MENZ ISSUES

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

Immigration and our future

Filed under: General — rationalist1 @ 8:44 pm Sat 6th May 2017

New Zealand, like all Western nations, continues to import some of the worst people and practices that other nations have to offer. The resulting friction between good and bad immigrants, and politicians of every position regarding the matter attracts a significant amount of attention.

Achieving reasonable treatment of men is, let’s be realistic, a low-priority issue for the few people in NZ who care and have power. There are many in this world who couldn’t care less if you are a feminist, masculinist, female or male – you are not in their group and so must be converted or killed. When talking about how best to identify and keep out such people or otherwise deal with them of course the matter takes priority over gender equality as well as many other serious but not immediately life-threatening issues. While lunatics in NZ, those trying to get in and their confused, liberal supporters keep attracting so much attention, issues seen as low-priority will barely be addressed; ergo reforming the unfair and damaging immigration system is a masculinist issue.

Read more

35 Responses to “Immigration and our future”

  1. Jerry says:

    Well in my view a pretty realistic piece. But I remind we have some radicals in our Western society too – I read just this morning that Stephen Fry is bein prosecuted for blasphemy in Ireland. By the way, I support the statement Fry made which is being used to bring that charge. So we have home grown extremists too. But yes we have a tide of others coming and too many too quickly changes society too much and too quickly. People will be resentful and trouble be caused. The Mayor of Barcelona is lamenting that tourism etc is changing the character of her city. I used to dismiss the white nationalists, but the more this process continues, the less averse to their ideas I become.
    But maybe there is hope in this. I have mentioned several times, that in my view one of the few things which could upset feminism is Sharia law. Immigrants most certainly are bringing Sharia law here, and our democratic government of the people’s will [sarcasm] seem to welcome it. From what I see of it, Sharia and feminism are incompatible. So when there is a serious competition between Westminster law and Sharia law, will male police be the ones put at risk? Of course… the girls will be in the high office giving orders.

  2. Man X Norton says:

    NZ’s policy of choosing immigrants on the basis of wealth, i.e. if they have $10 million to invest in NZ, was always dangerous. The proportion of people with that much money who acquired it through dishonest or unethical means will be higher than the proportion of hard-working poor people who have low morals. For example, we are now informed that a number of Chinese serious fraudsters and criminals came to NZ under that policy and China is trying to have them returned to face justice.

    The proposal by Adam Banks to which you linked has some good ideas but it still places too much emphasis on economic contribution by proposed immigrants rather than recognizing that hard-working poor people are likely to make more valuable contributions to NZ’s society and well-being.

    Adam Banks’ suggestion that people are tested and if found to have ‘narcotics’ in their system they should be disallowed appears to be based on the same superstitions that have long motivated the ‘war on drugs’, as well as following the US misuse of the term ‘narcotics’.

    Having immigrants sign an agreement to respect a secular society with a high degree of religious and political freedom seems a good idea. But it will be confusing for immigrants who then find that NZ’s national anthem assumes the existence of a god, our primary schools allow exclusively Christian indoctrination of children, and our politicians including the current prime minister keep on parotting the falsehood that our country’s laws are based on Christian principles.

  3. Buster says:

    NORTON

    How do you become a hard working poor person? Your comments on rich people smacks of envy.
    That comment is self defeating, because if your hard working and smart you can’t stay poor ???

    Not all people who are Rich or loaded are dishonest and deceitful and if you bothered to do your research on World Billionaires, you would see that “SELF MADE” are rising faster in the Forbes 400 than any other category, surpassing OLD MONEY. Shit mate are you a labour supporter.No wonder you come across as being angry.

    The National Anthem is just that, it doesn’t mean we have to abide by it, Jesus as for secular society I say don’t bring in people (MUSLIMS) who avert the rights of women and children, mutilate their genitals, believe in sharia law and want to suck of the tit of the state!

    You want evidence, go to Owairaka and Mt Roskill and you will see inclusivity ! NOT

    We don’t force religious views on our populace we have choice Norton, in our schools and work place.

  4. Buster says:

    Oh yeah for the record I am a poor person and working my way up!

  5. Jerry says:

    Buster – financially I was broken by the family court. The condition in the custody order that I “give the kids all of my time for intensive parenting”, ensured I could not go into paid employment, but instead had no option other than to live a life in poverty based on the DPB. Feminists checking that I was not earning by doing perk jobs also ensured we stayed down. Not that I did not work – it depends on how you define work. Working on the crappy cars to keep transport for the kids especially in bad chilly weather was one. Taking the kids around, doing access, school things and sports interests. Op-shopping because we could not afford new things, and yes buying the best food we could get for our meagre housekeeping allowance. Nowadays if you saw me, you would see an old man dressed in old rags and in ill health. I sacrificed myself so my kids would have the best start. Your suggestion that hard work always brings positive results – while true for some – its not for others. Many folks work hard in the face of great adversity and are denied their just rewards all the same. I’m glad your efforts are rewarded. I hope that continues for you. It would be nice if you could be a little more understanding of the paths others have to tread. And sure I would admit to being jealous of wealth – Why? well with enough wealth, I could finance some real initiatives which could improve the prospects for New Zealand Families – Without dollars we can only dream – and whats wrong with having a dream.

  6. Man X Norton says:

    Buster @ 3: I would prefer that you avoid personal comments. Speculations on what political party I support, implying that I didn’t ‘bother to do research’ and comments about me coming across as angry are all personally directed and irrelevant to useful discussion of the topic. And I don’t remember being your ‘mate’.

    I did not claim that all people who are rich are dishonest or deceitful. I claim that among people with $10 million wanting to emigrate to NZ there will be a proportion who acquired that much money through dishonest or unethical means, and that proportion will be greater than for poor, hard-working people wanting to emigrate to NZ. That’s not to say that rich people are on average less honest or ethical than poor hard-working people, though I suspect that will be the case in some of the countries from which our immigrants come, countries with a lot of corruption, weak rule of law or laws that actively promote exploitation on racial, class or religious grounds. NZ lets people in readily on the basis of having $10 million so those who want to get away from the country in which they acquired that much money dishonestly or unethically are quite likely to see NZ as a good option. It’s a foolish policy and we are seeing one example of the results regarding the number of exactly such people whom China is now chasing for major fraud and other crime.

    As for the claim that hard-working people would not be poor, that’s not correct. Even in NZ there are many good, honest people working on the minimum wage or close to it with little prospect of changing this. They don’t buy Ferraris and Harleys as the P distributors do. Being ‘smart’ will improve a person’s chances but not necessarily by much. In many other countries if you are born to a peasant family you will need to work hard to survive but will remain poor. These are the immigrants more likely to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay in NZ, to be accepting neighbours and to bring sound, humane morals than, on average, those who came on the basis of having $10 million.

    I don’t disagree that Muslim teachings are ill-suited to a fair, humane society, though Christian teachings don’t have a good record there either. Note that we also mutilate genitals in NZ but it’s only boys’ genitals, though I accept the degree of mutilation and harm is usually lower. Christian indoctrination in our state primary schools is a problem for many people, and although parents can choose for their children to opt out, in practice those children are often treated poorly.

    A national anthem that has people singing as though there is a god they are speaking to is in my opinion inappropriate for any secular state. I don’t sing it and I notice few people usually do, whereas an anthem that limited its content to what most people can accept and feel proud of would do a much better job. However, we all have our opinions.

    Anyway, this is all of little relevance to MENZ Issues so I won’t spend any more time on it.

  7. Downunder says:

    @Jerry

    The point you raise about the difference between ‘work’ and ‘income’ is very relevant, and as you point out also your sacrifice for your children.

    The same thinking is relevant to the effects of child support, especially to those who have their lives destroyed by monumentally disproportionate assessments, in order to strip their asset base or future income.

    While we often discuss our absent men, suicides, lost to other countries, numbers in jail, etc, we don’t include those financially dibiliated through other financial processes.

    These are all male adults fleeing some form of financial oppression and are replaced by immigrant workers.

    I see immigration falling into categories, when you look outside the stated requirements, and that is replacement male labour, and sympathetic importation of women oppressed by other societies.

    It’s total self-defeating liberal-nonsense, imposed on our population by a few misguided state misfits.

  8. hornet says:

    Divided we FALL. Divide and Conquer – Appears to be working VERY WELL IN NZ. Just as was planned.

    This keeps us all arguing about the IRRELEVANT. Do we actually agree with anything collectively on this blog?

    lets start with the premise that we are ALL HUMAN. Surely we can agree on this point?

    Perhaps then we can all agree that those in power have a LEGAL duty to protect Humans from HARM.

    and we must surely agree that the LAW should be EQUALLY APPLIED to ALL – not one set of rules for the Rich and one for the Poor ( or using the Racist method – one law for Black and one for White ) as is currently the case in NZ – another DELIBERATE Divide and Conquer Strategy which you all seem to have eagerly brought into here.

    Then perhaps we start with DEMANDING that CHILDREN be Protected from HARM – which is NOT currently happening within the NZ Family court racket – this surely can be agreed by both MEN and WOMEN – MUMS and DADS.

    If you can start with this simple display of Human UNITY – you might actually get some traction in forcing CHANGE for ALL.

    keeping Mums and Dads in CONSTANT Argument is part of the game.

    So find something that actually UNITES you both on issues that matter – and that one issue MUST be our CHILDREN, who are being deliberately abused and harmed by corporations for profit.

    Without UNITY – we can not have DIVERSITY.

    Without TRUTH – you CAN NOT have FREEDOM.

  9. Jerry says:

    Hornet @8; Dare I disagree with you – well I’m known for foot in mouth disease. As soon as you single out any demographic for priority, like for instance paying particular attention to “children from harm!’ but others could be women from violence etc, it is exactly “Divide and conquer”. In my universe everybody matters equally, so I do not put children women or anyone else first. I think putting these serious issues through any type of filter, be it Gender, race, age, or socio-economic class; then one makes it about those filters and not the issue which need to be addressed. I say we are all dependent on eachother. If one allows fathers or anyone to be subordinated, then it effects the others. An example was clearly shown on an old TV series “Missing pieces. So many youngsters who were mostly hunting their long lost Dads. Those kids were damaged and deprived by a system which has contempt for family unity, or the nest security children are entitled to expect in their families. So No, I don’t think I can agree with all those foundation principles you have outlined. My kids safety depended on me and I think this is true in most cases. The children’s best interests cannot be seen seperate from parents best interests.

  10. hornet says:

    Jerry, thanks for engaging in rational debate…..

    We both share common ground, and I agree with you, children safety is dependent on fathers as well as mothers…. PARENTS, even when parents seperate……the kids must come FIRST, above all the other petty disagreements we adults indulge in.

    I was trying to test the water to see what can be agreed on by ALL ………UNITY of MIND must be addressed and agreed on before any one group of people can move towards improving the current systems of conflict.

    So you did not negate the fact that we are all HUMAN – so there a starting point – can we all agree we are all humans – who should be granted Human Rights Protections under the LAW?

    We must also share a common interest in protecting kids from HARM – can we agree on that point?

    Yes parents have a primary role but so does the state.

    Its disturbing at times, when one attempts to promote a discussion on UNITY – it rarely gains any traction – which perhaps tends to indicate some here are intent on remaining locked into conflicted – polar opposite positions, while promoting negative points of view forever?

  11. Jerry says:

    Hornet @10; – I still balk at putting anyone first. In my universe the older persons growing up into mature fair minded adults comes first. If they do that, then the kids interests are assured. Indeed, doing that may well avoid the separation altogether.
    As for the rest of your piece, it gave me the impression you still might believe that the system can still rationally evaluate the issues, the justice and be used to bring about positive change. I however have despaired of that long ago and as I have mentioned many times in other threads recently, I do not believe that evidence or rational arguement is welcome, and it won’t be considered.
    As for my perception of MENZ and groups like it, few join unless they have had some seriously upsetting, disruptive catastrophe. Those folks are so involved in family and financial crises that they have no part of them left over to become political. And then sticking their necks up politically might well spell further catastophes for their imperitave family case. Although each member will want to see change, their focus will really be on their own case and their own family’s interests – and who could blame them for that? It is an obstacle to overall unity however. I was once one such person myself.
    But anyway, lets suppose everybody did reach a concensus about some keystone policies – where to from there? Where to go for a hearing, let alone representation and justice? Yes, I am a pessimist, I don’t see that happening.
    I applaud your hopefulness and optimism. I do not share it.

  12. hornet says:

    Jerry and thats exactly where the system wants you – lost at sea – with no hope, with feelings of insignificance and helplessness.

    You and everyone else here have all the power they need to change everything – you have everything you need within yourselves – there is NO outside salvation and there never was.

    I do not believe the current system will change anything – I think we have all experienced that, but it will have to change when people use the power they all have to force it to change.

    I start with the premise that we demand unity over the issue relating to protecting kids, because currently the system is using kids to force conflict between man and woman, harming kids for profit, and keeping parents in constant conflict.

    yes man and women will always have differences of opinion and will have different points of view – that is the nature of our biological differences. The system enflames and plays on these differences and uses them to keep us in conflicted argument – so a few can profit from this conflict.

    Most of us have learnt NOT to play this game, yet the harm to kids still continues – since children are vulnerable and helpless without their parents united in protecting them from harm inflicted by others for profit.

    separated or not we as parents still have an obligation to ensure our children are given opportunity and are protected by the law we consent to be governed by.

    You are correct the current system will never help you in its present form. It has been designed to deceive you and lure you into a false sense of security.

    In every case it relies on you and everyone else – CONSENTING to everything they do to you.

    Do you realise this, we all CONSENTED to this and everything we received in return.

    I agree – in each individual case it appears many are looking out for their own individual solutions to their own case as you say – but as we look at every case discussed here, the concerns are the same for ALL.

    If you go to a womens groups, they have the same concerns, but from a female perspective. The exact same concerns about the secret Family court. And Women are also, like Men, very concerned that the Family Court is NOT protecting Children as they are required to do BY LAW in accordance with the Care of Children Act.

    Once a large proportion of Parents – Mums and Dads – collectively Unite on core issues, of which there are not many to agree on – we then have the ability to force significant change within the current system – which is presently not adhering to the law and is in most cases flaunting it, because no Unity exists within the people to demand that those in power do adhere to the LAW..

  13. Jerry says:

    Hornet @12; Sure, you are absolutely correct. The system does want us – as you say ” – lost at sea – with no hope, with feelings of insignificance and helplessness.” Thats why they have the policies, laws and mechanisms they do have, and its why they ignore their own moral and ethical rhetoric. Its also why the law too often does not matter and is irrelevent – its why police enforce policy as opposed to law – Its why some groups can protest without harassment and even go to excess damage and violence – and others Not. Its why some stories [Even false ones] get published and stay visibly promoted endlessly, while others based on peer reviewed studies do not.
    I still will not concede that anybody – not even children – come first. Actually looking back, I had to come first even though I did not realise it at the time. At the time I would have said I was putting the children first. But Really I had to come first because without me, the children’s lives were going to go very badly for them. I had to win, and that meant I had to look after myself. Here is an example: – the time arrived when I was directed to surrender my children to strangers who I had strong grounds to doubt. I did surrender them – why? – well okay I lost that battle but kept myself in the war. Had I resisted then police would have collected me and given me a record which would hamper my future legal efforts. So I say everybody is equally important. When you say the kids come first, then that is the same as the CYPs war-cry “we only have the children’s best interests at heart”. Well how about the family’s best interests, or the society’s best interests, or the country’s best interests. Nobody comes first.
    Really I reject utterly the suggestion that we “consent” to this, or that by consenting we enable or abet the troubles we encounter. This is about a group who want power and then want to keep it. In this regard I found Machiavelli’s philosophy about power very enlightening.
    I disagree that “In every case it relies on you and everyone else – CONSENTING to everything they do to you.” I did not provoke, deserve or consent to the allegations made against me, or the things said of my childrn. This was in control of others who had good connections into the halls of power and authority which I completely lacked. Further after allegations, nobody listened to my evidence or opinions [I was a nobody – scum even and that without the slightest evidence], even supposed friends deserted. I was powerless, and that is a reality under those circumstances.
    Regarding this which you have written – “If you go to a womens groups, they have the same concerns, but from a female perspective. The exact same concerns about the secret Family court. And Women are also, like Men, very concerned that the Family Court is NOT protecting Children as they are required to do BY LAW in accordance with the Care of Children Act.”
    It may interest you that my two abused children are now both female adults. Their journey with me and then interactions with potential suitors gives me a pretty good look into the female side. I am also on very good candid terms with my ex. As a solo Dad, I also participated in parent meetings dominated [mostly exclusively] by mothers. I feel I do have a window about into the female views and experiences. And I hear their gripes too. BUT even so, excepting my daughters,they have little idea how it is for men. I also add that all men are their sons, all too often [and for no good reason] raised without biological Dad in their lives. What age is it we go from cute son to abusive bastard? Or do we really. I have also known a lot of great men and fathers, and also sat by their women, overhearing the nasty sniping and bitching that goes on out of the guy’s hearing. I’ve even witnessed humiliating denigration of a father to his face in front of a crowd. I recall feeling such pity for him, so beaten down, and I was still powerless to help. I think the comparison you make between males and females in the process, and that they have such similar concerns is not quite fair.
    Now in other posts I have mentioned things which can change this. The most likely is the clash between two extremist agenda’s – Feminism and Sharia law.

  14. Downunder says:

    The above discussion on unity, for me has a simple answer.

    Each problem, although similar, is individual and not the same.

    It is human nature to want the problem removed, as oppossed to being a member of a particular group.

    A group offering broad resolution that solves many problems without focusing on any individual can grow quickly.

    The extremes in this case might best be illustrated by say the difference between

    ‘Engaging a lawyer to Revolution’.

    That, in our cases, has been achieved before with Union of Fathers.

    It is not unlike HART and the Springbok protests, or Whina Cooper’s land march.

    Looking at unity is quite a different process to dwelling on differences.

    I’ve seen this behaviour pattern play out in successful businesses.

    Essentially it comes down to forsight and leadership, placing that picture, that option, that opportunity, and the encouragement to allow others to believe in an outcome, that draws threatened individuals together.

    For men this unity and revolution will eventually come when enough are injured and excluded, and want change.

  15. hornet says:

    Had my child not been deliberately alienated from me as a FATHER – by my ex partner – ably supported by the state and its corrupted lawyers for child – there would have been NO CONFLICT.

    Ill say that again, had there not been an intentional removal of my child from my life – there would have been NO CONFLICT.

    In pursuit of PROFIT for this corrupted legal system we currently have – Human Care and protection has taken a second place.

    This is common within all Corporate Profit based systems which are driven by the BUSINESS requirement to MAXIMISE PROFITS, while destroying Human Resources, destroying Natural Resources and decimating human rights and protections.

    This is a battle we ALL FACE – and its not just CHILDREN – a Human Resource being preyed on for PROFIT……its every resource on EARTH.

    Jerry I fully understand your position of self preservation in order to remain in the WAR as you say ……that is a basic requirement – we are no good to our children if we do not look after ourselves FIRST.

    Protect our Health, mental state, don’t react to Provocation and Entrapment which is deliberately aimed at destroying your character and reputation – the exact and deliberate process of the NZ Family court system and its agents.

    Sticks and Stones will break my bones but NAMES will NEVER hurt me. A valuable lesson to all fathers .

    So what….its the movement of fresh and in some cases foul AIR. Laugh and ignore – those who try that tactic really hate being ignored. They need a reaction……dont give them one.

    Provocation to react by using verbal abuse, threats, false accusations are just that ……..petty attempts to entrap you and get you to react. So your credibility can be destroyed – so Jerry this plays into the Self Protection phase we must all adopt – DON’T REACT to something that is NOT HURTING YOU and CAN NEVER HURT YOU.

    So yes in that sense Jerry that is placing yourself FIRST and I agree we all do this.

    So when that is in place, then you can and must focus on the Cause of HARM – WHOis being destroyed in pursuit of PROFIT = and the WHY – the CHILD is the tool by which they garner the most reaction – emotional reaction. Especially from FATHERS.

    Humans are HARD WIRED to react to INJUSTICE – we are hard wired to react ANGRILY at any perception of INJUSTICE or UNFAIRNESS, or in the case of FATHERS – seeing your CHILD BEING HARMED – as a FATHER your job is to protect that CHILD from HARM. Those in power know this. Thats why they push all the right buttons to get a reaction.

    So what do we do when the State is initiating this HARM – encouraging it, and ensuring it continues so that a few lawyers can make a PROFIT from it all…..for this is the very system we have currently.

    They are not focused on CARE and PROTECTION in the FIRST INSTANCE. No Corporation is. Profit first.

    Jerry….my daughter is now of age and is sensible, knows the TRUTH and has awoken to all that has occurred to her = she is a victim of State sanctioned abuse and deliberate harm for profit = and now she has the ability to go them for DAMAGES.

    I kept my head, did not react to hot air and lies, and stuck to telling my daughter the TRUTH – ALWAYS………..

    If I can help other PARENTS by posting here then that is why I do it.

    As for CONSENT – sadly Jerry we did CONSENT to everything which we have been subjected to – we just did not realise it and probably still don’t.
    Perhaps one day I can explain this to you.

  16. Jerry says:

    Hornet @15; Reading that, we are almost carbon copies. I can’t disagree or even quibble with all except consent. I just ended a phone call from my 28yr old most abused and damaged daughter. Her violence began at age six Months, and I did all the right things, and right chanels to tackle this while realising that if I rocked the boat too much, I would be cast out leaving my kids vulnerable – without safety. Today she was at the orthotic department to get another report on her ankle MRI. That ankle was damaged in what I see as nothing less than a deliberate and criminal assault. This happened at school, and was not even treated as “bullying” let alone assault. The only trace with ACC records it as an accident, and going by the number of “accidents?”, she is made to look as if the defect is with her – ie: “Accident prone”. She has serious ongoing consequences which so far have denied her career, social and activities. Really she is 28 and is yet to get a toe on the ladder of life. To get around she must use a whole leg/anlke rigid orthotic. Bending down, climbing stairs or hills is a real problem – she lives in Wellington. Today she has learned that the proper fix is an ankle replacement, but because of her age – she is denied this. So besides the rigid orthotic she will have holes drilled in her ankle which will somehow generate some lesser type substitute cartilage in the joint. Also steroid injections. I never consented to this nor did she – who would. If it were that I always responded to folks greetings in the popular acceptable PC ways, I would feel as a traitor – so I do not. Recently I revealed my GRUMPY persona to MENZ. It spits in the eye of all the hypocrites who estimate themselves as the good decent clean nice polite wholesome folks. Anyone who meets me [even in passing] encounters Grumpy. But from what you write Hornet, I like you. I think we have much in common; and a lot of the time are probably saying much the same thing using different phrases perhaps. I have no doubt you are a valuable resource which other can glean for ideas and inspiration. Sadly we cannot pass on any recipe for success and justice. GRUMPY Jerry

  17. Mac says:

    Hornet you head the nail on the head when you said had your child not been alienated from you by your ex then
    there would be ‘NO CONFLICT’.As soon as that happened you did what any father would do and made a stand.I was in the same situation and had my kids taken overseas for a time.We are no match for family court,the lawyers when the other parent uses the system to put themselves first and you in the trenches.I agree you have to really dig deep and try and control your emotions and sense of injustice so you can hang in there.I was angry at the system and had to grow a thick skin.
    I guess my thoughts on this for other fathers especially the ones with very young children is to try and look after yourself first as Jerry pointed out.Not being able to see your children is heartbreaking.
    When you say we consented and didnt realise it for me that means we got mixed up with the wrong individual and then had a family.Game over.Theres a doco called 50/50 which interviews Dads in the states going through these very things you have been talking about.Heres the link if anyone is interested
    https://gomovies.to/film/50-50-20567/watching.html?ep=637703

  18. Jerry says:

    Mac @17:- Mac A lot of us have been though all this stuff. Make no mistake you and your family have my whole hearted sympathy and understanding. I am no different to you and others here except I’m further along and no longer having Family court, cypfs or IRD troubles.

    But I have encountered a lot of codwhollop and cons throughout my path from a lot of persons presented in our issues as if they are honest professionals, but in reality are fiendish torturers. Many pose as social workers, counsellors, lawyers, and a few masquerade as if on your side.

    Nowadays I’m interested in the Bull-shit like what I encountered and I see in the news.

    So here I detail what I see as the defects in the supposed CONSENT.
    About consent: If we say we believe that by choosing our partners in life – we have “consented”, and presumably that consent affects any issues which may stem from our choice down the track. Then would that consent imply that we own full responsibility too? Also can it be that others consented and have responsibilities too? Or is this got filters such as gender race, age, socioeconomic class; culture, disability etc? I like rules, perspectives and policies which apply to everyone equally. In my current opinion, this is another PC mechanism which I have come across before from counsellors and social workers whom I did not at all respect. For me PC is not “politically correct” rather it’s “politically compliant/conformist”.
    But lets assume that through our choice of partner some time back we have consented, then may we test this consent mechanism more broadly. Will it generally apply and be valid?
    A topical example: a young female gets into bed with a male. Nature takes its course, but in the morning, she screams to the cops “RAPE! – I did not consent”. Nowadays I doubt even that mythical contract would hold water since she only need to say it was under duress. So under the philosophy that our choices of one moment made under the apparent circumstances of that moment; would that mean we have consented to all the future unknowns which could arise – even far fetched ones.
    Again that example: what difference would alcohol make; presumably taken voluntarily, and fully understanding its intoxicating effects. Is that still consent?
    What about persons on faulty fairground rides, or taking selfies in risky locations; only to suffer serious injury or death. Did they consent to that?
    I recall old images of Polish Jews. They had been rounded up and kept confined in poor conditions with their wives and children. No doubt they were there because they made a choice not to risk being shot – but still a choice. Mechanism repeated itself; onto the trains; into the concentration camps; and so on. Each time they made an assessment of the facts at hand without knowing what was down the track. I say that’s not consent – but in writing it right now I see similarities with some stories on MENZ.
    I feel we can only be responsible for and consent to whatever we have good information about. Normally we would assume females likely to be good mothers to our kids – but that is not necessarily how it turns out. We all know that during courting people put on airs and neaten normally messy rooms. We wear clothes to attract only to revert to frumpy stuff once the honeymoon is over.
    The idea that by choosing a mate, we consented to whatever might later happen is for me a “PC – ie: political con”.

  19. Downunder says:

    That vow muttered at the alter:

    For better or worse, or was it – For better, For worse?

  20. Jerry says:

    [email protected]; Does anyone who says it really mean it? But Consent can’t be taken in isolation. And if its good for the gander it should also be good for the goose – equality in all things including consent and responsibility. And with regards to the few long suffering souses who did stick through thick and thin to the end, maybe they did so out of conditioning? Perhaps conditioned/brainwashed about some authority figure’s portrayal of morals/ethics/duty or righteousness? These being factors maked a decision making framework for that individual and unique to the individual. But none of us have a crystal ball and in spite of one’s commitment, the person you choose may not share it. Words and deeds
    often don’t match.

  21. Downunder says:

    How many dimensions are there to consent.

    Just two?

    Permission or Agreement?

  22. Downunder says:

    Adding to that, I also see this argument stuck in a legal void, in that,

    The policing of permission is an aspect of the criminal jurisdiction … but,

    The consenting to agreement is an aspect of the civil jurisdiction.

  23. Jerry says:

    Downunder; There may be only two factors to consent. However a lot of people’s behaviour is not consentual – as per my concentration example – survival – is a powerful instinct and would make permission and agreement a nonsense. Even procreation is primal survival. We are programmed to send our genes down through new generations. Also conditioning, primal thinking and behaviour – such a lust are well reputed for irrational behaviours. We are human with human eccentricities. We also evolve through age, education, illness, experiences. Indeed primal thinking and conditioning is seen here on MENZ in may forms regularly. What BRENT was called a “Barbarian” and that would seem a justified description. In my world he was frustrated and concerned as we all are – but life and other factors have conditioned him to deal with it with overtly aggressve words, if not actions. Something is behind that, is he responsible? – well we can’t know because we don’t know his full back-ground and story – even then we will see it through the miriad of our own lenses. Who says we get an accurate picture anyway? I say we do not fit in such rigid and confining definitions. What we see out there is real, and that is what I look at. Whatever definition, life will continue as it will continue.

  24. Downunder says:

    @Jerry

    When you say something is ‘not consensual’ as you referred to, it is neither permission or agreement but in realty not consensual because it is in fact something else better described by a fitting word, such as exploitation.

    Did the inhabitants of Herod’s castle at Masada consent to mass suicide, or decide it was the best alternative to Roman slavery?

  25. hornet says:

    After years writing on here – I have finally seen a glimmer of UNITY. Mark this day in history on MENZ.

    1. We agree we are HUMAN.
    2. We Agree to the requirement to Preserve ones Self so that you are strong and can protect you children.
    3. We appear to agree that we have a system preying on children and allowing them to be harmed for PROFIT – keeping every Parent ( Man and Woman ) in Perpetual CONFLICT.

    BUT – we can not agree on CONSENT.

    We ALL CONSENT to be Governed on the BASIS that as Law Abiding Citizens we will be Protected from HARM.
    The Contractual agreement between Citizen and Crown promises that Our Safety and Security will be protected and that the LAW will be applied EQUALLY TO ALL.

    This is one of the key reasons WHY – once in the Family Court – those abusing this process want you convicted, entrapped and or arrested for some crime – to destroy your status as LAW ABIDING – and so no longer LEGALLY PROTECTED.

    CONTRACT LAW – Everything we do is governed by the LAW OF COMMERCE.

    The Corporation of Government is a COMMERCIAL for PROFIT Organisation.

    The laws of Contract require several things for there to be a valid CONTRACT.

    An Offer
    An Acceptance
    A consideration – something of Value
    A written agreement signed by both parties in WET INK. Your Signature – your consent.

    What is also very important to understand is the requirement of CORPORATIONS to ADHERE to the LAW. The laws of COMMERCE.

    In Commerce and in any CONTRACT there are PERFORMANCE DEMANDS.

    BOTH parties MUST adhere to the CONTRACT and fulfil their Performance Promises as per the COMMERCIAL CONTRACT.

    IN NZ we have clear cases where the Corporation is NOT fulfilling its PROMISES – failing to adhere to the Contracted OBLIGATIONS to PROTECT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from HARM.

    Children – MOST IMPORTANTLY are NOT being PROTECTED from HARM.

    A direct refusal to PROTECT Children, then drags Good Fathers into Conflict – a form of Provocation = as good fathers seek to protect their kids from harm – resulting in many Good FATHERS becoming LAW BREAKERS = NO longer LAW ABIDING Citizens

    You become forever a Domestic VIOLENCE OFFENDER with legally protected NO RIGHTS and NO CREDIBILITY.

    NO legal Protections at COMMERCIAL LAW.

    So we have ALL CONSENTED to be Governed by the laws of COMMERCE – STATUTES.

    You by your OWN CONSENT are a Corporate Asset – you are a THING – Property to be Managed for PROFIT and controlled by Debt.

    A CONTRACT is BROKEN when one party refuses to adhere to their CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.

    At the time a contract is breached – you have the right to withdrawn your CONSENT to be Contracted.

    And at that time, the Party in Breach of Contract – the Corporation – can be SUED / INVOICED for DAMAGES.

    So on that basis Every parent and every child so harmed and damaged must now hold the Corporation to Account for Direct and Deliberate BREACH OF CONTRACT.

  26. hornet says:

    Just on this note, that is WHY my ex raced into the Family court with her lawyer and immediately tried to get Violence, and Protection orders made against me.

    There WAS NO EVIDENCE to SUPPORT these FALSE ALLEGATIONS.

    Had I NOT defended these Ex Parte without Notice applications – I would have fallen victim to the above fraud.

    I suffered Ten years of Provocation from my ex and her new partner – to REACT – the system wanting me to react Violently so as to give credit to the constant lies and false accusations made – that I was violent, abusive, threatening and someone to be FEARED.

    To get you Convicted or declared INSANE with a Mental Health Disorder is a KEY requirement to destroy you. And place you in Default of the Contract. No longer law abiding.

    An agent provocateur – police informant tried to do the same to me some years later – entrapping me – which had he been successful would have seen me placed in prison – NO LONGER a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.

    Secondly – there were further attempts by this same informant – who made false accusations to the police – about me as having mental health concerns which would have rendered me unfit to own my firearms.

    Another attack successfully destroyed by the Hornet. I had evidence that destroy the informants credibility – had I not, they would have been successful in destroying my credibility.

  27. Downunder says:

    I think the confusion arises over consent because it must be isolated first to align with freedom to consent, then as to whether it is a permission or agreement situation.

    This Feminist rubbish, like consent only applies until we change our mind, is redefining consent to whatever suits our purpose.

    Off the back of that, you have to ask, when you get down to rational discussion, are woman capable of exercising their own consent, if they want men to be entirely responsible for process.

  28. Downunder says:

    @Hornet

    Historically, the soldier protected society, which protected the father, who protected the child.

    Feminism, the soldier protects society, which PAY mothers and whoever else to protect the child, and fathers can either get stuffed or PAY the INVOICE.

    Is that what you’re saying?

  29. Jerry says:

    I still do not agree at all about consent. One comment says we all consent to be governed by the Government. Well leave me out of that “ALL” thing. I have nobody to vote for, I did not vote because I do not consent to the government or administration. Another handle which is the same as government is “Feminism”. Not that whatever I think or not, do or not makes one jot of difference. But please do restrain from the “We all….. ” type statements. Only I speak for me. Too many folks in NZ use phrases like “New Zealanders are all …… etc” when nobody asked my opinion. “All Right thinking folks….” ; there are so many folks making statements massively exaggerating the support they actually have. I’m content to let you have your opinion, but on the matter of consent, I disagree and have yet to see any case that makes me waver in the slightest.

  30. Downunder says:

    I am in the same camp @jerry:

    I’m not going to encourage the House of The Bitch by voting for someone who won’t represent me.

    But then we-(those old enough to remember) are used to the principle of ‘The Queens Peace’ but our Constitutional Monarchy appears to have turned into a misguided misfit more concerned with its own manufactured identity than the preservation of principle and responsibile government.

  31. Buster says:

    I gotta respond to some of the comments but I gotta go to work because I am poor !!!

    HORNET I have seen some very good comments posted by you well done, thought provoking and relevant.And here is something you may want to chew on before I add my 2 cents shortly.

    Family Court 12 years in for me

    Accused of incest, assaults, had my ONLY son kidnapped

    Four Protection Orders——————— Beaten them all

    Applicant lied in 2 of them ————-

    No show in 2015
    Applied for another in 2016 and 4 got to tell the court I was out of the country for 5 months

    Thats working overseas ( because I am poor)

    Judge David Burns under investigation barbecue he put a indefinite P.O on me against my son whom I have had 50/50 for 9 thats nine YEARS.

    Stated I was psychologically abusing my son, cherry picked his comments

    Two weeks latter mother kicks the child back to father saying
    ” Your dads lying and P.O doesn’t affect parenting Order”

    Burns , refused order and affidavit by child stating wants to live with father full time!!!

    So, I am considered a “LIFER” in penal code terms by the time served in Family Courts.

    Going for change in Parenting Order in one month should be fun

    The child now hows the power and I will enforce his rights to determine his future.

    Some of you guys live in a fantasy world of what you would like to see and not what reality actually is.

    So feel free to pass comment before I post my summation of father son relationships.

  32. Downunder says:

    Isn’t the Family Court a fantasy world that tries to insulate women from the reality they won’t deal with.

    Since you have such a long running case Buster, you probably have one of the Family Court hatchet men for a child’s counsel.

  33. Jerry says:

    Reading Buster’s piece: I feel and understand, am haunted by how many bits are shared by us all. But his term “Lifer” and my mind immediately replied with we are all lifer’s whether we know it or not. We are lifer’s because we are male. I saw this morning – on Stuff or Herald {can’t recall off top of my head} an item about prominent successful kiwi boys who are “still Mummy’s boys”. Mother’s day coming and women are pretending that they are on the same team as their sons. I assume their sons have not yet encountered difficulties; but if they do, if anyone suggests thay are doubtful in any way – watch the clobbering machine get into action. The same media which one moment trumpets him as “Mummy’s boy” will arrive as his destroyer. We have seen it happen over and over. Do they get more points for dragging down higher and more successful men? Maybe… By the way, watch when Father’s day arrives. How much positive ado, special lotto draws, competitions are there? Dare radio stations make a fuss? Mostly I see items in the lead up and during Father’s day which continue the denigration and destruction of men.

  34. Buster says:

    AWESOME!

    Great responses guys and this is what this site is all about and yeah its a good thread.

    To any father out there that has a story I have always stated I am against the state regime to deny you access to your kids, its wrong period!

    What we need is stories that show positive outcomes for them and that we provide helpful information to those that join because of our history and our knowledge.
    We know it , we breath it, we inform.

    I tell my story so that others can see and hopefully gives courage so they can also fight a corrupt system. My son who is 13 wants to live full time with me! Now he wants to tell a Judge in person and they are shitting themselves. DON’T ever give up, I am living in awe of my own son’s character and fortitude.

    To those who have lost everything (me included), you still have the one thing the state doesn’t have – A Spine- , so stand up straight and never ,ever, ever submit.
    It doesn’t put bread on the table but by Christ when your kids tell you they love you it fills my tank for months.

    Lastly I am of the firm opinion that this site can help fathers to wean themselves of the use of LAWYERS and SELF REPRESENT. I will gladly support any person seeking help here. Money is better in your pocket for your kids okay.

    Jerry I hear you and agree.

  35. Mac says:

    Buster I hope your son at 13yrs is strong minded and makes sure he stays with you.At 16 yrs a child can make up their own mind and the judges have no say in it I believe.You story is certainly one that many of us have at some point been through with the bullshit family courts.I totally agree when you say the state should never deny good caring parents access to their kids.Its your god given right to be with your family and the state can go to hell its none of their business.The other point you make which is very relevant is to get rid of these blood sucking lawyers and yes self represent.When I was dealing with the family courts I started with a lawyer and then eventually did things myself.Your hard earned cash is for you and your family not a lawyer.
    My youngest is nearly 18yrs now so im nearly over the finish line with all the tangled web of family courts,Ird,lawyers,counsellers etc.Been over a decade for me and yes you can lose alot including your mental
    well being.As stated by many here its most important you look after yourself first and foremost.
    Heres a link I listed earlier of a documentary called 50/50.If you get time check it out.It really shows how we as fathers are getting shafted by a corrupt family court system.It also gives you some hope to carry on.
    https://gomovies.to/film/50-50-20567/watching.html?ep=637703

Leave a Reply

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