Sunday Star Times 28 June 2009
A Christchurch dad who let his nine-year-old son and four-year-old daughter play at a school park unsupervised is furious the government’s child welfare agency is now investigating his family. The case highlights the dilemma parents face in striking a balance between protecting their children and risk them becoming bubble-wrapped kids and giving them a taste of the freedom and independence parents themselves enjoyed as youngsters. READ MORE
Children’s Commissioner says parents took ‘risk’ letting kids play alone The Press 29 June 2009 READ MORE
Family First Comment : The concerning aspect about this case is that CYF is investigating the family. Parents take ‘risks’ every day as they allow their children to undertake potentially ‘dangerous’ activities e.g. letting a son play rugby, letting a daughter do gymnastics, walking to school etc. Previously we could trust our communities to keep an eye out for each other. We are quickly creating a ‘paranoid parenting’ environment. An investigation by CYF suggests that these parents are being irresponsible. Or is that where we’ve got to as a society??

Read More: Family First News

The family court, women’s refuge and cyfs are the triangle of violence in New Zealand.
They are unaccountable, unrepentant and above the law.

The equation is, as always, the same:
A father in jail, mother dead, children left as orphans.
Is this what the family Court is for?
(more…)

We’ve always argued that good parents are being criminalised and harmed by the anti-smacking law and we currently have a number of cases in front of both the Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers for their consideration. These have been independently reviewed by a senior policeman.

In the latest case covered by the media we’ve been saying that this is a ‘good dad’. And we stand by that .

We would never support a parent who ‘repeatedly throws their child to the ground’. But in this case that NEVER happened!

How do we know ? Because we had an observer in the court who heard ALL the facts (unlike the media who relied only on what the witness alleged in the police report!)

In the same way that the anti-correction lobby groups use words like ‘beat’ ‘thrash’ and ‘violent’ to describe a loving parent who may use a smack to correct a child, in this current case, words count.

Please take a moment to read what our observer wrote (our emphasis added):
(more…)

An Australian mother has been convicted of murder over the starving death of her seven-year-old daughter, who at the time of her death appeared mummified.

The prosecution claimed that the mother starved her daughter to death because she was autistic and too much to handle.

At the time of death, the child weighed only nine kilos and she was left to die in her urine-stained room.

Her hair was matted and her fingernails were black.

It was her father who called the ambulance. As the shock of the death set in, he lashed out at the Department of Community Services.

By delivering this verdict, the jury accepted that the woman deliberately starved her child to death but that her husband, who lived in the same house, did not intend for her to die.

“Shocking figures have revealed that the number of women who have been charged with domestic violence-related assault has soared by 159 per cent over the past eight years.

The figures, from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics, show 2336 women faced court on charges of domestic violence in 2007, mainly for bashing their husbands, compared with just 818 in 1999.

Men’s groups said yesterday they were happy that police were finally taking men seriously but it remained tough for husbands to admit they had been attacked by their wives.

Research shows women tend to use guns, knives, boiling liquids and irons to attack their partners.

The increase in violence, which is often fuelled by alcohol, has sparked calls for refuges for men.”

It’s ridiculous to describe this as shocking – but I am just quoting the source.

Full story: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,25667548-5005941,00.html

Labour’s spokesperson for Women’s Affairs Sue Moroney, is attacking Pansy Wong for not giving Labour what they want. But you have to hand it to Pansy Wong and the National party. They are not in a hurry to bankrupt NZ over feminist demands nor turn us into state communist control.

Minister of Women’s Affairs, Pansy Wong, today backed away from commitments she made to the National Council of Women to work on fair pay for women, Labour’s spokesperson for Women’s Affairs, Sue Moroney says.

That is ALLEGED commitments BTW.

Sue goes on to say “The women of New Zealand are not fooled by this stalling tactic. Unfortunately the prospects of women achieving pay equity are getting further away under a National Government.”

I for one think National is being smart. They are going over the research to find the real reasons we have pay issues. It certainly is equal pay for equal work and we certainly have more trained women in NZ than we do men. And the ‘glass ceiling’ doesn’t exist to all the women who have jobs above it.

Maybe I should send some ideas to our leaders from the UK like this one.
(more…)

The anti-corporal punishment lobbyists operate dishonestly, because they lie about their true motive and are aided and abetted in this by the news media.
By Barbara Faithfull

Why does the New Zealand news media mislead by not disclosing that it is really United Nations-backed leftist ideology that drives anti-corporal punishment activism? Why are these activists given an easy ride and never confronted about their true motivation? Clearly, because if this was revealed their campaign opposing all corporal punishment would collapse.

For just on thirty years (most of that time as secretary of the now-defunct Credo Society Incorporated) I have observed and monitored a leftist push to have corporal punishment outlawed in NZ, first in the school and now in the home. Along with this have been (largely successful) similar moves to undermine other forms of traditional authority, such as in the Church, Police force and other institutions of society. (more…)

BBC: A verdict is due this week in “the babes in the freezer” case, in which a French mother is accused of murdering three of her children. BBC Paris correspondent Emma Jane Kirby reports on the mixture of horror and sympathy that the story has aroused. (more…)

1. Nine-year-olds to learn about sex
The Press 15 June 2009

Nine-year-old children are being targeted for more detailed sex education in schools. In Christchurch today, Family Planning is launching a new resource for teachers of late-primary and intermediate-age children. The launch has upset the conservative lobby group Family First, which is urging Family Planning to “butt out” and leave sex education to parents. …Year 5 and 6 (nine and 10-year-old) pupils look at pubertal change, friendships, gender, families, menstruation, fertility, conception and personal support. Year 7 and 8 pupils focus more on changing feelings and emotions and their effects on relationships, sexual attraction, decision-making around sexual attraction, conception and birth, contraception and support agencies.

..Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said children should be taught sex education by their parents when they were ready. “The simple message to Family Planning is `butt out and leave it to parents’,” McCoskrie said. “Parents know their kids the best. They know their emotional and moral development best and have their own values. Family Planning should not be interacting with kids of that age.” McCoskrie said schools had become “one-stop shops” for dealing with social problems in the community. Some parents felt overawed by “the sex talk” with their children, so resources should be put in to helping them better understand what was required, McCoskrie said. “It needs to be values-based and we think parents are the ones who determine the values.” READ MORE
Family First Media Release – Sex Education Begins at Home Not School READ MORE

2. Campaign begins for referendum
National Radio 15 June 2009
(more…)

Help celebrate Men’s Health Week.
Learn about local events, share latest information!

Join us every Wednesday, 7.30pm, Onehunga Community Centre
83 Church Street, Onehunga

Brendon Smith
Father and Child Trust, Auckland
Ph (09) 525 1690

We aim to provide a safe place for sharing father related issues, with understanding and hoping to strengthen our fathering abilities.

I used the opportunity to ask Family Planning about resources for fathers and contraception for men particularly because I wanted to know about the injection still in trial stage. I quoted the expectation that men will have something available in 5 years and got the response, “Everything is 5 years.” (more…)

Linley Boniface is a regular columnist for the Dominion Post . On Monday, she published an column entitled ” A Question smacking of deceit” which attacked the Referendum and Family First.

Statements included:
“Despite clear evidence that the world around us is chock-full of people who couldn’t successfully raise a family of tadpoles to adulthood, we believe anyone above the age of 18 can be trusted to use restraint, caution and common sense in deciding exactly how hard to hit the children in their care. This is presumably why, in July and August, we will go through the utter tedium of yet another public consultation exercise on the child discipline law…”

“Bob McCoskrie, self-appointed champion of “the family”, is given far more media coverage than Unicef, Barnardos, Save the Children or any of the other organisations that support the act, and his continued bleating that the law victimises good parents is largely left unchallenged. The referendum question – “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” – not only implies that all good parents smack, but wrongly suggests that a parent who smacks will be prosecuted. It is outrageous that, in a recession, we should be required to spend $10 million for the privilege of answering this deceitful question…”

WE RESPONDED and our article was printed in today’s edition of the Dominion Post – and is reprinted below for your convenience.
(more…)

On the basis of information currently available to the public, I disapprove of Dr Worth’s behaviour concerning Neelam Choudary but only because it appears he disrespected the sanctity of marriage, both his own and that of Mrs Choudary.

There have been several criticisms of Dr Worth during his political career, but before jumping to judgement it may be important to consider his side of those stories and his impressive naval, diplomatic, professional and charitable service for which he was appointed an Officer of the British Empire and was made a knight in the Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem. I have no wish to defend Dr Worth per se but there are many aspects to this story of relevance to men in general. (more…)

1. ‘Honest’ Report on Child Abuse Welcomed
Family First Media Release 4 June 2009

Family First NZ is welcoming a report from the Children’s Commissioner on child abuse released today, and says that it backs the call for a Royal Commission on child abuse. “The report entitled ‘ Death and serious injury from assault of children aged under 5 years in Aotearoa New Zealand: A review of international literature and recent findings’ makes an honest assessment of the real causes of child abuse and reinforces the findings of previous UNICEF and CYF reports that we have quoted,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The anti-smacking law was a smoke screen for dealing with the real, and much harder to deal with, causes of child abuse. It has meant that ‘normal’ families have been targeted because they’re easier to deal with, rather than the dysfunctional non-compliant families who need support and possibly intervention. This report identifies those causes and is so honest that it could almost be labeled politically incorrect.”

Risk factors for child abuse in the report included :

• ethnicity (including the high rate of abuse amongst Maori)
• drug and alcohol abuse
• mental illness
• unsupported young mothers with little or no antenatal care
• presence of a non-biological parent
• family breakdown, severe conflict and ongoing domestic violence
• poverty, instability and unemployment

READ MORE
READ Full Report
Family First Comment : This report endorses what we have been saying about child abuse all along – see www.stoptheabuse.org.nz .

2. Home best for babies says doctor
Sunday Star Times 07 June 2009
(more…)

My ex husband and I signed a private custody agreement when we separated 7 years ago (we are both now re-married to new spouses). Over the years it has been increasingly difficult for me to enforce this arrangement in it’s original form as he seems to have less time to spend with his children. He has made a number of changes decreasing his time with them and there doesn’t seem to be anything I can do legally to make him stick to it. Or is there?

Excerpt from the Otago Daily Times.

(Skim past the opening religious stuff and you’ll get to some telling insights.)

The “Fathering Our City” report, written by Warwick Pudney and commissioned by Te Korowai Manaaki – Great Start Waitakere and Violence Free Waitakere, was released at the Waitakere City Fathering Hui on May 16.

The key finding of the report is that our major problem with parenting is absenteeism.

Among other things it concludes that: “For both boys and girls, love and dependency can become confused without a father; fatherless males are five times more likely to [commit] suicide; under-fathered girls are more likely to become pregnant; the under-fathered child is more likely to use drugs; fatherless boys are 20 times more likely to end up in prison and fatherless boys are nine times more likely to drop out of high school.”

In short, the problem isn’t how we’ve been parenting but whether or not we’ve been parenting at all.

Absenteeism is rife amongst parents – and fathers in particular – and the cure, surely, is not to penalise those who are staying in the game, even if they are doing the job badly.

A controversial test that reveals the gender of a foetus may be launched in New Zealand within a fortnight.

The American-designed IntelliGender test has sparked a row in New Zealand over whether it would lead to sex-selection abortions, the New Zealand Herald reported.

The test could be used from eight weeks after conception.

The kit went on sale in Australia last month, and its Australian distributor hopes to launch it in New Zealand within a fortnight.

But the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and anti-abortion group Voice for Life said they were concerned that people would terminate pregnancies on the grounds of sex-selection.

—

What this report doesn’t mention is that leading experts in Australia thought it highly unlikely that the test of a urine sample could determine the gender of the unborn child, particularly so early during the pregnancy.

Education consultant Joseph Driessen said children who came from broken homes were typically 25 per cent behind other children in achievement.

“Boys are affected by divorce very deeply because 85 per cent of custody goes to the mother and guys just disappear. That needs to change,” he told The Press.

“We need to have a family split-up philosophy where we realise that sons need their fathers. All custody and access should be 50-50.”

Full article here. (includes further useful references.)

A 13-year-old boy is recovering in hospital after downing a one-litre bottle of spirits in 30 minutes at a sports training camp.

Wanaka police were investigating an alleged theft of a bottle of alcohol from the bar of a backpackers by a 15-year-old boy.

Constable Greg Nolet said reports from other camp participants indicated the boy had drunk the allegedly stolen bottle of spirits after it was produced by another boy.

People “at some stage” needed to be held responsible for the consequences of “peer pressure”, Mr Nolet said.

—

What I found interesting about this story is a policeman saying that he thought there should be some personal responsibility for consequences. I thought this is a very radical concept for New Zealand. I can’t say I am optimistic but it is fascinating the thought was even published. Obviously a career limiting move by Mr Nolet.

Rotorua police have made an arrest following the death of a one-year-old baby boy.

The boy died on Friday morning at an Edmund Road property. Police were called after his caregivers found him dead in the lounge.

Detective Senior Sergeant Mark Loper says a 29-year-old woman who lives at the address has been charged with assaulting a child. He says results from a post mortem examination are at this time inconclusive but police are waiting on further forensic results to help establish why the boy died.

Mark Loper says police have not previously been called to the address for family violence matters.

The woman will reappear in court on Wednesday.

source: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=158366

I was trolling men’s sites (as one does when one has some time on their hands) and came across Bernard Chapin on MND.

Of course I love the guy because there will never, ever be another human being like him to ever walk this earth. (even though he wears a different football jersey each time I watch his U tubes, lol)

OK, I just HAD to add the team stuff. Not much loyalty to a team if you wear different colours. But there is always a lesson when you judge. One finger pointed out and 3 coming back at you. (embarrassing)

Anyhow, this is political since feminism (misandry – man hate) is political. And although 3 fingers come back at men, 3 fingers go back to women. Men MUST speak up. If they don’t do it now, another generation is going to suffer or 2 or 3.

Sooooo….

We have a new government and we have new people in the family commission and children’s commission. Try, try again they say.

But 40 years of hate and all funded by men’s tax money is a lot to change. I added the tax money bit because quite frankly men paid to be hated over the past 40 years. That to me allows men to ask for redress from the Government. But hey, I am speaking morally not legally. Legally, I am not sure.

Anyhow, back to Bernard. He has written about an article going back 4 years and refers to the policy of airlines to discriminate against men.

Dr Mapp told the Herald the airlines’ policy was an example of political correctness that had got out of hand. “I think this is a gross over-reaction by the airlines. What do they think men are going to do that women won’t? It is the same as saying men shouldn’t sit beside children on a bus.” A Qantas spokesman confirmed the Australian airline, which operates domestic flights in New Zealand, does not allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men. The spokesman said the airline believed it was what customers wanted.

Air New Zealand spokeswoman Rosie Paul said the airline had a similar policy to that of Qantas’. “Airlines are temporary guardians of unaccompanied minors so we have preferred seating for them.” Ms Paul said Air New Zealand tried to seat children near a crew area so crew could keep an eye on them and, when possible, children were seated next to an empty seat. “Sometimes this isn’t possible, so the preference is to seat a female passenger next door to an unaccompanied minor.” When the Herald asked her if the airline considered male passengers to be dangerous to children, Ms Paul replied: “That’s not what I said.” When it was put to her that that was the implication of the policy, she repeated: “No, that’s not what I said.” Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she commended the airlines for putting thought into the policy and for endeavouring to keep children safe.

Man hating Cindy (they had a doll as a role model for women under that name) has gone. Maybe it is time to ask the new commissioner whether men are BAD, BAD, BAD.

Maybe it is time to ask the families commission AGAIN if men are BAD, BAD, BAD.

Maybe it is time to ask our new ministers in parliament if men are BAD, BAD, BAD.

Maybe it is time to ask again for men to have the right to know if a child is his before he pays 19 years of child support. How many men have paid women and then learnt when the child turns 16 and consents themselves to a DNA test that they were conned out of 100’s of 1000’s of dollars.

Soooo, what do you think about making a new list of priorities for a new turn of governance?

It is all good that we run our own races and write about our own cases. But let’s be honest here. 40 years of your money has done so much damage to men and their children that you need to start somewhere as a group to redress this.

What should be the beginning? What are the priorities? TO YOU?

Please take the time to comment.

U

I wrote to following letter, to Min of justice, and a few politicians.
Responses below:
1 Letter

Subject: Offensive material displayed in North Shore District Court

I am objecting to a poster for the “White Ribbon” campaign, displayed in the office of the North Shore Family Court.

The “White ribbon” campaign has the laudable aim of opposing violence against women, but is not concerned about violence against men, nor violence against children. In addition, men are depicted as the sole perpetrators of domestic violence.

For these reasons the “White Ribbon” Campaign is at best a factional interest group, and could be seen as promulgating “hate speech”. Allowing such groups to promote their extremist dogma actually exacerbates the problem of domestic violence by excusing the violence suffered by children and their fathers, at the hands of the many violent women, and promoting the removal of fathers from their families.

You will of course be aware that domestic violence has been shown by all reputable studies committed equally by men and women, and that most violence against children is committed by women. You will of course be aware that violence to children is 50 to 70 TIMES higher in fatherless homes.

Allowing these offensive posters to be displayed in Family Court offices is distressing and offensive to male victims of domestic violence, and to their children who may have suffered abuse at the hands of a woman. These posters reinforce the perception that the Family Court has an anti-father, and an antifamily bias.

All Family Courts should be instructed to remove these offensive posters immediately.

Yours sincerely

John Brett

2 Response 1

MINISTRY OF

JUSTICE

Tahu o te Ture

4 June 2009

John Brett
PO Box 100061
North Shore Mail Centre

Tena koe John Brett

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

Thank you for your letter of 7 May 2009 regarding a poster for the White Ribbon campaign being displayed in the North Shore Family Court.

Due to the need for the court system to be, and to be seen to be impartial, Ministry staff were specifically instructed that White Ribbon day should not be promoted in Courts. Ministry staff may wear a White Ribbon as a personal statement of support if they choose.

1 have reiterated this position to the Court manager at the North Shore Family Court and am assured that all posters promoting White Ribbon day have now been removed. 1 thank you for bringing this matter to my attention and apologise for any distress this may have caused.

Heoian6,n5

Tony Fisher
V General Manager, District Courts

PO Box 180, Wellington, New Zealand
Telephone: +64 4 918 8800 Fax: +64 4 918 8820
www.justice.govt.nz

2 Response 2

Office of Hon Paula Bennett

MP for Waitakere
Minister for Social Development and Employment
Minister for Disability Issues
Minister of Youth Affairs

2 9 MAY 2099

John Brett
John Brett Technology Ltd
P 0 Box 10 0061 NSIVIC
NORTH SHORE CITY 0745

Dear Mr Brett

Thank you for your letter of 8 May 2009 about the White Ribbon Campaign.

I read your letter with interest. I can assure you that the Government’s responses to family violence prevention are aimed at all members of our society women, men and children in New Zealand.

However, statistics indicate that most family violence in New Zealand is directed towards women and children.

The White Ribbon Day is an international day when people wear a white ribbon to show that they do not condone violence towards women. 1 applaud any initiative that raises the profile of family violence and sends a message that it is not ok.

Thank you for writing.

Yours sincerely

Hon Paula Bennet) Minister for Social Development and Employment

Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand. Telephone 64 4 817 6815 Facsimile 64 4 817 6515

John Brett

1. Cabinet Minister’s Comments On s59 Welcomed
Family First Media Release 1 June 2009

Family First NZ is welcoming comments made by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett in a radio interview over the weekend. When a caller to the programme on Newstalk ZB asked the Minister whether she thought a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence in NZ, the Minister responded ‘ No I don’t , I believe that actually good parenting should be left to do that in their different ways in their different homes and I don’t have an interest in going into people’s homes and telling them how to parent’.

“This is a welcome change to the previous message that parents have received from politicians that ‘we know best how to raise your kids’,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Ms Bennett is also willing to acknowledge the difference between a smack as part of good parental correction, and child abuse. She went on to say ‘I’ve got the hat on of being hugely hugely concerned with serious abuse — now I think they’re very different things so do understand I’m not saying that section 59 was ever going to stop that..’. She also admitted that she would never have introduced an anti-smacking bill.” READ MORE LISTEN

2. Call to Prime Minister to change child discipline law
Radio NZ News 31 May 2009
(more…)

Pumpkin’s father goes on trial

Let us play a guessing game:
Has this man been served with a protection order by the family court?
Has Nai Yin Xue been thrown from his home by the family court?
Has Nai Yin Xue been barred from seeing his child by the family court?
Has Nai Yin Xue been humiliated to attend a violence course by the family court
Has the family court with the help of women’s refuge destroyed this man’s family.

Will we have the family court and its armada of family destruction providers be heard at the High Court?
wait and see.

Many a Chinese family has been destroyed by the family court.

I found this Editorial in a provincial News paper. While the specifics are irrelevant to the Mens moovement, the principal is. We have among us who have and probabally will again revert to protest action. I encourace them to read and consider this view of a protest and comments about the 1991 Springbok tour.

It’s always a shame when legitimate causes are hijacked by idiots.

It’s always a shame when legitimate causes are hijacked by idiots. Time and time again, passionate people determined to effect change or right a perceived wrong employ tactics that help defeat their cause, not further it.

The occupation of the Horowhenua Sailing Club by a group of Maori who have lodged a claim on the land with the Waitangi Tribunal is a case in point.

As reported in yesterday’s Standard, a group of squatters was evicted by police this week and issued with trespass notices. They abused police, who allegedly found evidence the occupiers some of them gang associates had been doing drugs on the premises, and threatened to chain the gates at the Lake Horowhenua entrance and begin another occupation.

One woman involved in the occupation said her grandmother was one of the 81 original Muaupoko iwi members given ownership of the lake bed and surrounding land.

The iwi leaders pursuing a legitimate claim to the land through the proper channels must be furious with the gang of clowns who have set up camp at the Sailing Club. What seems clear is these people are more concerned with having rent-free accommodation where they can get high, intimidate the legal owners of the building and lock horns with police.

They fail to understand one of history’s great lessons: the battle of ideas is rarely won with belligerence. No matter how just the cause, it will never gain the support it needs to succeed if it is pursued with thuggery and intimidation.

When such tactics are employed, the debate inevitably shifts from the issue to how the issue is being pursued. Those who protested the 1981 Springbok tour walked a similar misguided path, alienating people sympathetic to their cause but disapproving of the anarchy they unleashed in pursuing it.

The quiet dignity of civil disobedience can rally the hearts and minds of a nation; the expression of dissatisfaction through threats and violence inspires only more conflict. The squatters at the Horowhenua Sailing Club have attracted attention to their cause, but it is attention of the worst kind.

Members of Muaupoko are pursuing their land claim through the Waitangi Tribunal. Whether it wins or loses is a matter for the tribunal, but, whatever the outcome, in the battle of public opinion they have already defeated themselves.