R.I.P. Craig Jackson
We have removed our obituary for Craig due to gross disrespect from a contributor here. Disgusting and upsetting.
- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
We have removed our obituary for Craig due to gross disrespect from a contributor here. Disgusting and upsetting.
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.
The obituary is still here.
What you’ve removed is a eulogy.
Judging by the activity here, one would think that the cause of men and fathers has been won and everybody has gone fishing. Of course that is not the case. Without singling out Evan Myers, there is too much pedantic hair splitting here. Eulogy or Obituary, is the difference that important? – we all know what is meant – are we at school here or trying to get justice for fathers. Craig worked long and hard. I did not see his (whatever you want to label it) or see the trolling – but how sad that the acknowledgement of the man was erased. I’ve looked in occasionally. I’m used to being attacked for each and every comment I make. I saw Audi arrive – he was fizzing with energy and motivation but the knockers soon sorted him out – or at least that’s how it looks to me. We have so many old campaigners who have a lot of knowledge and experience – yet like Craig, they are not eternal either. The cause needs fresh blood, fresh enthusiasm, resources and energy. Yet it seems we jealously hold on to what we consider our empire and are pedantically negative to most every thought and suggestion a newby might dare to offer. How is this site and its members actually useful for helping / supporting those dads who are in trouble, abandoned by those they counted on, bank raped by partner and the legal types – not to mention the IRD. It’s a lonely desperate zone to be in. I predict that if the interactions continue as pedantic patronising and hostile as I am used to seeing them, then we all might as well actually spend our time better out fishing.
Thanks for your very honest and sincere text. I was on the Audi meeting with you and few other men.
Since then I received no updates or anything for that matter . On that meeting , if you remember , I was the one who suggested few concrete measures including going to Police/feminists meetings explaining our views etc. I was told first we should take baby steps . I left the meeting earlier because , in my humble opinion , we spent way too much time on our individual stories ( they were more or less identical , so why should we keep repeating the diagnosis ) rather than making future concrete plans .
I believe I rub your shoulders in a wrong way as well by my impatience , for which I apologize now to everyone. My firm belief is cut on talk and create more meaningful ways of a civilized dialogues with the existing aggressive feminist Police, Judges , women themselves as it is everyone is loosing
Re: [email protected]: I would have liked to meet Audi, but that never happpened. We all have obstacles and mine kept me grounded. But in Audi I saw energy, commitment and motivation – and as the comments gushed back and forth, I knew he was being silenced and effectively being told to not raise his head because it would be “chopped off”. But unless anyone here thinks they can live for ever and would want to spend such an eternity in family caught – feminist etc issues -:- then its obvious that the torch has to be passed to new people. What I have seen go on here can justify in spades any feminist claim of “TOXIC MASCULINITY”. Of course there are many noble exceptions, but the generalisation still applies that we males are programmed to need to dominate the (metaphorical) sand-pit in the kindy and posess the biggest shiniest truck in it. We lose sight of the objective while we pick at and criticise eachother for trivia, or perhaps wax into ancient history and philosophy.
I believe that Craig moved to Levin/Wellington to die – as early, from pancreatic cancer. He had suffered a stroke much earlier and recovered by walking it off. He enlisted me to help as the low paid economy forced the low paid task – feeding capitalist agenda. Any reader here may be poisoned to reason that posts ought be taken down that question his contribution to the recognition that the father has a task to protect the children, not only of his own delivery but on behalf of a society – nation – land – country – world. Craig had extraordinary energy – yet because the argument rallies perpetually around who might be right or otherwise who can be forced to be wrong what is lost is the child – the children, born from the father where the ‘wahine’ is the host. Arguers can fill the gap by quickly saying the text demands that the masoganist (ism) – as is common if not now legal practice to disarm an opinion if not more importantly an argument in law.
Please send by email the removed item, causing appropriate and proper reply.
So where would a male as biological with female as impregnated physically by the male / parent – any: if dedicated to believe that mother, father – factually; father, mother and child were important for the lasting as economically sustainable go – but otherwise to the bottom of a cliff to find their human male identity? in these modern times. Then the question to the media is why have You not properly and appropriately tested the information put to you over the time?
Anyone who runs a man down who is dead is a coward. Hit and run is also cowardice – being the land of the coward. The driver say ‘the driver knows all’. If you had the courage to say anything that could be defended by the defendant in front of others then you had the proper courage as to define guilt. If otherwise there is an inane attitude to deceive then it is indeed but not only ignorant but culpable in measure againsdt a healthy and realistic observation of fact.
The eulogy in the post has been removed along with the initial comments, by the author of this post.
The issue which may not now be clear is a politically motivated approach to Craig’s death in that he is ‘silenced’ by the universe.
It is not a matter of right or wrong as suggested in a comment above, or of circular arguments.
The loosely knit group of individuals in opposition to our past family law can seldom measure any degree of success and it becomes difficult to gauge any degree of less damage. What good did it do? The Eulogy unfortunately represented that thinking rather than acknowledging a significant contribution.
Craig is not so well known publicly as an oppossing force to the Family Court System as he worked largely within the system as opposed to protesting it. Unlike most who contribute here, Craig was there from day one, back in the 1970s – a contribution in the vacinty of 40 years – as he recognised the issue as it was arising rather than being headbutted into its reality.
Hopefully somewhere there is a significant collection of his work in safe hands.
The next post, crusade for free speech, gives a glimpse at Jackson’s enduring dedication and tenacity to uphold a dignified opposition. One of the reasons he often avoided being too close to any confrontational objection – a point he made clear to me when I first met him during the days of UOF.
Hopefully this post can retain a little sanity as an acknowledgement that a voice within the system has existed.
Craig gave me a copy of most of his Parliamentary submissions, that he could release publicly. From what he said, I believe that other people are holding copies of Craig’s more personal documents.
Before I read, the rest – down under – which comment specifies right and wrong ‘above’. It is better to identify the information as specific to save the trawl as to distract from the substantive matter discussed. I am interested in what was said, rather than discussing issues that may distract form any insult that was unjustly after death leveled.
UOF – means Union of Fathers. I thought that idea was mine, no matter that a history can be diluted in a single post from the modern UOF, pretending that new history is perfectly capable of ignoring life past. Oo err…
A significant problem for politicians is that they all want power. Craig did not want power. Nor did he want money. He wanted children to be able to speak the same as each other no matter past or present. Phonetics. If I read back through here, I wonder if I will find that word. Craig counselled children who had difficulties in communicating with the rest of the world and taught them to learn through sound. In there for his own circumstances in being dished out a vicious hiding he learned that the protective system disqualified anything that did not agree with it.
So does down under hold proper title – how about downannauda…
@11 this seems a little odd.
Here’s what you said in a previous post.
How is it that the WR/HRC do not know the make up of the UoF? I am not UoF and have never claimed to be. What is this alleged “form” does the UoF have where it is mainstream in its purpose of engaging Family Court matters? And what is it that Joy said to Heather about what she expected as being “true to form”? How is it that where I write (of a) father’s coalition at the bottom of the letter I am mistaken for UoF?
My complaint is about gender discrimination within the institution of the Commission. Letting this unbridled discrimination live and thrive in an institution as important to the public interest as the Commission is a crime against the public.
LAOS New Zealand
(of a) father’s coalition
A little – odd? It doesn’t mean that I did not create the name.
Bevan Berg moved onto and into the UOF. A problem for Bevan was that he had a serious as physical back disability, he did not lack as an ex-police officer stamina nor energy. Otherwise – as above I repeat the UOF became immediately mainstream. I claim in this that Downunder protects the impediment, criticising the necessity of fathers by union or later by coalition to directly confront and challenge the (maybe we agree), perpetuated injustice installed for the proactive as and in developing of the feminist jurisprudence – continuing in the delivery of its damage today. Apparently if we down another, nothing done in challenge then now qualifies as ‘good’.
Surely that identifies the perpetuation of (the) any problem where those who express peaceful and rightfully delivered as claimed concerns on the activity of something they perceive to be wrong are whittled down in judgment as to be bad.
“The loosely knit group of individuals in opposition to our past family law can seldom measure any degree of success and it becomes difficult to gauge any degree of less damage. What good did it do? The Eulogy unfortunately represented that thinking rather than acknowledging a significant contribution.”
Personally, I think the “OUR” in the quoted paragraph identifies a culprit of the disfigurement.
Craig asked me to clean up his affairs after he died. He died respectfully, in the loyal as dedicated company of male friendship. In the matter of what he saw as needing canvas and in such a way to direct a challenge an extraordinary dissolution of natural justice (fair), that had ‘struck’ the human as the natural family identity – little from the view of my task from Mr Jackson – as accepted to “speak it how it sounds” to honour Craig has varied.
You will not know how blind you are until you cannot see.
As a secondary note: Bevan and I both experienced the same experience – independently going to the highest court (if now with or without authority to exempt by way of the DOI1835), the Select Committee to face the naked Helen Clark cheat therein being disarmed to (unlawful if not illegal), disrespectful neglect both of us and probably otherwise the nation inquiring about alleged as faulted political administration.
So Number 12 – reveal history in reply, please.
Ben, I’m not sure whether it is good to hear from you or not.
The difference between us is that you put your children on the alter of your principles while my fight was to protect my children from an insane and abusive mother who was being used by the Family Law Section as a primary target in their experiment.
My contribution through UOF if anyone is interested is mostly recorded here and in the media.
This really has nothing to do with Craig Jackson’s obituary.
Question of the day/morning do 2 degrees make a professor?
You did not read that Craig asked me to do this. Therein you did not read that… (etc).
In discussions earlier you thought to teach men to stand together in a discipline of unity. You had a bad back. You had a weak force. The difficulty was that there was no unity. Brains are better than brawn said one history to another farmer.
As I traveled to your house in southern Auckland you made it clear to me that you comprehended the essence of challenge needing to be delivered in order to halt the ravish. An actuating ravish of natural family was the cause, we similarly challenged.
So if now nothing is agreed what is to be done to disaffect the dis-solution of the natural family – male – female – child?
(apparently my comment is too short, please try again…) Jamin.
Good to hear echoes from Bevan Berg….
It has been a long time….
The real man is much better than electronic echoes….
That echo was a megaphone in the middle of the night protesting that I never did enough.
Benjamin Morland Easton
06 July, 2019
Tena koe, New Zealand Queen, Governor General and Commander in Chief –
Dame Patsy Reddy,
1. I write to you this morning in complaint for the handling of my circumstances advising of my intention to write to Your Prime Minister, tomorrow morning.
2. On Father’s Day, I think in 2002 I was arrested for breaking 3 eggs consecutively on the footpath outside the Waitakere District Court. Between breaking the second and third I had travelled to the Waitakere Police Station and asked at the desk to be arrested for sedition. Earlier I had sent a fax to the Police Station as I remember publishing the document as well by email to those folks to whom I would typically write. Sergeant Burns refused my invitation and advised me that he would charge me with littering. I broke the second egg and then returned to the Police Station. No-one came to the counter in answer to my ringing of the buzzer. I returned after breaking the third egg. The Sergeant trespassed me from the Police Station and asked me if I was going to leave and I refused. I was imprisoned. No charge or processing occurred and I was soon after visited by the CAT Team. I told them my story in as brief as possible and in direct answer to the questions put to me. The response from the two CAT team staff workers was that it was obvious that my actions were a result of not being able to achieve my purpose. The two Police officers at the station cells a male and female – had treated me like a dog, including not having processed me for the arrest, delivering taunts like two school yard children, picking their way in favour with friends. Obviously the remarks left by the CAT team were shattering as the two officers after the team had left processed me – quietly as they had been rightfully shamed. In the discussion wit the CAT team I had told them of a poem my father had written for me as my aspiration was to read the poem on Calvary Hill in both te reo Maaori and thereafter English. Calvary Hill was where Christ Jesus was apparently crucified.
81 Seditious offences defined
(2) Without limiting any other legal justification, excuse, or defence available to any person charged with any offence, it is hereby declared that no one shall be deemed to have a seditious intention only because he intends in good faith—
(a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in her measures; or
(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution of New Zealand, or in the administration of justice; or to incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, laws, or Government of New Zealand; or
(c) to point out, with a view to their removal, matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of hostility or ill will between different classes of persons.
3. Last night I read a reply from an old friend, Bevan Berg (ex-police officer), from the Auckland men’s movement, in reply to a number of posts I had written on an obituary for another friend Craig Jackson. Bevan quoted a judgment that had gone against me in order to quantify my activity, saying “you sacrifice your children on the alter of your principles”. I scoffed – “ha”, in reply. My rebuke essentially dedicated the quote to the quantum status quo, that it was my principles that were being brought to performance in contention of governance, where this was then as it remains clearly an un-demonstrable conclusion.
4. I will post this letter to You on the website MENZ.org.
5. The key word in paragraph 3 is ‘principle(s). My argument was always and remains about the law, including the Rule of Law. Recently I asked the Supreme Court for an interpretation on Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. This new Act was newly in force where my work-based and marital difficulties began. The work-based difficulty was that I had become bored working as a co/supervisor at Princes Street Community Childcare Centre. The machinations of providing quality childcare, dealing with wider responses where required for issues raised were frankly beyond my interest. If I were to pinpoint the one thing that made me want to leave was that my request to the Committee as chaired by Sue Bradford, to be funded to learn te reo Maori was turned down. I reflected on a comment made to me by one of the Maxwell sisters on the committee of – “nice try”. It was my initiating idea to set up the centre as bicultural with 2 supervisors – one Maaori and the other tau iwi. The establishment of the bicultural approach was accepted but the notion that I as a co-supervisor ought to be fluent in Maaori rejected. The job then was just too hard. I became a game designer instead. My then wife responded as she became the income earner, the finances went to negative for a call on the good will loan and the marriage died in little time despite a mortgage having been taken with the BNZ in the period of change.
(3) Without limiting subsection (2)(c), a person psychologically abuses a child if that person—
(a) causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual, or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a domestic relationship; or
(b)puts the child, or allows the child to be put, at real risk of seeing or hearing that abuse occurring;—
but the person who suffers that abuse is not regarded, for the purposes of this subsection, as having caused or allowed the child to see or hear the abuse, or, as the case may be, as having put the child, or allowed the child to be put, at risk of seeing or hearing the abuse.
6. Essentially, I have too much as published information to provide to You that identifies why You as Administrator’s country has significant problems based in evidence of corruptions to bore You with such. So, I will concentrate first on the text copied form the Domestic Violence Act 1995 above.
7. Justice O’Regan returned that the information submitted – sought was more about me than the public interest. The way I read what I asked is whether Section 3 (3) (b), entitled a mother to lie before, during and after an allegation of child abuse. This meant that the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Queen provided an entitlement for a woman to lie in a Court of Law.
8. I advance this inquiry to your cup of tea to include ‘any court of law”.
Benjamin Morland Easton.
Obviously the date is wrong. Additionally it is early evening and not good morning.
Rubbish Bevan. You did what you could.
Craig would have edited this but not beyond any point of reason. He maybe would have called it social media.
Being human as male has no deviation. Being someone else does. Being responsible for thought is good. Being alive so to deliver thought is better. I am incapable of acting the part. Tomorrow – which sort can win – and the child wanting influence? You the UOF are charged. Figure out family – first and then fight my friend.
I grabbed some popcorn and started reading
Just to realize this a case of post traumatic stress syndrome
Veterans wake up, think the war has re-started
and start launching every pot, pan and utensil in the kitchen.
Before you know it, even old books, encyclopedias and bookcases are hurled out.
Soon came out the bibles and postcards and letters and even old tax forms
Not long after all the furnitures are out, only old letters and emails are left
And those make good ammunition… the worst form of confrontation – a war of skeletons
And yet bemused, the children listen, wondering, pondering, muttering
What is it all about? Is it about us? Why else would mom and dad fight?
Is it a man issue or a MENZ issue?
I know the newsletters stopped long ago..
So you seek to battle on a gravestone.
All good. The principal words in your post identify tax – form as form.
Craig funded the Court to fight me. It seems (first), you will not find the result of Easton v BNZ on line. With technology as advancing beyond authority it is immaterial. Truth is left to the soul. Good luck swallowing the popcorn – personally I always though it tasted like shit.
Introducing gender identification – as eventually reducing the child into a commodity of age under the COC 2004, consolidated the former (GI), as a fact. Move your platform to the easier to consume ice cream. The much debated codification abused the child with a back up s7 Report NZBORA90 to consolidate as acknowledging the abuse.
The Court lost. BNZ had an international obligation not to use children in advertising. The Chief High Court Judge Randerson ruled that the body of Women’s Refuge as beneficiaries – who quickly changed their name were not providers of a service no matter that – well anything really, (you still need water to wash away the pop corn).
So the Court won. The worst deceit of bad behaviour to include children was exposed, the argument was succinctly identifiable as it was correct to protect every child and the nasty idiot won.
Of course the newsletters stopped. They did not proport (sorry – that was meant for you to be be purport), the truth.
Craig Jackson, in the was rightfully the hero. Albeit that he was demonised, recognised in this string as let’s say valuable – he was prepared to challenge deceit focusing that it was the child who needed protection and not as now in common practice – the adult child.
#8 please read your arrogance as if it may be angled in power.
There’s a few details online.
Craig Cameron Jackson (born July 9, 1940), New Zealand researcher, Educational and …
Craig Cameron Jackson, New Zealand educational and child psychologist, … Diploma in Educational Psychology, Auckland University, New Zealand, 1970
There’s no intention to disrespect Jackson.
He is not silenced by the universe. History is there for us to see.
The point is he is a teacher, not a protestor.
Sorry if my protest caused a problem or any offence.
It took me a while to realize it was a media issue, poetry perhaps, personal opinion that was distracting from his story.
#21 Dear Bevan, I hope that you don’t feel that I have ever said of you “protesting that I never did enough”?
I saw you in action many times, I heard your voice in discussions with many people and I remember that you spoke sensibly, constructively and wisely. I wish that I was able to share those experiences and recollections with other people now.
I know the reality that we all were in.
With hindsight, that is even more clearly visible.
It was about the deleted comment causing offence.
It was about the post not able Craig personally.
Happy Birthday Mr Jackson. X