Labour’s policy remains guilty unless you can prove you are innocent
With 20 years jail in the balance, when will National publicly as Labour to clarify this policy.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
12 Comments »
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.
Any good lawyers in South auckland matrimonial property
Comment by Grange bond — Thu 14th September 2017 @ 2:19 pm
Nothing new. In the Courts the dogma “you are deemed guilty unless you can prove you are innocent” has existed for years. Judges pay lip service to “innocent until proved guilty” knowing full well that juries assume that cops wouldn’t lay charges if you’re not guilty.
Comment by JONO — Thu 14th September 2017 @ 2:32 pm
JONO: That does happen but it’s still the case that many accused walk free because of the ‘beyond doubt’ standard of proof that the Crown’s case did not meet. Juries involve judgment by our lay peers who will sometimes come up with decisions based on their assessment of the situation more than the hard evidence. More frequently, juries acquit people, mainly women, on compassionate grounds even when the evidence has established proof.
A large lurch away from ‘justice’ occurred when unanimous verdicts were abandoned to allow a majority verdict if one juror disagreed. It seems to me that if one person out of 12 maintains doubt, then there is reasonable doubt.
A change to find someone guilty of a criminal offence because he can’t prove otherwise is certainly something new in New Zealand. It would formally abandon the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard of proof and any need for the Crown to meet that standard.\
It’s no coincidence that it’s only crimes mainly committed by men for which this abandonment of such a fundamental principle of our justice system is favoured by the Labia Party.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 14th September 2017 @ 11:57 pm
It’s a complicated subject, imo.
What pisses me off is that children have to go to court to get counselling. I don’t know if it’s 13% conviction, I was told lower by police but either way, that’s a lot of children damaged before they get to counselling, imo.
Comment by Julie — Fri 15th September 2017 @ 5:33 am
Not complicated at all. Simple. Are we going to assume males accused of sexual crimes are guilty unless they can prove their innocence, or are we going to maintain the requirement that the Crown proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 15th September 2017 @ 10:12 am
This is a blog page from a guy sharing his opinion from his firmly hinged perspective,
Its a bit of a read, but I found it interesting so I thought I’d share the link,
https://freetheanimal.com/2013/04/connecting-relativism-multiculturism.html
Comment by voices back from the bush — Wed 20th September 2017 @ 10:38 pm
Thanks for that link ‘voices’.
Regarding the feminist conference speech by Ms Ali, the blog author Richard Nikoley said he gave it 7.5 out of 10, criticizing only her advocacy of affirmative action. It was interesting to hear a feminist speech again (at a conference called ‘All About Women’) and to see that little has changed regarding feminist dishonesty, duplicity and false propaganda. I would give Ms Ali’s speech perhaps 1.5 out of 10.
I agreed with her argument that western women have a great deal to feel grateful for and to celebrate, including emancipation from unnecessary restriction on their choices, contribution to society and legal rights.
I didn’t agree with her claim that western women are now “equal before the law”. Certainly in New Zealand and I suspect for most other western countries, women are unequal before the law, in the privileged direction. New Zealand has a dozen or more laws that are gender-specific and each one favours women or disadvantages men, while there is not a single law or legal right that favours men more than women. Women almost always receive more favourable treatment in our Courts than shown towards men for the same offending.
Ms Ali later acknowledged that for child custody following separation, western women enjoy more rights to the children than the fathers do; she said this was worth celebrating, and she didn’t seem to recognize how this contradicted her claim that women are equal before the law.
I didn’t agree with her claim that advancement of western civilization was best explained by “the unleashing of the potential of all its citizens”. This is a hollow slogan without supporting evidence or argument, typical of feminist claims. It could equally be asserted that the unleashing of women from nearly all restrictions, duties and responsibilities is leading western civilization towards an early demise.
I didn’t agree that girls in western countries have as much right as boys to education; girls are given more such right by dint of overwhelming female representation as teachers and designers of the education process. In NZ, schooling is largely by the women for the girls. Rather than provide boys with education in ways that work for them, boys are more often labelled as problems or failures, put on medication, suspended or expelled.
I didn’t agree with her that it is “fantastic” that women are favoured in job applications over similarly qualified men, as affirmative action to redress employment imbalance. It’s fantastic if you agree that everything is ‘all about women’ but not for the success of the employing organisations or for the productivity of the country.
While it is to be celebrated that women can keep and live on money they have earned, generated through business, inherited or gained through other means, Ms Ali didn’t mention the grevious inequality here in that an average man in western countries is required to give much of what he earns and owns to some woman who ditched him, even after a deliberate plot to partner with him for just long enough to seize his money.
I didn’t agree with Richard Nikoley that Ms Ali’s scathing rebuke of western feminism and its moral relativism on grounds of multiculturalism was “spot on”. In fact it was highly unbalanced. It’s not only women who have fewer human and civil rights in many non-western countries and under their religions. Men are also subjected to strict rules, responsibilities and restrictions and are punished harshly if they contravene them. This includes an expectation to go to war and die to protect their regime. It may well be that overall women are more disadvantaged but actually that would be a complex calculation, and many women in those countries point to the ways they are protected and privileged. As for circumcision, that is illegal in western countries for girls but ok for boys, a scandalous inequality even though male circumcision is not typically as traumatic or impacting.
I didn’t agree with Ms Ali’s claim that the advances for western women all required “a great deal of struggle” or that this struggle continues. Huge advances for women have been achieved over a relatively short period of time and most have come about quite easily based on largely male decision makers listening and attempting to apply fairness, compassion and integrity to those decisions.
Anyway, that’s enough of All About Women, a telling title for a conference about the new royal class in western societies. The rest of Ms Ali’s speech wasn’t worth the time it would take to challenge it, a familiar outcome for feminist speeches.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 21st September 2017 @ 12:58 pm
The protester that burned themselves today at parliament looks like another victim of the Family Court system and Child Support etc. The signs on the ground say something about mothers and not killing men etc.
Comment by Too tired — Thu 21st September 2017 @ 5:12 pm
An unconfirmed soure (trademe message board) Claims the media has reported he hed a sign,
He was standing a few metres away from where we were protesting about these issues at the beginning of the month, almost no one listened, almost no one cared.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Thu 21st September 2017 @ 6:02 pm
Take a look at the comments, people just treat it as a joke,
https://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=1719120&p=2&topic=7
Comment by voices back from the bush — Thu 21st September 2017 @ 6:07 pm
There is a post up now for comments on the incident.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 21st September 2017 @ 6:13 pm
7, Man X Norton thanks for a detailed responce the other day,not much I can argue with there, even for arguments sake.
I found the article from doing some research into other area’s where they have these ‘title nine’ issues around sexual assault in the US, I should have been more specific, Im sorry.
The article features a small part of a summary from Margret Grossman, a feminist who switched camps and red pilled with regret the day her son had been accused of sexual violence.
I haven’t managed to find the whole story as its pay per view on New York times but it began with:
I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.
So I regret that I wasted your time somewhat.
I wonder if you or other might share your views on this Article which relates much more closely to current events,
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism/men-ruined-destroyed-by-feminist-legal-system-driven-to-self-immolation-murder
Comment by voices back from the bush — Tue 26th September 2017 @ 7:07 pm