Family Violence Act 2018 and Information Sharing
The Family Violence Act 2018 is due to come into force in July. Information sharing is but one part of this law that further abandons fundamental principles of justice and civil rights in favour of feminist ideology and aspirations towards total control over men. Men’s supporters’ submissions were mostly ignored in the creation of this dangerous review of the law.
The Act maintains the ridiculous ‘balance of probabilities’ standard of proof which is really no proof at all but can be conveniently used to accept anything women allege and to reject men’s evidence. The legislation includes nothing to discourage false allegations or perjury. It places even more emphasis on the myth that ‘coercive control’ (derived from and still meaning ‘patriarchal power and control’) is a main or frequent basis of family violence. It continues to label and treat the parties as ‘perpetrator’ and ‘victim’ even though research has made it clear that in the vast majority of family violence situations both parties commit and suffer from various forms of violence. Although there appears to have been some attempt to better specify the definitions of violence, it still continues the long existing trend of expanding the range of behaviour to be treated as violence the definitions are still conveniently vague and catch-all. It continues to provide the Family Court with the opportunity to punish minor expressions of anger by deciding that they form a pattern amounting to violence; this means that normal behaviour in arguments can be treated as violence and women can use this law to punish their partners for daring to disagree at all. The legislation continues to allow respondents (overwhelmingly men) to be forced under threat of imprisonment to attend assessment and indoctrination programs just as done by totalitarian regimes around the world.
The information sharing part of the legislation is a huge lurch further towards feminist and state totalitarianism. It will entitle a large range of government departments and agencies and social service practitioners to demand private information held by other practitioners (i.e. doctors, counsellors, teachers etc) , and will allow those practitioners to disclose private information even when that hasn’t been requested, for all or any of the following purposes:
(a) to make, or contribute to, a family violence risk or need assessment:
(b) to make, or contribute to the making or carrying out of, a decision or plan that is related to, or that arises from or responds to, family violence:
(c) to help ensure that a victim is protected from family violence.
Note that the Act provides no requirement for the request of information to be based on any justification. So we will see numerous man-hating social workers etc demand private information to assist women to gather evidence to use against men in Family Court disputes, or simply to assist in vendettas against unfavoured men. The Act protects social service practitioners from any disciplinary or legal action in relation to their breach of confidentiality, even though the promise of confidentiality was made long before this Act came into force. So something you disclosed to a counsellor, doctor, hospital service etc 20 years ago under the clear assurance of confidentiality can now be disclosed to any practitioner or authorized agency that demands it. Although the practitioner who is asked for the information is not specifically obliged to provide it, the protection of an alleged victim of family violence has to take precedence over any confidentiality principle which in effect will oblige practitioners to disclose everything requested. Although practitioners can still be prosecuted or disciplined if they disclose information “in bad faith”, no such limitation is placed on agencies or practitioners regarding their requests for information. The practitioner or agency who is asked for the information will then unwittingly (i.e. in good faith) provide it even though the requesting practitioner or agency has asked for it for ulterior motives.
The Act provides no limits on what can then be done with that information, so we can expect such stuff to be included as evidence in Family Court and other procedures. The agencies defined as ‘Family Violence Agencies’ include (among many others) Housing NZ Corporation, other social housing providers, the Department of Education and any other agency that may take on the functions of the agencies listed.
So you can predict what will happen. Your partner’s lawyer can contact some man-hating person or agency and tell them your partner alleged something. That agency will then demand personal information about you held by your DHB or any other social service practitioner. That can then be legally shared across numerous other agencies to be used against you at every turn. At sites like this we will soon be hearing even worse horror stories of anti-male discrimination, abuse and cruelty than we have already become accustomed to.
No such thing as the ability to prove innocence,,Im=bloody=possible.
From the act above in MOMAs’ post.
perpetrator, of family violence, means either of the following:
a person who has inflicted, or may have inflicted, family violence (even if no offence involving the violence was, is, or is to be, admitted or prosecuted):
a person who is inflicting, or may be inflicting, family violence (even if no offence involving the violence is, or is to be, admitted or prosecuted)
And who was that piece of academic shit that turned up here last year and got all loud and antsy about us calling a few women bitches?
@2, see our post at https://menz.org.nz/2018/effectively-resisting-the-feminist-juggernaut/#comment-1218752
We doubt (s)he was an academic. Didn’t seem to know much about the field or the research.
It’s like a ghost town around here now.
It seems all the active men’s issues enthusiasts have
At least you two are friends now though.
I’m surprised and disappointed you’ve both been so stoic.
I’m tempted to ramble smart ass quips about turning the lights out.
This was discussed a couple of years ago when social media platforms became more active.
There was a push by younger ‘more enthusiastic’ participants to abandon this site for the likes of Facebook.
My view was then and still is now that genuinely concerned writers continue to contribute what they can to menz if for no other reason than to provide light entertainment for future historians.
I’m one of the old wrinkly ones now – I smiled at the checkout operator in Bunnings the other day and scanned as a garden gnome – so, you may be right, without a younger generation, just a ghost blog in the making.
always plenty of politicians to haunt, I’m in.
long story short about the therapist breaching confidentiality…
`destroys the client/counsellor quality of service relationship dynamic.
`encourages clients to under report on issues in session.
`screams out loud in sci-fi style (..intruder alert, intruder… etc) NOT to disclose and potential future ass biter topics. (all the stuff that really needs to come out and where powerful healing and positive change are often achieved).
`no need to go on… just these alone affect the therapeutic relationshipMORE than enough to render it useless, obsolete.
IT DONT REALLY WORK IF WE FOCUS REALLY HARD ON POOR CHOICE OF VEHICLE COLOUR ETC… ALL THE MOST POTENT STUFF MOSTLY LIES HIDDEN IN THE MORE SHITTIER NARRATIVES.
apart from the generic “safety risk to self and others” reasons for disclosure I make it clear I will never share client session notes.
even if ordered to do so by a serving NZ Judge, I refuse.
ill do the lockup time rather than betray my clients trust.
this new law will create significant harm to untold thousands of men and women… andYES, it will add to that shameful stat we all know NZ has… a smaller group of people… will die as a consequence.
just maybe guessing here… our teen males and us fellas over 50 will cop the brunt.
gIts goddamn shameful NZ.
the above piece was written by a 23 year old with no idea of what the true stakes were.
Until we understand that all these peices of legislation are not lawful
contradict the bills of rights and our universal rights
we will be a part of a process which will shed us of our entire humanity.
Through these legislations, the police only gets more powers to intrude in our private lives.
they drag us to court and the lawyers take over so we can be presented before a judge as a mere commodity.
they all get paid. they all get paid… they all get paid…
If we cannot go back to the root and insist this bill is inconsistent with the bill of rights and reclaim those rights through a stand against the law society… we are all fucked….
you don’t uproot a tree by trashing its leaves
Not sure where to put this but interesting;
‘The number of women working in India has tumbled. Of the G20 countries only Saudi Arabia has a lower percentage of working women.’
no wonder,,, now I get it!… women are becoming a commodity!!!!!!
@4 What do think might be the problem there Voices;
Or kindness trickling down the government?
#9, Evan,, yes it is very interesting, this article paints a picture for how things started here in some ways, anyways….
..and on above,, even fear of kindness.
It’s a ridiculous article that written for the purpose of blaming the patriarchy for what feminism wanted and didn’t get.
I would think more obviously that rise from poverty allowed workers to earn more and one partner not to work.
It’s a very different country dealing with its own circumstances and the article did nothing more than make feminist assumptions based on data.
If that data was a question in a geography test I’d put money on that being a failed answer.
Evan, I agree about the way in which the article was written, for sure, and India might have been very different but the case for different Hierarchy is spreading ever on.
I don’t disagree with mama that there is some push back against feminism in the Western World but I don’t believe the India situation is an example of that.
Even carting water is a serious business in India. They had pumped their watertable dry as far back as 2004, so even running water is a major issue in many parts of the country.
But that said they’re probably too busy living to worry about fighting with each other and needing family violence ammendments.
15, Evan,,, what I was meaning is that their turn ( India), (for feministic ideology), is nigh and for them is it a real worry, for seriously, daily tasks for the family are are no doubt no mean feat. I know for I collect water for my family….
I’m not sure I agree with that either.
The world has had a chance to view feminist outcomes from a distance if it hasn’t been a country directly involved in those changes and the outcomes especially for the US as we currently see is not a pretty picture.
I suspect their religious strength is also pulling in the opposite direction which once again makes blaming the patriarchy look like desperate propaganda from a feminist writer.
I saw the article run as current content a week or so back, but the article was written in June 2018.
For those who are interested in the progress of the Privacy Bill, we are now on Version 44 of the draft bill.
Two of the least trusted identities, politicians and Lawyers, you can guarantee will make sure this legislation advantages them, before it does the individual or families.
This is the family violence we should more concerned about than the complaints of the insane females in the population.