4.00pm Tuesday September 19, 2006
By Lindy Laird

New Zealand women won the right to vote in New Zealand 113 years ago today – but that didn’t mean equality issues were all over bar the shouting.

“It took another 70 years of nagging” before women could sit on juries, be Justices of the Peace or work as police officers, says longtime women’s lobbyist Audrey Trimmer.

…

Equal pay and parity in employment was one of the more high-profile ongoing battles, along with the campaign to reduce violence in society.

…

“Everybody is amazed when I tell them that there is still an an ongoing struggle on behalf of women,” Mrs Trimmer says.

“There are so many things we take for granted now that wouldn’t have happened if the National Council for Women hadn’t lobbied hard for and made submissions to parliament.”

Mrs Trimmer fears that, although lobby groups will continue to work on rights and quality of life issues, younger generations had become blase about the events of 1893 which saw New Zealand lead the world in allowing women to vote.

“I think it’s a shame that New Zealand history isn’t taught to the level it should be in schools.”

Christine Low, national president of the group that represents up to 250,000 women belonging to a wide variety of affiliated groups, said it was ironic that women’s groups were still fighting for some of the same issues fought for by the suffragettes.

“We have made some gains but it’s far from over. There’s still an awful lot of work to do not only for women but to benefit all of New Zealand society.

“Freedom from violence, in particular,” Ms Low said. “Calling it domestic violence just pigeonholes it. It’s much broader than that. And pay equity is still but a distant dream for many.”

…

* Women in Mongolia had the vote (1924) before women in Britain (1928). In Spain women lost the vote in 1936 under the Franco regime and didn’t get it back until 1976. In Australia the end of legislative discrimination against Aboriginal peoples gave native women the vote in 1962. Swiss women were allowed to vote after 1971, and in Bahrain women gained the vote in 2001.

– NZPA

NOTE: The comments expressed in these articles may not reflect that of the post author

1.00pm Tuesday September 19, 2006
By Maggie Fox

Women are being filtered out of high-level science, maths and engineering jobs in the United States, and there is no good reason for it, according to a National Academies report released today.

A committee of experts looked at all the possible excuses — biological differences in ability, hormonal influences, childrearing demands, and even differences in ambition — and found no good explanation for why women are being locked out.

“Compared with men, women faculty members are generally paid less and promoted more slowly, receive fewer honours, and hold fewer leadership positions,” the Academies said in a statement.

“These discrepancies do not appear to be based on productivity, the significance of their work, or any other performance measures.”

…

“We found no significant biological differences between men and women in science, engineering and mathematics that could account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and scientific leadership positions,” said Donna Shalala, president of the University of Miami and head of the committee that wrote the report.

The study was compiled by all the National Academies — the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine — which advise Congress, the federal government, and various institutions.

…

Many arguments have been made to explain why women do not excel in maths and science — that they are not as good as men in mathematical ability, that female brain structures are different or that hormones affect performance.

Lawrence Summers resigned as Harvard University president after he made widely disparaged remarks in 2005 suggesting that women were biologically less able in maths and science, and that women chose to pay more attention to their families and thus failed to put in enough effort to succeed at work.

The experts looked at many different studies on the issue.

“The committee found no sound evidence to support these myths and often good evidence to the contrary,” said Ana Mari Cauce, Executive Vice Provost at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“In fact, female performance in high school mathematics now matches that of males. If biology were the basis of that, we’ve seen some major evolution in the past decades.”

Urgent change is needed, said Cauce, if the United States wants to compete internationally in science.

“This is about more excellence. This is not about changing the bar or lowering the bar,” Cauce said.

…

– REUTERS

NOTE: The comments expressed in these articles may not reflect that of the post author

Scoop Link: Lock em up says Judith

From the National Website.

Revenue – Dr Hon Lockwood Smith
Associate Revenue – Pansy Wong.

Look who has got plenty to say for herself when it is not even her portfolio. Looks like Pansy Wong is going to be the National Patsie set up for the Hospital Pass.

Dateline: USA
From: By Brad Haynes of the Eagle-Tribune
Via: the Honor Network
Additional Comments: Timocrat

ANDOVER – Barbara Johnson, the flamboyant Andover lawyer who fought for the rights of fathers, campaigned for governor in an antique fire engine and drove a hearse to Washington, D.C., to protest divorce laws, has been barred from practicing law in Massachusetts.

Johnson became well known in the Merrimack Valley and among fatherhood rights activists for her successful defense of Brian Meuse of Haverhill, who was accused of kidnapping his daughter from her mother, who had temporary custody and had taken the child to Florida. Meuse was found not guilty by an all-male jury in May 2002 after Johnson argued he had no choice but to take the 14-month-old girl because the mother was not getting her the medical care she needed.
Johnson, 71, who also has been an acerbic critic of the Massachusetts court system, said yesterday she’ll fight her disbarment all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yesterday, she called the process under which she was disbarred a “kangaroo court,” and compared the state to a Third World country, but remained nonchalant about life after losing her license.
Johnson was disbarred for putting sensitive confidential information from two of her cases on her Web site, for refusing to pay legal fines after being held in contempt, and for conducting herself in an “insulting, vituperative” manner in court, among other charges.

Men rights activist can’t practice in New Zealand, and even pro-male rights female lawyers lose their right to practice in US. Do you see the trend here? Is it really the impartial law we need to deal with here? Again in this story they are trying to come down on websites too. Unite with other men’s rights or suffer in isolation.

Economist Murray Weatherston says child abuse costs New Zealand $1.25 billion a year. About 120 people, including social workers, paediatricians and Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro, attended a one-day seminar on Monday called by Weatherston and Family Court Judge Graeme MacCormick.

NZ Herald: Parents should sit licence test, say experts

A high-powered expert group has proposed a kind of “parents’ licence test” which all parents would have to sit to keep care of their children and to receive child-related welfare benefits.

The proposed assessment, similar to a driver’s licence, would be administered when a baby was born and repeated when the child turned 1, 3, 5, 8, 11 and 14.

Parents found to have “risk factors” for child abuse, such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol problems or mental illness, would be offered help.

Judge Graeme MacCormick, a former Family Court judge who initiated the proposal, told a seminar in Auckland yesterday that parents who refused to accept help, or to be assessed, should have their child-related benefits suspended and possibly lose their children.

If currently popular “no smacking” standards are imposed, around 80% of us are going to fail. Perhaps a massive programme of building state orphanages is just around the corner.

Are the “risk factors” likely to be applied in a gender-neutral manner I wonder? Mmmm…

Parenting Council chairwoman Lesley Max said society should not tolerate “child hostage” situations where “fearsome fathers or father figures frighten away those who might help”.

If you’re a male and need emergency housing, even for just a few nights, there’s often nowhere to lay your head. Merilee Andrew reports.

Western Welfare Agencies, which can comfortably cater for displaced females and their children, say the housing situation is desparately inadequate for males.

Citizen’s Advice Buraeu manager Diane Mellowes has trouble placing males. “I’ve had a run of them. There’s just this huge gap for homeless men or married people. ”

Her office is a common port of call for people who are low on funds but need a roof in a hurray. It’s not a problem if they’re female. But for everyone else – single males, or families with a husband or older boys – it’s “desperate”.

Salvation Army Henderson’s Zandrea Lee says she meets quite a few men who come in, down on their luck, to find nowhere local to send them.

The Aucklander, 6 September 2006, page 7.

The rest of the article describes a situation where the female and children where housed and the husband had to sleep in the car. Also how the streets become a home and how the places for men are not very pleasant.

It is no surprise that Clark wants to Tazer Trevor Mallard, but the question is why. Is it because she abides so strongly with the principle of keeping private and political separate, or that she saw that a similar such retaliation might expose something more damaging for her. What was exposed in the personal life of Don Brash may have implications for him personally and his family, even his future and his party. His alleged moral failure in a heterosexual relationship however does not pose a great threat to New Zealand Society. We can’t go killing off politicians on the basis of their lack of moral restraint unless the public is of equal or greater moral fibre.

If there is truth to the allegation that Mr. Davis is gay, then this is a completely different situation. It is not about morality it is about sexuality. The Heterosexual life style is based on reproduction and the Homosexual lifestyle is based on sexuality. If we have a sexuality based Government producing legislation which is damaging heterosexual relationships, that is a threat to the majority of New Zealanders, both socially and economically.

If it were true that Clark and Davis created a lesbian homosexual marriage of convenience, for their personal and political ambitions, that is a lie that the media is compelled to expose. It may be case that even their closest friends live the lie with them, but the public requirement here is that the media determine the facts and allow the democratic process to determine an answer.

It is becoming plainly evident to a voting public that the broadminded ideological fervor of the labour leadership is not only socially dysfunctional but has its origins in sexuality rather than reproduction. It is not only dysfunctional it is threatening.

Some would call this Gay Bashing, but it is not. Many homosexuals find complete acceptance in society. What turns acceptance to intolerance is the political ambition of sexuality. There is no need to suggest we return to the persecution of homosexuals, however one must expect that homosexuals will by the folly of a few of their political dissidents suffer the consequences.

If there are lies and deception here, the media owes us the answers, now that we have got this far.

This article was published on Stuff: Politics gets personal for PM

Child Support Convoy
Auckland to Wellington.
Friday 26th January 2007

Time to get serious about child support protest. The Convoy will travel from Auckland to Wellington ahead of the National Child Support Conference.

This is Auckland Anniversay Weekend. If you are serious about participating in this weekend, take Friday off and travel home on Monday.

Had enough of the IRD child tax department.

Project Re Union Trust is hosting a child support forum in Auckland. Those interested please note the following date and time.

Auckland Child Support Forum.
10.00 am – 3.00 pm
Sunday 29 th October.

This is advance notice for those interested. Further advertising will follow.
Guest speaker (will not be from the IRD, they had their chance last time)

Organiser: Jim Bagnal 09 815 0307

Auckland needs to take it’s ideas and protest to Wellington for the

National Conference on Child Support
25-28 January 2007.

I don’t know how many of you are getting information on the work Benjamin Easton is doing. He is part of the Father’s Coalition so if you are on their mailing list you probably know.

But to the rest of you IMO he is similar to Wayne’s unusual tactics to protest and educate the public.

Benjamin is in Wellington living on the street and ‘Busking for his supper’. I don’t have the full picture but I think he just decided he was doing this and he just, “Up and went to Wellington.” But while he has been doing this (for weeks) he is writing to polititions, inviting them to discuss matters, organising events and talking to those that walk by day and night. He has some very interesting conversations and sometimes I think he reminds me of just what life is all about for I often don’t have time to just be “still.”

But anyhow here are interesting stats he has collected frm the public.

Question: Is New Zealand corrupt?

Yes — 50 No — 31

Question: Are we homophobic?

Yes — 45 No — 29

Question: Are we racist?

Yes — 56 No — 22

Question: Do children need their dads?

Yes — 846 No — 89

Comment: Would the public stampede to protect their’ children to need their dads?

Question: When parents split up, should there be a presumption of shared equal
parenting before they reach the court?

Yes — 250 No — 39

Question: If the media are given a “truth” or fact, and that truth is serious or
“in the public and general interest” should legislation be written to force the
media to publish that truth to either an authority or public?

Final: Yes – 136 No — 37

Question: Can judges (court of law) demand the truth?

Final: Yes – 243 No – 119

Kororia ki te Atua,
God bless
TPBJ
BUSKING SNAIL MAIL: To Post Office Box 12088 Penrose, Auckland , New Zealand

A Production Company is producing a film on ‘prenuptials’ or as they are now referred to under the PRA Act 2002 , ‘contracting out agreements’.

The producer wishes to hear from anyone who has experienced an attack on one whether or not it went to a full court hearing. If it did not proceed to a hearing please advise why. Was blackmail utilised in order to have the decision settled out of court?

The program is about the “process” of defence in terms of Section 21 of the ACT. How was your contract attacked? The strategy of attack, first strike technique, domestic violence allegations, EXPATRE orders, solicitor incompetence in failing to advise other party adequately, other party not understanding contract, other party under undue pressure to sign etc.

Most importantly, did the contract supply you with ‘clarity and certainty’ as promised by the author of the ACT?

Your identification will be kept confidential and consent will be requested should the story be used in a dramatised format.

Please send succinct stories to

The CON-tract
Living Pictures Ltd
Box 56-459
Dominion Rd
Auckland 1003

A heads up for all who are interested.

A National Conference of Child Support Reformers is being planned for January 2007.

The Conference will be held in Wellington.

Date is 7 PM on Friday 26 Jan to 5pm Sunday 28 Jan.

A conference pack is being prepared and if you wish to present a paper let Mark or Jim know by forwarding a brief synopsis of your paper to :

[email protected]
[email protected]

This conference is open to all parents and groups who have an interest in Child Support Reform.

This is a heads up more details in a couple of weeks.

The Family Court’s principal judge has announced a shake-up of the court’s processes in a bid to speed up cases and prevent a “slagging match” between parents.

The changes, part of a two-year trial, include reducing the period between hearings, removing unnecessary evidence in hearings and making strong final decisions — irrespective of whether there is consent from the parties.

The move comes after fathers’ groups stepped up their campaign against the court this year with a leaflet drop in Christchurch.

Union of Fathers national president Bruce Cheriton said he was unsure the changes would work. “I’m dealing with people who have been in the system for six or seven years. What makes them think they can achieve these standards?”

Cheriton felt lawyers had been a factor behind the huge delays in some cases.

“Solicitors have probably caused about 50 per cent of the problems,” he said.

Many people still regard this as the smacking debate. What
does the repeal of Section 59 really mean.

Firstly there is a conflict between section 59 of the Crimes
Act, and The Care of Children Bill. You try and lodge a
custody application based on discipline issues in the family
court and they will simply refuse to hear the application.

When we remove section 59 we give away the definition of
Parent within the crimes act, which is a Mother and a Father
and replace it with the broader definition in the care of
children bill.

This effectively removes a parents (mothers and fathers)
rights to their children and replaces those rights with
responsibilities that are determined by the state.

Why is this happening? This is another step in the transfer
of our current legal system which is based on British common
law to New Zealand’s own codified law, which is heard in
the Family Court.

The family court is effectively the State Court of NZ, and
if you wanted other visible historic failures you would only
need to look as far as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, to
name two.

What does this mean for Fathers? When section 59 is
repealed we will see the third allegation rise. Through the
history of the family court we have seen the first two
allegations that have been used very successfully against Fathers

1. He has sexually abused the children (refer Cosa)

2. He is domestically violent. (The current allegation)

The third allegation will be

3. He uses inappropriate discipline.

What is so different about the family court?

It works the opposite way to what most guys are familiar
with. First to lay the claim is right until the claim is
proven wrong. This is why women make the pre emptive strike
and why guys feel in this court it is guilty until proven
innocent.

There is a huge leap for the average New Zealander to gain
an understanding and come to terms with what is happening
here. I want to leave you with this quote, from 1933, This
is Adolf Hitler 6 years before world war II, when pre war
Germany was in a similar legal and political transition to
what we are experiencing in New Zealand now.

‘When an opponent says “I will not come over to your
side”, I calmly say “Your child belongs to us
already…. You will pass on. Your descendants, however now
stand in the new camp In a short time they will know nothing
else but this new community.”

Bevan Berg
Republic of NZ Party.

Pay up, and penalties will be wiped out link to stuff.

Pay up and Penalties will be wiped – Child Support.

Judith Collins says “delinquent parents are a disgrace”

Now JC is a lawyer and words are her trade, so what does
this mean. If a Father lives in a different house from his
children and provides for his children in every way he
possible can, does that stop him being a delinquent parent.
Now the answer is NO.

The only way a delinquent parent can avoid this so called
disgrace is to hand over the money. Pay up and shut up.

What fathers are doing when they comply with these immoral
and illegal demands (and they are illegal and our attorney
general has failed parliament again) is to abandon their
role as fathers. Any Father who does not pay child support
but provides for his child or children will always have the
superior moral and legal position.

When parliament grows up and plays by the rules we will stop
regarding The National Party’s families spokesperson as a legal and
moral dipstick.

I might also take this opportunity to remind Ms Collins that
those same boorish people she castigates for protesting
outside lawyers and judges houses were the same protesters
outside the high court in Auckland that she thanked for
supporting Nick Smith when he faced contempt charges in the
high court.

Neither Peter Dunne as the proposer of this child support
legislation or Judith Collins as the objector have shown any
credibility as defenders of the family. They seem to have
forgotten that families include Fathers too.

Bevan Berg
Republic of New Zealand Party.

An article published recently on The Brussels Journal: How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam, blogger Fjordman discusses the impact of Muslim immigration to Scandinavia, including increasing violence against women. He quotes the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet as reporting that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by “non-Western” immigrants — a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims.

Fjordman argues that the increased feminisation of Scandinavian society has meant that the male instinct to protect woman has been eradicated along with other aspects of traditional masculinity. He points out that the anti-immigration right wing Progress Party receives over two thirds of the male vote, whereas the Socialist left party is supported by over two thirds of females.

Radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the current weakness of Western civilization, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and self-loathing to deal with aggression from Muslims.

I hope someone more knowledgable than me can offer some advice to Mike:

Hi, my name is Mike, I am a father of two girls who live with their mum and I have them every weekend.

I have always paid my child support, even after I fell ill in August 04, with a serious stress related illness. I worked in the film industry and I was in the highest income bracket and I was at times paying over $1500 a month in child support. I was off work for 3 months and because my income was high I recieved no sickness benifet or ACC, being self employed.

I didn’t get any sick pay either. I decided to change my life after that contract finished. I spent another three months off work and underwent a futher two major operations, once again no support from any Goverment agency.

I tried get them to give me a break with my payments during this time when I had no income but they wouldnt, so I stopped paying! When I got my tax return from my accountant for the period ending Mar 06 I went and saw them and tried to sort it out. After expenses I earned just $15,000 for the year!

Yesterday I recieved a statment from them and they now want $30,000 in arrears!!!!!!!!

I can’t believe that they can do this to people, I have had a gutsful of this crap and I can understand how men can snap and go and do crazy things, is there any recourse I can take for the stress that they are putting me under?

The good intentions of United Futures attack on Mr Boshier will be their undoing.

In an urgent email to Party President Graeme Reeves, this morning, I have asked for him to clarify the party’s position.

What deputy leader Judy Turner has done (and I fully support her) is represent United Futures position.

Peter Dunne as Revenue Minister is also responsible for child support legislation and those cases are heard in the family court. Mr Dunne is bound by collective responsibility and therefore must represent Labours Position on the family court in Revenue Issues.

You simply can’t have the United Future party leader saying the family court is good and the deputy leader saying the court is bad.

We know Labour is not interested in Fathers issues, but United Future say they are.

This is insane politics.

Clearly Mr Dunne cannot be Minister of Revenue and Leader of United Future. It’s making a mockery of our political system.

Mr Reeves must call upon Peter Dunne to resign and Judy Turner to take over the Leadership of United Future or alternatively United Future withdraws from this ridiculous makeshift coalition, stitched together by Helen Clarke at the last Election.

To top it off today Mr Dunne stood up in the debating chamber and castigated the other partys’ for Political Barbarism.

This ridiculous gimcrack government is not going progress Fathers Issues.

—– Original Message —–
From: Bevan Berg
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: Fw: Request for official information.

Minister for Revenue,

Dear Sir,

As you have responded to my original request, I am resubmitting this request to you.

Bevan Berg.
Republic of New Zealand Party.

—– Original Message —–
From: Bevan Berg
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:19 PM
Subject: Request for official information.

Dear Sir,

I make reference to Question for Written answer 04501 in relation to child support.

1. Could you please confirm this information for me, and update the 2005 figures to their current level.

2. Could you please extend this information to include the numbers and the values where child support was recovered from deceased estates during the same period?

Thank you

Bevan Berg

Sunday August 6, 2006

Talk about the oppressed becoming the oppressors.

I used to voice support for groups such as the Union of Fathers, representing miserable dads barred from seeing their children by heartless ex-wives and partners. But lately they’ve taken to making life miserable for other families just because the mum or dad happens to be a Family Court lawyer.

…

Fathers’ groups say the Family Court destroys what we are expected to believe were happy families – but who separated in the first place? I don’t recall officials from the Family Court rampaging through suburbia, randomly selecting innocent families and forcing them to split up.

…

When mum and dad take their personal vendettas to the Family Court, it’s the children who suffer. When groups like Jim Bagnall’s Union of Fathers take their rage to the houses of family lawyers, it’s the justice system that suffers.

There was a gasp for the political life of United Future as its deputy Leader Judy Turner took up the challenge of providing leadership and direction to the floundering party.

Today’s attack on Mr Boshier would normally be politically unacceptable, but commonsense has prevailed. The family court has lost credibility, and can no longer stand behind the unwritten convention that keeps parliament and the judiciary away from public criticism of each other.

While I welcome Mrs Turners leadership and political tenacity, in defending the fatherhood of New Zealand, and the principles of her party, we must not loose site of the overall relationship that The United Future Party has with the Labour Party, which at the end of the day is the policy machine behind this social engineering organisation we call the family court.

The day Mr Dunne took the position of Minister of Revenue he shot himself in the foot and his party in the back.

The big question for The United Future Party:

Will they sink with him or swim without him?

Fathers watch with interest.

—– Original Message —–
From: Bevan Berg
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:19 PM
Subject: Request for official information.

Dear Sir,

I make reference to Question for Written answer 04501 in relation to child support.

1. Could you please confirm this information for me, and update the 2005 figures to their current level.

2. Could you please extend this information to include the numbers and the values where child support was recovered from deceased estates during the same period?

Thank you
Bevan Berg

The Minister of Revenue is starting to look more like a labour clingon than the leader of United Future.

Bevan Berg
PO Box 2601,
Shortland St,
Auckland

17 August 2006

Minister for Revenue
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Dear Sir,

Further to my complaint 2 August and your reply 8 August.

As you are aware I am in possession of two unauthorised documents produced without the authority of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

Having referred this matter to the Auckland CIB, I am advised that IRD has accepted responsibility for these documents.

Your response to my complaint has been to refer the complaint to Inland Revenue, and I have today been contacted by an IRD staff member to discuss this complaint, which I do not intend to do.

I understood that you were the Minister of Revenue in the current administration, and as such you would require an explanation for the unauthorised use of documents.

It would appear to me that you are a pretend minister, and simply referring the matter to the Inland Revenue is highly irregular. It would be adequately explained should the real revenue minister be a member of the cabinet and not yourself.

Firstly, perhaps you would advise whether you are in a position to investigate this matter or not?

Secondly, are you the minister for Revenue or are you a pretend Minister in a
Gimcrack Government?

Bevan Berg
NZ Republicans.

I will take the absence of your answer to indicate that you are a pretend Minister in a Gimcrack Government?

AS you are all probably aware, a protest was held outside Helen Clark’s (Prime Minister of New Zealand) residence Saturday afternoon.This was well covered by local media including Prime News,TV3 (electronic media) and Sunday Star Times (print media).The protest was peaceful and, one hopes,conveyed our message far and wide.The protest was followed up by a visit to the Cenotaph in front of the museum at Auckland Domain,where several individuals addressed the general populace by virtue of megaphones. We then enjoyed a sumptuous BBQ provided courteously by Paul.We then rushed home to catch the TV coverage led by Prime who, I felt,did an adnmirable job in reporting objectively.This was followed soon after by TV3’s coverage which has me wishing I had turned off the tube and taken up sewing or knitting perhaps! Their segment was typically biased and really incensed me when they stated that children as young as 9 were present (and then cut-away to a shot of my almost 12 year old daughter) and described them as looking sad!!, (at which point she became quite annoyed and said in a more juvenile fashion “Bollox!!!!!”). To close this,I would impore readers to invoke the header i.e. give TV3 the bum’s rush and stick to TVNZ’s channel 1 coverage, (even better get the jump on the pack and watch Prime!! 🙂

Dateline: California, USA
Author: Glenn Sacks
From: Anti-Misandry
Via: The Honor Network

NEW CAMPAIGN–Veto Domestic Violence Bill Which Excludes Fathers, Children
September 5, 2006

NEW CAMPAIGN–Veto Domestic Violence Bill Which Excludes Fathers, Children from State Services!
The California Assembly just passed a domestic violence bill which deliberately perpetuates the state’s harmful policy of excluding men and their children from receiving state-funded domestic violence services. Under AB 2051, only “battered women” are eligible for the shelters, hotel vouchers, counseling and legal services the state provides victims of domestic violence. We’re calling on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto this misguided legislation.

I want all of you to write to the Governor to tell him to veto AB 2051 by clicking here. By filling out the form you will be sending a fax to the Governor.

Remember, what happens in California has a major impact on the laws and policies of other states and also at the federal level.
Sacramento lobbyist Michael Robinson and the California Alliance for Families and Children have been working to make the bill gender neutral for several months. AB 2051 is based on the discredited premise that men are rarely the victims of intimate partner abuse. However, more than 50 domestic violence researchers and treatment providers have signed an opposition letter to the Legislature in which they state:

“The data is without question–domestic violence affects both men and women. The politicization of this issue must stop and services must be provided to all children and their parent victims.”

Court-certified batterer intervention provider John Hamel, LCSW, author of Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse: A Comprehensive Approach, asserts that research shows that a third of domestic violence-related injuries are incurred by heterosexual males.

According to domestic violence researcher Richard Gelles, co-author of the groundbreaking 1980 book Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families, it is very difficult for fathers who are being abused by their wives or significant others to protect themselves and their children. They can’t leave because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If they take their children they can be arrested for kidnapping. If they divorce or separate, they’d probably lose custody of their children in the divorce, again leaving their children in harm’s way.

Tens of thousands of California children are being denied needed domestic violence services solely because their victimized parent is male. By ignoring the needs of these children, we are increasing the risk that they will continue the cycle of violence when they become adults.

AB 2051 was originally introduced for the purpose of addressing domestic violence within the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender communities. Neither Robinson, the CAFC, nor I have any problem with this. However, while the bill’s original language was gender-neutral, the author later amended the bill back to gender-specific, discriminatory language, and therein lies the problem.

By vetoing AB 2051, Governor Schwarzenegger can make it clear that it’s time to end the state’s discriminatory policies. His veto will return the issue to the Legislature next year, so that a solution can be crafted to serve the needs of all victims of domestic violence–including men and their children.

Again, I want all of you to write to the Governor to tell him to veto AB 2051 by clicking here.
To learn more about AB 2051, see my co-authored column AB 2051 Moves California in Wrong Direction on Domestic Violence (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 6/1/06). To read the bill, click here. The bill references “battered women” 31 times, yet never once mentions “male victims” or “men.”