MENZ ISSUES

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

Protest Today Against Family Court Judge

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:03 am Fri 24th November 2017

Today (Friday 24 November) at 4:30pm there will be a ‘Bothering’ protest at 223 Hurstmere Road, Takapuna, directed towards a Judge who has a record of alienating fathers from their children. An invitation is made to anyone who wishes to join this protest.

19 Responses to “Protest Today Against Family Court Judge”

  1. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Report is that the Bothering Protest went well with 10 guys and 1 woman, plus 4 police cars.

    MoMA did not initiate this Protest but we have heard accounts from men who have experienced gender discrimination under this Judge, in which case we support people’s right to make their feelings known peacefully.

  2. allan harvey says:

    I maintain the long held position of Union of Fathers that any protests outside homes does nothing to improve relationships or serve the cause of men. In the UoF consititution there was to be a protest officer in every local committee but protests were restricted to places of business (offices), courts and public places. Uof has never suppoeted a protest outside any person’s home and the place that they can relax peacefully with their family.
    When I first moved to Wellington in 2005 many lawyers, psychologists and court staff were fearful that I intended to lead protests that had been heard about in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and Hawkes Bay. Occasionally when I appear outside the Wellington region the reputation of the protests led Fathers Coalition from 2002 to 2005 proceed me and some are bold enough to discuss those memories/phobias with me directly.
    I sincerely hope that a few are not again going to make matters difficult for others working in the area of support of fathers and their children.

  3. Paul Catton says:

    Beg to disagree with you Allan.
    Fathers Coalition began it’s successful bothering campaign outside Family Court practitioner residences, from memory in 2004 / 2005. It was decided to take the campaign to a personal level as these practitioners needed a reminder that the case file numbers that they were shafting, were in fact real people who were being hurt 24/7/365, at home, in work, all the time, period.
    Had it not been for the bothering campaign, the practitioners in my case would have continued with their attacks, ineptness & biases.
    Whereas all worked out well when the wall came down.
    Fact is the campaign worked and for a short period of time the practitioners seemed to act professionally rather than out of self interest or corruption.

  4. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Oh dear, we didn’t realize it was to be outside someone’s home.

  5. JohnPotter says:

    I also believe that protests should be confined to business premises or courts.

    The aim should be to embarrass and draw public attention to (and sympathy for) your carefully crafted message, not to intimidate an individual.

    If I had realised this post was targeting a private residence I would have removed it.

    Men who create the impression that fathers are angry, abusive, and unreasonable, damage the reputation of us all. Four police cars suggest your protest was certainly perceived by the authorities as a threat.

    It’s much better to be creative and make people laugh, as Saint Jim demonstrated so many times.

    Please don’t use MENZ to publicise events like this in future.

  6. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Message Received

  7. Bevan Berg says:

    This goes back a lot further than that when Warren Heap and the SFST organized protests outside Boshier and Doogues’ houses before any of you even woke up.

  8. Paul Catton says:

    I also wasn’t aware it was being directed at a private residence either. However in saying that, again like “Saint Jim” I would endorse such action if warranted. Every “target” that came to be protested on a personal level without the ability to hide behind edifice was just and needed.

  9. Paul Catton says:

    @7 Welcome back into the open 🙂

  10. Bevan Berg says:

    #9 like you Paul, when you can be ‘bothered’

  11. Anonymous says:

    Can I ask WHY NOT OUTSIDE THEIR HOUSES??? Why should those who destroy life’s get immunity and no accountability I think it’s the most radical on point protest. I think it is great to remove their security of hiding behind their job. These people are not special because they are judges, social workers etc. That’s the reason no big changes happen because no one pushes the boundaries enough we simply let them walk all over us and we’ll why would they bother sound anything when we accept it. No change ever happened from smiling and accepting the injustices. Corruption and injustices etc need exposing anyway possible if it involves making them lose their security blanket that they can’t hide from the truth. With the logic of no protesting outside their house that’s like telling a rape victim they should never report their rape because that’s personal. God forbid anyone should be held accountable for their crimes and that’s the problem to why the system is broken they have no accountability to keep law and rules in order. So it’s our job as citizens to remind them what we pay them for because they work for us!!! But these days they twist it around the government is to protect its society and uphold the law not break society and have no law.

  12. Anonymous says:

    That’s the reason no big changes happen because no one pushes the boundaries enough we simply let them walk all over us and we’ll why would they bother sound anything when we accept it. No change ever happened from smiling and accepting the injustices.

    It’s meant to say : why would they bother to change anything.Sorry as mobile auto corrects things

  13. Anonymous says:

    @5 ARE YOU KIDDING ??? it’s better to make people laugh ??? Can you tell me what’s funny about years of trauma enforced on child and parents????

    Well I guess to you it’s funny to see people suffer . Just one big joke that many persons entire life is destroyed by family courts including innocent children. Real funny isn’t it!!!!

    Should we then make jokes about our suicide rates ???? Because family court is a huge contributor to the suicide rates and numbers

  14. Downunder says:

    To be creative and make people laugh

    Is a naive understanding of Jim Bagnall. The character ‘Judge Dread’ for example had several distinct purposes.

    1. For men who found it difficult to involve themselves in a protest because they related the protest to their own personal experience rather than the demeanor of the court it created a point of focus and understanding for those men.

    2. It turned a protest against ‘judicial’ authority into a more publicly acceptable sight.

    3. Although it never attracted media attention as it was intended, which was probably more to do with the Principal Family Court Judge threatening editors, the spectacle created a photo opportunity.

    4. It allowed Jim to be another persona, a character responsible for taking the piss out of the stupidity and intolerance of the a child bashing court, which Jim saw through the eyes of a teacher and an anthropologist.

  15. Paul Catton says:

    @10. I find your comment slightly offensive, possibly due to grammatical error in the statement “ when you can be bothered “.
    I am 24/7 bothered against the plight of men, and this is worldwide. Since 2005, I do continue to try and provide support where I am able, provide logistical and financial support when able and requested.

  16. Downunder says:

    @15 I’m sure you know I wouldn’t be rude to you Paul.

    If only the public could see how the legal fraternity has high-jacked legal aid and turned it into expensive welfare for the arse end of the profession they would understand your efforts and appreciate what do for free.

  17. Lukenz says:

    I think the higher court judges in this country are very exceptional and special people. When you get to court of appeal or supreme court the speed at which the judges at this level can understand complex issues in a whole range of subjects ranging from 6 week tax trials to understanding the procedures on how planes land in difference circumstances vers city airport extension needs.

    I know a family court judge through doing business and he was an impressively clear minded and balanced person.

    The problem is not the judges and it is not necessarily the way the law is written. It is the risk people pose to their own children and trying to guess if anyone is fibbing or stretching the truth about past behavior and bringing children up the wrong way.

    If I were a judge and I was trying to workout if a child would be safe in the custody of an individual or better off if they were with their mother or father. The mother is the obvious choice and a safer bet unless the evidence shows otherwise. What we are talking about is having decisions made against males just because they are males. But can you honestly say as a father you could entertain and keep busy a 7 year old better than a mother could? It takes a lot of time, skill and patience. And some days the seven year old can push all of your buttons.

    Good fatherhood role models are essential to win shared custody of your children. And if you are lacking or have limited skills in bringing up children you need to learn them so well they become part of your nature.

    I know this goes against the grain here. Especially when some men here may of not been able to see there children grow up.

    It was very right the judge had police protection and protesting outside a judges home is a golden gate bridge too far.

    Money is an issue too. Fathers trying to live and pay support can be difficult for anyone. Perhaps special assistance from Government is needed make it work re split families so the man doesn’t get to hopelessly overwhelmed while dealing with his situation.

    Children are better off with 2 parents who are working together as a team. But they need to be safe and have the skill, time and money it needs to look after them.

    If you cant get access to your children for extended periods then there is most likely a reason. Think carefully how you behaved. Go and get the help and skills you need to hopefully gain shared custody.

  18. Bradley Petherick says:

    To protest or not
    If so confine it to the business or.take.to the private homes as wellthis is what we are taking about.

    Many of us have decent relationships with our children but what did we go through to get there. What did they go through.
    C4c broke the law, per erred the course of justice.
    Judges broke the law.
    Psychologists reported what was necessary to support a predetermined outcome
    This report was reversed 12 weeks later, then again 18 months later.
    All of these people except for one judge are still serving up the same disgrace to different children.

    They need to be exposed and held to.account. They are protected by the law society disgrace, they are protected by the LCRO who does not do his job – over 3 years to have complaint heard.
    There is precious little actual accountability for these people yet they are there to do a job. Cycle may have assisted the police in monitoring the mother and her bike association so that they could be arrested for illegal activity. The mothers participation may have been So a informant with her relationship with the children as a leader error for her involvement and much worse.

    Do I think these people should have a peaceful protest large and long at their home and business?
    YES: until there is real change.
    Read court of 8njusti email by Lauren Quantico of 200q. Show the real CHANGE now. There is none. Mummy gets legal aid daddy can take hack it.
    Daddy applies.and gets a our the order, mummy doesn’t adhere to it with impunity.
    Daddy these the our the order to the police when the mother doesnt adhere to it, the cop.says piss off we don’t even protect dairy owners but if you know anyone driving with an expired WOF we will be there like a shot and speaking of shot, we will have firearms because he may be a father.
    That’s 2 reality so yes we must protest at this system for our Hildreth ND father’s.

  19. Cam says:

    Whilst protesting is harmless , it is an opportunity to increase awarenes.
    However, going to a persons address is exactly the wrong approach and it makes the protest appear as a threat, hence the police.
    What I believe may be more successful, the members or readres use our networking skills.
    What I mean is, let’s band together as a huge collective group including our children and march together under one united front.
    A peaceful march is lawful and will be supported by the police.
    The inclusion of our children holding signs will speak louder than a group of men outside some guys house.
    Let’s set the standard and make sure our message is heard locally and internationally.

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