Our cheap labour government.
All women to be questioned about abuse when go to hospital
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/index.cfm?c_id=146
Whilst in hospital women will be asked these three questions to see if she may have been abused:
* Has anybody hurt or threatened you?
* Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised?
* Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn’t wat to do?Health Minister Pete Hodgson and other ministers are expected to announce the radical move tomorrow in an attempt to clamp down on the country’s appalling record of child abuse and other domestic violence.
Health Minister Pete Hodgson, is cheap today, cheaper than yesterday. He will only let hospital staff ask women three questions. If we throw some more cash as this we could have another three questions.
– Did you get pregnant just to get the DPB.
– Did you drink alcohol or take drugs during your pregnancy.
– Did you become depressed after your abortion and get pregnant again.
What would your other three questions be from the increased funding for the health system?
I made a formal complaint to the Auckland Hospital 5 yrs ago after they had questioned my partner about “abuse”, but did not ask me.
They said
1 It was routine to ask all women-
2 Apologised for not asking me
3 Denied that they were sexist.
Comment by John Brett — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 8:59 am
I want to look at tis from two different perspectives: one being a method of different interpretation and the second a line of approach – no matter how unpopular that approach may prove. The key word here is Target.
But firstly: What is our effective group of activists? How big are our numbers? How much energy can we put up to challenge these blatant discrimnative tactics agaisnt fatherhood?
And secondly: Who would say that better support to protect children against child abuse isn’t necessary?
Point 1. We are entering another review on child abuse. And as Bevan points out, this is given exactly the same presumptive corrupting remit as any the last. The authorities of the day can deflect their responsibilities for having excused themselves from causal conditions and again focus on what they want to achieve in response to this condition. I hear one or two on the radio saying that everyone has to look in the mirror, but when such questions are only directed at how much make up worn least disguises the blemish there isn’t really much point: is there? What has changed is the level of response from the public. Everyone is upset. So there are three questions to ask – (1) can we access this public interest? (2) who (3) how?
Point 2: If your interest is in the protection of fatherhood, Peter Dunne has made yet another blundering mistake. He has identified it as a Maori problem. He has been quickly rebuked by other parliamentarians where as if he does not have a connection with the problem and on the surface the intolerence toward him (NZ Day) should be comprehensively justified. Yet for his reply and other actions, (Families Commission) I don’t entirely think that it is and to what he wants to say he is an illiterate.
Some of you may think the problem is a Maori problem, yet you would exclude your recognition to facts that it is a fathering problem: This for Maori males is significant and the tangata whenua argument in reply to Peter Dunne is that the Maori community is stuffed up for a reason that has little to do with the Maori aspiration, need and want. So why not embrace Peter Dunne? Teach him that this problem can be looked at through fatherhood and that to resource fathering from the family and community perspective he so says he promotes is a good thing?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 11:09 am
Good luck Ben.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 11:53 am
Interesting when trying to comment on this at the Hearld I get the following.
Thank you for your interest in commenting on the story All women to be questioned about abuse when at hospital.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 11:56 am
Bevan,
Thanks for posting this ghastly piece of news.
Yet again the feminist cause proves it is simply to tend to women period.
It’s a lobby group for women only.
It does not care about men and so ask them whether they have suffered abuse too. The totally sexist assumption of women only being victims of abuse this questioning of female patients is built upon is blatantly obvious.
What is especially repugnant about this though, and should open it up to legal action is this – doctors and nurses both take a hippocratic oath to care for sick people. Not an oath to care for only one sex and not the other.
No doubt some women will report they have been abused, as indeed would some men given similar questioning.
But at the end of the day because of the corrupt nature of the enquirie men being abused won’t come to light.
Social scientists have an apt saying for this kind of ‘research’ – garbage in, garbage out. In other words ask garbage questions and you get garbage results.
However I fear feminists will subsequently use stats gathered from this sexist questioning practice to then have another set of corrupt half pie data to draw in order to get further funding for women only…….some of which will get used to fund further feminist research………….which will lead to yep, you guessed it data showing women needing resources whilst men appparently don’t.
It’s a vicious cyle we need to get our heads together on and find a circuit breaker for.
Either that or accept that your tax money is being used to fund institutional misandry.
Game on.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 12:02 pm
What does good luck mean James?
What about let’s try to work together? Or if not how about yes Ben you are right – s.4 of teh legislation does not excuse the Attorney General and where too from here? How can we all help eachother? And what about yes the gross take from the CTax isn’t to be legal.
What does feminisation mean? It means the loss of the masculine trait. So let’s all forget about the scrap and wish each other warm fuzzies as we each go our own way.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 12:21 pm
It means what it says Ben.Good Luck.
Ben, I could not work with you and have no desire to do so.
You have an agenda (BORA et el) and no matter that I think you are wasting your time I do wish you luck with your approach.
If you have a problem with positive responses I could be impolite and call you a wanker (time waster)Every one knows its not productive to waste time on wankers as it achieves nothing.But thats not my nature.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 1:26 pm
lol.
Good reply.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Bevan –
As I said to you on the weekend I will write to Sian Elias this week, going a sclose to contempt yet asking to be charged with sedition as I can. This has been caught up with a reply to Rick Barker whose office it appears to have skipped critical information as I build my Ombudsman’s complaint – another time wasting exercise where the first was instituted by the HRC removing files by taking out the centre of one of their own forms of a reply document copied to the Ombudsman’s Office. The period between now and September teh 11th is already limited and I am forced by Barker to use the Official Information Act to get the necessary reply – chewing up another 20 days before I leave from parliament to travel up to Waitangi for Declaration of Independence Day on October 28th. I’ve changed the conditions of my mahi (work) where my archilies heels are already strained from my past 1000 + kilometre hikoi efforts. A friend is building me up a bicycle at no cost which is awesome. I will endevour to get a flag of Independence and it will be secured to the bike. I plan to cycle to meetings from teh emergency date of 9/11 to October 28th and meet with those people who would listen to what I have got to say. Another friend is organising clothes for me so that will make the travel a bit easier. By the time I egt to Auckland I will have what I have to say well worded and easy to comprehend, can you get a meeting organised in South Auckland where I can speak? You’ve acknowledged respect for what I am saying and I thank you for this, and I want to make it easy for you to capitalise on the impact I will create if indeed I can create it – Republicanism as your take (mission) may be. I think you will find I have a thing or to to say that may be of interest to the Republicans on your platform that you haven’t heard.
As you will have read off line, we are getting much closer to the CAre of CHildren mistake being forced onto teh public recognition and as you will n doubt recognise, given the swell that is covering the land there won’t be much appetite for any abuse to children and this absolute example in their feminisation for the betrayal to fatherhood – yet if my claim rests as teh centre of that platform because I have to table a complaint to be heard, then everything potters along without you having claimed your authority for having tabled the complaint against the COC (Care of Children Bill) about its content. This makes it very hard for the public to see why I shold have the faith in you I have. I might as well get someone like Mathew Ridge to challenge Laila Harre at the negotiating table – and no disrespect to Mathew Ridge – but when the fighting of intellect gets into the back alleyways of political mastery, I know damn well who I would prefer to have battling for us lot on our side.
So besides asking you to think about my trip and, if you can get a group together to hear my korero (speech) I am asking you most importantly to pick up your complainit befopre the HRC again and research what needs to be done for it to stay alive.
Cheers,
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 3:19 pm
its just another attempt to turn the blame towards males and target them further. The three questions are very generalised esp. the third. Say scenario male asks partner does she want to engage in kinkiness she says no. situation ends there. Woman goes to hospital.. nurse asks woman question 3… guess what the answer will be. it is very obvious where this will lead to…
Comment by starr — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Turner Scorns Hospital Child Abuse Questions
Press Release by United Future at 2:02 pm, 31 Jul 2007
United Future deputy leader Judy Turner today poured scorn on the proposal for hospitals to ask all women, ‘Have you ever been asked to do anything sexual that you didn’t want to do?’
“This is a lazy extension of the flawed approach to family violence,” she said.
“Child Youth and Family admitted to me in written questions that they have not been bothering to collate ‘information about the perpetrator, including gender and relationship to the child or young person’.
“However, the information is recorded on the individual client records so could easily be centrally collated, allowing patterns and information about child abusers to be studied,” said Mrs Turner.
“This is not good enough. How can you expect to make inroads into child abuse rates when you haven’t even bothered to find out who the perpetrators are?
“The Government continues with approaches that ignore current research, and assumes contrary to evidence that only men commit violence.
“The fact is that children are more often abused by their mother than their father,” said Mrs Turner.
“What is the Government hoping to achieve by quizzing every women with appendicitis or ingrown toe-nail about child abuse and family violence?
“You may as well train checkout operators to question people through the supermarket checkouts.
“This is an idea born out of ignorance of how and who to target in the battle against child abuse,” said Mrs Turner.
Comment by UF — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 3:37 pm
1. The questions are designed to elicit a yes response.
2. A yes response means unprecedented government intrusion into a marriage.
3. More men will acquire a history of domestic violence, guilty or not.
4. The DV statistics will rise.
5. Funding will increase based on the statistics.
6. More marriages will be put under pressure.
7. Domestic violence will increase
8. More intrusion will follow.
Comment by maxx — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 3:45 pm
UF,
I watched Judy Turner ask her recent question in the house about disabled people and respite care. I shuddered that this was after her hearing Paul Catton’s speech for his position of coordinating refuge care in Auckland.
I recognise what Peter Dunne said about the essence of a Maori problem as relative to child abuse but only if he were to step up to what Maori are saying to government, over an over and over again about who is controlling the strings of the remedies or cure. Look at waht you quote Judy to be saying! Same thing, as if she were a kuia (elder woman) fighting against an oppression against her neighbour.
Peter Dunne is talking centrist policies every time as if the answer is centrist not taking into effect that the extreme national problems we are facing are built on a precipice.
United Future needs to unite men. Peter cannot do it while he wanders away with policies and their practices, trying desperately to get his votes from this and that sector every time. The most important thing he should do is to think about what Rodney Hide said and why we are starved of support. He said that to advocate for the men’s movement would be to commit political suicide. We’ll, it would seem, if he reads Scraps and the Republican’s attention on him at election time, not to pay attention to the men’s movement will be political suicide.
UF: Ask Peter to stand up either in front of or openly beside his political wahine. Get United with her to build your future. Don’t be frightened of us – where we won’t kill you. Be frightened of yourself: that if by ignoring us you’ll deny Rodney Hide the eloquence of his prophectic wisdom.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 3:57 pm
I am due to go to hospital soon. I am trying to think of a good responce when I get asked these questions. Any ideas? Perhaps I should take offence to the questions and make a commplaint to the hospital…Might even get hubby to ask if he is going to be questioned as well, better yet I could get hubby to say yes to all three questions and see what they say.
Comment by wendy — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Well said from Judy Turner.
Address the cause not the symptom.Treating the symptom will not remove the problem.
Find out why children are being killed and then you can make moves to remove or minimize the cause (although no amount of intervention is going to totally eliminate child abuse – a small number humans do bad things to other humans)
But to begin to understand the problem requires a change to the current assumptions. As Judy says
I remember the “satanic Panics” that led to the Peter Ellis debacle. Questions like those proposed come to the research with the conclusions already framed.
That conclusion excludes men being anything but perpetrators of violence.
Where is the informed debate over the asking of these questions.?
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 5:27 pm
If I ever have to go to hospital again because a rose thorn has poisoned my finger,I’d tell them to take the f*****g thing out and stop asking me questions.
This is becoming ridiculous.
Comment by rosie — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 6:21 pm
When I next go to hospital, I shall declare myself to be woman. When asked, I shall honestly answer:
* Has anybody hurt or threatened you? YES.
* Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised? YES. By my ex-wife.
* Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn’t wat to do? Yes – and she was female.
Comment by Frank & Earnest — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 7:16 pm
I could certainly answer the first and second questions.
“Has anybody hurt or threatened you?”
Yes the IRD and Peter Dunne.
“Have you ever felt controlled or criticised?”
Yes all the time by the ex.
Comment by Kenny — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 8:05 pm
This is at the bottom of another recent post and I couldn’t help but relate it to this post.
“You will only defeat your enemies by knowing what they think, not by listening to what they say”
Look at this statement above
Appalling record of child abuse and other domestic violence.
The media drive we are witnessing here is related to women not children. In the worst instances it will turn family homes into quazi women’s refuges, with sick women and feminazi bitches raising children. If a woman is in hospital and Dad is at home with the kids and she is cajoled into answering yes to one of the three questions the squad will turn up at the house, kick Dad out and bring Mum home to the new protected household. This will be easier than a protection order.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Whats happens if I take my daughter to a hospital – fuck I hate you Helen Clark !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 9:40 pm
And Peter Dunne is a disgrace and a jellyfish made in NZ wimp !!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Why don’t we simply cut to the chase, and include these questions on the next Census. For women and children only, of course. And since the Census is compulsory, and it is an offense to lie in your responses, such responses should form the basis on sound evidence against the violent perpetrators. So hell – why not have these self same women and children declare who their abusers are?
Comment by Frank & Earnest — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 10:02 pm
ACC pays out $10,000 for sexual abuse without anyone ever made accountable for the abuse .
This country is a cess pit of lies and Helen Clark is a maggot evil bitch !!!
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 10:17 pm
On three news they said you only have to ‘be’ at the hospital and you could be asked, so even if I am visiting I am going to be harrased with questions!! Just great!
Comment by wendy — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Govt has radical plan on child abuse.
Yes I see the problem. A radical government.
So should the established public treat a radical government the same way an established government treats the radical public.
Should we ignore the government and see if they protest.
Comment by Bevan — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 10:28 pm
I’ve just seen the TV3 news coverage of this at 10.30.
I can barely believe what I’m hearing.
No challenging of the connection between these 3 questions and child abuse. The only people interviewed are those in favour. The framing of family abuse as a male only problem. No reference to any of the very obvious points made all day on talk-back radio and letters to the editor of the Herald (and doubtless others). No mention of dissent of any kind at all, even though the MP Judy Turner has been openly critical.
I’ve had it with television news. It’s been utterly contemptible in its reportage of both politics and business news recently, and now it’s descended to the level of party mouth-piece. What a disgrace.
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 10:55 pm
Hi Rob,
Your contempt for mainstream media is justified. It may be the reason more and more men are MGTOW by seaking out and using (or making thier own) news sources.
Kia Kaha bro.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 11:21 pm
I honestly think that Helen Clark is envious of women who have normal happy marriages.
These questions that women are going to be asked, could only be thought out by a controlling socialist government.
And women are going to be asked if they have ever felt controlled.
Their answers could only be ‘YES’by this government.
We have the IRD who are about as inhumane as the IRA and dear Aunty Helen and the rest of the ugly feminists are doing all they can to destroy the family unit.
Maybe she should be asked this question…”When did your husband last kiss another man?”
Comment by rosie — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 10:28 am
I’m going to establish a complaint with the HRC this afternoon on the direct discrimination agaisnt men for this new Ministry of Health initiative.
I will file it under the Wellington Fathers’ Coalition. As the issue matures I would like that to broaden to the New Zealand Fathers’ Coalition but the coalition itself will need to grow a bit before I can expect anything more than luck to challenge this breach in law.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 10:29 am
So Rosie, are women actually starting to realise that they are being manipulated into a lonely and isolated existence, being used and abused to create outcomes that support the existence of a feminist ruling party. Are women seeing this as a female issue or a political issue?
Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 11:41 am
I don’t think many women even realise that they are being used and too many of them have the DPB for company.The DPB is to blame in most cases for this country’s shameful rates of child abuse.
What else can the politicians expect when money is given to child mothers who should still be playing with their dolls.
I see this problem as a mixture of a female and a political issue because most women in this government of ours are feminists and most of the men have been turned into wimps.
Look what Helen’s done to Winston Peters now !!!! Even he’s become obedient.
Comment by rosie — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Benjamin,
it’s great to see your putting your legal expertise into challenging through the human rights commission.
Years ago I complained to the human rights commission about Whitcouls central Auckland branch having copies of the book entitled “All men are bastards” right next to the children’s book section. Kids were going in and being exposed to this miasndric message. They wrote back and said literature wasn’t thier domain and didn’t even suggest where else such a complaint could be taken. Now let’s imagine for a moment what would happen if that bookstore (the biggest in all of nz by the way) placed a book right next to the children’s section (at an 8 year old’s eye level mind you!) and the book was entitled “All women are bitches” or “All Maori are dipsticks”.
The message I took from the ‘human’ rights commission was get lost, we don’t give a shit about you and other men.
I hope you have better luck this time round.
Kia Kaha bro.
Rosie,
Welcome.
It would be comforting and healing to hear that you were taking some action to reign in our misandric feminist sistas.
We men are under seige at present and need every woman we can to assist our cause of getting due rights.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Firstly, I suspect that this initiative by a government organisation contradicts NZ civil rights legislation because it denies a service to men on the basis of age and gender. It is well established that both genders suffer from domestic violence and there seems no excuse for discriminatory service provision in this case. The initiative may well be illegal. It is comparable to expecting DHB’s to provide chairs and waiting rooms for men only, or excluding women from the process of gathering information about medical histories or allergies to antibiotics. Imagine the feminist outcry! But, incredibly, hardly anyone blinks an eyelid or asks the question about legality or ethics when it comes to female-serving initiatives against men.
A related issue is the expected gender of the “family violence co-ordinators” that the DHB’s are being funded to provide, and the gender of the nurses assigned with the task of asking the questions of patients. One can predict there will be gender bias in advertising and appointing the new positions and in assigning the coal-face questioners. This needs to be monitored in order to uphold our civil rights legislation.
Secondly, the questions specified do not properly screen for domestic violence under any reasonable definition of the term. A “yes” answer to all of them would still be a poor indicator of actual domestic violence. Being “hurt” by “anybody” could refer to the grocer accidently dropping a shopping item on your foot, or experiencing hurt feelings from watching a television programme. Being “threatened” by “anybody” could refer to the threat one feels when an adult family member comes home later than you prefer, or to the neighbour’s trimming of a hedge that allows you to be seen by passers-by. Most of us feel “controlled”. And to define “being criticized” as amounting to domestic violence is to censor free speech, to inhibit normal processes of communicating about dissatisfactions and thereby to increase the risk of serious violence as the inhibited stress builds in the dissatisfied party. One may as well screen for diabetes by asking people if they have ever used sugar. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the violence screening initiative is mainly a fishing expedition to find more ammunition that can be used to disempower and to discredit men.
Finally, the questions, as is the case with protection order legislation, invite their own misuse by women and aged people who, for whatever reason, want to harrass or to punish another family member. By answering “yes” and being careful to be evasive about further details, women will be able to turn social police agencies on to their husbands etc, causing them stress, embarrassment and subjecting them to the risk of further terrible injustice. This will also abuse children in further damaging their relationships with their fathers.
The most important child abuse in this country is caused by the DPB encouraging the break up of families, depriving children of the safety, security and love of their biological fathers.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Jay,
You may be interested in a new study released by the US military reported on here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20056362/
In a nutshell, it finds that child abuse and neglect increases in households where the father is called away to war, but that the same increases don’t occur when it’s the mother that’s called away and the children are left in Dad’s care.
Comment by Rob Case — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Hans, there is a complaint in with he HRC. I put it in on the same day. It has a number and I will hear back in approximately 2 weeks.
The issue is discrimination against sex (men). There is a pretty grumpy article by Jim Hopkins inthe Herald today which you might find interesting, and a more conciliatory observation (than I have read from him in a long time) although loosely connected to the direct issue by Chris Trotter in the Dominion.
Comment by Benjamin Eastron — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Thanks I will read that. If this repeats its cos the site has decided I am spam.
Comment by Jay — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Thanks Benjamin for drawing my attention to the Herald article. And good work with the HRC complaint. Sadly, it does seem that the so-called “human rights” adopted by NZ are not seen as important for men.
I would propose some questions that could be asked of men to screen for domestic violence. I think these questions would be quite good indicators of actual domestic violence:
1. Are you aware in your home of frequent denigrating comments and critical beliefs about your gender?
2. Do you often receive messages or complaints in your home that you are inadequate or abnormal concerning such areas as income provision, sexual preferences or performance, personal style, language and/or general preferences and activities?
3. Are you given little say over the layout, items, rules and activities inside your home, and/or are you expected to conduct your hobbies and activities and to keep things important to you in the garage or elsewhere?
4. Are you often criticized concerning your management of your children, and/or are your disciplinary efforts sabotagued?
5. Have you been scratched, slapped or otherwise assaulted by your partner or other family members?
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Hans,
you define questions that could be asked. Others have done the same already after considering the Violence Intervention Programme release on August 1st.
At the end of the HRC complaints form (after the signature) is a comment on witnesses. Your comments fall into this category given how I filled in the form.
The process with the complaint will be quite simple. Is there a direct unlawful discrimination. I say yes. It is as direct as one could possibly be. So unless something unusual occurs in reply I assume the first hurdle will be behind us. The next issue hurdle is more difficult. It relates directly to s.5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The complaint will be measured aginast that which is “demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society”. This is where the nub of the argument will be challenged – and traditionally where men will lose their ground because women collectively will complain that there is outstanding violence against men.
In a weak society, as we have come to recognise I will lose the right of presentation before any supporting detail will be invited to be presented. It will go something like this…
“Dear Mr.Easton,
Thank you for your complaint that the Violence Intervention Programme instiuted by the Ministry of Health on August 1st is discriminatory to men.
While the Commission legal team recognise that there is consistency with your complaint and s.21 1 (a) of the Human Rights Act 19?? it was considered that the urgency to protect women and children from all forms of domestic violence demonstrably outweighed the justiciable (can be judged) element of your complaint.
If you are unhappy with this … blah, blah, blah… then blah, blah, blah… and… blah, de blah, blah, blah, blah etc…”
However, I’ve been in this game for a while now and have cards to play against this positioning, and as my spam on this site is my witness figure that there is a further come back if this occurs that is out of the ordinary and consistent with men taking their rightful and justifiable stand against such (its feminised) blatant oppression.
Yet: Cynacism aside and for me quite an extended admission of where I honestly believe we are at, I don’t think I am going to get the blah de blah, blah, blahs.
This policy by the Ministry of Health, IS the opression exposed. That means that our adversary is out in full and has no back up or defence on which to call. Our opression has come out in all its glory and said “It is all men’s fault”.
This, if I am right, is absolutely beneficial for the cause but tedious if our menz body is too weak and now devolved as apathetic to be organised in reply.
This is where your comments become critical and I ask for any reader to consider what their energy would be in the light of a positive return from the complaint.
I have said, that if the HRC finds in our favour, and that there is reason to explore a complaint, then there are many alienated and disaffected individuals and groups who should be summoned to make their previously hidden contribution against the oppression of discrimination against men. That would likely mean that I would be invited to call such groups to the table of broader discussion.
If this happens, then I will. My question will be: who should I call?
So far, I only have a few on my list the first which is Bevan Berg. Bevan’s knowledge as is mine is limited yet he has a handle on the primary issues to debate. I doubt his organising skills are high, although cannnot yet be certain because I haven’t seen him trialed under such conditions. Then there is Warren Heap. I like the idea of Warwick Pudney (Julie will love this) although I have only had minimal contact with him as he can bring to the table a flavour of experience from the mainstream masculine reply and possibly for his outright veteran status from court Jim Bagnall. There will be more for sure – and organising the group that would make submissions on direct discrimination against men will be quite a task if I get the opportunity for making the complaint.
From this point I am not quite sure how to progress in the face of this group. My complaint is significant and has the backbone of justification. If the menz movement (fathers coalition) is soo weak that it cannot mount an effective challenge in the face of this battle we have earned, then our energy will have been sapped: the tree we piss on and bark up will have been figuratively felled by our oppressor.
So while my writing is consistent with my usual contributions and turns those many away in the boredom for having read it, I ask those still not wasting their time to consider: if we gat an opportunity through the HRC to make a complaint that men are being unlawfully discriminated against by government who should be brought to the negotiating table… and WHY?
Cheers,
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 4th August 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Sorry I mean “outstanding violence againt women and children”.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 4th August 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Thanks Benjamin. I admire your tireless efforts though I find some of your letters etc to be a bit verbose and convoluted. Count me in for any legal challenge against the government for this new sexist initiative. Following is the e-mail I sent today to the minister of health. I fully expect a dismissive, patronizing response that ignores every point I made.
Dear Mr Hodgson
I suspect the programme you announced last week to question women and children attending hospital about possible domestic violence is contrary to NZ civil rights legislation. It is well established that men are significantly victims of domestic violence, so excluding males from this screening process can only be explained by the sexism of your government. If the programme proceeds I will certainly support any legal action to make your ministry accountable for this anti-male discrimination.
Aside from that, the questions proposed will be a poor indicator of domestic violence. A “yes” answer to all of them will usually not be associated with any real domestic violence. It is like screening for diabetes by asking people if they have ever used sugar. The questions are blatant feminist ideology applied and the programme will be a waste of taxpayers’ money. Even worse, the programme will be little more than a marketing campaign for the domestic violence industry, targeting vulerable sick people in a fishing expedition to generate more dirt for attacking men and further demonizing the male gender.
I strongly urge you to reconsider this misguided programme and to include some sensible people with appropriate skills to design effective approaches against domestic violence. One of the most significant correlates with child abuse is the absence of biological fathers. Children are many more times as likely to be abused in households lacking biological fathers. Your government would start becoming effective against domestic violence if it developed some respect for biological family relationships and changed current policies that are encouraging the break-up of biological families and the establishment of fatherless families by teenage mothers. For example, introduce a substantial stand-down period for the DPB unless the caregiver has been financially abandoned or there is a conviction for physical violence. For example, amend matrimonial property legislation to make it less profitable for non-earning partners to separate. For example, change Family Law to stop damaging father-child relationships on the basis of uncorroborated and unproven allegations and when those allegations include no hint of abuse or risk towards the children.
For the sake of our children,
Hans Laven
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Wow – good on you.
I don’t agree whether or not your remedies will be affective but that is far, far from the point. Further from the point is whether or not you get a response. You don’t need one – you scored a strike. Believe it – what you said was well written.
SO, you made a point. What’s next? If your talking legal action it requires money. Where is the money – the action looks from where you are sitting like it can be put into words and sent by way of a law suit into the courts. That’s the frame of the legal response.
If there is no money, what then is your alternative? The system of Civil Servants. Who are the authorities? The Ombudsman, you have to have a reply that is not consistent with practice or protocol and from an underling not the Minister as I remember to avoid the security of parliamentary privelege. You might get one of those if you ask the Hospital CEO not to follwo through with the practice because they would be discriminating against men. If you wrote THAT letter, you are guaranteed of a response and if you didn’t like it because it was discriminatory then you could complain to the Ombudsman. Yet you are still left with the word DISCRIMINATION. You would have to prove this to the authority no matter who they ended to be, and this information is first accessible by the Human Right Commission. For this you can do three things. One make a complaint with the HRC about the programme on violence intervention, they will tell you in reply if it is unlawfully discriminatory. Two make an inquiry. Three read the legislation. I don’t recommend three if you want to get a response within a reasonable period. You would have to navigate the sophisticated loop the loop of Part 1 (a) (there is no legal precedent yet and the whole of NZ is watching and waiting on at least 2 cases) before you arrived back to the NZBORA, and that is where I am already at with my submissions before the Ombudsman and the HRC. if you want to join that fight – You are more than welcome. I figure I can handle it on my own and am confident, so much so that I discourage others from having to get involved but that would be your choice.
The other option open is to carry on as we ahve been doing for so long and that is philosophising over websites and in private groups working to get crowds to local protests or to join up in culminative action.
The last option is to waste ones time not doing anyhting direct and just carrying on as if nothing else is very important, just the wallet, just breakfast, and just self. You’ve overstepped that already by directly challenging the discrimination against men by running hard into its bastion of protectionism.
BTW: why not ring the IRD and ask them why they are double dipping from the gross tax take, taking more than allowed fromt he net and saying that it is all in the interests fo the children?
Cheers bro,
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 10:51 am