How can you spot a man in today’s world? It is getting harder and harder to see them in action. Should men play it safe?

Let me offer you another perspective from the post below on this subject. It was put to us recently in a seminar by guest speaker Jed Diamond that unless we as fathers, teachers and male members of society act professionally in the roles that we find ourselves, we are doing the children and ourselves a disservice. Jed advocates that we should act out the goodness and wisdom within us and if prosecution and jail is the end result then so be it. If you believe that fathers and their children have a right to be equally intimate as their mothers then you should be vocal about this fact. Be proud that you posses these pure emotions.

I would only see my daughter for 2 out of every 14 days and she loved hoping in the bath with me. It became a concern for some when she was 8 yrs old and still insisted on the practice. I was close to stopping the practice but for my mother who wisely said “she will let you know when its time” Sure enough before she was 9 yrs she one night said “Daddy I don’t want to bath with you” I let her know that was just fine. That daughter is now 21 and is a very well adjusted child.

Consider those of political persuasion in the past who were jailed and tortured for the freedoms that we should be experiencing right now. Changing evil in society never comes without cost. Who is prepared to pay this cost? When Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat and go to the rear of the bus she stood to lose her life and that of her family. Make no mistake about it, this is a war and like a civil war it is a difficult one to fight as the enemy and the expected outcome are at times difficult to identify.

Brave and focused men are needed in this fight for both ours and our children’s rights.

He was violent toward me, or He sexually abused the children, can now be a thing of the past.

The new allegation will be his discipline is not appropriate.

At present section 59 of the Crimes Act, authorises mothers and fathers to discipline their children. If section 59 is removed discipline will be a dispute or an issue to be determined in individual cases in the family court.

The removal of section 59 will not only start a new wave of court activity, but many of you who thought your family court days were over may find your case revisited on discipline issues, historic allegations of violence against your children.

The removal of section 59 will also open the door in the Care of Children Bill for greater representation of children by lawyers. If you thought it was just their mother you had to watch out for watch this space.

If only people would stop talking about smacking and start understanding the significance and the implications of section 59 of the Crimes Act, and how it relates to our children — your children, and the future of fathers in New Zealand.

Doesn’t life have some amazing twists to it?? I wrote to David Benson Pope in 1994 when he was the Associate Minister of Justice. I was pleading for his help in relation to the PRA (Property Relationship Act 2002). I explained to him how the Act was not performing as was promised and from my experience was being interpreted and abused by Misandric Lawyers. His answer to me was extremely disappointing as he simply quoted me the ACT and ignored my concerns.

I find it strange that I now find myself supporting him in the situation he finds himself . I only hope he now has more sympathy for victims of unjust accusations, particularly of the sexual nature.

In his interview on TV I empathised with him as he spoke of the anguish he felt at being called a pervert. The pain on his face expressed more than his words.

When I was falsely accused of abusing my own child, I received a lot of support from both male and female friends. They would say to me “don’t worry mate we know you are a good father” I was therefore surprised by the negative impact it still had upon me. Without support I fear I would not be here today.

I believe there should be :

1. More done to stop false accusation (greater penalties for the accuser)

2. Support for the accused from government agencies. This support should continue for
the innocent until recovery is assured.

3. A study to be carried out on the effect these malicious & false accusations have on males.

4. The results of this study to be used in the educational process of all Government Agencies.

I help out in a support agency for men, I support and encourage them, I help also in management of this group. I have been through hell and ten years of theraputic personal work, and I am not stopping that any time soon, the rewards are too great. Why do it, why put myself through it?

For the men, thats why – for all men, for me primarily, because the range and extent of people our agency sees is huge, as is the range of injury to the soul/emotional body.

There are people from all walks and places in their lives, most of whom recognise they have a problem and want to change something in their lives. Invariably they learn and take something with them into relationships and life in general. There is a flow on in the lives of others, be it their partners, children, freinds, or workmates.

Theres a notion that it is “pussy” to be gentle but let me assure you it sure isn’t. To actually change and learn new strategies for dealing with confrontation or disagreement is hell scary.

To face myself helped me face all comers. I make no apology for congratulating and supporting our men who facilitate these changes, and the brave men who make these changes in their lives. It is no easy road.

Here’s the rub: what point is there in men going through this change alone, if feminism has done much for women and will no doubt continue to do so, the state of our men is lagging desparately behind? Our mental emotional and physical health, are they sidelined and if so why? Yet there is so little available for men specifically. Things are improving, but there is still a ways to go. There is apparantly little research into how men are in our country. Sad isn’t it? Our stats in so many areas are so sad, yet little is done to redress it.

I personally found so much has been related to my personal journey as a man in terms of how I feel in relation to the world. It has given strengths that amaze me even today. We are told to walk the talk by some agencies. I agree to some extent, and in some ways disagree. We need to walk the talk, and we neeed to do it as men. And we need places and help to do that. So that in many cases we heal wounds that may have made us wound. To find our strength in our emotional health.

Back to healthy relationships and selves. Maybe its our time to lead in a new direction.

Unless we actively attend to ourselves, our society is in danger. Men as fathers brother uncles granddads and freinds are critical to society. We do this by infusing healthy male energy into our worlds and the worlds of coming generations. If we do this, if we as men remain men and learn new strength, we can remain steadfast in our masculinity.

If we remain steadfast to our masculinity and show we can live without violence, without control, and without manipulation, and yet stand our ground in family, work, court, political situations then there is no way we can be stopped. Our world will become better, the world we leave will become greater because we passed by.

Remember the good and strong men who have lived. Don’t buy into and focus on the negative press. Be a man and be proud. Hold your grace, dignity, manliness and do so in the manner of a man. Do this in all places at all times. If you do you will be rewarded – believe me. A world wothout strong men is no world at all.

Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft is becoming increasingly worried by a surge in serious violent offences by teenagers.

Stuff Link. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3586412a11,00.html

Judge Andrew Becroft has previously linked violent crimes to fatherless homes, however that is not mentioned in this article.

AND THE FAMILY COURT REVISITED

By James Bagnall

Having been a McKenzie Friend 86 times appearing both before and after the new Act came in force, how if at all has the Family Court changed?

Strangely, under the Act a pilot scheme has been set up in the North Shore Family Court. Publications and DVDs also have been widely distributed, the central theme of which is how parents should consider their childrens lives and futures.

Obvious questions are:

1. Were parents using the Courts to not consider their Childrens lives under the Guardianship Act 1968? And why?
2. Were the Family Courts not considering the more than 80,000 childrens lives they processed under the Guardianship Act 1968? And why?
3. Why was the pilot scheme set up in the North Shore Court?
4. If things were fine under the Guardianship Act 1968 why the need for a pilot scheme and why the propaganda distributed nation wide?

Even under a pilot scheme the same lawyers and to some extent the same judges are involved in all the Courts in Auckland. So do the judges and lawyers behave differently in different Courts according to whether it is a pilot scheme or not? And are children marginalised from their fathers more in one court than another?

The lawyers especially and the judges to some extent still have the same financial adversarial interest in the Domestic Violence industry and they therefore retain the same femi-dollar agendas, the same legal intelligence to that end, the same lack of child development qualifications and a new Act that allows them to follow the same agendas as under the old Act. They inflame situations as before.

Example 1. Some prominent North Shore law firms still use allegations of sexual molestation, with no evidence, of children by their fathers to marginalise and alienate their children from them. All done legally under section 59-62 of the new Act with no criminal charges but with the same results as if there were.

Extended enriching litigation ensues. For who? GREED? ANTI CHID? ABSOLUTELY!

Example 2. Some Counsels for Child deliberately promote the child they represent to stay in an abusive relationship with their mother in spite of the child’s dad applying for custody. When things get worse after 2 years or more of abuse they then recommend a Care and Protection order in favour of CYFS. Some of these Counsels for Child end up working exclusively for CYFS. CORRUPTION? ABSOLUTELY!

Example 3. In other Court jurisdictions, for example Henderson, self litigants are refused McKenzie friends in Judge led mediation, whilst both the child and the mother are represented by lawyers. GENDER BIAS? ABSOLUTELY!

The pilot North Shore scheme however does put pressure on both sides to think of their children. Judge Ryan in Judge led mediation conferences does his best not to discriminate and further more the North Shore Family Court office has developed into an efficient friendly machine for self litigants, male and female.

The Human Rights Of Children

Sections 59-62 of the new Act allows violations of children’s human rights to continue. These rights violations are perpetrated by ruthless greedy lawyers some of whom can be found right here in TAKAPUNA.

A Constitution

We need a constitution that enshrines childrens human rights. The right to have two biological parents. The right not to lose one parent through false allegations.

The Care of Children Act 2005 still allows these HUMAN RIGHTS abuses to CONTINUE.

Dear Menz Members & Visitors,
I would like to thank John. P for this opportunity to place this on his notice board. I’m a Canadian that has, like countless other men, suffered under the unjust laws found in many western countries toward average men.

I’d like to have a call out for New Zealand & Australian men, who are part of a men’s organization or just committed to the cause, to take part in a very large men’s rights think tank that will be run over the Internet? This will begin later this year, and will involve as wide an element of men organizations from around the anglosphere as possible. Already word has gotten around and the list is going. This is not an exercise for some project at a university.
(more…)

Submissions to the Social Services Comitte on the Child Support Amendment Bill (no. 4) close on the 27 Feb (see here) I know how busy people are, so below is a one page submission for you to use.

Send your submission to
Clerk of the Committee
Social Services Select Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

by 27 Feb

If the committee received 1000 of these submissions !
(more…)

During the term of the last Government, associate revenue minister Mr Cunliffe, was asked the same question we have asked of the Revenue Minister in the current Government, Mr Dunne, but still we receive no answer.

We know how much child support debt has been written off because it cannot be recovered from the estates of dead men. We have those figures for the past 6 years.

The question we have asked is how much money has the IRD recovered from the deceased estates of how many men in the past 6 years.

Why have two ministers in two governments refused to release this information?

The Republic of New Zealand Party (The Republicans) will repeal the Care of Children Act and abolish the Family Court, the Party’s spokesperson on Family Affairs, Jim Bailey said.

Link to news.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0602/S00062.htm

Someone once said “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” Hitler was less subtle, “your child belongs to us already” Socialism has always realised the power of the child and the need to destroy the family, the church, and to control education and values. The destruction of the family in New Zealand has been a remarkable success over the last 30 years, and men have been removed from schools at an equally alarming rate.

In our legislation we still have one major legal stumbling block. Legal ownership of the child remains with parents as long as we retain section 59. Loose it and we loose not only ownership and authority over the child, but ownership and authority of the Childs information.

You may be left with possession and responsibilities toward the child, but legally you will have lost the power to say what information the child may collect and store. The state in authority will have no legal obligation to tell you its decisions on behalf of the child. What information is stored, where it is stored, who has access to it, and how much of that stored information you are allowed to see.

So many people do not realise the political and legal significance of the section 59 debate. At first it was masked as a smacking debate – then it was use of a weapon for discipline debate. It is not hard to simply alter section 59, so why do those antagonists demand compete repeal.

The real debate is should parents have ownership and autonomous authority over their child, subject to the laws of our country, or should the state have ownership of the child and the parent be subject to the responsibilities the state dictates.

One of the major changes in the care of children bill is that the best interests of the child is now a responsibility in the administration of this act. Who is going to determine what are “the best interests of the child”, and who is involved in the administration of the act.

Teachers, The police, CYPS. The Family Court.

This contrasts with the concept contained within section 59, that parents have authority, unless they appoint another person in their absences, and teachers automatically have authority when the child is in their care.

You will pass on, your descendants however may not enjoy the freedom and community that your parents left you. It is at this point many women will realise that they never gained liberation, they just became a pawn of the state.

Will the real New Zealand journalists please step up to the plate and write the New Zealand stories.

Michigan man lingers in prison on questionable rape conviction.

By Phyllis Schlafly

Feb 6, 2006

William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for more than 20 years for having sex with his wife Linda. In 1986, he became the first man in Genesee County convicted of the new Michigan crime called spousal rape.

Linda was not a battered wife; she testified at the trial that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage. Hetherington was honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force, received a National Defense Service Medal, and had no police record of any sort.

The sentencing guideline for this new offense was 12 months to 10 years. But, without showing cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years (twice the time served by the average convicted rapist in Michigan). Twenty years later, despite an exemplary prison record, the parole board routinely refuses to parole him, giving as its sole reason “prisoner denies the offense.”

Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. It was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he said it was consensual sex, she said it was rape. The judge used Michigan’s new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
(more…)

A new publication calls into question the generally held view that casts males as the perpetrators of domestic violence and females as the victims. The study found that in most couples, men and women are about equally violent.

Lead researcher David Fergusson said agencies dealing with domestic violence should not assume men were the perpetrators or that women hit out only in self-defence.

“In fact, women initiate violence more than men.”

He said domestic violence typically involved both parties.

“If one partner was violent, so was the other one. This contrasts quite sharply with the dominant popular view that domestic violence is largely perpetrated by men on women.”

Professor Ferguson told TV3 News [download 5,421 KB wmv video], that our response to domestic violence has been shaped by a small amount of extreme violence.

“In those extreme incidents we find a predominance of males. But when we move away from the extreme to the more commonplace, both men and woman behave badly in the home.”

MENZ activist Darrell Carlin told TV3 News that he is not surprised by the findings:

“There is a big industry out there, a violence industry. It’s all based on men being the bad guys.”

At the end of the interview Prof Ferguson said:

“There should be broader recognition of the wider issue of couple violence, and services there to assist people to deal with couple violence and its implications.”

Ferguson told the NZ Herald that those who dished out the violence were generally victims too.

“It’s mutual conflict, so they are violent households.”

The study may be seen to contradict the view that men are more violent in relationships.

“It is the case that severe assaults, the kind you see in women’s refuges, are probably committed by males, but most of the family violence that goes on involves mutual conflict between couples,” Professor Fergusson said.

“This study should reshape what we think about gender and violence …

“These are black-and-white stereotypes – males are brutes and females are victims – that dominate our thinking. The evidence doesn’t suggest that, but changing that view is going to take a lot of work. Anybody who challenges that view is likely to be criticised.”

Freedom is too easily misunderstood and too easily taken for granted. If I could draw upon the wisdom of the past, others may call it a cliché, then I would say “we know not what we have until it is gone”. It distresses me greatly to see the kiwi become less the individual for which he claims renown, as I watch that integrity melt into an advancing state. Freedom is not a democratic society, a democratic society is merely the backdrop against which freedom may be secured.

The first requirement of freedom is self discipline. If we do not discipline ourselves, then we ask to be disciplined. If we do not defend the right to discipline our children, then we will have given away what our fore fathers fought so hard for. They left the socialist claws of Europe and travelled the world to find a place in which they could secure their freedom, that they might offer this to their children, and all we have to offer in return is an unforgivable indignity.

Freedom is not the responsibility of the state, it is the responsibility of the individual, each and every one of us.

If we fight for nothing but the satisfaction of our own selfishness, then we teach our children to do the same. Do they mean so little to us that we would sell them into slavery for a few gold coins. Have we become so apathetic that we no longer care for our own freedom let alone that of our children.

The future of our country can no longer survive on the religious and political authorities of the past. It’s success or failure lies in the hands of the individual, should he find righteousness and justice in his heart. I do not see that any change in this world has absolved us of the responsibility of defending our own freedom, and that must start with defending the freedom of our children.

I fear that the men of this country have lost their self respect and pride that they will allow section 59 to removed from our statues. The illusion of the institution has blinded them, they no longer realise that they are required to participate.

Green Party MP Sue Bradford says new research into physical punishment shows the importance of repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Link to stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3553608a6160,00.html

The socialist government can’t have peers making decisions about child discipline when it wants ownership and control over children. When is the state going to be up front about its legal agenda. No surprise that Sue Bradford’s private members bill coincides with the governments agreement with the united nations to repeal this law during 2005.

MAN, the Men’s Advisory Network, Western Australia’s peak men’s organisation, will host a national conference entitled ‘from babies to blokes: the making of men’ in Perth, Western Australia in October this year.

MAN is affiliated with the Western Australian Council of Social Service, the Australasian Men’s Health Forum, the Australian Federation of Men’s Health & Wellbeing Associations Inc. and the Shared Parenting Council of Australia. More information about the Network is available on the MAN website.

Seven prominent Australian identities will feature in our program. All details and the conference call for papers are online here: at www.promaco.com.au/conference/2006/man

We welcome abstract submissions from all interested persons.

‘Nomad students’ pose headache for schools
22 January 2006
By TARA ROSS

“Principals said families that moved a lot were often being “chased” by Child, Youth and Family, Inland Revenue or someone they owed money to. New research into school transience reveals some students attend as many as 15 schools by the time they are 15.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3548239a7694,00.html

Media Release

For Immediate Release

Parents group urges politicians to take notice of the alleged kidnapping plot

“While we do not condone the alleged kidnapping plot of Tony Blair’s son, politicians here should sit up and take note as the sense of frustration among separated parents over the current Family Law and Child Support regime continues to rise,” observed Mark Shipman, President, Parents for Children. ”Parents are thoroughly fed up with the pathetic attempts of politicians to address the current problems with Family Law and Child Support. Parents for Children would not be surprised were this frustration to be expressed by similar action in New Zealand.”

“The Child Support Act has been flawed from its inception; children are needlessly alienated from their parents. To deal with the future of our Kiwi Kids, New Zealand employs an adversarial court that places parents into intractable conflict. It’s time for a 21st century solution – fair and reasonable child support built on shared parenting. Inland Revenue is viewed as the modern day Gestapo collecting a tax on separated parents. Separated parents are hurting and some are hurting real bad,” responded Mark when asked “What was the cause of this frustration?”

“The solution is not complex! Shared parenting and fair and reasonable child support will go a long way to rectifying the swing of the pendulum,” concluded Mark.

For further information contact
Mark Shipman 021982222
Jim Nicolle 021800586

Parents for Children is a national organisation seeking legislative change to enable parents who have separated to continue parenting and supporting their children.

This requires:
1. Presumptive shared parenting

2. A fair and reasonable child support system

Parents for Children advocates that best outcomes for children of separated parents is ongoing equal sharing of parental responsibility by both parents.

One of the most significant elements of Section 59 of the Crimes Act is that it reinforces ownership of the child in the hands of the Mother and Father. This went hand in hand with the guardianship act, which has since been replaced by the Care of Children Bill. One of the most significant elements of the COC Bill is that the best interests of the child is now the responsibility of the state, reinforcing a transfer of ownership from Mother and Father to the State — It has always been the intention of the feminist movement in NZ to succeed where Hitler failed, and if Sue Bradford succeeds in the removal of section 59, then much more will have been achieved than an unsuspecting public realises.

WE NEED HELP.

Let me introduce myself,
we have a 5 month old son called Alex. Alex was born in Chch Womens hospital in June of this year and was very premature coming 11 weeks early and weighing only 780g. My wife had a very troublesome pregnancy as she suffers from several health problems which made conceiving a baby almost impossible, so it was a miracle that she found she was pregnant on 24 Dec last year.

In March of this year her pregnancy became worse as her bad back was starting to give her trouble as was her diabetes. I at this stage gave up my work to be able to stay at home to care for her as she was mostly bed ridden and unable to do day to day chores in the running of the house. This put a strain on our financial state as we had to go onto a benefit to survive. It took WINZ a month to put a benefit in place and we struggled through the whole of March with no income.
(more…)

I was stunned and aghast at today’s news that a policeman was able to rescue a child in Mt Maunganui yesterday. Sergeant Dave Thompson found the girl 45 minutes after she was taken by a youth in a car while walking to school with her 7-year-old brother. Are there not police women who could have handled this case? Why was Dave Thompson in a position where he could be alone with this already frightened and vulnerable child? I trust the Police Commissioner with the help from Children Commissioner Cindy Kiro and the Air NZ “policy by simplicity” committee, will put end to this.

It stands to reason that where children are concerned only female officers should work on the case. We are lucky in this incident that Dave Thompson is not a paedophile but a loving and caring Officer whose instinct to protect a child paid off. However, how long can we rely on luck. Are all male Officers SAFE? Children’s safety must come first.

As Hitler once said in the early 30’s “….. Where there has been a proven incident of a people who have betrayed the trust invested in them by the state, they must then be eliminated for the welfare of the state.” I’m not suggesting we should eliminate men, goodness no! just keep them bringing in the money and away from children.

sent to EDITOR NZ Herald

Last week’s North Shore Times had an article titled: Men’s group says they’re victims, too.

Men’s Centre was responding to White Ribbon Day on Nov 25th – the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

Jim Bagnall was quoted:

“People need to get the whole thing in perspective. I think in most cases violence is a relationship issue rather than a male thing or female thing. Not all men are abusers.”

“It’s a myth that it is male is that are doing all the abusing, which gets perpetrated by organisations run by women.”

The intersection of Albert and Customs Streets in Auckland was filled with a cacophony of car, bus and truck horns at lunchtime today. Protesters outside Air New Zealand’s main office held signs which read: “If you are male and not a paedophile — toot!”

On the opposite corner, Jim Bailey sat on the top of his War-4-Kids Wagon, asking (rather loudly through his speaker system) why Air New Zealand wants to stop children having contact with men.

Bryan Norton attempted to deliver a letter of protest addressed to Chief Executive Officer Rob Fyfe, but the airline didn’t want to know. The staff member who initially came to make sure Bryan left the building said he would take it but refused to identify himself. Eventually he agreed to send someone down to receive it within 10 minutes, however nobody came.

After about 20 minutes, Brian went back to reception, this time followed by two video cameras, and it was agreed he could leave his letter with the receptionist.

About 15 minutes after all the other protesters had gone home, Murray Bacon and I were still talking on the steps outside the building when a lone policeman arrived. Spotting a placard left leaning against the wall behind me he came over and asked if we were the “surging throng of protesters” he’d been sent to settle down.

“Oh you’ve brought us a beer then have you?” asked Murray hopefully, but the policeman just grinned and replied “not till after work.”

The New Zealand Herald supports the airline policy. In an editorial entitled Airlines protecting children they demonstrate that they understand the principles involved, and that the actual risk to any child is negligible:

That they should not be deeming all males untrustworthy because of a worst-case scenario. And that such a scenario is highly unlikely, given the crowded nature of most airliners and the watchfulness of airline staff.

But then they switch into sex abuse hysteria mode:

people who prey on children are masters of cunning and trickery… It could be an opportunity for contact to be made which might lead to “grooming” of a child…one in five English children had been the subject of unwanted sexual advances outside the home.

Anything goes in the name of ‘protecting children’ according to the Herald:

as in all matters bearing on such abuse, society must make the protection of children its paramount concern.

When major newspapers join the lynch mob like this, and fail in their responsibility to uphold human rights, the foundations of our society are undermined, and everybody becomes less safe.

Nation’s Children are the winners, by Peter Dunne, which I have found in Friday December 2, issue of Harbour News, gives the Revenue Minister’s opinion on Child Support.

The main thrust of the article is to outline the financial efficiencies intended as a consequence of the child support amendment bill, and that is what we should expect from a Revenue Minister – financial efficiency. The article concludes with a veiled suggestion that fathers should shut up, pay up, and the state will see to it that the nations children will get the financial support they are entitled to.

If I was to draw conclusions from parallel legislation in other countries, then I would expect that the consequences of this legislation will be:

1. An increased number of men refusing to participate in society.
2. A further increase in male suicide.
3. Fathers being criminalized and jailed for failing to comply with discriminatory legislation.
4. A further decrease in our live birth rate.
5. Increasing numbers of men permanently leaving NZ.
6. An increase in gender violence.
7. An increase in child neglect cases.

It should be remembered that this is the man who took the stage at the opening of Union of Fathers, to tell us how he would make a difference. The man who told the country he would support family values, and conveniently left other more blatant anti family clauses from the amendment out of his article.

I certainly hope that the media will familiarise his Wellington Electorate with the content of both his article, and the bill he supports. They need to made aware that Mr Dunne has turned his back on Fathers and Families.

Surely the United Future Party must be questioning his credibility and his leadership.
(more…)

Bay fathers afraid to play dad

By Natalie Bridges

Mike Kino looks carefree as he rolls around with his four-year-old son Michael on the grass in Memorial Park – but he’s worried someone might accuse him of wrongdoing.

The father of five from Ohauiti says a politically correct obsessed society has contributed to making him more cautious of how he interacts with his children in public.

“I found it hard to change my kids’ diapers when they were small – even my own daughter. I shouldn’t feel that way but I don’t want to be accused of anything. It’s only because of society I feel like that. You want to be seen as a good father. (more…)