I heard an interview the other day about NCEA, how schools were increasingly losing faith in this qualifications system and increasingly paying to bring in the Cambridge examination system based on external standards, i.e. able to measure objectively one student’s performance against others of the same age in the wider population (… basically the system we used to have that was thrown out at great expense). Although I’m not an expert in this area, my understanding is that the changes resulted in large measure from beliefs that competition was simply another male evil that should largely be removed from education and replaced by a warmer, fuzzier, “standards” system complying better with feminist ideas. Science, statistics and objective grading of performance were seen as male ideology and therefore undesirable, by an education system that had already squeezed out most men. NCEA stands as another failure resulting from feminist ideology.

Even at 80 — 90 percent opinion is no defence to subjugation, you actually have to fight, not for freedom, but for that part of freedom you are not willing to sacrifice.

Will nzers takes to the streets or have they been snzers (snoozers) for too long.

From Saturdays Herald, it looks like Bob McCoskrie from family first and other like minded people are about to wake the sleeping giant. I see a date for a nationwide march of 28th March being proposed.

Maybe parliamentary services will provide a big screen in house so MP’s can watch the public march in centres all over NZ, while they debate how they intend to ignore us.

To get to the thinking behind the anti-smacking legislation, it’s useful to look back at the last census, in particular three questions. The questions asked if you cooked your own meals, gardened or cared for children. There may be many reasons why the state wants to know this, but what these three occupations have in common is that, done by you, they are untaxed, and probably not done in “an expert and safe” manner. Answering these questions truthfully gives a measure of the last significant freedoms we have that are not yet subject to supervision and regulation. An active progressive government, like ours and all other western administrations, is distinctly uncomfortable with such omissions of control. The state’s intrusion upon citizens isn’t driven by an Orwellian craving for power for its own sake, however, but by a sincere belief that it is acting in a reasoned and compassionate way to benefit a significant majority. The method is to deliver a steady flow of legislative changes that deprive individuals of influence in all but their chosen field of expertise. A beautiful future for humanity is one in which every decison of consequence to any person is made by experts for the benefit of all. Nothing could be more unsurprising after a century of political rivalry between capitalists and socialists than an orthodoxy that owes as much to Adam Smith as to Marx.
(more…)

One might pose the question: is our economic strategy a sum of reason, or a product of externality? There is a reason we put “no exit” at the bottom of a street sign so I would favour the latter. There is a parallel here between the politics of section 59, and the politics of our economics.
(more…)

Article below from Stuff, preceded by my comments. Worth recording here I think.

Golly, aren’t men violent. We definitely need some more expensive anti-domestic-violence campaigns to stop male violence against children.

Seriously though, this woman’s violence was not only terrible physical and emotional violence against a very young child, but it appeared to be serious violence against her partner by hurting the baby in front of him as part of some relationship dispute. It is hard to imagine a worse kind of partner violence. Still, no doubt that won’t be considered because who cares about women’s emotional violence towards males? If the genders had been reversed, the woman’s distress and abusive experience would be acknowledged, we would be told that she was referred to Victim Support and/or one of the numerous support services funded exclusively for women. She would be encouraged to take out a protection order and the Family Court would grant one on the spot without notice. But of course in this case when the woman is the domestic violence perpetrator the man’s victimization is not even considered worth a mention.
(more…)

FYI: The reply from government-funded “Jigsaw”, a patronizing letter typical of feminists when challenged for telling fibs. My original letter (previously posted) below

Hans

Greetings Hans

Thank you for taking the time to write to me and express your concerns
about my statements on national radio last week.

I appreciate that you have a different view about the patterns of
domestic violence within New Zealand families and about the proposed
amendment to Section 59 of the Crimes Act that those I expressed.
(more…)

“They do not trot a harassed mother in a supermarket off to court. They will not under Sue Bradford’s change. What they will be able to do is successfully prosecute people who beat children.”

Oh the Devil, she walks in hypocrite shoes.

Support your local economy and by a New Zealand made t shirt,
with a Section 59 Theme.

T shirt suggestions

I smack
So lock me up.

Or

I smack of Love
Bradford smacks of
Left wing lunancy.

Or

I’m a Criminal Parent.

Please feel free to add your own candid T Shirt suggestions in the comments.

Any of us that have advocated reform of child support are well aware that the methodology of the tax is to attack the isolated and vulnerable recently separated father. The ideology of the tax is if I have your child, you have my income. The essence of father is reduced to a puerile and degrading farce of the state family. Increasing invasive mechanisms will not only garnish wages, collect money from bank accounts, but will also divert financial transactions in the name of expediency for the child. The crippling financial effect not only undermines the individual, but a society’s future potential. If you don’t leave the country you probably won’t aspire to much more than Joe 6 pack. In essence the state has traded the future potential of the individual for cash up front, but here’s the mockery: others can’t see the same game being played with them, with just a different form of the same abuse. Middle New Zealand’s aspiring young parents pay by a different method. As the Government controls the ocr it dictates interest rates. This brings overseas money into our investment banks, which in turn is leant to the community. It also raises the value of our dollar, which as we know lowers export productivity. This makes our imports cheaper, which is good for the retail sector. Banks have got to lend this money somewhere and they lower the threshold for property ownership and credit. Plenty of money and plenty of demand and this fuels our property market, and retail markets. The interest rates we pay are not staying New Zealand, only the margin is, the balance is being taken out of the country by foreign cash investors. Banks are not going to be inclined to invest in export oriented business, while there is a high dollar, they have a higher risk. By stimulating the retail sector, it does something else. With all due respect to our retailers the reality is it is generally a low wage, low skill, industry. You think you’re not just handing over money to a growing underclass, then look at it this way. Your high interest rate makes imports cheaper and money available to lend, and raises the spending power of low income earners. The Government has also signed up to Kyoto. What this means is that someone has to be taxed to create a carbon balance of payments. Rather than tax the man in the street it has tried to impose the tax first on agriculture which didn’t work, and now on forestry, which is an equally unwelcome move. In all three situations above the same principle is being applied, and is not only to seize current income or wealth, but future income and wealth. In terms of an economic strategy this is now creating serious uncertainty in future investment in New Zealand by its own citizens both productively and financialy with limited outcomes for the Government.

Wealth redistribution
Low unemployment
Voter capture.

But it has many more negatives.

Low skill work force.
Encourages high skill departure.
Indebted consumer society.
Excessive investment in property.
Low productivity from primary produce and exports.
Undermines Kiwimade products.
Undermines wealth retention, and reinvestment in New Zealand.
Undermines our economic independence.
Which all adds up to social degradation.

I liken Mr Cullen’s financial strategy to something along the lines of a Russian Retreat. After having mounted an economic offensive against his own country he is walking backwards leaving a trail of destruction as he goes. Rape and pillage always starts with the vulnerable. We care about Rape but not about Pillage. The inevitable result is that one day those that do bother to stay will inherit a hell of a mess to clean up if we continue to run our country this way.

Mostly this website is dedicated to the social outcomes for fathers and children. Economically we to tend to talk about child support in isolation, rather than in the context of the economic strategy of the country. For high income earners child support is either avoidable or affordable, but for Joe 6 pack, you don’t care about him, chances are his kids won’t care about you either.

We didn’t say you could do this…..

The guidelines for dealing with complaints under the new law are likely to be delivered to police officers as soon as it comes into effect, which will be days after its final vote, as early as a fortnight from now.

Police headquarters said yesterday it could not comment on the final shape of the guidelines because they were still in draft form and dependent on the final shape of the law.

But Police Association president Greg O’Connor said police guidelines in their current form made it clear they would have no choice but to act on smacking complaints.

“We believe that under the policy as it exists it will be referred to as domestic violence.”

Unless there was a change to the guidelines once the law was passed, police would have no discretion.

“If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested.

“That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint.”

FYI: I found this in a newsletter of the “Women’s Health Action Trust”, Dec 2006.

Note that it claims women are overwhelmingly the victims of violence. It doesn’t mention that overall in society men are more often victims of violence, and of course it fails to mention at all the many cases of domestic violence victimizing men.
Hans

Violence Against Women

As the headlines become swamped with more harrowing tales of violence across all aspects of society it appears that we have lost the focus on violence against women. Father’s rights groups grab attention by blaring music, honking horns, protesting against judges and tell us that they are the victims.

Meanwhile the policy discussion has shifted from domestic violence to family violence taking in an even greater array of violence issues including child and elder abuse. Television and media focus attention on the women who lash out in violence. Violence against women is no longer seen as an issue of power and control but is framed in the discourse of relationships. Fixing the relationship will also fix the violence. It’s time to refocus on the violence perpetrated against women.

Are women no longer victims?

The data shows that women are still overwhelmingly the victims in situations of violence. More than 90% of applicants for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 are women and most respondents are men. A recent survey of 2674 ever-partnered New Zealand women revealed that 33-39% have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from their male partner in their life-time. A third of New Zealand men admitted to using at least one form of violence against their female partner at some time in their lifetime. This is supported by overseas data such as the extensive US National Violence Against Women Survey which found that women reported significantly more intimate partner violence than men. Twenty-five percent of women had experienced rape and/or physical assault during their lifetime as contrasted with 8% of men.

Personally and anecdotally those involved in all aspect of the domestic violence field know this to be true. Judge Peter Boshier, principal family court judge, noted that ‘family court judges know that violence is first of all perpetrated by men against women’. The level of violence between partners is stark, it is most often women who are killed. The critical incidents’ reporting that comes through the courts overwhelmingly shows that more severe violence is performed at the hands of men. About half of all murders in New Zealand are domestically related.

Public Perceptions

Relying on media reporting alone however you may question men’s violence. The media seems to feel the need to mention at every turn that women are capable of being violent towards men. Although we have no doubt that this may occur and that all forms of violence should be condemned, it shifts the dynamic of the debate and makes it more difficult for a woman to receive the protection she needs.

In recent local press coverage of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (White ribbon day) almost all of the coverage came with the caveat that ‘top health researchers accused the Families Commission of ‘being ideologically driven’. This included a full article on David Fergusson and Richie Poulton’s accusations. It appears nearly impossible to mention violence against women without being accused of bias. In the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006 a sharp dialogue erupted in the New Zealand Medical Journal over Janice Giles examination on research claiming women’s violence is equivalent to men’s, prompting a series of replies to the journal.

Ferguson and Richie cowed Families Commission chief executive Paul Curry to back down from his statement on White Ribbon Day in 2005 that ‘almost all family violence is carried out by men on women and children’. His office now says he made a mistake and they have limited the statement by drawing attention simply to the fact that the worst domestic violence is perpetrated by men. It is absolutely shameful if we are not allowed to state the obvious.

The rise of fathers rights groups

Part of the public pressure that diminished the focus on violence against women comes from men’s rights or fathers’ rights groups. Groups such as Jim Bagnall’s Union of Concerned Fathers protest outside of the courts and conferences and turn up at judges homes hounding them and harassing their families to respect ‘father’s rights’. Anne Morris of the University of Adelaide quite rightly points out that these tactics reflect the tyrannical behaviour that many of these same men are accused of domestically. Charlotte Cummings, wife of a family barrister who had the protesters at her house earlier this year commented that they behave like playground bullies. The success of this bullying behaviour is sobering. If an individual’s response to accusations of threatening or harming their partner is to immediately threaten and harass those responsible in the courts it should tell us quite a lot about their modus operandi.

In an attempt to influence court outcomes men have been encouraged to affix blue dots (small stickers) onto all of their court documents so that everyone handling them is aware that they are members of the Union of Concerned Fathers. The September 2001 MENZ newsletter says: ‘We urge all fathers filing anything with the Family Court to place a blue dot on each page which signals that you are not alone and that you are working with others and the court’s handling of your case will be observed.’

Internationally fathers’ rights movements have been successful in capturing media attention through dramatic stunts such as the UK’s Father’s 4 Justice who dress as superheroes and climb prominent sites like Buckingham Palace. The father’s rights movement often accuse the courts and the media of bias in favour of women. The harassment of members of the family court has become a common occurrence in New Zealand. In November [a lawyer’s wife] was charged with assault after spraying the protesters at her home with a hose and throwing rocks at them. In press release she said ‘you left me hugging my sons, and they me, in shock, fear, tears and disbelief. You all have no idea how much pain and ruin the above mentioned had impacted on our lives’

Impact on the courts

Wendy Davis, a family lawyer, has examined the influence of fathers’ rights groups on the Family Court. She contends that these groups have exerted undue influence with frequently unfounded claims. Davis observes that between 1998 and 2004 it became increasingly difficult for women to obtain protection orders without notice.

This reflects the increased pressure and presence of father rights groups since the turn of the millennium. Despite the argument that women use the family courts as a way to extract revenge, Davis notes that very few applications for protection orders fail because of lack of credibility. The claim that large numbers of fathers are being denied access to their children is completely inaccurate. Loss of access after protection orders are generally temporary and very few completely suspend access.

In 2003 the Law Commission suggested that the threshold for the provision of temporary protection orders be raised from ‘harm’ and ‘undue hardship’ to involve ‘substantial harm’ and further that protection orders be put on notice ‘whenever possible’. Davis raises concern that this may result in fewer applications for protection orders. The number of without notice applications which were changed to proceed on notice doubled from 12% to 24% between 1998 and 2001.

In Towns and Scott’s research participants noted the increased influence of fathers’ rights groups on the courts. One men’s programme provider commented ‘I would say that the kind of men’s rights movement has influenced the judiciary, how they look at the orders’. In their interviews with key informants Towns and Scott find that women requesting protection orders are positioned differently then in the past. The request for a protection order is an issue of safety. However, in response to the discourse that has depicted these women as simply vindictive, consideration of protection orders now examines the woman’s motivation.

Much of the slippage in women’s access to protection has been in the shift in discourse from one of power and control to the discussion of relationships. The changing attitude toward protection orders is one by which men have argued that the key issue is the break down of a relationship rather than the abuse of power within that relationship.

In a presentation to the Taking Action to Overcome Violence Conference, Peter Bosher expounded on the benefits of Family Group Conferences. These are meetings that include the perpetrator, the victim and the family or community members thought to be able to influence them. Presumably this would work because the family or community exert peer pressure or shame the perpetrator into better behaviour. Heather Henare, of the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, quickly responded to this idea saying that such a meeting serves to further victimise the woman.

Putting violence in the context of relationship ‘difficulties’, takes the focus off the issues of power, control and violence against women. Too often, it introduces unrelated issues such as the mother’s parenting or domestic abilities.

Where to now

The focus must be brought back to gendered nature of this violence. If we fail to recognise the dynamics of power behind domestic violence we have little chance of addressing the root causes and turning the tide on the 63,000 domestic violence incidents recorded in New Zealand a year.

Police management are suggesting off duty officers should not act but should call back to base if they come across a crime.

What utter stupidity.

Any sensible police officer who sees a crime he can’t handle would call for assistance whether on or off duty, however when off duty we expect a police officer to be part of the community. What this government is telling the police is you are going to be our little state soldiers, forget your community. You can imagine the conflict for police officers when confronted by section 59 episodes in public; how they would respond if they are expected to uphold the law. Imagine the office duty police officer out for jog, and finds a rape in progress. You’re being raped madam, just hold on there while I find a telephone.
This adequately highlights the deficiency in the thinking left wing academics. We are being governed by a bunch of dolts.

They want us to descend to their level of thinking — think not.

With Bradford’s section 59 Bill hanging on the support of the Maori party, they have been delivered a test of credibility. They must decide whether or not they will allow their members a conscience vote, but more important their opening statement is about to be tested. At the formation of the Maori party they told New Zealand, that their party was not just for Maori, but for all New Zealanders. Clark dropped the Bill in the first place because she didn’t want labour facing off against 80 percent of the population. She left that to silly Sue. Inadvertently the numbers have put the Maori party in the Dock for Labours crime. If the Maori party wants to claim the position of true representation they have no choice but to support the obvious public position. If they vote for Bradford’s Bill, they are voting for Labour, a party that operates without conscience or mandate — Isn’t that what they walked away from in the first place. Tomorrows a big day not only in politics and the future direction of our country, but also for the future of the Maori Party.

So Judge Boshier will not meet with interest groups ie parents, despite medaition from the Families Commission?

Perhaps the Court needs to see itself more as the servant of the people, not the other way around?

Femme de la Femme.

Start with Theresa Gattung, in this mornings Herald, bemoaning the representation of women in the New Zealand commercial sector, in fact she even suggests they are going backwards in percentage representation. “The reality is, in the bigger picture women have lost ground,” she says. How could this happen when schools are oriented to the female brain, universities are over represented with females in graduate qualification, and most of the major political and government positions are occupied by women. where are they going wrong? We got more than a glimpse of that last night, when a bunch of hyped up kids confronted the police in “the rape protest”
And the leader announced her complaint. She with her friends had been standing outside a police station waiting for their arrested friend to be released. They got a back handed warning from a police officer about taking responsibility their own safety; “don’t come complaining to us when you get raped”. That translates in this girls mind to the police won’t investigate your complaint properly if you do get raped. What we have here is a product of the pampered “me me generation”. Instead of chanting at the girls in the front line, they might as well have been singing “won’t you be my body guard.” I only saw one comment from a politician, and that was from long time anti police protester Sue Bradford, she herself a rape victim, demanding an apology from the police. When exactly did this me me generation of women start, and is it the progressive attitude required to create a professional environment or succeed in one. If any one should know Gattung should. Perhaps she should cast her critical eye a little further into the bigger picture, and have a realistic encounter with the realities of life on the street. She’ll be waiting a long time in her office chair, if all she can do is bitch about opportunity, when this is next generation of girls lining up for a job at her place.

I don’t know how much longer Mr Dunne, your party will tolerate your skin deep credibility, and the lies and duplicity behind your facade of decency. Dunne has clearly left his party behind, both in principle and purpose, as the compurgator of a desperate and crumbling regime. You have turned your back on our country and our democracy. Let’s be clear what this Government is up to. Many people are now getting a better understanding of the meaning and implications of section 59, and what the consequences will be in society from this law change, and I think that has really panicked the cogs of this political machine. Don’t be fooled by the Rape cries of the girl’s brigade, as they have another meaning just like smacking children did. Of course you’re sympathetic to rape victims, but let’s assure these people that gullibility is still in the dictionary and we know what it means.

We have two courts systems in New Zealand, our common law courts and the family court. These courts operate of different burdens of proof. The criminal courts as we know are beyond reasonable doubt, and the family court on the balance of probabilities. The latter being a much lower burden of proof and a lower standard of evidence. Public Sympathy for rape victims is being used to undermine the standard of proof in our criminal courts. Just feed us the fertiliser a bit at time and you think we want notice.

Heads up girls and boys or we loose another piece of freedom and independence to the socialist state. You can see how ruthless these people will be when they will take a bunch of young girls and twist their minds and print anti police posters, and Annette says how terrible this is. That’s what you’ve joined up to Dunne.

Herr Confusion

The hour glass of credibility is running low. Nobody did anything wrong, and don’t worry your selves about what has happened, I will fix it. Well you can’t get any higher than the top for another quick fix. Nobody did anything wrong, so everyone did everything right. Of course, it was an act of God, an act of God, an act of God, an act of God. Time and time again, when the same mistake is made, individually it is stupidity, but socially its irresponsibility. If there is no consequence to failure, there is no inclination to succeed. You don’t have to get it right if you collect your pay cheque either way, whether it is on the dole or as dollish office holder. Society may expect to disintegrate and fall into servitude when men ignore these realities and their transcendent obligations. For someone who promotes people past their level of competence for their own political ends they must accept their responsibilities and their failures alike, and at who’s expense will it continue to be, ours or hers

FYI, my email to National Radio today:

The feminist lynch mob wants Mr Rickard convicted on the basis of inadequate evidence. They appear to want any man accused by any woman to be considered guilty regardless of due process. When a man is acquitted in a fair trial by a jury that closely inspects the case against him, the armchair zealots steadfastly ensure he is still punished in every way possible as if guilty, and they demand changes to fundamental legal principles but of course only for male crimes. We even hear shrill cries insisting he is punished for exercising his right to free speech; in effect calling to remove that right also. Feminist ideology has so captured our society that even media and spokespersons who should know better have jumped on the bandwagon that treats men much as black slaves in America not so many years ago, when all that was required to prove guilt was an accusation from a white landowner. Such vengeful abandonment of fairness for accused men is the result of a feminist ideology largely based on erroneous assumptions. When the fundamentals are wrong no good outcome is likely.

Media Release

Parents for Children.
6 March 2007

For Immediate Release

Parents Group Condemns Greens Support of “Women’s Choice” to De-Father Children.

“It’s a sad day for Kiwi Kids when the Greens are espousing that it is a women’s choice to deny a child the right to know his or her biological father.” Commented Mark Shipman, of Parents for Children. Responding to Sue Bradford’s speech for the Greens during the first reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill.

“Ms Bradford is clear in her speech that it is a reasonable choice for women to decide to exclude a child’s biological father from the child’s life. This is a clear breach of a child’s right to know and maintain a relationship with their father and can place a child at considerable risk.

Let’s be clear the proposed exemptions in the bill protect women from being required to declare the father where issues of “safety” are involved so what the Greens are advocating is a women’s choice to de-father a child and obviously this is accepted by Ms Bradford as an appropriate position to take.”
Observed Mark on the content of Ms Bradford’s speech.

Research clearly shows that kids achieve the best outcomes when both mum and dad parent them. The Greens should be promoting equal parental rights and responsibilities instead they are advocating de-fathering children as a women’s choice. Whether parents are separated or together Kids need both mum and dad. Concluded Mark

Ends

For Further Comment Contact
Mark Shipman (021) 982222
Jim Nicolle (021) 800-586

I was a young policeman in Auckland back in the eighties, a uniform officer. It was a time when women were being brought into the Police in greater numbers; some had progressed into CIB, which was new territory. When it came to night shift, young uniform staff would drive for a detective. It was a good opportunity to see the promotional prospects and the challenges of criminal investigation. Every nightshift one or two uniform officers would be posted with CIB.

Our section at the time had a female detective. My turn came around and I was assigned as a CIB driver. Someone had warned me that she had a propensity for hitting on her driver. If you know the Auckland Central Police Station, at the bottom of Vincent street, well we hadn’t even hit the top of Vincent street and she started, “I know your married…….(yes), but would you still have sex with other women…..(I’m not interested)” I thought that might have been a big enough hint that I wasn’t interested in sex on shift, but no, she kept at it for about 2 -3 hours, till finally she instructed me to drive to her house on the pretext that she needed to pick something up.

When we got to her address she insisted that I come inside, and I insisted I would stay in the car. When she realised I was not budging the temperature dropped a few degrees, and she got out slammed the door and went inside. She had already logged us off air at her place, so I waited till she was out of sight and used the radio so the operator knew I was still in the car. She came back a short while later, and talk about a women scorned…..

I was instructed not to initiate any preventative police work, not to do anything without consulting her, and to drive where instructed, I even had to ask to go to the toilet. It was a long night, a long, long night. We got to the end of the shift and I went off to my sergeant and told him what had happened, and to find someone else, because I was going to be back in uniform next shift. We took a trip up to the Detective sergeants’ office, to explain what was going on, and that was the end of my week as CIB driver.

Next night she bailed me up outside the shift room to find out if I had made a written complaint. I wasn’t overly concerned that she had hit on me, but she had an expectation that she was going to get sex on shift, and she took it out me when it didn’t happen. What really pissed me off though was that she stopped me being a policeman for a whole night. We didn’t do any police work that night, and from a professional point of view, she was just a waste of space in a CIB car.

When I reflect back now I wish I had made a written complaint because a short time afterwards a new recruit told me about what had happened to him on night shift CIB. What he was really asking me though; is this what happens in the police? The answer was, no it isn’t, and you’ve just got the wrong impression from one person. The bad apples aren’t always male.

Jail semen

Well the women picked the man. Hell this government is all for the women, what’s the problem. Oh, of course, no child support from the jail boy.

Is a smack an assault or cruelty?

Assault on a child,

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who–

(a)Assaults any child under the age of 14 years; or

Cruelty to a child.

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, having the custody, control, or charge of any child under the age of 16 years, wilfully ill-treats or neglects the child, or wilfully causes or permits the child to be ill-treated, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering, actual bodily harm, injury to health, or any mental disorder or disability.

At what point does a smack become any; unnecessary suffering, actual bodily harm, injury to health, or any mental disorder or disability.

It is no wonder other countries have come to grief over this stupidity. How will parents cope under the constant scrutiny of the state, while their friends and relatives become front page news for inappropriate child discipline?

With the removal or alteration of section 59 primary school teachers will face new challenges.

Q. If a child reports to a teacher, that “my mommy smacked me”, is the teacher obliged to report this to the police?
Q. Will it be education policy that teachers report any child’s complaint to the police?
Q. Will it be an employment issue is a teacher does not report a child’s complaint?
Q. If a child’s complaint is reported to the police, will the child be interviewed without the parent’s knowledge?
Q. Who will interview the child, the police, a psychologist, Child Youth and family, or any or all of the above?
Q. If a prosecution is brought, will the child be allowed to return to their home that day?
Q. If a mother is arrested will the father be considered a safe parent?
Q. Will the child be allowed to go home but the not the mother?
Q. If a complaint is taken will either parent be allowed to talk to the teacher who is a witness?
Q. If the child complainant is a twin will the twin or any other siblings be interviewed?
Q. Will the child be expected to give evidence against the parent?
Q. At what age is the child a competent witness?
Q. At what age is the child a compellable witness.
Q. Which court will have jurisdiction, at what age, family court or district court?
Q. Will teachers tell children that if you are smacked at home you can ring the police on 111, so they don’t get put in a difficult position?
Q. Will it be police policy to prosecute in every teachers report in the interests of child safety?
Q. Will children move classes so teachers will make these reports don’t have to deal with the parents whom they have reported?
Q. Will the really abusive parents tend not to send their children to school?
Q. How many teacher days will be lost to court appearances?

It is not just a case of changing the law, how will these situations be handled?

The Communists 45 Declared Goals from 1963 have made their way to the MRA. When you read what they wrote 44 years on you can see how it has unfolded. You can also see how feminism is communism.
(more…)

This line is taken from a comic opera, by Gilbert and Sullivan. Although spoken in jest, there is more wisdom in these operas, than I have ever seen in action at the Familycaught! This is the essence of a working court system. If they cannot do this, then they are worthless to society, just a drain on resources.

Alice in Wonderland has recently been compared favourably to the NZ High Court. The children were right all along! The courts system in NZ has severe problems, if you ever compare what it promises society, to the outcomes and the costs.

There is a major value for money problem, that as yet, has not been successfully addressed. The legal workers try to say, don’t budget for courts, we must spend what it takes. This is clearly not true, a dollar spent on legal aid, is a dollar not spent on a doctor or a teacher or a new hospital building.

Society must start listening to it’s members, who have been through these courts and listen carefully to what they are saying. Talk to your family, about their court experiences. Talk to your workmates, about their Familycaught experiences.

You may end up being forced to use the services of one of these courts, one day.

Lets consider an everyday Familycaught hearing:

The first step is to clarify the situation.

How skilled are Familycaught judges at “weighing” evidence?
If a mistake was made in a previous hearing, how skilled are these judges at sorting out past mistakes, so that this hearing can get it right and move on?

When you deal with doctors, how easy is it to get any past mistakes corrected?

When it comes to making the punishment fit the crime, then it is important to understand the FULL set of options available.

When “lay judges” only select from a reduced set of options, they are prejudging the situation.

Gary Becker was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1992, for giving a mathematical proof that prejudice only gives a benefit, when one party places a greater value on a loss to another party, than on their own benefit. This concept has been known generally, for over two thousand years.

NZ legislation is silent on value issues, so should the judges personal values about “real men should be at work for 40+ hours per week”, be applied to your family?

If you can support your family on 30 hours a week, should a judge set you to working 40 – 50 hours per week and let your Xwife care for your children without being obliged to work?

Whose values should be applied?

Prejudice is a dead loss game, but NZ Familycaught judges don’t yet understand this!

Professor Mark Henaghen Otago University, in his book Family Law, tries to explain the Familycaught approach in custody disputes. I understand that Prof Henaghen is an academic and I am not sure if he has actually acted in court. It appears he has only ever read published cases, which show the Familycaught in the light that it wants the public to see it. I believe that Professor Henaghen is using the same twisted meanings on English words, that judges use in their reading of legislation so that what they write is very misleading when read by a citizen.

Sanford L Braver discusses how courts approach custody, in his book Divorced Dads shattering the myths. Reading his book, it is possible to reconcile experience in Familycaught, with his discussion of how judges approach these issues.

Chapter 4 Standards of Living is quite relevant to child support issues in NZ.

The chapter on Child Custody is excellent, in terms of understanding the dully simplified way that “judges” try to think their ways through custody cases.

Braver’s book does not address the issues about the quality of lay judges “weighing” evidence. Most of the problems in Familycaught arise from unskilled weighing of evidence, associated with dragging cases out to generate more income for the lawyers.

In NZ, judges are appointed from practicing lawyers, with 7 years of experience.

In Europe, judges do standard lawyer training. Then they have a further 4 years of training, some of it work experience in courts and law practices and some academic training in judicial issues:

Weighing evidence
Using Bayes Theorem in calculating probability associated with evidence
(Look up Bayes theorem, prosecutors fallacy and defense lawyers fallacy in Wikipedia)

Professional level skills for weighing evidence were discussed by Judge Arthur Tomkins, in 2002.

The Role and Use of Expert Witnesses in Trials Judge Arthur Tompkins 7 November 2002

These ideas have not appeared in any published cases in NZ, so it seems that the ideas have never moved into the practice of the NZ courts, other than for understanding DNA evidence. This shows how important it is, to have judges with professional level training.

NZers cannot really complain about judges skills, if they expect “lay” judges to provide judicial services in NZ!

Are you happy to have untrained social workers roaming the streets, taking children, with the checks and balances provided by untrained “lay” judges in Familycaught?

I prefer to gamble with money in investments. I don’t want to gamble with my children, by being forced to present my case before “lay” judges, who lack professional level training to be a judge.

Thus NZ is essentially using “lay” judges, that is people who lack any professional level training to be judges.

We have Justices of the Peace, remember Jim Bailey’s aborted trial in Tauranga.
We have District Court and High Court Judges (and familycaught judges), who have only basic lawyers training.

Thus, it should be no surprise that we have such a poor record of court hearings getting it right first time!

Look up the following in Wikipedia:
Moira Woods
Sir Roy Meadow
Sally Clark case
Defendant’s fallacy
prosecutor’s fallacies

It is important that we understand our limitations in life.

When we have accusations, about incidents that have occurred in private, then trying to find out what happened is fraught with risk of getting it wrong.

Anyone who is brave enough to claim they can reliably find the truth, without hard evidence, is deluding themself. Don’t let them delude you as well. An inquisitorial approach allows investigation until the situation has been clarified well enough, so that decisions can be based on solid ground. The Adversarial approach may be quicker, but carries large risks of decisions based on poor or incorrect information. (The adversarial approach garners more money for lawyers and generates more work for judges.)

When a court “finds facts”, there is always a risk of mistake. Even with judges having professional training, this risk will still be present, to a significant degree.

The art to minimising self inflicted damage, is to act on information, only to the extent that it can be relied upon. This is why hanging has been abolished, due to the practical difficulties judges found, to later correct mistakes properly.

Just as important, is the quality of legislation. The Domestic Violence Act was passed on the initiative of the then Chief Justice. Even though the high probability of breaches of natural justice were pointed out, prior to the passing of this legislation. After the Act has been running for over a decade, there has been no reliable investigation of whether this Act is achieving anything at all (for society). It has made more work for lawyers. It appears to have given many children reduced contact with a good father and increased time with a manipulative mother.

Surely this is an important issue and should be looked into, rather than just let a destructive Act of Parliament stay on the books?

Lets have a campaign to get rid of the existing “lay” judges and appoint judges with relevant professional level training.

Best regards,
Murray Bacon