Another Judge breaks ranks on Domestic Violence
Jail no solution for wife bashers Dominion Post
The first thing that struck me about this article was the odd headline – the use of the word “basher” is clearly intended to inspire hatred towards the men referred to in the story, even though it directly contradicts the reported facts. Headlines are an editorial decision – one wonders why the Dom. Post has so much investment in ‘spinning’ this.
The story by Anna Saunders begins by paraphrasing the judge concerned:
AS: Jailing men who beat their partners is not always the best option and some should be let off without conviction, a judge says.
Now I bet the word “beat” was not what was actually said. This type of systematic language distortion is characteristic of Radical Feminist propaganda about Domestic Violence – how it works in a court situation is described by lawyer Terry Carson in his article ‘Fiction In The Family Court’.
By the time the article starts reporting the actual facts, we have been given two clear signals that what follows is not considered politically correct.
AS: Judge Philip Recordon, who works at Waitakere’s pilot Family Violence Court, told a restorative justice conference this week that a hardline approach to domestic violence “flies in the face of reality” and fresh ideas were needed.
Next, before expanding the judge’s comment or putting it in any kind of context, a spot of character denigration:
AS: He angered women’s groups and some media earlier this year when he granted an All Black permanent name suppression after he pleaded guilty to beating his pregnant wife. The player was discharged without conviction. Critics said the decision sent the message that family violence was not being taken seriously.
I trust by now you are all going tut, tut, shaking your head and thinking “why would anybody take this man seriously?” No? You’ve obviously been spending too much time reading MENZ Issues!
AS: Judge Recordon said after the conference that some judges were inclined to “kick for touch” on domestic violence cases. Interviews with 20 New Zealand judges last year found that 17 would not consider a discharge without conviction in domestic violence cases.
This is the first bit of data I’ve seen which give a clue as to the percentage of Family Court Judges who subscribe to hardline feminist ideology. I would have guessed at around 75% – looks like it’s even worse than I thought!
The article continues with some sensible and non-ideological discussion about how to best deliver what people applying to the court actually want and need:
AS: He argued it should be considered in a minority of cases “at the lower end of the scale”, for men with no previous convictions. Sending them to prison was not always effective. “I would very rarely put someone in prison and very rarely lock someone up. (Some judges) remand in custody automatically.”
…He pointed out that women chose to stay with their partners in 80 per cent of domestic violence cases.
About 85 per cent of Family Violence Court cases with a not guilty plea foundered — partly because women did not want to give evidence if their partners would be convicted or end up in jail. It was more effective to “strengthen families” by discharging the men without conviction in minor cases and ensuring they completed anger management courses and drug and alcohol assessments.
“The more you can do to change his behaviour the better — what’s the point of locking them up if you can avoid it? If what you’re doing is trying to impose separation through a court system all you’re doing is driving a wedge between the couple and the justice system.”
Finally, the Judge shows just how much out of line he really is:
AS: Judge Recordon wants the Justice Ministry to pay for an evaluation of Waitakere’s Family Violence Court to prove his “therapeutic” approach works.
The Justice Ministry agreeing to properly evaluate outcomes? You have got to be kidding – what if (oh the horror) it showed that children whose parents are dealt with by Judge Recordon are more likely stay in touch with their fathers?
Naturally, the usual suspects disagree:
AS: The national director of the National Network of Stopping Violence Services, Brian Gardner, said discharging without conviction risked sending the message that domestic violence was a lesser crime. “We need to treat domestic violence for what it is: an assault. New Zealand men need to front up to the seriousness of what they’re doing.”
The other 17 judges were correct in taking a hardline approach, he said. A mixture of a conviction and rehabilitation programmes was generally the most effective approach.
Women’s Refuge chief executive Heather Henare said there was a risk that men would not attend programmes.
Yes John,
The article does appear loaded with much hateful anti-male spin.
Thanks for posting this.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 12th October 2005 @ 2:18 pm
The writer ignores the opposite of violence by Females. This need not be verbal (“Nagging”) but as I have experienced Physical, your back door smashed and assaulted with a cordless telephone to the point of destroying it and placing me in hospital.
In saying that I believe that applications for protection orders need a higher standard of proof. Any violence is reprehensible. Any call should bring in a multidisciplinary support team to attempt to assess the root cause (Money? Gambling? Another person? Alchol & Drugs? – All gender neutral) ALL can be treated. It is well established that the safest place for anybody is in a strong, stable, and trusting family unit
Comment by Alastair Laing — Wed 12th October 2005 @ 3:57 pm
This is typical foolish gibberish from the hateful anti male – feminazi regime controlled judiciary & media. The bias idiots would both be far better off trying to address the huge damage to our children and fathers when vindictive & vengeful mothers are allowed to constantly defile the Courts with false testimony of domestic violence and sexual abuse. What about perjury for women who tell lies and cause years of unnessary heartache for Fathers and PAS for the children????? They are happy to condone the tragedy – what a disgrace our country is !!!!!!
In solidarity – from a real Father – dad4justice
Comment by Peter Burns — Wed 12th October 2005 @ 8:39 pm
I’m puzzled about this… if I was found guilty of DV and sent on a anger management course, why would they also send me to drug and alcohol counselling? There is always the risk of me being found guilty of DV due to false allegations by my ex wife, even though she left me in 1990, but I am no drunk and I don’t know the first thing about drugs. I don’t know where one would get drugs from and the closest I have been to anything was at a concert many years ago (very early ’80s) where a friend said to me, “Smell that, it’s marijuana.” That was my first and only smell of the stuff.
As for the Women’s Refuge statement (“…local refuges supported a Waitakere pilot scheme which encourages men charged with domestic violence to plead guilty and attend anger management courses and drug and alcohol counselling” and not be sent to jail), are they finally starting to see the light, or is it just a sneaky ploy? But even in most ‘true’ cases of DV, I’d say the women need help too – help in their attitude when they are usually the instigator of DV. Sure, some people (not just men) are naturally violent, but I believe most people are not normally violent by nature. But everyone has their breaking point and when pushed enough most will lash out at some point. That is just normal human behaviour. It takes a very strong person to resist lashing out if you have a wife like my ex. Yet I never once lashed out at her. Yet I am somehow considered violent when she attempts to get a PO against me. Twice she has tried that and both times I have defended myself (without the aid of a lawyer) and both times she has failed to get her PO.
But also, why “Wife Bashers”? Why not use the correct term “Spouse Bashers”? After all, anyone who is not a hermit knows full well that both genders are eqaul when it comes to Domestic Violence.
Comment by Paul Robertson (Palmerston North) — Thu 13th October 2005 @ 9:10 am
Paul asks:
This IS West Auckland remember!
Seriously though, where drugs are involved (as they are most of the time), feminist theory flies completely out of the window. Women are just as likely as men to act aggressively when ‘out of it’. I don’t imagine wacky baccy is a big contributor to the problem either – alcohol would be the worst by far.
There is also the ‘P’ factor – habitual users are highly likely to have psychotic episodes during which they tend to hack their partners about with weapons, or run their car over people.
I guarantee it will be available right now within a few km of your home Paul, even if you do live in PN!
Comment by JohnP — Thu 13th October 2005 @ 10:19 am
Yes I am sure P and other nasties are available in PN just as anywhere else in NZ, as you suggest John. Just that I wouldn’t know where to get the stuff, not that I want to know.
In my last court battle to defend myself against a malicious PO order in 2004-2005 the other party also made application to the court that I be ordered to attend a “Programme”. Yet she knows full well I am not violent, and that I have no drug or alchohol-related problems.
Comment by Paul Robertson (Palmerston North) — Thu 13th October 2005 @ 11:06 am
Hey John,
West Auckland is not the only place in NZ with drugs issues 😉
Is there also not an issue with the DV Act in that it defines DV as “male versus female” and not the other way around?
The issue here of false claims is also reflected in the very common false allegation against a Dad of sexual misconduct with his children. Somewhere there needs to be accountability for the allegation being proven false. Perhaps the woman making the allegation needs to furnish extra proof at the start or, if it is proven false, fined for the costs of the investigation.
We also appear to have lost our “innocent until proven guilty” presumption in New Zealand law. This seems to be driven by the queer (check the dictionary: “queer: a. strange or unusual”) folk who run our country for their own benefit and seem to disregard the very people they are elected to represent.
DV is yet another example of the type of active discrimination practised in New Zealand by the femi-Nazis as part of their Genetic Engineering program that seems to perceive Men as excess to requirements. That they have been left to mutate New Zealand this far without retribution is heinous….but, I believe that Mrs Clark and her cohorts are about to reap what they have sown. And about time…
Comment by Ethos — Thu 13th October 2005 @ 2:20 pm
Ethos,
About drugs in West Auckland – John knows that, he was just joking.
Further to your other comments, some mums are very good actors… they need to be in order to convince ACC that they have been sexually abused (when they haven’t) in order to get a fraudulently obtained lump-sum payment. This is probably the main reason why false rape and other sexual allegations have increased in NZ over recent times. This sick ACC policy is one from the left.
Such false allegations are also very useful for mums who wish to implement Parental Alienation – a scourge that the Family Court is prepared to do nothing about. They do this to obstruct access between the father and the children, but the most harm they are causing is to their kids – and often it can be life-long harm. See page 10 of the latest newsletter from http://www.helpstoppas.com …
“Because this is one of the most severe forms of emotional abuse, it is likely that these children will develop mental illnesses. Some will even grow up to become alienators themselves, perpetuating PAS in their own families and spreading it even farther in society.
Can PAS be treated?
It is unlikely that an alienated child, any more than a victim of cult influence, will walk into your office and ask, “Am I an alienated child?” It is equally unlikely that the alienator (unless he or she is a naive alienator) will acknowledge his or her role in the child’s perceptions, hatred, or refusal to visit. It is the rejected parent who is likely to seek help, often without knowing that there is a name for what is bringing him or her in to seek treatment.”
Comment by Paul Robertson (Palmerston North) — Thu 13th October 2005 @ 2:32 pm
Ethos,
From NZ’s largest ‘Family Law’ forum Paul’s News …
Parents have no rights???
Some time ago, Rodney Hide (NZ ACT Party) put the following question in the house to the Labour Government, “What rights do good parents have to raise their children free from state interference?” Lianne Dalziel (NZ Labour Government) replied “Parents have no rights, only responsibilities.”
[ GOOD PARENTS DON’T VOTE LABOUR!!! ]
Comment by Paul Robertson (Palmerston North) — Thu 13th October 2005 @ 2:39 pm