Below is comment left on a site under an article written by Robert Franklin, Esq. I chose to share it because I think it gives good insight into misandry in America.

NOW (America’s National Organisation of Women) – New York State recently supported a resolution that “all crimes against women must be regarded as hate crimes . . ..” http://www.nownys.org/pr_2009/pr_022609.html You read that right! Every single crime against women should be regarded as a hate crime.
(more…)

1. Children Penalised in Parenting Orders
Family First Media Release 30 April 09

Family First NZ says that children are missing out on access to both their parents as a result of parenting orders being made in the Family Court, and that there appears to be a clear bias against fathers. Figures obtained by Family First NZ under the Official Information Act show that only 13% of disputes results in a 50-50 parenting split.

“These figures are a tragic reminder that children are the ultimate losers when there is a breakdown in the parent relationship,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The greatest injustice is that a parent can lose regular and sufficient access to their children when they may have done nothing wrong and never agreed to the separation in the first place.”

The figures for the three years since the passing of the Care of Children Act also show that mothers are more likely to be granted the most time, gaining sole day-to-day care in 2/3’rds of cases , but the father has only a 12% success rate .
READ MORE

(more…)

In issuing an abatement notice banning a brothel from operating near a school and the homes of retired people, John Banks stated “My first and foremost interest in all of these matters is making sure that the residents, particularly elderly families and families, can live in suburbs without fear of intimidation by the kind of people that tend to frequent these places.” Instead of highlighting the brothel and its exploitative business, Banks conveniently blames the customers. That’s like blaming drug addicts while failing to criticize the pushers. It’s a shame that Mr Banks and others critical of the prostitution industry tend to be so mealy-mouthed. They seem to be frightened of standing up to a feminist whitewashing campaign regarding prostitution. (more…)

I came across this and thought it might interest the board since it is a specifically male issue…

It’s a petition to correct the situation where gynecomastia correction surgery is considered a 100% cosmetic procedure and not covered by insurance. Gynecomastia is a condition where a man grows female breast tissue and needless to say, it can be pretty traumatic and emotionally scarring. I’ve heard of people contemplating suicide over it. And I think the only way to correct it is surgery but that is quite expensive.

So anyway, if you think this should be covered, go ahead and check out the petition. And if not, just be glad you don’t have female breasts!

Gynecomastia Petition

Janet Fraser is perhaps Australia’s most ferocious advocate of home births.

Her spiel mixes militant feminism and a green age’s worship of Earth Mother: “In a woman-hating society obsessed with the control and regulation of women’s bodies, choosing to birth at home makes a crucial statement of withdrawal from patriarchy.”

Medical intervention to help the baby or spare the mother is “birthrape”, and obstetricians are warned: “When you rupture those membranes . . . even when the woman screams no, that’s rape.”

Joyous Birth’s 1000 members are even urged by its website to scrawl on hospital walls “Episiotomy is genital mutilation” and “Did your rapist wear a mask and gown?”

Janet’s first child was delivered by emergency caesarean and she had not once in her pregnancy seen a doctor for her second child.

She was determined she would have her baby the natural way like an animal because medicine and medical treatment means “men” power.

Sadly, an ambulance was eventually called but they could not save her baby.

Why would someone do this? But I guess, “A woman’s body, a woman’s choice”

How far feminists will go to destroy men (patriarchy) is not just radical, it is insane.
www.news.com.au/heraldsun/

Family First NZ has made submissions to two high profile bills before parliament at the moment. We would encourage you to take a moment to read these submissions and provide feedback on these important issues.

Three Strikes Law

Family First supports the intent of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (also dubbed the “Three Strikes Law”). This law prevents REPEAT VIOLENT OFFENDERS the ability to put families at risk. Here’s just one recent example “Police Killer had history of violence”
(more…)

Recent ‘Classic Quotes’ regarding the Anti-smacking law and the upcoming Referendum

The anti-smacking Referendum has been confirmed to be held between 31 July 2009 and 21 August 2009. It will be a postal ballot.
We thought that we would feature some recent ‘classic quotes’ from politicians and leaders who have ignored the weight of public opinion and lobbied and voted for a flawed law that has impacted on good families – so sit back and be astounded!

Phil Goff – Leader Labour Party
Interviewer: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Phil Goff: Well my answer to that is no it shouldn’t be a criminal offence
Q+A’s Paul Holmes interviews Labour’s Phil Goff TVNZ Sunday 12 April 2009
Family First Comment: But with respect Mr Goff, you voted for a law that made it a criminal offence. But at least he did answer the question, unlike….

Bill English – Deputy PM
INTERVIEWER: Well, did you think – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
(more…)

The following link is to a site that has many articles, postings and discussions about the issue of reproductive equality for men.

Reproductive Equality . Com

The site suggests that women should decide what to do with their bodies and whether they want a family, but that they should not be able to make that same decision for men.  The conclusion is that while women currently enjoy 100% of the decision and control in whether to have a child, men are currently shouldered with 50% of the responsibility for that decision (even if they disagreed with it) while enjoying as little as 0% of the control and decision in some cases.

Thoughts?

The following link is to an article at ColinTimberlake.com that deals with the issue of men’s choice when it comes to parenthood and whether to be a parent.

Forced Fatherhood: Are Men Being Treated Equally?

The author asks whether the current system – where women not only decide what to do with their own bodies, but then decide whether a man who may not consent to being a parent is then forced into a family or support relationship – is fair and whether there are alternatives that could respect women and children and also offer men equal rights.

Irresponsible parents unaware of their children’s driving habits are under fire by a top police officer after a stolen car with six teenagers crashed into a tree, critically injuring the unlicensed driver.

The crash happened after a brief police chase in Auckland yesterday. It followed another incident in which police found a 14-year-old boy driving his drunk mother home during a drink-drive campaign in South Auckland at the weekend.

Road policing manager Inspector Heather Wells said that the mother had thought it was the safest thing to do.

Ms Wells said she was not surprised when told the driver of the vehicle that crashed yesterday was only 15 and unlicensed, or that his five passengers were aged between 13 and 15.

“Unfortunately this is what we are dealing with and until parents take a stronger stance on their young ones and take notice of what they are doing, we are going to continue to have this problem.”

The crash happened after police stopped a stolen vehicle in Manurewa, South Auckland.

The driver sped off and police gave chase but quickly lost sight of the car. They found it four minutes later after it crashed into a tree.

The driver had to be cut from the car and was admitted to Middlemore Hospital with critical leg injuries. His passengers were also taken to hospital with moderate and serious injuries.

Three of the passengers were discharged yesterday.

Ms Wells said the teenagers were suspected of stealing another car on Sunday.

They would face a variety of charges, including theft of a vehicle.

Police were investigating whether alcohol was a factor in the crash.

Inspector Wells said blood was being taken from the group to determine if alcohol was involved.

She said it was unclear how fast the car was going, but an officer pursuing it was left 600 metres being in a matter of seconds.

“They are very lucky they weren’t hurt more seriously,” Ms Wells said.

– Dominion Post, with NZPA

I strongly recommend you read the full original article here.

I’ll give the highlights:

The Politics of Domestic Violence
By Reuben Chapple

The feminist-driven “domestic violence industry” is part of an ever-expanding, tax-funded “bureaucracy of compassion” with its attendant caregivers, social workers, regulators, intellectuals and social scientists.

Feminists with a strong emotional investment in the presumption of an oppressive patriarchy base their assessment of men as “the violent sex” on police, court, hospital and refuge data while waving away numerous academic studies implicating both sexes equally in relationship violence. These seriously troubled sisters will cite police blotter statistics and other official data to falsely conclude that relationship violence is a male problem (”That’s just part of how ‘they’ treat ‘us’ as women”).

There are a number of compelling reasons why a man might be reluctant to complain to authorities that his wife assaulted him. These include fear of ridicule or being disbelieved; threats that if police are called his wife will level a counter-accusation and he’ll be the one arrested by an establishment predisposed to take her part; a reluctance to walk out of the home that he probably paid for; the likelihood that access to his children will be denied by a gender-biased Family Court should he leave to escape the violence; and fears for the children’s physical safety if he’s no longer around to protect them from a violent mother.

US researcher, Dr Martin Fiebert has examined 155 scholarly investigations, 126 empirical studies and 29 reviews and/or analyses in concluding that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 116,000 and can safely be regarded as statistically robust. Fiebert’s annotated bibliography, first published in Sexuality and Culture Volume 8, Number 3-4, Summer-Fall 2004, can be viewed online at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.

Contrary to the demonstrably false feminist picture of relationship violence, men and women are implicated in relationship violence in approximately equal numbers at all levels of severity as assessed by a standardised “Conflict Tactics Scale.” Both sexes are more or less equally represented in every category from throwing a teaspoon all the way up to murder. In some categories (e.g. punched, kicked, hit or slapped one’s partner), female involvement slightly outstripped that of males.

Bennett: New Children’s Commissioner Appointed

17 April 2009 – Child care and protection expert John Angus has been appointed Children’s Commissioner for six months while a permanent appointment is sought, Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett said today.

“I have decided to make an interim appointment to allow time to find the right permanent appointee for this important position,” Ms Bennett said. “I am grateful that we have someone of Mr Angus’ ability and standing available while we work to fill the role long-term.”

John Angus is a former front-line social worker, and was later a senior public servant. More recently he worked on the review of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, and he led inter-departmental work on preventing child abuse and neglect for the Taskforce for Action on Violence Within Families.

“Mr Angus has high integrity and immense respect within the sector for the policy research and academic work he has done on child care and protection over many years,” Ms Bennett said. “He is regarded as thoughtful, considerate and a safe pair of hands.”

Ms Bennett thanked outgoing commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro for her commitment to children and young people over more than five years in the position.

“Dr Kiro has been a strong advocate for the rights of children, and she has left a lasting impression. I congratulate her on her achievements,” she said.

John Angus takes over as Children’s Commissioner on 2 May.

Paula Bennett is Glen Eden’s (my) MP. She is one among many MPs who are supportive of men’s rights.
(more…)

Sue Reid, researcher and writer for Family First NZ

It is a shame that we have a Families Commission that is driven by ideology rather than listening to families. Chief commissioner Jan Pryor espouses her beliefs that “positive parenting should never include a smack” (Herald, April 3). Her so-called justification for the anti-smacking laws are inflammatory and continue to vilify good parents who may use a smack as part of good parental correction.

As a mother of two young children, I resent the constant barrage that fully funded, power-packed organisations such as the Families Commission can constantly deliver from their lofty soap-boxes. One can be left wondering who represents mums like me who are focused on the task of raising good, law-abiding and positive contributors to society. Like many other mums, I know that I wish to parent within a sensible legal framework and we owe it to good parents to get this law right. The new flawed law has tried to link a smack on the bottom with child abuse of the worst kind and has put good parents in the same category as rotten parents who are a danger to their kids and to society.

READ MORE

READ the original Op-Ed from the Families Commission “A positive spin on parenting”

If you would like to, please give feedback and write a letter to the Editor of the NZ Herald
[email protected]
www.familyfirst.org.nz

Often, the fathers’ rights movement is stereotyped as being full of angry guys at war with womankind. Fathers today certainly have a lot to be angry about. However, the fathers’ movement is not at war with women, but instead with the idea held by some women and some men that mothers matter and fathers don’t. Though critics try to avoid mentioning it, women comprise much of the membership of many fathers’ rights and shared parenting organisations around the world.

The largest group of women involved is second wives. The injustices which their husbands endure have propelled many second wives into the men and fathers’ movement.

But, why is this?

Since over half of all first marriages end in divorce, and 75% of divorcees remarry, there are many second wives and second husbands who struggle with the effects of their spouse’s divorces.

Many second wives who marry divorced fathers have little inkling of the malestrom they are entering–custody disputes, access and visitation denial, sudden child support increases, and the burden of legal fees spent on fighting inequities. Some second marriages end in divorce because of these pressures.

“The fathers’ rights movement is the civil rights movement of our era. Some belittle the plight of fathers, saying ‘oh, they’re men, they’re privileged, what have they suffered compared to other groups?’

The truth is; “Men don’t have rights. They never have.” Even animals have rights in New Zealand, but men don’t.

The feminist movement has always been aided by sympathetic men, and New Zealand women and women around they world would never have come so far so fast without their support. While women still face many problems, those problems have received a fair and often extensive public hearing.

Men now need women’s help and second wives have a much better chance of being listened to than their husbands.

One such woman in America is Fathers & Families Volunteer Coordinator Cheryl Quiambao. She organisers supporters and events and speaks to politicians. It is amazing how easily our leaders in government positions and charity groups will listen to a woman compared to a man.

Where’s New Zealand’s second wives? I have often wondered whether second wives feel they are unwelcome to take part in the men’s movement. Yet they are often the best friend a divorced father can have.

References:
The Second Wives Movement
Why Are There so Many Women in the Fathers’ Movement?

Hi all,
I will from time to time post articles on ‘domestic violence’ that have been published in the NZ papers. The aim is to propose them for dissection and analysis. Hopefully we will establish trends as I do not believe these articles are written in good faith but merely to brainwash and not solve the real problems. A picture will emerge about who writes them, their target, and spin doctors behind them and how repetitive (brainwashing) are they from year to year.
I will post the articles here with always a link to the source. Believe me these articles disappear for next propaganda war.
Here is then the first one:
Distrust of police puts Maori women at risk
source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2337728/Distrust-of-police-puts-Maori-women-at-risk
By By KEITH LYNCH – The Press

– See how police are blamed from year to year for the sole purpose of instilling in them more guilt
– See how a call is made to put more Maori guys in jail
(from a simple dispute, argument to for a life protection order, to its breaching to jail and Bruce is your uncle)
– See how the report is overseas based meaning world class
Without further ado here is then the article:

Distrust of police is damaging efforts to tackle violence against Maori women, an international study has found.

The report, prepared by human rights experts at the Leitner Centre for International Law and Justice in New York, proposed offering free legal aid to all New Zealand women seeking protection orders against violent men.

The leader of the Leitner Centre delegation, Jorge Contesse, said although the New Zealand Government had done a lot to tackle the issue, “more has to be done”.

He said violence against women was an “acute social problem”.

The report said Maori women were three times more likely than non-Maori to be assaulted or threatened by their partners.

Repairing relations between Maori and police was important in tackling domestic violence as there was “general distrust” between the two in parts of New Zealand.

“The police department should try to repair relations and develop strong relationships with the Maori community so that Maori will contact the police in situations of domestic violence,” the report said.

Contesse said more Maori police officers would not guarantee improved relations.

“It’s not clear whether it is good or bad to have police officers that belong to the Maori community,” he said.

“Some people think it is good because of the relationship with the community, but … that may also mean the police officer may be in a worse position to intervene. This issue must be addressed and the Government seems not to pay attention.”

A police spokeswoman said it was unfortunate the authors of the report did not speak directly to police.

“Police value the relationship with Maori and are working closely with iwi to address crime issues of concern,” she said.

Assistant Commissioner Grant Nicholls, of police national headquarters, said police were committed to working with Maori.

He said there were now more than 1200 Maori in the force. The police had 38 iwi liaison officers, 10 ethnic liaison officers and 10 Pacific liaison officers.

Police had also trained more than 400 Maori wardens who were working in the 12 police districts, Nicholls said.

The report found many victims earned too much to qualify for legal aid but could not afford the legal fees to get a protection order against their partners.

“It’s increasingly difficult for women to get protection orders, and the process is not free or not easy and we think the Government should make a significant effort to provide free legal aid,” Contesse said.

“The lawyers working on this issue are junior lawyers who are trying to gain experience. We think the Government should offer incentives to attract senior lawyers.”

A California Sunday school teacher kidnapped, raped and murdered an 8-year-old girl and stuffed her body in a suitcase that was dumped in a pond just near her home, prosecutors alleged.

Melissa Huckaby, 28, was charged with murdering her daughter’s playmate, Sandra Cantu, in a gruesome crime that has shocked and terrified residents of Tracy, a Northern California city of about 78,000, east of San Francisco.

Huckaby, who volunteered as a Sunday school teacher at her grandfather’s Clover Road Baptist Church in Tracy, appeared in a San Joaquin County courtroom for her arraignment in a red jumpsuit and shackles. She trembled and cried as a judge read the charge: one count of murder with the special circumstances of rape with a foreign object, lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 14 and murder in the course of a kidnapping.

The special circumstances mean Huckaby, if convicted, could face the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prosecutors have said they have not decided whether to seek the death penalty.

60 Minutes aired a program Monday 13th 2009 called ‘Mum’s the word” with reporter Karen McCarthy. It showed the classroom of one school in New Zealand that has young single mothers and their children attending to give the mothers a chance to stay at school and make something of their lives.

How far we have come from putting our young pregnant women out of sight and adopting out their babies. How we have come to give them a chance to grow into worthy citizens in society and how wonderful for their lives to mean more than just a mother.

But…. how sad for 60 minutes to provide New Zealand viewers with lies about the fathers.

“The fathers are not involved. The males only want sex and no responsibility”, is basically what all of New Zealand was told.

So I had to write a letter to put this right.

Dear Karen,

I commend you on reporting the wonderful work New Zealand does for young single mothers who choose to keep their children.

However, you have reported that the fathers are not involved. I think it is very sad that you did not include a father’s group in your documentary who could tell you of the father’s involvement and the hardship our young fathers face to be in the lives of their children.

Young men are not all about sex. They are equally sensitive and confused becoming a young parent and they never forget they have a child.

For starters they will be paying child support to the government or the mother for 19 years of the child’s life and they will always be under the females mood and that of her family as to whether they can spend time with their child.

In future please consider that our males are not all that we have made them out to be over the past 40 years and how hard it is for them to live with the stigma society forces on them.

I am pleased to see our society listen to the wants of our young women but I also think we need to start listening to the wants of our young men.

If you want to add your comment click HERE

The woman whose rape claim against a police recruit was thrown out of court will not be charged with making a false complaint, police say.

Detective Senior Sergeant Mike Oxnam confirmed the woman would not be prosecuted, but he would not give reasons for the decision.

Mark Tulloch, who walked free from the High Court at Wellington two weeks ago, is still waiting to find out whether he can resume training to become a police officer.

He did not want to comment on the decision not to charge the woman. “It’s all in the past for me,” he said. “It’s a police decision. I’ve moved on.”

The woman said Mr Tulloch raped her in April 2008 after they met via an internet dating site. He was arrested within days and has been on paid leave from the police for nearly a year.

After hearing the woman’s evidence at a trial last month, Justice Ron Young discharged Tulloch, in a move that amounted to an acquittal.

In written reasons issued later, the judge did not say the woman had lied but he said she had a history of making false allegations after falling out with people.

He said that, in all but the most exceptional cases, a jury should decide what had happened and assess the credibility of witnesses. In the Tulloch case, the woman contradicted herself on important matters, and gave evidence that conflicted with other credible and reliable evidence on vital points.

“My conclusion is that, taking into account the complainant’s evidence about what happened that night, together with the other evidence available, the complainant’s credibility and reliability was severely undermined.”

Even so, he would probably have left it to the jury to decide whether to believe her had she not had a “very concerning” pattern of making apparently false complaints against other people.

“On three occasions, at least, the complainant has made a false statement about criminal offending, including an allegation of rape, in circumstances where she has fallen out with or had a serious argument with another person.”

This combination of seriously weakened evidence, together with the pattern of false complaints, fundamentally undermined the complainant’s credibility and reliability, the judge said.

I was somewhat shocked to see NZCPR promote Ayn Rand’s books. Maybe because it is right wing. But…

Have you read her writings? Do you support her and why?

For a period of time in January, “Atlas” outsold President Barack Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope” and landed squarely in the top 30 books on Amazon.com. As a matter of fact, sales of the popular objectivist allegory peaked last as work on the latest stimulus plan began to receive mass press coverage in mid-January.

For those who don’t know, “Atlas Shrugged” relates the tale of a group of highly intelligent inventors, businessmen, and industrialists, led by one John Galt, who abandon a more-or-less socialist society that has been tormenting them with absurdly burdensome taxes and regulations. Eventually, the socialist society breaks down and begs them to return, under their own terms. It’s worth noting that, among American investors & CEO’s polled, “Atlas Shrugged” ranks as their most influential book, next to the Bible.

So, what gives? Why has objectivism suddenly become so popular in a nation suddenly made safe for the New World Deal? Don’t say it’s “evil Republicans” plotting, because, frankly, Rand’s blatant atheism can’t sit that well with the religious right. …And the feud between mainstream Libertarians and Rand-heads is well known.

So I guess the left are picking up the book also.

Western governments have expressed abhorrence at Afghanistan’s new laws that require a wife to fulfil her husband’s sexual desires and to wear makeup for him if he requests it.  Feminists and others have described the law as abhorrent and as “legalizing rape within marriage”.

It’s fair enough to express disagreement with another culture’s ideas and codes.  But surely there’s room for good faith, fairness, a little respect and some recognition that our own beliefs might possibly be as fallible as those we criticize.

The Muslim law may not necessarily legalize rape within marriage.  It’s not clear that a wife is required to submit each and every time her husband wants sex.  However, the law appears to place some marital obligations on the wife as well as on the husband. 

Can we be really sure that our approach is better?  Feminism has led us to believe that placing any marital obligations on women is bad, it’s abusive for a husband to dare to complain about anything about her including the way she keeps the house while he breaks his body to pay the rent, the way she looks after her body or appearance, or anything else (but if she complains that, for example, he is not bringing in enough money, that’s ok and he’s still the one in the wrong, a deadbeat dad…).

And how on earth can westerners claim to know better about how to conduct successful relationships?  Under our codes the majority of marriages end before their children even grow up, we have an epidemic of unhappy blended families likely to last even less than the broken marriages that preceded them, and we see a more general epidemic of unhappy dissatisfaction with life.

We know better.  We’re right and they’re wrong. Feminism knows better.  Yeah right.

Martens, a pilot, is currently being held in the Lotus Glen jail in north Queensland, serving his sentence for having sex with a 14-year-old girl.  He has gone on hunger strike.

The girl’s aunt Dianne Tapari has told AAP her niece made up the allegations against Martens as part of a conspiracy initiated by Martens’ former wife.

A second charge of child sex tourism against Martens was dismissed by the Cairns Supreme Court last year after a witness admitted the allegations were false.

Mr Debus last year rejected Martens’ pardon application, despite evidence uncovered by his family which they say proves he was 1,000km away from the alleged victim at the time of the offence.

International Men’s Day was conceived and coordinated by Dr. Jerome Teelucksingh, history lecturer from the University of West Indies and the first event was held at the Families in Action Headquarters in Newtown, Port of Spain on 19th November, 1999. In following years the event was jointly coordinated by Dr. Teelucksingh and Harrack Balramsingh, Chairman of Citizens for a Better Trinidad and Tobago (CBTT).

Dr. Teelucksingh chose the date partly to coincide with his father’s birthday, whom he felt was an excellent male role model, and also because it was the day in which the football team in his country created a level of unity which crossed gender, religious and ethnic divisions. He added, “I realised there was no day for men… some have said that there is Father’s Day, but what about young boys, teenagers and men who are not fathers?”

Early objectives of IMD proposed by Dr. Teelucksingh were

1. Improving gender relations between men and women,
2. Addressing problems and challenges of men,
3. Promoting gender equality,
4. Highlighting positive role models, and
5. Creating a safer, better world.

Of these he emphasised the importance of positive male role models, “not just movie stars and sports men but everyday, working class men who are living decent, honest lives”. He also suggested there had developed an unfair practice of ‘stereotyping’ and ‘unfairly branding’ males as perpetrators of violence in homes and in society, and said that this was one of the issues he hoped to start addressing.

The idea of celebrating an International Men’s Day received written support from U.N. officials in UNESCO and the event has continued to be celebrated annually in Trinidad and Tobago and other countries since it’s beginning.

We too in New Zealand need a day to recognise the gender imbalance and to propose implementation of moves towards a more equal society. Most nationally recognised domestic violence organisations view the issue of domestic violence from a feminist ideological [people who place women’s rights before victim’s rights] perspective. These organisations argue that contemporary men’s rights groups are guilty of singling out and then presenting data that supports their belief that men and women are equally guilty of domestic violence. It is time for New Zealand to follow the same path with the rest of world in recognising our laws are for equality and not for feminist domination.

But that’s just one area in need of focus for single men, fathers, married men who are not fathers, boys and teenagers. All 5 objectives proposed by Dr. Teelucksingh make this day a worthwhile event.

This event and the date has also been recognised and will be celebrated within other countries around the world such as Jamaica, Australia, India, United States, Pakistan, Haiti, Singapore, Malta, South Africa, China, and the United Kingdom.

This post will receive updates as each local area and groups of NZ give their commitment. This day is a National Day for NZ so let’s make this first one something to remember.

The current legislation is an income tax levied on certain parents and not on others. I refer to it as a child tax because that is in fact what it is. It is an illegal tax under the NZ Bill of Rights.

There is nothing in the legislation that relates to the cost of caring for a child.

The money collected under this legislation is based on income of a certain minority. There is very little provision for any other factor other than the income of this minority group. The income of the receiving party is not considered by this legislation. The main point is that it is an income tax. It is not a cost-of-caring-for-child tax.

There is no requirement, monitoring or control for money collected under this legislation to be spent on caring for a child. The money can and is spent on anything at all.

The money collected under this legislation goes either to the government consolidated fund or it goes to whomever the receiving party chooses. What I mean by this is that the person who is nominated to receive this money can elect to have the money sent directly to anyone they like for any reason. It could be directed straight to their TAB account for example. The legislation explicitly provides that the money can go to someone other than the person nominated as being a carer of the child. This is but one example in the legislation that makes it clear that it is a form of tax to be used by the recipient anyway desired.
“The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 can protect your rights in two ways:
– The Courts can recognise your rights. However, the Courts may need to balance your rights against the rights of others and the interest of the whole community.
– The Bill of Rights requires the Attorney General to report to Parliament if any proposed law appears inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The government will have to justify the need for such a law.
The Act says that any limits on your rights must be reasonable.”[1]

“3. Non-Discrimination and Minority Rights
You have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.” [1]

[1] Source Ministry of Justice: http://www.courts.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/bill_rights_act.html

The current legislation clearly discriminates against a minority in the community based on marital and family status in favour of another group based on their marital and family status.
The legislation must therefore pass the test of balancing the rights of the people being taxed against the rights of others and the interest of the whole community
The current legislation does not protect the rights or interests of the child.
As stated previously the current legislation has nothing at all to do with the cost of caring for the child. There is no requirement, monitoring or control that the money must be spent in the child’s interests. In fact the legislation explicitly allows for the money to be spent on other things.
There is only a vague relationship between the care of the child and who gets the money collected. For example much of the money goes to the government. More importantly, in general the care of the child by the person being taxed is not considered.
As the current legislation has been amended over and over again, clauses that may have provided some protection to the rights of the child have been explicitly removed. There Trend of law makers with this legislation illustrates that the intent of the legislation has moved even further away from protecting the rights of the child and further towards an income tax.
This means that the current legislation does not balance the rights of the child against the fact that is discriminates against a minority of people based on marital status and family status.

It also does not protect the interests of other children involved in blended families. In fact it makes their lives more difficult.

I am not aware of any research or evidence that the community is better off with this current legislation. There are arguments based on ideology and anecdotal evidence both ways on this point. Part of the problem with assessing the net outcome for the community is that the legislation has no relation to the cost for caring for the child. Part of the problem is that the simplistic assumptions of the legislation are ideological, outdated and deeply flawed. Part of the problem is that the implementation of the legislation is a failure. A large number of people can not or will not comply with this system. An even greater number are experiencing real hardship and loss of freedom in order to try to comply.

In addition when considering the interests of the community an erroneous assumption is made that insufficient money would be made available to care for the child. This is not substantiated by the available evidence.

Further more if this legislation was determined to be illegal under the Bill of Rights it would clearly be replaced by other child focused and equitable legislation. In other words the comparison is not between this legislation and having no scheme at all. When weighing the interests of the community of this legislation one must consider that rather than no scheme, some other scheme based on the cost of raising a child would replace it.

Hence the current legislation fails the test of whether the discrimination against one minority based on family status and marital status is balanced by the rights of others and the interests of the whole community.

The current scheme is illegal under the NZ Bill of Rights 1990.
I also believe it is illegal under UN conventions of human rights.

The current scheme is NOT a child support scheme it is a minority income tax scheme.

It would be simple to replace the current scheme with a scheme based on the cost of raising a child across two households. This has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions such as in Australia.

Prof. Edward Kruk (Canada) has published a definitive paper on the merits and policy for shared parenting.

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au

PDF copies are attached and the text of the summary is included in the box below.

The papter is entitled “Child Custody, Access, and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard”, and was written by professor so social work Edward Kruk, M.S.W., Ph.D., at The University of British Columbia. It is published by Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance (FIRA), December 2008.

He proposes a four-pillar approach to child custody determination:

1. Harm Reduction: A rebuttable legal presumption of joint physical custody after divorce

2. Treatment: Parenting plans, mediation and intervention / support in high conflict cases

3. Prevention: Shared parenting education and judicial determination in cases of established abuse, along with enforcement of shared parental responsibility orders

4. Enforcement: Judicially-determined arrangements in cases where family violence is a factor

The paper provides an empirical foundation for, and a step-by-step process, for implementation of an equal parenting bill.

The paper examines the issues, surveys approaches in UK, USA, Sweden and Australia, examines Canadian Child custody legislation at a provincial level, reviews Canadian efforts to make changes, and critiques the traditional sole custody approach as a basis leading up to the universal four-pillar approach for Equal Parenting.

This paper was commissioned by the Father Involvement Research Alliance (FIRA) based at the University of Guelph. Funding support for FIRA and this paper was provided through a Community University Research Alliance grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The intent of this paper is to promote informed dialogue and debate. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of FIRA or of other researchers/collaborators associated with FIRA. Communications can be addressed to the author.

The full paper, a summary and a Powerpoint presentation, can be download from the following URLs (and are attached below):

– The full paper (101 pages with over a 100 references)

– The Executive Summary (9 pages, text in the box below)

– Paternal Responsibility and Parenting After Divorce (PPT, 93kb)

Father Involvement Research Alliance (FIRA)
http://www.fira.ca/

All FIRA downloadable resources

I understand that Belgium has now had a starting point for custody negotiations of 50% / 50%, for over 2 years. There will now be sufficient experience available, for the outcomes to be evaluated. Another helpful element, is that French / Belgium lawyers are more used to working in a inquisitorial manner and are much less greedy financially than NZ / british style legal-workers.

There is hope – if you are willing to work for it?

To be able to serve children successfully, the familycaught desperately needs your help! MurrayBacon.

The UN, inventor of a raft of fake “human rights” that actually deny us more fundamental human rights recognized since the Magna Carta, will love Helen Clark. Miss Clark has made it her life mission to wreck families in order to increase state control and to impose the fake kinds of right that the UN has promoted.

With Miss Clark off to spread her social corrosion much more widely in the world, we might now imagine that we have voted as a country to move beyond her club of women’s privilege. Surely National will be capable of sensible review of feminist initiatives and will come to recognize current widespread injustice towards men, the importance of family cohesion and the damage caused to the fabric of our society by politically correct fantasies? Well, sadly there’s not much evidence National will be any different from the last lot in these important areas. (more…)