This is where we are headed now.
The day after the introduction of new Family Law Legislation we see the demonizing case carpet-bombing New Zealand media.
This story from Australia is a used as a coordinated attack on our social perspective. There is a deliberate intention here, of simple-minded people who have no concern for the consequences of their actions.
In isolation it is one case. However, published to this extent, with selectively edited content it is effectively persuasive case law. I thought I’d mention case law since it has been the subject of recent discussions. Distinguished from binding case law that is the perogative of the superior courts. In this respect to becomes almost binding until contested in a superior court through ‘our Bill of Rights’.
The ‘courts’ ruled she (the mother) was able to change the name of the child if she chose, and she was even allowed to remove the father’s name from the birth certificate.
The following dialogue is a published fantasy; an author’s version of events, but published into another jurisdiction.
“I said, ‘okay, I trust my lawyer, we’ll offer him visitation’,” Melanie said, “but he just declined it anyway.”
“He said he was too busy running his business, and he didn’t want to travel four hours.
“That’s when I got really upset. I was frustrated because he’d forced us back.
“The person running the conference was just like, ‘wow, he’s something else’.”
As a result, Melanie was given sole responsibility for her daughter.
This supposedly should be the basis and understanding of the/our law, not the diligent intellectual efforts of centuries of work. We regard philosophers as the basis of some utopian future and dismiss the ‘past wisdom of law’.
In terms of a social contract people need to know where they stand and what their obligations are. Is it realistic to imagine that any society that reviews not only its former foundations but continually its status quo in this fashion would see stability?
Of course not: we will see our courts clogged with confusion, not the pursuit of reason then appoint more judges to deal with the chaos, rather than the pursuit of any reasonable answer.
When you put aside your empathy with the ‘victim’ and look at basis of this process it is irresponsible and dangerous and those responsible should be thrown before the courts themselves, charged with criminal nuisance.