of our high rate of child abuse

    Comment by Evan Myers — Fri 16th June 2017 @ 8:00 am

  12. If you remember the case of the mother who continually left the baby in the bath unattended, and the father who continually raised the alarm – then the baby died.

    It is a good illustration of the male observation of risk.

    I fought hard for information and reviews both through the Children’s Commission and the ombudsman on the basis of what evidence the police should provide to the Coroner’s Court based on the fact that the Police withheld evidence from the manslaughter trial.

    As you would expect, the wall just kept getting built higher.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 17th June 2017 @ 7:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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

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

Skip to toolbar