The previous post is a discussion about parental alienation surfacing as a world issue and how some New Zealand citizens have taken it upon themselves to express an opinion on behalf of our country.
An older post, Crusade for Free Speech discusses the role this issue played in undermining the essence of a democratic parliament, and a New Zealand parliament in particular.
It is particularly relevant to Fathers and men who value the importance of free speech.
Within our parliamentary system are select committees; their role is inquire and consider evidence with an obligation to report to the House of Representatives. If you have read the posts linked to, you will have noticed that a senior lawyer who was asked about this didn’t say they should have or could have, he said “ought to have”.
Their duty and obligation was to hear the evidence bought to the committee; they put forward an excuse of natural justice, that some minimum standard required them to reject and not consider this evidence, as this might reflect badly on one woman.
In considering free speech there is a central argument of who benefits from that disclosure. The select committee concerned had a duty to consider the validity of this evidence, not refuse to hear it, not burn the book, or put up an excuse rather than explain it’s reasons for censorship of that evidence.
The benefit given to one woman should not exclude any benefit to the country’s children, past present or future. This goes against the judicial decisions of both our superior courts and the Privy Council.
The members of this committee showed a blatant disregard for democracy, that is worthy of an inquiry.
It was unfortunate that media painted this primarily as a father’s rights issue, and trivalised the event to a protest of what is often referred to as ‘a few disgruntled men’. It wasn’t. It was much more.
Describe that how you want, but at least condemn it for the organised failure that it was.