It was reported in the NZH that there will be welfare reforms.

In this article it claims that:

“They also involve tightening the requirement procedures for those who repeatedly receive hardship grants, and extend part-time work obligations to domestic purposes beneficiaries with children over six years old.”

Since when have there been part-time work obligations for DPB? Is there any substance to this?

I had a look at WINZ site and all I could find was:

”

Your obligations

You’ll need to take part in a planning process to help you set goals for your future, including:

• coming to planning meetings with us and
• preparing a personal development and employment plan that covers your goals for the future and the things you will do to reach those goals.

You’ll also need to show us that you are committed to reaching your goals.”

This is not really any limitation at all. If fact it simply means you can get free training while staying on the DPB as long as you like.

A British returned soldier locked family court doors with chains, barring staff from entering their workplace, in protest of his treatment while serving his country. He says,

“I recently returned from duty fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan to find that judges at Darlington county court had granted my wife a non-molestation and an occupation order of the marital home, this was all done ex parte in my absence whilst serving Queen and country overseas.”

“My wife has since moved her new lover in and has been denying contact to our 2 young children.”

“If this is how the courts treat a serving soldier based on a false allegation, imagine how they could treat you.”

“All my wife needed was to say there was a ‘perceived fear’ of what I may do when I found out about her affair, the judge said because I was a soldier I was ’obviously violent’ he then granted her an occupation order and has denied me going within a mile of our home.”
(more…)

MP Peter Dunne from United Future political party opened the Wairarapa Men’s Health meeting very well, ..I thought. I particularly liked the way he addressed lots of areas where work is needed and included men’s issues spoken on men’s sites. I know some of his wording won’t go down well but I also know it’s good to see progress.

Here is part of his speech….

I want to spend a few minutes this morning touching on some of the more difficult realities faced by men in New Zealand – and perhaps it will be a sensitive issue in this room today, as much as it is in wider New Zealand.

We have a lot of angry men in this country.

They tend to be men who are very hurt, often coming out of relationship break-ups in which they feel they have been unfairly treated – particularly in areas such as custody of children and child support.

Chief Family Court Judge Peter Boshier last year – to his very real credit – addressed the tragedy that 18 people involved in Family Court proceedings had killed themselves in a 12-month period to June last year.

Add to that four homicides.
(more…)

Will be of interest to all.

Regards Scrap

Mr Joseph was last week acquitted at the High Court in Rotorua on all charges relating to the alleged rape of the 14-year-old Mangakino girl in March, 2009. The charges he faced included abduction, forcibly taking a minor and rape.

The jury took just seven minutes to come back with a not guilty verdict following a five-day trial.

Rather than do a news omnibus as I have done in the past (they take too long) I will try to convey news in small amounts more frequently. People can add any stories they find to this thread.

I start out with a story today headlined “Dad Stabbed in Struggle with Women Burglars“. The man who confronted and attempted to apprehend these female thieves is lucky he’s not facing assault or sexual assault charges. We await the sympathetic deal these women will probably get in Court. We await their attempt to blame some male for their vicious thievery and violence. We await further anti-violence campaigns that show only men committing violence and only women being victimized. These particular violent females were probably living on some benefit or another, living off the generosity of others in their society whom they then steal from and attack.

Next, “Gay Worker Wins $15k for Sexual Harassment“. Fair enough, but it’s interesting how sexual harassment is usually reserved for females. This case shows female-type males will also qualify, even though there was no harassment in the usual sense of attempts to become sexually involved with an employee. Are we likely to see men compensated for sexual harassment, be it women’s comments about their physique or women’s denigrating comments about claimed male deficits? Watch out the window and when you see a pig flying, expect harassment of men to be punished.

Then there’s the champion of feminist propaganda Bob Harvey in “Sack the Museum Board, Says Mayor“. He praises Dr Vanda Vitali for her work. To me, Dr Vitali seemed like a typical bolshy feminist who acted as though she was always right, who would not listen or negotiate and who cared little about offending others. It’s interesting that men were the victims of her particular form of violence: war veterans, Sir Edmund Hilary, Deputy Director Tim Walker. I wonder how many of the 46 museum staff whose jobs she axed were men.

Finally today we get “Two Officers Face Enquiries“. The reluctance of the force to specify their gender suggests one or both may be females. Just like on the many occasions where news articles don’t mention the gender of officers assaulted or injured on the job, you can bet they will be male officers. When a female of any kind is offended against it’s always considered important enough to highlight her gender. When a female commits offences her gender is often relegated to somewhere deep in the article or omitted completely.

Feel free to add below daily articles and comment on them from a men’s movement perspective. I will.

A Men’s Health meeting has prevented women from taking part in a two-day conference on male suicide rates.

The National Council of Women supported the decision, saying it was about participants feeling they could open up.

The Human Rights Commission said there was nothing illegal or discriminatory in the way the conference was being promoted or held.

Barry Young, President of the Prostate Cancer Foundation of New Zealand told me that most enquiries they received for prostate came from women as wives and daughters. The lovely lady who organised the Men’s Health meeting in Waitakere told me (I wish I could remember her name because she does a huge amount of work for health) …. women were to be targeted for men’s health because women can make men go to the doctor.

Wairarapa suicide prevention coordinator Barry Taylor said women were excluded to encourage men to take responsibility for their own mental health. “Men’s mental health has been a hidden subject over many years. Part of the problem is that they don’t talk about their feelings and they don’t ask for help.”

Mr Taylor also said some women had asked to be part of the conference which is of no surprise because many women care about their partners, children and other male family members and male friends. But they were told “No”, they couldn’t attend.

Barry says, “So often men have delegated their emotional issues on to the women in their lives. It is vital that … we take responsibility for dealing with the issues.”

“Statistics show the urgency of the problem of depression, often fuelled by relationship breakups, alcohol and drug abuse, crime and antisocial behaviours. More than 500 people die by suicide every year but it is New Zealand men who are three times more likely to kill themselves than women across all ages and races.”Men were more reluctant to seek help or may dismiss the seriousness of their problem, he said.

I think it is excellent women have been asked to stay away. This is a men’s issue and only men can work out how men are to deal with this. I’m sure in time brochures will be available for women to read and there will be phone numbers for women to ask questions.

Violence law faces challenge
by GILL VOWLES
March 14, 2010 08:50am

A TASMANIAN group has filed a $200 million class action against Premier David Bartlett and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is believed to be the first Australian class action against a law.

JAIL (Juries Against Illegal Laws) filed papers with the Federal Court of Australia on February 4 claiming that the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tasmania) was invalid.

The group is claiming $200 million in damages under Section 46 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.

JAIL is also seeking an additional $200,000 in damages for unlawful assault, trespass, negligence, conspiracy to cause economic loss, intimidation and defamation.

The writ further seeks an order that the Tasmanian Government and DPP Tim Ellis cease to engage in arresting people without proper evidence or procedures, giving police judicial powers, denying people the right to a fair and proper hearing and usurping the proper role of the courts.

JAIL president Ray Escobar said that if the class action was successful the money would be given to all the Tasmanians who had suffered under the Family Violence Act.

JAIL, formed in early 2008, now has more than 200 members around Tasmania who have been, or are related to, victims of false applications for violence orders.

Mr Escobar said JAIL was being represented by one of the finest legal minds in Australia, Sir John Walsh of Brannagh, who lives on Norfolk Island.

Sir John said he agreed to represent JAIL because the case raised important and fundamental questions of human rights, such as the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and the separation of powers.

“The legislation, and the way it is enforced, is contrary to human rights and to international law as accepted by Australia,” Sir John said.

“The legislation conflicts with the Constitution of Australia and with the fundamental rights of all Australians.”
Sir John said he was confident a federal judge would apply the law of the Commonwealth and the fundamental principles of Australia’s legal system.

JAIL’s application has been set down for hearing in the Tasmanian registry of the Federal Court of Australia at 10am on Monday, April 12.

Link Here
For those interested in further info, contact: Ray Escobar, “Lest We Forget”, J.A.I.L
Email: [email protected]

Erin Pizzey: An Open Letter to Women in the Domestic Violence Movement
Friday, March 12, 2010
By Abusegate Bob

Link Here

AN OPEN LETTER TO WOMEN IN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MOVEMENT FROM THE FOUNDER OF THE MOVEMENT AND AUTHOR OF THE FIRST MODERN BOOK ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

When I first tried to open the refuge, the police, the charities, the social service agencies, the newspapers, all said it would stand empty. They said it wasn’t a significant problem, that it happened only rarely, and when it did it was already being handled effectively by the existing agencies.

Domestic violence against women was only a minor problem, and very few women were getting seriously hurt anyway. Of course, when we finally did open, and got a little support at last to make women aware of our existence, we were filled to overflowing and the phone was ringing off the hook.
(more…)

Well I haven’t been able to post this petition so it’s full size, but it’s big enough to collect signatures on. If anyone finds a way to restore it to fit almost an entire A4 page, they could inform the group.

Kerry asked me to post this release.

SKELETON SUICIDE PETITION HITS NERVE

The skeleton suicide petitioners say they have hit a nerve on the streets in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
Since launching the skeleton suicide petition at parliament they have gathered thousands of signatures for an inquiry into suicide. The working party on suicide claim New Zealand has a serious social problem indicated by the latest OECD suicide statistics. Wearing their skeleton suits the “skeletoneers” are taking their deadly concerns to Hamilton, Tauranga, Napier and Hastings before presenting the petition at parliament at 11.00am on Friday the 19th March.

Skeleton spokesman Kerry Bevin said “we must confront this tragic secret. It is ok to talk about suicide. Decent kiwis can no longer accept so many feel worthless and powerless, too many attempt and finally complete. The suicide toll is too high; the human right to a better life is being undermined”.

Mr Bevin noted “alarming rates for males and Maori were sidestepped by Peter Dunn’s suicide plan committee who totally ignored the social devastation of suicided fathers following separation.
Autocide is not mentioned either. No clear intervention or funding for the “at risk” is proffered nor any legislative scoping or mental health supports set. Who is going to get real about suicide before this self-destructive cycle becomes a morbid population?” He asked.

“We took our plea to John Key in Parnell. No response from the prime minister. The media seem oblivious too. However we are encouraged by thousands of concerned citizens. Unfortunately many have direct experience with suicide. The Fathers Coalition and the Republican Party have been supportive” said the skeleton spokesman.

Phone working party on suicide

Kerry Bevin (09) 473 3747
Jack Gielen (07) 859 2939
Craig Jackson (04) 389 2291

At the salon, I overheard the receptionist admit to another woman, “I haven’t taken my vitamins today. I’m walking around unprotected.”

The woman commiserated with her. “I haven’t taken my Prozac today–everyone’s walking around unprotected.”

The DVA and and the essence of its implementation and the industry around it are the main reason for the deaths statistics cited in the article below. Most of the deaths are a consequence of the brutish and violent Family Court intervention. I call the review panel to poke its nose inside the Family Court dodgy practices and money hungry lawyers.

Numerous analysis and comments here in this website point the finger at the Family Court and the domestic violence industry.

Note that suicides among kiwi dads did not make it into the reports stats.

Article read from here

By KATIE CHAPMAN – The Dominion Post

Figures that show at least 41 New Zealanders died at the hands of family members in 2009 have been labelled “staggering” by some working to stop family violence.

The Family Violence Death Review Committee issued the figures in its annual report to Parliament. But it says the number could still get higher, as some deaths at the end of the year have not yet been included.

The figure is made up of 16 children, 13 women and 12 men — 10 deaths above the national average of 14 women, six men and 10 children killed each year.

A family violence death is defined as “the unnatural death of a person (adult or child) where the suspected perpetrator is a family or extended family member, caregiver, intimate partner, previous partner of the victim, or previous partner of the victim’s current partner”.

Committee chairwoman Wendy Davis said this was the first year the committee, which was established by the Health Ministry in 2008, had formally provided an official toll.

It was a shocking, yet unsurprising, result, she said.

“Nobody in New Zealand who works in the family violence area is surprised by these.”

The committee planned to analyse each death to highlight “crisis points” where intervention may have been possible, she said. The more information, the better equipped they would be to address the problem, she said.

“As a group we are very aware of the complexity of the problem we are helping to try and solve.”

Family violence researcher and campaigner Ruth Herbert, who is a member of the Round Table for Violence Against Women, labelled the figure “staggering”. “To actually hear it as an official number kind of makes me a bit weak at the knees.”

Now the information was public it had to be used to make a difference, she said.

“This country has to stand up, open its eyes, and realise what’s going on behind closed doors.

“We need to take a concerted approach to this. We need to base what we’re doing on evidence. It really needs a family violence programme. It’s all been rather ad hoc to date.”

The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s report says it aims to review each death and make recommendations by the end of 2010.

Parents Inc. holds a number of one off events throughout the year, the largest being the Auckland Mayoral Fathers’ Breakfast. This event was first launched in 1994 by the then Mayor of Auckland, Les Mills. Over the last 15 years thousands of fathers have attended this hugely popular annual breakfast.

“Being a Dad is the most important job a man can do, so we’re offering advice and support to fathers so they can do their job better. The breakfast is also really good fun and a great feed,” says Ian Grant.

Each breakfast has a star line-up of speakers, such as Nick Farr-Jones, Todd Blackadder, Sean Fitzpatrick, Stephen Tindall and Neil Finn. “The speakers we’ve had at the breakfasts over the years have been from all sorts of professions — sports, business, medicine, entertainment — but they all have one thing in common,” says Ian, “They’re all outstanding fathers.”

Speakers present their personal experience of fatherhood, sharing the things that have worked and the things that haven’t. The practical nature of the speakers’ advice, combined with the atmosphere generated by more than 700 fathers in a room, makes for a powerful event.

Cost: Single Ticket Price: $55.00 (Admits one person)
Table Of 10 Price: $550.00 (Admits 10 people)

Phone Janet Hird, Parents Inc. on 09 524 1388 or 0800 53 56 59
Email: [email protected]

The Fathers Breakfast are planned for the following dates in 2010

Christchurch — Tuesday 16 March @ AMI Stadium
Address: Deloitte Lounge, Deans Stand, AMI Stadium, Christchurch
Region: Canterbury

Speakers:
* Sir Gil Simpson KNZN, QSM — technology entrepreneur
* David McPhail ONZM, QSM — actor/writer
* Ruben Wiki ONZM — rugby league legend
* Ian Grant QSO — founder and director of Parents Inc.
* Zane Scarborough — Attitude presenter for Parents Inc.

Booking Form

Wellington — Tuesday 1 June @ Wellington Town Hall Auditorium

Auckland — Tuesday 24 August @ Sky City Conference Centre
Booking Form

Family First NZ says that violence in our community and towards people of authority such as the police will increase as long as we downplay the significance and benefits of strong marriages and committed fathers.

“The response of governments, even today, has been more money and more laws. Yet this fails to deal with the root causes of what is happening. Fatherlessness is a major contributor to increasing rates of juvenile violence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding family structure — that strong marriages increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse,”

“Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of delinquent and criminal behaviour, amongst other factors. One only needs to observe proceedings at the Youth Court to see the effect of fatherlessness.”

“According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. A state-bystate analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes lead typically to a 17% increase in juvenile crime. The research found that criminal behaviour has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy.”
(more…)

French men who seem likely to be violent towards their wives and female partners will be tagged and monitored under new feminist law.

The proposed measure means men who have received court orders to stay away from their partners will wear an electronic bracelet and if they break the order, police are alerted.

Parliament is also considering outlawing psychological violence. This new creation of crime has many outside parliament worried on how this will work. Supporters of the law say psychological violence turns into physical violence while lawyers and professionals in the field are nervous saying it will be impossible to say at what point verbal abuse – for instance in an argument – suddenly becomes a criminal offence.

Critics argue the psychological violence clause is unlikely to make any practical improvement to the lives of women who suffer domestic violence.

(more…)

Craig writes:

I’m looking for a standard form prenuptual agreement.
One that I can fill in two names and a date, after reviewing the wording.

I’ve never heard of one, Craig.

I would imagine that they usually contain details of specific assets which are intended to be excluded from jointly owned Relationship Property.

I’m not an expert though, so I’m making your request public in the hope that other men will add useful information. (more…)

A Queensland mother has been sentenced to life behind bars for the gassing murders of her two children and the attempted murder of her teenage son.

The woman, who cannot be named, was found guilty in the Brisbane Supreme Court on Friday night of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder after jurors deliberated on the case for six hours.

This afternoon she sobbed as Justice Philip McMurdo described her actions as “horrible”.

“The prime motivation was to avenge what you regarded as the wrong done to you by your ex-husband, the children’s father,” he said.

“On no rational view could this begin to justify an attack on the children, let alone the killing of them.”

She will not be eligible for parole until she has served 20 years.

At the time of the killings she had been angry that her ex-husband had won a Family Court order to have the children for the first half of the 2002-2003 school holidays, which included Christmas.

There may not be many organisations out there who do front level work supporting dads and pro-active stuff with health agencies and other groups, one is Father and Child.

In Auckland they are hiring a new coordinator, supporting other fathers groups, encouraging teen dads and helping raise awareness of how PND can effect dads, plus they run the Mauri Ora Father Circle in Onehunga on Wednesday nights.

Go to www.sovereignsunshine.co.nz and please place your vote for Father & Child.

This month Sovereign Sunshine will donate a share of $10,000 in proportion to the votes.
It should take less than a minute if you’ve done it before, or please pass this on… Thanks!

I post in the hope of the collective wisdom giving me a clue. I have deliberately used gender neutral terms. I do NOT want this to degenerate into a slanging match over gender based issues. The background is real, and very sad. If there is a detail missing please ask.

Parent 1 is a US citizen who has lived in NZ for some years.
Parent 2 is a NZ citizen.

They met overseas and decided to live in NZ.

After several years they had a child. (Born in NZ)
The relationship has failed.

They have a sort of shared care arrangement. Neither will put anything into writing!
Parent 1 has gone on DPB with the consequential CS liability on parent 2.

The questions arising,
Parent 1 is off back to the US. Do they forego DPB? (It is an open ended visit)?
If they forego DPB does this inturn relieve parent 2 from the (NZ) CS liability?

Is there any consequent liability from the US?

If in the mean time parent 2 heads to Australia to work What happens to the liability for CS?

All comments needed, they will affect decisions.

Thanks folks.

Tiger Woods is a victim of domestic violence, but he’s the one who makes a humiliating apology and begs to be able to continue providing his violent wife with a billion-dollar lifestyle. The media have largely ignored the domestic violence, and the public are only interested in how genuine and remorseful his apology seemed. Imagine if the tables had been turned; if Tiger Woods had attacked his wife with a weapon after finding out she had been sexually unfaithful, if he had injured her and chased after her as she ran for her life, if he had attacked and damaged her car as she desperately drove away so frightened and distressed (and unable to see through the windscreen he had broken?) that she soon crashed the car into something. Tiger would have been charged under the US Violence Against Women Act, even if his wife did not make a formal complaint. The propaganda-soaked public would have focused almost entirely on his violence and her victimization, and those who sought to draw attention to her infidelity as a provocation would soon be shouted down with “violence is not OK” slogans. No way would she be going on television to apologize! Rather than losing advertising contracts, new offers would be rolling in especially from purveyors of products for modern women who are “worth it” enough to put their own needs first. Women’s magazines and other media would outbid each other for interviews with this brave survivor of domestic violence. Judges would uphold her right to be unfaithful because it’s not against any law. Feminist laws have ensured that her unfaithfulness would be sanitized through no-fault divorce, full relationship property entitlements, the ongoing right to occupy the family home, and close to certainty of keeping primary custody of any children and therefore ongoing financial support from her ex-husband. Indeed, if he had so much as raised his voice in objecting to his wife’s infidelity he could expect to have his civil rights and his relationship with his children further damaged through a protection order. In some countries including New Zealand, any claim by him that he was provoked by her infidelity would be rejected legally, and instead would probably have him judged as “victim-blaming” and therefore deserving of increased punishment. In fact, nobody should ever dare try to mention her infidelity because a woman will be protected from cross-examination concerning her sexual history. Aside from all of this, his wife would blame her unfaithfulness on Tiger’s insufficiency of some kind and the public would nod their heads in recognition of her hardship. And the only thing she is likely to be criticized for widely would be saying that her wishes now were to save her marriage and to protect her children’s family unit.

Ah, but that’s the way stories go when wives are unfaithful and husbands react. When the genders are reversed, we get the Tiger Woods story.

A leading men’s health organisation in Australia claims that the Minister for the Status of Women, Hon Gail Gago MLC, misled Parliament by maintaining that false statistics on the Government’s Don’t Cross the Line anti-violence campaign website are accurate, back in October 2009. The Minister defended the misleading statistics in Parliament, claiming that “the data on the Don’t Cross the Line website is sound.”

MHA (Men’s Health Australia) also lodged an official complaint with the Ombudsman after attempting for five months to draw the Minister’s attention to the major statistical errors on the website.

Spokesman for MHA Greg Andresen said, “The Facts and Stats page of the website is extremely misleading to the public. It clearly inflates statistics about domestic violence against women while understating statistics about domestic violence against men.”

Men’s Health Australia supports efforts to reduce family violence in the community but is concerned that the use of incorrect or misleading ‘statistics’ by Governments unfairly stigmatises men and boys as violent and abusive, while at the same time denies services to male victims of violence.

Another concern for MHA is that the Government’s approach is not in the interests of all children in families where there is abuse or violence because it selectively favours those children in families where violence is perpetrated by the father leaving out support for children who are abused by mothers.

Some of the campaign’s errors alleged by Men’s Health Australia include:
(more…)

I think it is appalling when men who study men’s issues under ‘gender studies’ at university condemn father’s and men’s groups who stand up for fathers and men to have equal rights. Women have come a long way changing society for females while men are still stuck in the past. Up until 2004, when a father took Germany to court in the European Court of Human Rights over discrimination, an unmarried man with a child was not accepted as a father. Still today this discrimination exists in the United Kingdom where an unmarried man can’t even sign for his child’s health, even though he is on the birth certificate and living with the mother. Decades ago unmarried women were sent to church facilities, had their child taken away and adopted out while they were sent back home childless.

Unfortunately, misandry (hatred of men) runs rampant in ‘gender studies’ (because it follows feminist ideology of man = perpetrator = bad and woman = victim = good). It takes a strong man to stand up to do what’s right instead of what’s easy and popular. And it just so happens there are men out there strong enough, who are insisting men have their own studies away from misandry (hatred of men) but that’s the American Men’s movement and for another article.

I am also appalled and think it is very sad and extremely bad that we don’t have New Zealand men representing New Zealand men but instead use (selectively chosen for their radical feminist outlook), men from overseas. Men as close as Australia with Michael Flood whose says his higher education made him want to be a feminist supporter. In other words, he is caught up in the man=bad, woman=good ideology. ……. to far away America with Lundy Bancroft who thinks every man who doesn’t follow feminism needs to be in prison for reprogramming that he insists takes as long as it takes (a life time for some).
(more…)

Victim Support is offering up to $250 to “victims/survivors” of “sexual violence”, towards the costs “of dealing with the immediate effects of the crime and investigation”. Examples of such possible costs are given but the list is open-ended. See the information below. My response:

1. Why has “sexual violence” been singled out as qualifying for a grant, when most other forms of criminal victimization will also incur costs? Could it be because it’s mainly women who are subjected to and/or allege sexual offences?

2. Why are the terms “victims/survivors” used when the grant is actually given to complainants? Is it assumed that every complaint must be true?

3. Won’t this grant provide a further incentive for people to make false allegations? (In addition to the incentives of ACC money and other possible secondary gain.) Why is Victim Support doing something that will actually increase crime (in the form of false complaints)?

4. “Sexual violence” complaints are often unaccompanied by any evidence. It will be too easy for someone who has spent their grocery money at the pokies to get a quick $250. The chances of being charged with making a false complaint are almost zero unless you are really stupid and admit you made it up.

5. Many sexual prosecutions are based on the issue of whether consent was given, and the exact definition of consent (which, even when clearly given at the time can retrospectively be seen as not having been given on various grounds – see s128A Crimes Act 1961). The law thereby provides an easy opportunity to claim sexual assault when you actually participated willingly, with virtually no chance of being charged with false complaint because all the physical facts will be true. Pity the poor bugger who had sex with you and now faces years in prison.

6. The grant is supposed to cover expenses incurred by complainants, but no proof will be required of any actual expenses. Applicants are only asked to keep their receipts “for reference until the grant has been paid”. Why make it so easy for applicants to be dishonest and to avoid any comeback later?

7. The grant remains yours even if you withdraw the complaint. What is the real agenda here?

(more…)

Sweden made it a crime for parents to smack their children. Now youth crime is climbing at an alarming rate. Their government’s response is that as of September parents will pay the financial consequences of their children’s crimes.

Read about it here: http://www.thelocal.se/24924/20100211/

Lately I have been receiving e-mails from mothers introducing themselves as being in a shared parenting arrangement. It is nice for me to hear this because after 2/3 generations not very good at sharing, we have a new generation mediating between each other well.

I am worried though, because I have been to a radical feminist meeting where they’ve said fathers who use the family court as a means to be in their children’s lives just want control of women, and I know here in New Zealand we do have a national group of radical feminists who lobby against shared parenting.

My worry has turned to fear by the actions of radical feminists and their radical socialist male supporters in Australia where father’s groups worked hard to change the law in 2006 so fathers could share their children and be a part of their lives as they grow up instead of just paying child tax to the mothers.

I like what Australian journalist Angela Shanahan of the The Australian newspaper had to say on how feminists are depriving children of their fathers. I’d enjoy reading YOUR opinion and perhaps having some discussion over this; Do you think children have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad?
(more…)