KIWI Dadz Against Discrimination ( Kiwi D.A.Dz )

Submmission Needed - Paternity Implications

2007-04-12T15:32:00.000+12:00

Source: menz @ menz.org.nz/2007/submmission-needed-paternity-implications/

Submmission Needed - Paternity Implications

The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill is open for submissions.

This is an important bill for Fathers as there are serious implications for paternity registration buried in the bill.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are of particular interest as is 84A

To Sum Up

The first is in relation to the part of the bill which places a statutory obligation on both parents of a child to jointly notify a Registrar of the birth of a child. If

The only exceptions are when there is only one parent at law - this happens with some procedures for assisted reproduction, or where one parent is “unavailable”, or where requiring the other parent to sign the form would cause so-called “undue distress” to one of the parents.
This changes the position from the current law, where the obligation to notify a Registrar rests only with people who are legally guardians of the child at the time of the birth.

If this bill goes through there will therefore be a statutory obligation on fathers of children to make the notification, and an obligation on mothers to jointly make the notification with the father - whether they choose to or not.

If the father does not agree to having his name on the Birth Certificate the registrar can use extensive investigation powers to place a fathers name on the birth certificate.
Section 89(e) of the Act makes it a criminal offence to “having had the relevant provision of this Act drawn to the person’s attention, fails or refuses to give any information required by this Act to be given”.

Please have a look at the bill and please make a submission to the select committee.
Remember a child has a right to know both of his parents and while it is easy to identify the mother the only conclusive evidence that a man is a child’s father is a DNA test. Please stress the need for FREE DNA testing if requested by a Father as a requirement for birth registration.
The certificate of birth is the primary document used for establishing proof of paternity for child support (tax) recovery and if it is wrong it is currently and will under this bill will be very difficult and expensive for a father to gain redress against the injustice.

Remember the solution is simple FREE DNA tests,without the mother acting as a gatekeeper, if requested as this will protect the child and the father and provide honesty and truth in parenthood.

Finally lets not forget the kids, they have the right to be sure that dad is dad and not an unrelated stranger.

Regards

Scrap

Watch out for psychological tests.

2007-04-04T22:47:00.000+12:00

Watch out for psychological tests.Sunday, 25.03.2007, 12:47pm (GMT12)

Watch out for psychological tests

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 24th, 2007

Source: New Zealand Families vs CYFS Support Forum

Hans Laven writes:

Watch out for psychological tests

If CYFS refer you for psychological assessment or treatment, be careful about this process and especially about filling out assessment questionnaires or participating in tests. While I am not at liberty to discuss any cases, it may be enough to say that it is possible for a parent to be referred for counselling to a psychologist who will then convince the parent to participate in a personality test. The parent might be led to believe this is part of the assessment process for the counselling, but in referring the parent CYFS can make it clear that they would like some professional evidence to justify their decision in uplifting the children. The "counselling" becomes mainly a facade for obtaining some professional dirt on the parent.

The psychologist is paid by CYFS and will be keen to accommodate what CYFS wants in the hope of getting further contracts. Even though the personality test might not give results suggesting that the parent is dangerous, the psychologist can pick out and report bad-sounding aspects of the test results and can add to this critical comments about the parent's presentation in the sessions. The parent, all the time believing that they are just undertaking counselling to address CYFS concerns, is then surprised to see the psychologist has prepared a damning report that is used to prevent any return of the children. Believe me, it happens.

Lessons from the story:
- if referred for counselling, get in writing from the counsellor an agreement about the purpose of the work and the nature of any reporting back, and have this looked over by your lawyer before proceeding
- do not agree to participate in personality assessments which, more than many other assessment tools, are open to massive interpretation and misuse
- if CYFS recommends counselling, do not attend counselling or treatment paid for by CYFS because of the risk that CYFS will thereby exploit the process. Instead, pay for it and the report privately if possible, or ask if it can be provided through the free Family Court counselling system which is confidential and allows only minimal forms of reporting back.

==============================================

Reply from Tracy

Theyre exploiting us through counselling right now and its terrifying me, know exactly what you mean.I understood my kids were to be counselled for the trauma of my sons accident, cyfs paid for my daughters counselling because she didnt have acc entitlement.The questions are SO leading shes refused to go, they want the family to go so they can spark an argument then write a bad report on us, so far 5 sessions, not one mention of accident just `who lives at home' `your mother has no rules does she?" `why are you hitting people?' "dont lie, now who's hitting you' It wouldnt be so bad, but i'm an advocate of non violent parenting and dont hit them AT ALL.I'm sitting back in horror watching myself being `fitted up' for stuff i'm not even doing!

======================================

Reply from : Michelle Lee Stewart

CYFS have done exactly that to me and taken into custody my 2 youngest children, on the grounds that I have mental health issues, I'm a drug addict and dealer, I'm a prostitute, I have abused and neglected my 3 children, I'm totally incapble of caring for my children, and the worst thing that these lying social workers have said that I strangled my son while breastfeeding him.

He is now 5 years old, and the lies and slander just go on and on. I am well aware that I am not facing false allegations on my own. How can these corrupt social workers and all who conspire with them be allowed to get away with such cruel abuse of families. Their care & protection orders are a cruel and utter insult on my family, I notice that the department are not paying the school bill. How do you stand up and fight against this corrupt system.

CYFS are a real life modern-day Gestapo. They have destroyed my life and it will never be the same. I'm not crazy and I'm not stupid the way that the system has made me out to be. It would be nice if anyone wanted to contact me here in the Waikato, thanks, god bless you all, Michelle, 10 Jamieson Crescent, Te Rapa, Hamilton, phone 07-849-0331 or e-mail me on: michelle.stewart@..., all the best to everyone out there who sufferes under these lying NAZI social workers, for they are the real abusers, may they be brought to justice for all of their lies and slander that they push through the family court.

Wellington peaceful protest march details

2007-03-21T21:00:00.000+12:00

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Wellington peaceful protest march details

MARCH ON PARLIAMENT

AgainstAnti Smacking Bill

DO YOU VALUE THE RIGHT TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN THE WAY YOU CHOOSE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE?

Then do something about it BEFORE it’s too late!

Join us in a PEACEFUL protest

Wednesday 28th March 2007

Beginning at Civic Square at 12pm then
advancing to Parliament

*This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.

For more information, see

http://smackingback.blogspot.com/ or e-mailantiantismacking@gmail.comMitch LeesRepresentativePhone: 027 243 1676

19 March 2007 - Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law - March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

2007-03-20T13:57:00.000+12:00

Tuesday, 20 March 2007

19 March 2007 - Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law - March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htm

March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

Monday, 19 March 2007, 12:39 pm

Press Release: Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Anti Smacking Bill

Public March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of politicians in a free society. Yet with polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders in opposition to Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill, it is clear that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of a free society, freedom of speech and freedom to dissent, Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law (CANSAL) will be staging a peaceful march on Parliament to remind our politicians just whom they are elected to serve.

Sue Bradford's bill, proposing to remove the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, will turn loving parents into criminals. The bill strikes at the very foundations of the family structure. Will parents who choose to smack be 'ratted out,' Soviet-style, by teachers or neighbours?

The proposed law would compel the police to get involved in cases where they have no place - wasting valuable time and resources – and give them no discretion, as they themselves have said, as to whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of MPs when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger – hardly what they need.

I, like many other New Zealanders, was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me for their actions in correcting me is incomprehensible. What we have now is government of the people, by the Politically Correct, for the Politically Correct.

The bureaucrats have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It's time to push back. The present law allowing "reasonable force" should be left intact.

The protest march will start at Civic Square at noon on Wednesday 28 March.

ENDS

Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Lawhttp://smackingback.blogspot.com/

Where the hell are the parents opposing the passing of repeal of Section 59?

2007-03-14T21:58:00.000+13:00

Who will stand up for New Zealand families?

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ & Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

Where the hell are the parents opposing the passing of repeal of Section 59?

Wednesday, 14.03.2007, 09:58am (GMT12)

Not Supported writes:

I have noted with an air of gloom the recent passing - or as good as - of Sue Bradford’s bill. What I would like to know is what the hell can we do about it if the government will not listen to the voices of the majority in this country who oppose the repeal of section 59?

Would the 80% of us who oppose this anti-democratic forceful imposition of law be able - or willing - to band together as a single unit to take the GOVERNMENT to court in the largest ever class action and is this even possible? I suggest that as this is meant to be a democracy and since the majority on NZ’ers are against the repeal, then in go ahead with this legislation the government is acting undemocratically and therefore illegally. I for one would proudly participate in a class action against this government. Who else would?

CYFSWATCH replies:

We believe that it is not “class action” that is needed, but rather “direct action”. This website is an example of “direct action” - putting everything on the line for the sake of defending a set of principles and beliefs - it’s what our forefathers did when they went to war. Now, the very liberty and freedom they fought and died for in their generation is being handed to the enemy on a silver platter via apathy and no-stomach-for-a-fight by this generation. Pathetic really that New Zealand as a people are, on the whole, too afraid to take direct action - it seems that we have become a nation of fearful wimps. The enemy is winning - without a shot being fired. To “take out” ones own people is called treason - the Government has been “taking out” its own people for years, and most of us just let it happen. Lawyers and lawsuits don’t start revolutions - direct action by a people who cry “enough” do.

CYFSWATCH NZ In the news again. Another mirror stie

2007-03-13T22:30:00.000+13:00

TV 3: "Notorious" CYFSWATCH website re-launched.Tuesday, 13.03.2007, 03:18pm (GMT12)

Notorious CYFS watch website re-launched

Tue-13-Mar-2007 11:15am Tue-13-Mar-2007 11:15am

Another mirror site of the controversial "cyfswatch" website, aiming to "name and shame" Child, Youth and Family Social workers, has been set up.

Google shut down the original blog following threats to Green MP Sue Bradford over her bill.

A mirror site popped up soon after, and now there is another carrying summaries of 11 more CYF cases in its "Hall of Shame".

Is the New Zealand Government tyrannical?

2007-03-06T13:52:00.000+13:00

Is the New Zealand Government tyrannical?

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 4th, 2007

As posted on Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

Sunday, March 4, 2007 pm31 6:09 PM

Posted by Watchingcyfs:

Firstly a word of encouragement to CYFSWATCH NZ

Keep up the good work.

With the closing down of the two CYFSWATCH NZ’s blogs, hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of people were denied an opportunity to have their stories told.

The New Zealand government’s attempt to silence them is completely a disregard of their right to Free Speech.

One must defend liberty at every opportunity, and never lose focus on its shining goal. One must live up to the courage that defied an empire.
It is not too late. One individual can re-ignite a revolution.

May that spark which re ignites that revolution be CYFSWATCH NZ

====================================================================

Secondly two interesting pieces, # 1 a news piece and #2 a commentary source unknownI was very interested to read the following article that I found lately while just surfing around on the net.

The following article was published in The Washington Times on 29/09/2000

=============================================
# 1

Paul Craig Roberts identifies the relationship between our universities ‘politically correct’??? And those of previous ideologies. He is right on target. His article appeared in The Washington Times (September 29, 2000).

“Tyranny is creeping up on us. If you don’t believe it, consider the most prominent hallmarks of the Nazi and communist regimes, which sought to supplant democracy in the 20th century.

”In National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union, there were no First Amendment rights. No one could voice an opinion contrary to the politically correct views enforced by the Gestapo and the KGB. Media and education were used to instill politically correct thinking and bring denunciation upon anyone who departed from politically correct thinking.

“This is precisely the situation that exists today in the vast majority of American colleges and universities. Verbal and facial expressions that are contrary to political correctness result in sensitivity training (a form of brainwashing) or expulsion for the offender, who may have done nothing more than laugh. If the source of mirth is an ethnic joke, a blonde joke or a hilarious claim by a multiculturalist, the hapless offender discovers that his constitutional protections do not exist.

”In Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, there were victim groups that were championed and oppressor groups that were suppressed. In Germany, the ‘victims’ were Aryans, who were said to be under the financial hegemony of Jews. In the Soviet Union, the hegemonic group was the bourgeoisie, who allegedly held sway over an oppressed proletariat. In both countries, victims were permitted to exercise violent language and actions against oppressors.

“In the United States today, white heterosexual able-bodied males constitute the hegemonic group. Everyone else is a member of a victim group.

”In Germany and the Soviet Union, the abstract and imaginary group roles of oppressor and victim were given a frightful reality by ideologues. Race and class categories became the basis for discrimination and new legal systems that favored victims’ groups with preferences.
“On American campuses, multi-cultural ideology has revived the concepts of race and class oppression, and added new ones based on gender and sexual orientation. Men oppress women, and heterosexuals oppress homosexuals.

”According to multiculturalists, our culture and values reflect nothing but the arbitrary domination of society by white heterosexual males. University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Kors says that, thanks to multiculturalism, ‘half a century after the defeat of Nazism, we distinguish by blood and we equate blood with culture.’ We now think like Nazis and explain our society and culture in terms of race (and gender) hegemony.

“Tyrannical states attack the family. Both the Nazis and communists are infamous for state intrusions in family affairs. In the United States, similar bureaucratic and political intrusions come from family courts. Most Americans are unaware of the existence of these relatively new ‘courts.’ Howard University Professor Stephen Baskerville is the leading authority on these courts. He says family courts are ‘the most dangerous institutions posing a threat to constitutional rights in our society. The only parallels are the ideological-bureaucratic dictatorships of the last century.’

”Family courts claim immunity from the Constitution and from scrutiny by federal courts. Mr. Baskerville describes them as follows: ‘their proceedings are secret and unrecorded. Their orders are enforced by bureaucratic police who do not wear uniforms and whose sole responsibility is to conduct surveillance over families and private lives. As such, these police are akin to secret police. By the very nature of their jurisdiction, these courts and police are the most intrusive and invasive arm of government, and yet they are accountable to virtually no one. Such an institution is intolerable in a free society.’

“Recently a family court judge ordered the parents of a 7-year-old boy in Berne, N.Y., to put their child on Ritalin, a behavior-control drug. The alternative was to be found guilty of ‘educational neglect,’ an offense that would open the possibility of their child being seized by Child Protective Services – a Hillary Clinton ‘village’ institution straight from the pages of the Gestapo. The child suffered serious side effects from the drug, but parents no longer have the right to decide what is best for their children. ”

Tyrannical states assault the individual in the inner recesses of his consciousness. He is not permitted to think certain thoughts or to express a prohibited thought privately to anyone. “Recently, Janice Barton encountered a Spanish-speaking couple while leaving a restaurant in Manistee, Mich. She turned to her mother and said, ‘I wish these [ethnic slur] would learn to speak English.’ An off- duty deputy sheriff over-heard the private remark, followed the woman to her car and noted her tag number. Janice Barton was sentenced to 45 days in jail for her thought crime.

”This couldn’t happen in a free country.“

Ends.

=========================================================================

Watching CYFSWATC NZ comments;

It has raised some very valid points, which needs to be discussed. It made me think of a few questions that I feel needs to be addressed.

Can & does the same sort of thing happen in New Zealand? If it does how wide spread is it?

How many lives and families are being destroyed by such a push by the New Zealand’s Government to bring about social change & equality by ” FORCE “ & ” COERCION “?

What part do the many varied social groups ( eg Women’s refuge etc )have in this process of change to our society?

What part does the Family Court, Justice system, CYFS and the Mental Health services have to play in especially the matter of Family & Domestic violence, Child Abuse and in general the destruction of the family unit?

Just the thought of this sort of abuse of power in New Zealand by different originations such as CYFS, Family Court, WINZ, IRD, ACC, Police, and the people who are in position of power (eg MP’s, Judges, Police, Social workers etc) is quite disgusting to say the least and should not be tolerated any longer.

You cannot bring about such changes by the misuse of power to control how people think & react with the use of FORCE & COERCION. In reality a big power struggle to which the strongest wins there is always a loser.

Where is the equality that it trys so hard to obtain when they use power and control to bring it about?

I suggest to you that Equality in this sense doesn’t in reality exist.

It all just seems to be people in these positions of power wanting to make up in their own twisted perception what they perceive is the best for everyone and then by whatever means available to then force people by the use of FORCE & COERCION to get what they want.

Is New Zealand going down this path to destruction?

========================================================================

# 2

In the Discovery of freedom

Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. To be cured against one\’s own will of a state we do not regard as a disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason, or those who never will, and to be classed with infants, imbeciles and domestic animals.— C.S. Lewis

In The Discovery of Freedom, novelist and historian Rose Wilder Lane described the man who fired the first shot against the British in the American Revolution:

Not acting under orders, not led, but standing on his own feet, acting from his own will, responsible, self-controlling, he fired on the King’s troops. He defied a world-empire.…

No one knows who began the American Revolution. Only his neighbours ever knew him, and no one now remembers any of them. He was an unknown man, an individual, the only force that can ever defend freedom.

Every individual, as a human being, is the source of productive, creative energy. Each individual is alone a moral agent, and that force from another can never induce creation. In a real sense, fundamentally, every human being is free. In practice, there is only one freedom in society: that of living one’s life as one chooses, and allowing others to do the same.

Moral responsibility cannot be applied to anything outside the individual’s choice - one cannot be judged for that which is outside one’s control. Nor can one judge others by that which is outside their control. Yet the individual is told that he must - automatically - love, value and respect people with whom he may hold nothing in common except the blood running through his veins. An individual’s values must be acquired by his own mind and his own choice.

In the physical sciences, many actions can be accurately predicted — in the case of astronomy, for example, the position of planets hundreds of years in the future can be calculated. But in the case of human choices and history, nothing is fated. Human beings operate with a unique faculty: volition. We choose our own fates. Freedom is not inevitable. But then, neither is tyranny. Liberty in New Zealand — and liberty in societies throughout the world — was won because it was recognised and valued. In order to regain and keep our birthright of freedom, we must never forget its nature or its value.

Freedom is a social requirement of man’s nature. Freedom is freedom from force. Force is justified only when used in retaliation against those who initiate it. But — “If I am wielding retaliatory force, my use of that instrument must be in strict accordance with publicly promulgated laws, and publicly observable judicial proceedings, so that people are not left wondering how, where and against whom I will use force tomorrow” (David Kelley). A is A — and Anarchism is the Arbitrary writ large.

Make no mistake, there is no idea bigger, or more important for the survival of this planet, than the liberty of the human individual; the idea that you own your own life & are accountable to no one but yourself. When you understand that, you will understand, as Kipling said: ’that mine is the Earth & everything that’s in it, & – which is more – you’ll be a Man my son!“

For too long, freedom has been absent from societyThe problem is that we live in a society, and a world, that is geared up to restrict freedom. As a result, true freedom is a concept that is scary to too many people - and this is where perception halts any such fight.

It is individual freedom that is the one thing, due to our inherent nature as thinking, choosing beings, that any proper society should recognise as man’s absolute right. To survive, freedom is what man requires above all else; it is his by right, and therefore what the government should do all in its power to protect. The right to my - and your - freedom does not come at anybody’s expense.

Today, in New Zealand, it is possible for a perfectly innocent man, who has done nothing outside the law, to be sent to prison on one person’s unsubstantiated word. It came about by a law passed in 1995 and put into force on 1st July 1996 — The Domestic Violence Act which replaced the old Molestation Act. It is a brilliant illustration of how ”philosophies“ such as modern feminism and its femi-nazi adherents can be used to subvert freedom.

How do such things happen? They happen because those who seek to control us are very good at playing on the unearned guilt which the innocent are all too willing to bear, and at using good motives as a cover for evil ones. No-one doubts that unfortunately there do exist violent, destructive men from whom their victims need legitimate protection, and urgency laws for such cases may well be the best way of handling these cases.

There are violent men, there are abusive husbands and fathers. But there are, also, violent women, there are abusive wives and mothers. Justice, as a system, is meant to enter into matters with an open mind. Yes, it is reasonable to ask who, if either, in a custody dispute is violent or abusive or negligent. And it is in the best interest of the child involved to be with the better parent though often who is better is virtually impossible to determine. But it is not in the interest of the child, the parents or our society generally to make this decision and place a child on the basis of faulty, gender-biased policies.

To portray men as violent and women as victims is to stereotype both sexes and harm both. There is already an ideological bias in this direction. False accusations of spousal abuse and child abuse are already a problem in custody cases. Too many therapists are already caught up in theories which cast women in these roles and cast suspicion on men.

In no way do I condon any form of violence and abuse that is perpetrated on any individual , man woman or child.However, there are hundreds of broken relationships occurring every year; it is demonstrable from the statistics that vicious men are in the minority. But the Domestic Violence Act 1995 acts on the assumption that all men are potentially violent — and this is a direct consequence of the culture of academic feminism which, via Universities, has peddled exactly that message for the past two decades.

There are thousands of lives in New Zealand and all over the world that are being destoryed by the Government , the Justice system , the Psychology Industry and the Feminist movment.

We are all inclined, when we think of ”power“ and ”abuse“ within the context of ”psychology,“ to focus on what we consider to be the abuse of power by individuals within the profession or to apply psychological concepts to identify individuals from other walks of life, such as politicians, celebrities, teachers and coaches, as abusing their power. For instance, when we hear of cases in which professors develop relationships with their students or therapists with their clients, we tend to view these as instances of something inherently immoral and coercive. And, when we think of any profession or any organization or institution, we tend to think in terms of an internal patriarchal power dynamic, citing evidence to support theories of male dominance and control.

While these may be issues to address, I want to suggest to you that each of these is like a ”tree“ that serves to obscure the view of the ”forest.“ And that in staying focused on these issues, we are failing to notice, and to address, a much larger problem. As we express outrage about individual cases of alleged abuse, what we lose sight of is a pervasive and rampant abuse of power by the profession of psychology. It is this abuse of power committed in the name of professionalism that devalues, exploits, trivializes and victimizes people throughout society.

When we hear of the abuse of power by individuals, we need to look behind these claims to examine the role of psychology and to consider how it may be misusing its influence. It is the profession itself which is victimizing people, particularly women, as it turns them into powerless, dependent and stupid ”adult children,“ unable to think for themselves, to take responsibility for their actions, to admit their mistakes, acknowledge their shortcomings, or even enjoy their romantic conquests.

Psychology is responsible for the creation of most of the concepts employed in accusations involving the abuse of power, it is psychology that coined the terms and formed the notions, and it is psychology that benefits most from the contamination of society by the uncontested acceptance of psychological ”expertise.“ How many times have you heard that the victims were referred for counseling, that the accused was ordered into treatment or that gender sensitivity training was made a condition of disciplinary action?

Psychology has a vested interest in identifying abuses of power in the broadest psychological terms possible. It is through this that ”victims“ are manufactured and then converted into patients/clients for whom psychological services must be purchased. And it is through this that psychologists come to be retained to testify in human rights hearings, civil proceedings and criminal courts. To put it in a visual form:

PERSON = VICTIM = PATIENT = PROFIT

Psychology promotes genderism and is actually guilty of victimizing women.It has become fashionable in the 90’s to be a victim. While I readily acknowledge that there are real victims who have suffered degradation, brutality and violence, I also know that there are many ”counterfeit victims“ who manipulate the system, intentionally lying with motives of revenge or greed or excuse-finding, and also, that there are vast numbers of what I call ”synthetic victims,“ those people who lie unintentionally, having been taught to think of themselves as victims and to make accusations and claims based on psychological interpretations of events.

Yvonne McEwen notes: ”The victim-makers in today’s world are inevitably the lawyers, doctors, psychologists, therapists, social workers and the radical left of the feminist movement.“

By turning all of life into psychological events, then pathologizing normal feelings and behaviours and generalizing psychological concepts so that ”trauma“ can refer as easily to having a fling with the boss as to being brutally raped, people are being persuaded to see themselves as victims. Rather than being allowed to assume responsibility for their own actions, they come to believe that they must be protected, nurtured and guided by others more powerful than them.

Each and every week, our papers carry articles describing victims of one type or another and many of these reports conclude that counseling should be provided, laws put in place, funds set aside for a healing process, or programs established to increase self-esteem, teach parenting skills, or combat violence.

Most of these reported victims are women and, interestingly, statistics show that 2 out of 3 psychotherapy consumers are women. It is women by and large who are being persuaded that they are weak, vulnerable, manipulated and fragile. And, contrary to common assumption, much of this persuasion is being done by women who themselves benefit from casting their fellow women in victim roles. It is largely female therapists, lawyers and advocates who encourage women to see themselves as victims and to complain, and to seek special consideration and compensation. It is also often female ”experts“ who use fear appeal to persuade women that they are victims.

For instance, the report prepared by the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women, employing a ”feminist lens“ (more commonly labelled as ”bias“,) presented finding which made it seem that women across Canada stand a good chance of becoming crime victims. And, while mentioning that 52% of women in their study attributed their decreased sense of safety to media reports on violence against women, they chose to ignore recent sociological studies which suggest that it is the fear of violence rather than violence itself which is harming women by creating fear and causing them to see themselves as victims.

Psychology is an industry masquerading as a scientifically-based profession, and no matter how strongly psychological beliefs and theories are expressed as facts, there is little-to-no certainty in the field. My key point is that anything said by psychologists needs to be scrutinized carefully.

While undeniably, some individuals within the profession of psychology will violate current ethical codes; some will do their jobs poorly; some will make mistakes; and, some will even seduce or be seduced by their patients or by their students; please remember that these are only the ”trees.“ My hope is that your attention will not be forever diverted by these individual, and often sensationalized, cases because they serve to obscure our view of the bigger issue. The ”forest,“ in this instance, is the pervasive and socially sanctioned abuse of power, in the form of the profession’s influence on the public, the media and the courts. If we remain focused on the trees, the Psychology Industry will go unchallenged. Take a look at the larger picture and ask yourself whether we can afford, any longer, to remain blinded by the trees.

”Politicians are not born, they are excreted,“ said Cicero.

However unsanitary the metaphor, it is not gratuitous. Anyone who seeks coercive power over others (for reasons which include living off those others’ earnings), is truly despicable. By far the greater number of politicians the world over are in this category. In New Zealand, there are few who are not.

To anyone who holds freedom as sacred, the most urgent problem facing this country is the vile anti-individual philosophies of collectivism and statism that have given rise to this relentless onslaught of the government’s violation of individual rights, which includes the proliferation of intrusive, politically correct, government agencies charged with the ”responsibility“ of fixing all our problems.

To have the courage to see things as they are, in the light of lost freedom, is to acknowledge a grotesque level of corruption and injustice. To open one’s eyes and name these programs, agencies, and restrictions for what they are is to face up to a very difficult conclusion, one which offers little immediate comfort. Truly, that the New Zealand has reached this point is not easy to admit — and most have lost the knowledge of freedom along with their actual freedom. This is precisely the way the tyrant wins. What must it have been like as a citizen in the early Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? ”Surely,“ they must have thought, ”we won’t take things to extremes. Of course a Stalin (or a Hitler) is impossible! After all, this is Germany (or Russia, or Cambodia, or China …).“ How many cried out at the loss of their freedom, such as it was where there was any? This is the way the bloodiest oppression begins, unanswered by cries of protest.

What is being destroyed? It is very simple. The government is now operating on the assumption that you are not in control of your own life. What is being lost is your freedom to act, to live your own life, to find your own success. The means of the loss of this freedom is physical force — that is the only thing which destroys freedom.Politicians and journalists side-step the issue of freedom when identifying New Zealands essential nature.

Today, a law is seen as just, not because it protects liberty, but because it was democratically established. If you don’t like a law or official, one is told, too bad, you had a chance to vote against it. Thus, all that comes from government is good, for it is blessed by the ever-righteous vote. Not surprisingly then, politicians and the tyrants of the status quo eagerly embrace democracy alone as an ideal. To name the actual principle of liberty would too obviously condemn their own policies and positions, let alone the despotism of other countries. And while they clamour for ”social democracy” throughout the world, human lives are torn and destroyed.

The fast erosion of our rights and dignity on the part of ever-increasing government is testament to our neglect — not only in New Zealand, but world-wide.

I put it to you bluntly, that if you ’re too scared to openly argue for the merits of your goals - & would rather fudge them - then you neither believe in your purported goals, & nor do you understand them - and after all, if you’re too embarrassed to hold your ideas openly, then why the hell should anyone else give them any credence?

One must defend liberty at every opportunity, and never lose focus on its shining goal. One must live up to the courage that defied an empire. It is not too late. An individual can re-ignite a revolution.

=========================================================================

Have a nice day

watchingcyfs

Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

Bradford Anti-smacking Bill Will Result in Children Reporting Parents

2007-03-05T21:21:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Bradford Anti-smacking Bill Will Result in Children Reporting Parents

Monday, March 5, 2007 am31 6:51 AM in CYFSWATCH Media

FAMILY FIRST MEDIA RELEASE: 5 MARCH 2007

Bradford Anti-smacking Bill Will Result in Children Reporting Parents

Family First is warning politicians that an outcome of voting for Sue Bradfords anti-smacking bill is that children will report their parents to the police when they donât like parental discipline and correction.

Prominent QC Peter McKenzie, in his opinion released last week, highlights this when he says: complaints may be made by children who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges.

And this is consistent with international experience, says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Supt Logan, the deputy borough commander in Hackney, east London and Britainâs most senior black policeman said at the weekend(1) that parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge. He said that the results have been a decline in respect, a rise in family breakdowns and an increasing number of children being put up for adoption. He made these comments during an inquiry into patterns of crime among black men.

In Sweden (where smacking was banned in 1979), the Nordic Committee for Human Rights says(2) : Children have been informed of their rights and so they use their rights to demand more freedom to do as they please. They report their parents in the aim of obtaining freedom, unaware of the consequences of their report to the social authorities or the police & when the children realise the seriousness of their accusations they try to withdraw them, but they are held to their stories - without any consideration of the damages that the children themselves incur.

The resentment that the parents feel towards their children whose unacceptable behaviour was the direct cause of the charges against the parents, has resulted in the loss of normal, loving parental guidance for these children. The guilt felt by the children has also seriously damaged the parent/child relationship. (cases in detail below)

Mr McCoskrie says that if politicians pass Sue Bradfords bill, it will only increase the likelihood of disgruntled children making complaints against their parents because of resentment against correction, time out, or denial of privileges.

This will pit children against their parents, and will place parents under extreme pressure, says Mr McCoskrie. This would be a totally unacceptable situation for parents who need a level of authority in order to raise their children in the best environment possible. It is already happening in NZ, with the recent example of a teenager effectively âdivorcingâ her parent because she didnât like the family rules.

In an attempt to protect children from the small minority of parents who are obviously unsuitable to hold the responsibilities of parenting, we are steam-rolling good parents who deserve the backing of the state â not undermining and potentially criminalising.

Mr McCoskrie says that a childs rights should never be at the expense of the parental right to nurture, protect and set boundaries in a family setting. Rights of children have been shifted from simply protecting vulnerable children to granting them rights that are destructive to them, to good parenting practice, and to the welfare of the whole family in which they are being raised.

ENDS

(1) A smack can keep children from crime says police leader â Sunday Telegraph 4 Mar 07 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JXNKZL4HBM443QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nsmack04.xml

(2) http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm

For more information contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Tel. 09 261 2426 Mob. 027 55 555 42

SWEDISH CASES (in detail)

Teacher case - (B 2637/92 Gothenburg District Court)

In September 1992 a teacher was convicted and fined for having maltreated his 12 year-old son. The parents - both intellectuals - had made certain rules as regards the tidying of the children’s rooms and watching the TV. The children were not allowed to watch TV all evening, and their TV-time was restricted to 2 hours per evening including playing computer games.

On April 9, the father told his son to turn off the tv and empty the garbage. The boy refused to comply, so his father turned off the tv, removed the boy bodily from the sofa, put the garbage bag in his hand and shoved him towards the door. The boy cried and the following day he went to the police and reported being beaten and kicked - that he had been maltreated by his father.

The boy informed his father that he had reported him to the police, and the father explained what the consequences could be. The boy rushed off to the police station to withdraw his statement but instead, that resulted in the father also being charged for interfering in due process.

————————————————————————————————————————

The Pre-school teacher case - (B 5050/92 Gothenburg District Court)

A young Finnish pre-school teacher was accused of maltreating her 12 year old daughter who always kept on stealing and running away from home. The mother and daughter have been living in Sweden for 6 years and the child was emotionally disturbed because of alleged sexual abuse from her father (the parents divorced before mother and daughter moved to Sweden).

Once when the girl had run away from home she was taken care of by the police and the social authorities in Falkping. The girl then said that she was afraid to return home because her mother would be angry with her for having run off once again, that her mother would perhaps smack her.

The policeman then advised the girl of her rights according to the law, and that her mother was not allowed to even lay a finger on her - only talk to her. She was also encouraged to go to the police and report her mother if ever she should lay hands on her.

A few weeks later, the girl ran off once again and when she finally returned home late that night she was very provocative. Her mother became angry and physically punished her. The girl went to the police the next morning and filed charges against her mother.

The mother was found guilty of maltreatment.

————————————————————————————————————————

The Hlsingborg Case - (Order of summary punishment (Straffrelggande) 1252-882-84)Hlsingborgs District Attorney issued an order of summary punishment on May 23, 1984 against a Swedish father for physically punishing his 12 year old.

The boys friends used to call the familys telephone so often that the parents decided to get a secret number. The boy was told not to give the number to his friends. On April 27, 1984, when a call came for the boy, his father accused him of having given the new telephone number to his friends.

When the boy denied doing this, his father accused him of lying and physically punished him. His mother saw what had happened and instructed the boy to report his father to the police. The family then sat down to dinner and an hour later the boy went to the police and reported his father.

The mother was interrogated by the police on May 14, 1984. The police asked her if she had been aware of the consequences of a report to the police. She replied: I was not, but I thought that the police would talk to Dad, and give him a warning so that he wouldn’t do it again. If we had known that it would go as far as this, we would never have reported the incident. It would have remained within the family.

Copeland: Clarification over Sue Bradfords Bill

2007-03-05T21:16:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Monday, March 5, 2007 am31 9:27 AM in CYFSWATCH Media

Copeland: Clarification over Sue Bradfords Bill
Monday, 5 March 2007, 12:13 pm
Press Release: United Future NZ Party
Monday, 5th March 2007

Clarification: Sue Bradfords Bill

United Future MP Gordon Copeland today said he wanted to clarify the context in which he sought an opinion from Peter McKenzie QC concerning the criminalisation, as an assault, of ime-out in Sue Bradfords Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.

The text of the Bill itself makes it clear that the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction is not available for time-out or similar, said Mr Copeland. It therefore constitutes a criminal assault. Correction is what time-out or a naughty mat is all about.

The report of the Law Commission dated 8 November 2006, signed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, from which the wording of the Bill is derived, makes that clear. For example, paragraph 7 states that: the Bill does not contemplate the use of parental force against children for the purposes of correction. Paragraph 10 states: the use of force by parents against a child is only justified for specified non-disciplinary purposes. The essence of this option (i.e. the Bill) is to offer protection for good parenting interventions, short of correction.

Paragraph 12 specifically refers to time-out in the following sentence: In the event of a potentially ambiguous situation such as time-out where there may be a mix of motives, subsection (3) seeks to ensure that parents cannot rely upon a corrective purpose for their actions.

Accordingly, from day 1, it has been clear to me that Sue Bradfords Bill is not only anti-smacking but also anti-correction and anti-discipline. However, because all of this is so absurd I realised that going public with that information could expose me to potential ridicule because the public would judge that only a Parliament of the insane would be intent on criminalising these activities.

It was for that reason that to be sure to be sure as the Irish say, I sought the opinion of a Queens Council.

Fortunately, perhaps because they themselves realised how absurd this Bill would become, the Law Commission suggested a reasoned alternative which has now become the Chester Borrows Amendment. That amendment is a good, commonsense, compromise and could be supported by all Members of Parliament.

ENDS

Baldock Brilliant.

2007-03-05T21:13:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Monday, March 5, 2007 am31 9:34 AM in CYFSWATCH Commentary

Big ups to former United Future MP Larry Baldock for his initiative in asking people to sign the referendum petition on 4 Air New Zealand flights.
Now that is what we call effective activism!

CYFSWATCH.

Air NZ allows snakes on their planes

2007-03-05T21:05:00.000+13:00

Air NZ allows snakes on their planes

Monday, 5 March 2007, 11:22 am

Press Release: Green Party

5 March 2007 Air NZ allows snakes on their planes

Air New Zealand must apologise to its passengers and publicly distance itself from the actions of those pilots who allowed former MP Larry Baldock to carry out political campaigning on its planes, the Green Party says.

Ms Bradford has formally complained to Air New Zealand that Mr. Baldock was permitted to go up and down the aisles on several Air New Zealand flights, handing out pamphlets and voicing his opposition to Ms Bradford’s bill to repeal S59 of the Crimes Act.

“This is an air safety issue, among other things. I find it incredible that any Air New Zealand captain would allow passengers to be subjected to political campaigning on a deeply divisive issue, while the plane is in mid air. People hold strong feelings, and there was a clear potential for arguments or fights,” Ms Bradford says.

“While in flight, passengers are told to kept their seat belts fastened. They do it for their own safety, not so they will be turned into a captive audience for political partisans.

“Air New Zealand needs to condemn this lapse of judgement by its pilots and apologise to the passengers concerned. Or are to we take it that Air New Zealand now considers that its passengers should be fair game for any political or religious zealots on friendly terms with their cabin staff?

“Mr Baldock and his ilk have been playing on fears that are totally unfounded. The opposition to my bill has delighted in spreading willfully inaccurate information that good parents will be criminalized for lightly smacking their children. As the Police Minister recently indicated, the police do not mount prosecutions on the basis of trifling complaints.

“Putting a child on a time out mat will not become a criminal offence either. In two separate clauses, the bill allows for parents to use reasonable force to prevent a child from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour, or from interfering with the parent’s ability to perform their daily parenting tasks.

“Right now though, passengers need to know they can board an Air New Zealand flight without being subjected to scare-mongering from snake-oil salesmen, blessed by Air New Zealand captains. I call on Rob Fyfe to inform the travelling public just what its official policy is on in-flight politicking, and what it aims to do to discipline its wayward pilots.”

ENDS

CYFSWATCH HAS RETURNED

2007-03-02T22:11:00.000+13:00

Source: WATCHING CYFSWATCH New Zealand

CYFSWATCH HAVE RETURNED

www.cyfswatch.org

CYFSWATCH New Zealand’s re-launch

2007-03-01T18:52:00.000+13:00

Source: WATCHING CYFSWATCH New Zealand

CYFSWATCH New Zealand’s re-launch

CYFSWATCH now has an independent dedicated server and URL offshore.

We will re-launch the site by the end of the week.

Stay tuned for the URL

CYFSWATCH

UPDATE FROM CYFSWATCH New Zealand

2007-03-01T17:15:00.000+13:00

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Where has www.cyfswatchnz.wordpress.com gone?

CYFSWATCH NZ are currently in a none too subtle game of "whack-a-mole" with the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry responsible for CYFS. It seems as if there are some very motivated Government individuals who are determined to remain unaccountable to the NZ public about their gross abuses of children and families in New Zealand.

We have posted this page here to advise our readers that:

1/ The entire blog content has been saved, and so can be re-published, anywhere, at any time.

2/ We are at this stage unsure of what transpired over at wordpress. We did not delete the blog. We have contacted wordpress and asked if they can advise us as to what did happen.

3/ If it wasn't wordpress who deleted the site, then we have to surmise that an external party was responsible for the act.

4/ This message is posted on blogger for convenience. We do not intend re-launching the blog on Google.

Contact us at cyfswatch@hotmail.com if you have any more questions.

UPDATE:March 1st, 2007 at 9:35 am

From: CYFSWATCH

CYFSWATCH emailed wordpress in order to ascertain what had happened to the CYFSWATCH blog. What follows is what we believe is a somewhat chilling and eerie reply: it looks as if someone in the NZ Government leaned very, very heavily on wordpress - we have asked for a more detailed explanation, as it does not appear that we breached any of the TOS.

The power and influence the NZ Government is exercising in the jurisdiction of other countries regarding the cyfswatch blog seems truly frightening - we are starting to feel as if we are residents of North Korea.

From wordpress:

Hi,I’m sorry but we were advised that we had to remove the blog.

There was no room to move on that.

We do believe in free speech but in this case we had no options.

Sorry….

-Mark

Now, compare the above response with our previous correspondence with Mark at wordpress:

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

The guideline we are using for confidentiality is the question "is this information already available within the public domain?" eg electoral roles, public websites, phone books, directories, etc that a reasonable person could access with reasonable ease. If we ascertain that the information is not in the public domain, or could not be sourced in the public domain, then we would not publish said information to the blog.

Does this apprpoach keep us within the TOS of Wordpress?

If you guys do receive any complaints about information on CYFSWATCH, would you be able to let us know, so that we can respond responsibly to the complaint, and amend / delete information as required to by the TOS?

Our site has a lot of media attention in New Zealand, and we want to be seen to be doing the right thing. We were originally hosted by Google, however our site was closed down by Google as they thought we had posted an illegal comment - the NZ police came out in the public media 2 hours after we were shut down and said that no illegality had occurred - so we guess that Google just ended up looking stupid, because they then said in the media that we were welcome to re-post our blog on Google!

We chose Wordpress instead.

Please advise.

CYFSWATCH

From: "Mark @ Wordpress.com" support@wordpress.com

Reply-To: support@wordpress.com

To: cyfswatch@hotmail.com

Subject: [WordPress #PSN-167138]:

Enquiry regards blog management and terms of service>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:51 +0000

Hi,

Thanks for the note.

Confidentiality and Copyright are the two areas you need to be most careful about.

If you can be sure that your email address in the blog is correct too in case we need to contact you that would be good.

Mark

Thanks Mark.

CYFSWATCH

>From: "Mark @ Wordpress.com" support@wordpress.com

Reply-To: support@wordpress.com

To: cyfswatch@hotmail.com

Subject: [WordPress #PSN-167138]:

Enquiry regards blog management and terms of serviceDate: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:24:40 +0000

Hi,>

"The guideline we are using for confidentiality is the question "is this information already available within the public domain?" eg electoral roles, public websites, phone books, directories, etc that a reasonable person could access with reasonable ease."

That is okay.

If you can link to the source in the post that would be even better.

Otherwise they say you broke it, we ask you, you tell us, we tell them and that can take time.

But speech is free, opinion is free and we take the view that blogs are there to speak :)

Mark

So CYFSWATCH asks - who put the acid on wordpress?

UPDATE:

We have received an open letter which the author has requested be published:

Open Letter To WORDPRESS, Google and the NZ Government:

To whom it may concern;

Firstly, to wordpress, you claim you "had no option" but to close down the CYFSwatch blog.

You are wrong, you always have options. The fact that you caved in so easily to the NZ Government does you no favours for the future.

You will now, along with Google, will always be seen as easy meat to blackmail by corrupt Governments.

Google knows this only too well, after the Chinese Government forced them to hand over details of Chinese bloggers critical of the communist state.

The fact that these people thought Google would never sell them out is a matter of deep shame to Google, these bloggers are now in prison thanks to them putting money ahead of free speech.

WORDPRESS had the option of holding firm and not caving in. At least Google lasted longer and in the end, was lied to by our Ministry of Social Development. (the death threat which wasn't, at least our Police said no laws had been broken)

To WORDPRESS, GOOGLE and The NZ GOVERNMENT, I say this.

The CYFSwatch blog was naming and shaming social workers. SO WHAT! The fact is that people were posting on the blog saying that not all social workers are bad, and that CYFS isn't all bad... we agree!

Its not all bad and there are good social workers. Had CYFSwatch *NOT* named the bad social workers, then suspicion would have fallen on ALL social workers. By naming the bad social workers means that the NZ Government has a basis to conduct an investigation into those who are named as being bad, the blog detailed the crimes and that's a whole lot better than not having the names of those accused of corruption or the crimes listed.

The fact is, the NZ Government can close this blog down simply by investigating the details as published by CYFSwatch, its that simple. The NZ Government would say that there are avenues for people, who feel they have been wronged, to go down as far as laying complaints goes. WRONG.

You see, the NZ Government also has a choice, they can continue to cover up these abuses of power and pretend its not happening, or it can take action, not against the blog, but in representing its people and giving them a system that works.

At present, all complaints are dealt with "in house" meaning its social workers investigating social workers, and because of that, not one social worker has ever been reprimanded let alone sacked from the position they hold. In fact, this Blogs stand has been to demand an INDEPENDENT complaints authority for the Child, Youth and Families service.

To date, that has been ignored. The fact also is that politicians are ignoring the cries of justice from the parents, because if the number of abuses came to light, this would be highly embarrassing for the Government.

The fact that 83% of the people who, voted on a Television NZ website poll in FAVOUR of allowing the blog to stay open is indication of the need in NZ for this to be aired. Its also an indication that the Ministry of Social Development doesn't represent the people of New Zealand on its endeavors to close the blog.

Is there a need for this blog? YES. I said recently in a message on the blog that Australia was recently shamed to the world for its actions in the 1960's and 70's where it removed children for no good reason from Aborigine families and placed them with white families. It was, as reported, a form of genocide.

That has been called "the stolen generation" by the authors of history. We face a similar situation in New Zealand today. had the Australians had the Internet back then, and had there been a blog dedicated to shaming the Australian Government, then they would be called HEROES today, while the Government, Google and wordpress would be shamed. Only history will be able to lay blame and guilt over this latest episode.

What we need is an internet company to have the courage to stand up to the bullying NZ Government. Worse yet, is that many authors who had pieces posted on the CFSwatch blog who never once named and shamed anyone, are also affected by this censorship. You have denied my right to be heard, I for one was a voice of calm who posted what they thought (the whole idea of a blog) but all my posts have also been affected by the blog being deleted.

This is not fair, and it sets an unwelcome precedent for bloggers all over the world, and yes, I for one will make sure the world knows the facts behind this, because I will tell them as often as I can. The fact is, I gave the people on that blog my Email, and after Google closed it (based on lies) I was told by many people that they had deleted their Google search bar, deleted their Google Gmail accounts, and deleted their adsense accounts. I also know many that will now boycott the Google website, they will use Yahoo from now on.

Theres a few wordpress blogs that will also move in protest when they find out how free speech was stomped on. My personal website will now be anti Google and anti wordpress in protest.

GIVE US THE BLOG BACK AND LET FREE SPEECH RULE!!!!!!

KIWI 1960

CYFSWATCH

CYFSWATCH New Zealand HAS GONE AGAIN ???????????????

2007-02-28T20:40:00.000+13:00

Source: WATCHINGCHYFSWATCH New Zealand

CYFSWATCH New Zealand HAS GONE AGAIN ???????????????

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 28th, 2007

Has CYFSWATCH New Zealand been got at ????????????????????

Its gone again

The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.

You can create your own free blog on WordPress.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WATCHINGCYFSWATCH New Zealand is still in operation

Children’s Commissioner hires staff for CYF complaints

2007-02-23T01:07:00.000+13:00

Children’s Commissioner hires staff for CYF complaints
February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs

Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro has employed a full-time staff member to handle the 400 complaints a year it receives about the Child, Youth and Family service.

More…

CYFSWATCH may have done Sue Bradford a big favour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-02-23T01:01:00.000+13:00

CYFSWATCH may have done Sue Bradford a big favour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs

I speak on my own behalf and not CYFSWATCH

In one sense CYFSWATCH has done Sue Bradford a big favour alerting her to the fact that there could be a plot agaisnt her.

Why do we shoot the messenger?

The sentiments posted probably are NOT the views of CYFSWATCH, but a third party.

There may be many people who privately feel the same and have the same sentiments.

Are the Ploice going to hunt them all down???????? only time will tell.
——————————————————————————————
As police have told NZPA that the comments made on the site did not break any laws.

The posting raised the prospect of assassinating the MP, who has a member’s bill before Parliament to remove the right of parents to smack children to correct them.

The author says they would like to punch Ms Bradford and break her nose and gave a graphic account about other injuries that would be inflicted.

“We’ve had legal advice to say basically no criminal offence has been committed as yet,” Mr Lek said.

“But we’re obviously concerned as far as the implications in the blog goes.”

Mr Lek said it was not legal to make threats.

“But the way it was worded it was not a direct threat as such. It’s couched in a way it - possibly cleverly or by pure luck - that the person doesn’t commit an offence.”

Mr Lek said police would try find out who was behind the posting.

When asked if security for Ms Bradford had been increased Mr Lek said the DPS do not comment on individual security matters.

Ms Bradford yesterday told reporters she was alarmed at the posting which “details a graphic physical assault on me and asks people to send in my home address”.

“I’ve referred it to the police here at Parliament and I’m quite concerned about my physical safety at this time.”

The website also said it would publish Ms Bradford’s residential address if it was supplied.

The anonymous posting suggests Ms Bradford should be killed.

“Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination – I only wish I had the resources to do it.”

The website was set up to criticise Child, Youth and Family Services (CYF) and caused controversy with a “name-and-shame” blog which provided personal information about individual social workers.

Google ordered it to remove some posts that were not compliant with its terms of service.

Ms Bradford said she hoped her address was not in the public domain and she would consider getting protection.

“I’ve asked my secretary to go straight to the Parliamentary police to let them know that I am worried now. I wasn’t before,” she said.

“There have been occasional threats in the past but the fact they are trying to track down my address at the same time as describing a graphic and quite horrible assault on me is distressing at this time in the Parliamentary debate.”

She said the incident reflected the campaign some of her opponents had whipped up around the debate.

“Some of the parents who want to defend the parents right to hit their kids seem quite fanatical and I think this threat against me is the latest manifestation.”

Ms Bradford said she hoped the site had been closed permanently. She had been contacted by other people abused on the site.

“They’re saying to me ‘now you understand how bad it is’,” she told NZPA.

“If that website could be closed down, that would be fantastic. It isn’t just about me.”

Ms Bradford said she was not getting special security at this stage.

“I’m hoping that the emotions that have been aroused will calm down as they realise that the democratic processes of this country need to take place and threatening to kill people is really anathema to democracy.”

Internet commentator David Farrar said he expected that Google, that own the blog host blogspot.com had decided to delete the site.

He said there was no question the latest posts would have breached its terms of service agreement.

It was possible the site’s authors may try get another host.
——————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————
In my humble opinion,its disappointing that in a country like New Zealand that we resort to this level of disgrace in terms of a “name and shame” of CYFS employees who are just doing their job.

But since when is it right and just to make such life-affecting decisions that have caused so much damage to families and children based on whishy washy theories which have no bases in fact whatsoever. It is no excuss to just say “I was only doing my job” when it turns to custard. As i recall many of the German officers in various war crime trials used the same defence, ” I was only following orders”. It does not wash.

Every person in CYFS are each accountable for every choice they make, and must take full responsability for their actions. They can learn a lesson from the Brittish workers that had the moral fortatude to get out when they saw how unethical it was within CYFS.

It is not a disgrace to expose the evil that goes on behind closed doors, it is a disgrace that such evil exisits and certian people wish to keep it hidden behind closed doors.

It is the duty of anyone that sees things going so wrong to say someting about it, or should i say shout it from the rooftops. To stay silent on such a matter infers that you approve, or, at least, that you do not care for it. It is an old maxim that silence is consent.

It is a maxim of law that if a man knows of a murder about to be committed and does not use means to prevent it, he shall be held accessory before the fact. If he knows of murder which has been done, and does not endeavor to bring the criminal to justice, he is accessory after the fact.
If some CYFS workers feel some shame a guilt so be it.

The only time most people will feel true shame and guilt is when they have done something wrong and their conciences are pricking them.

Now for s59 I think Sue Bradford has said herself that her bill will not stop or eliminate the culture of violence against our children.

No amount of legislation that is past is ever going to stop it no matter what you do it will always be there.

In fact smacking is a legitimate from of discipline when used the right way. As Sue Bradford can’t discern what is the difference bettween what is legitimate smacking and violence her solution is to call it all abuse etc and that should be outlawed.

Well here is some news for her in some situations the only right and legitimate course of action would be to smack the child. Failing to do that would be child abuse.

Just as it would be wrong not to expose and to keep silent about the evil abuse that is being perpatrated on our famlies and children by CYFS etc. It would be evil abuse if you didn’t exersice proper discpline (including smacking) to our children.

CYFS reaction is interesting indeed, it is one of cover up and shut down any voices that wish to expose them. There is not an ounce for backbone to come clean and face the cold light of day.

When the spotlight of truth shines it shows what is there in the darkness.

People when confronted with the light (truth) react by either attacking it,running from it, or embracing it. We have seen the first two but not the third from CYFS.

So i think in this instance Sue Bradford should be thankfull to CYFSWATCH as to warn her of might have been a real threat. I don’t think any level headed person including CYFSWATCH would agree that either threatening or murdering anyone is the right thing to do.

I believe CYFSWATCH can not take responsability for any one elses actions but there own.

So why shoot the messenger????????????

Police say website comments not illegal

2007-02-23T00:54:00.000+13:00

Police say website comments not illegal
February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs

Police say website comments not illegal

By MAGGIE TAIT - NZPA Thursday, 22 February 2007

A website that carried a posting by someone who said they wanted to beat up Green Party MP Sue Bradford has been closed.

ANTI-SMACKING BILL SET TO BECOME LAW

It was unclear if it the closure of the Cyfswatch website was permanent.

Meanwhile, police have told NZPA that the comments made on the site did not break any laws.
Police diplomatic protection squad Sergeant Ron Lek told NZPA that the posting was written in such a way it skirted breaking the law.

The posting raised the prospect of assassinating the MP, who has a member’s bill before Parliament to remove the right of parents to smack children to correct them.

The legislation takes away the defence of reasonable force against assault of a child under Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

The author says they would like to punch Ms Bradford and break her nose and gave a graphic account about other injuries that would be inflicted.

“We’ve had legal advice to say basically no criminal offence has been committed as yet,” Mr Lek said.

“But we’re obviously concerned as far as the implications in the blog goes.”

Mr Lek said it was not legal to make threats.

“But the way it was worded it was not a direct threat as such. It’s couched in a way it - possibly cleverly or by pure luck - that the person doesn’t commit an offence.”

Mr Lek said police would try find out who was behind the posting.

When asked if security for Ms Bradford had been increased Mr Lek said the DPS do not comment on individual security matters.

Ms Bradford yesterday told reporters she was alarmed at the posting which “details a graphic physical assault on me and asks people to send in my home address”.

“I’ve referred it to the police here at Parliament and I’m quite concerned about my physical safety at this time.”

The website also said it would publish Ms Bradford’s residential address if it was supplied.

The anonymous posting suggests Ms Bradford should be killed.

“Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination – I only wish I had the resources to do it.”

The website was set up to criticise Child, Youth and Family Services (CYF) and caused controversy with a “name-and-shame” blog which provided personal information about individual social workers.

Google ordered it to remove some posts that were not compliant with its terms of service.

Ms Bradford said she hoped her address was not in the public domain and she would consider getting protection.

“I’ve asked my secretary to go straight to the Parliamentary police to let them know that I am worried now. I wasn’t before,” she said.

“There have been occasional threats in the past but the fact they are trying to track down my address at the same time as describing a graphic and quite horrible assault on me is distressing at this time in the Parliamentary debate.”

She said the incident reflected the campaign some of her opponents had whipped up around the debate.

“Some of the parents who want to defend the parents right to hit their kids seem quite fanatical and I think this threat against me is the latest manifestation.”

Ms Bradford’s bill passed its second reading last night, to move one step closer to becoming law.

Ms Bradford said she hoped the site had been closed permanently. She had been contacted by other people abused on the site.

“They’re saying to me ‘now you understand how bad it is’,” she told NZPA.

“If that website could be closed down, that would be fantastic. It isn’t just about me.”

Ms Bradford said she was not getting special security at this stage.

“I’m hoping that the emotions that have been aroused will calm down as they realise that the democratic processes of this country need to take place and threatening to kill people is really anathema to democracy.”

Internet commentator David Farrar said he expected that Google, that own the blog host blogspot.com had decided to delete the site.

He said there was no question the latest posts would have breached its terms of service agreement.

It was possible the site’s authors may try get another host.

In Defence Of CYFSwatch (the blog)

2007-02-23T00:38:00.000+13:00

In Defence Of CYFSwatch (the blog)February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs

As posted on Kiwi1960.com. The proactive protesting site.

In Defence Of CYFSwatch (the blog)

Posted bykiwi on Wednesday, February 21 @ 21:02:08

Contributed by kiwi

(sent to CYFSwatch blog for publication. I hope they DO publish this)

Its interesting to see that CYFSwatch really knows how to play the media, and play it they have, because it seems that M/s Bradford wasnt told by the Helen Crak NOT to mention this blog, and in so doing, again, it hits the media.

Thankyou M/s Bradford.

But some of the comments I read on this blog are from people entirely missing the point.

Firstly, I see nothing wrong in the first blog entry which mentioned doing violence to M/s Bradford, its a symptom of the anger in our soicety against this bill, and its better to voice that anger than actualy going out and doing it (which I wouldnt condone)

The second blog entry asking for M/s Bradfords pesonal details, well, I’m in two minds on that one. If politicans want to intrude into peoples private lives then they must pay a price, protest outside their homes is a fitting punishment.

Why do people assume that the first blog entry and the second one are connected? They may not be. But again, people are missing the point.

We live in a nanny state, Politicans like M/s Bradford are telling the people of New Zealand what to do, when to do it and so on. This law is one in a long line of laws that invade our private lives, we are the most regulated people on the planet.

We have stupid laws as it is, this “smacking” law is the latest, and Helen Clark now wants to tell us what light bulbs we can us by outlawing cheap standard bulbs. We will all be forced into buying the more costly energy saving bulbs, but Helen doesnt care about the price, her Government collects GST on each bulb sold. Same with new laws about how nosiy your car can be, and that people will soon have to have a compulsory tune up when they apply for a warrant of fitness.

These laws, on the one hand, are a revenue rasing scheme, but on the other, its telling us what to do. You see, we cannot be trusted to think for ourselves, we cannot be trusted to make the right choices, and that brings us to M/s Bradfords stupid law.

Any parent that “smacks” their child to the point of that child being admitted to hospital CAN, as it stands, be prosecuted under the law, even smacking a child for no reason is cause enough for CYFS to step in and claim child abuse. Face it, the child is already protected under our laws, so why do we need another one?

I’ll tell you why, its because these politicans need to justify their existance on this planet, and also, as I said, we cannot be trusted to live our lives the way we want. The end result of this law will be that CYFS can claim in the Family Court, with NO evidence to back it up, that the parents smacked their child, and the Judge, who would have laughed before this law comes into effect, will be obliged to “protect the child” while its investigated. Once in the system, the parents will not see their child again.

We cannot even be trusted to raise our children. The Government, in the form of CYFS, knows better who can and cannot be a good parent. M/s Bradford would be better employed to suggest laws to make CYFS more accountable. You see, more children are killed while under CYFS care, either actualy IN their care, or the family is recieving “help” from CYFS. Thats a more fitting problem for M/s Bradford to tackling.

In Masterton, FOUR children were killed and CYFS was involved in each one (theres probably more, but these made national news). Lillybing was the first. Coral Burrows wont be the last either.So while parents can and WILL be prosecuted, CYFS will still be running amok in our society. Has anyone ever heard of a social worker being prosecuted for putting a child in a foster home where that child was sexualy or physicaly abused? No, because its yet to happen. THATS where M/s Bradford could do some good. THAT law would be popular.

Face it New Zealand, we dont even have the right to protest anymore! This blog is proof of that, Peter Hughes wanted it closed down and had Google been a New Zealand company, it would have been. Even when we do protest, the Government makes light of it, ” a bunch of malcontents” and “they dont have all the information” and “The National Party is behind this” are some of the comments Helen Clark uses to IGNORE all protests.

So, this blog at least lets us be heard. M/s Bradford for one must read this blog (Hello Sue!!!) so its a good way to let those we elect hear what concerns us the most.

Don’t forget too, that before she became an MP, M/s Bradford was one of us, she was a protestor, and an advocate of the Unemployed Workers Union.
What she wants to deny us is what she did nearly every week while she was unemployed. She knows how the game is played, she knows very well that she didnt need to feel afraid, but she went on TV saying her life is now in danger, well, thats one way to get the public behind an unpopular bill she is promoting, like I said, she knows how the game is played.

What was said on this blog is MILD compared to what I have heard people say in public, and lets face it, it wont stop the child bashers one bit, they will keep on doing what they do REGARDLESS of this law. So why have it? This is why I support this blogs right to say what it did, whether or not I agree with it, because till this Government starts listening to the people of New Zealand then what other option is there and the Government can expect a lot more of this kind of thing, because protesting to deaf ears doesnt get anyone anywhere, but M/s Bradford surely DID hear a threat to her life, even if she did slightly overreact.

It looks like thats the ONLY way these bunch of no hopers in parliament ever WILL listen to us. By making our point, and adding a threat. I dare anyone to say that the poll saying 80% of the people opposed to this bill had any impact on M/s Bradford, and I dare anyone to say that this blog ALSO didnt have a MASSIVE impact on M/s Bradford. Its amazing what impact a few words will have on those we elect.

At least we now know that the no hopers we are suckered into electing read this blog.

Thats good!

kiwi1960

Yep Gone Gone Gone

2007-02-23T00:36:00.000+13:00

Yep Gone Gone Gone

Google has shut down the controversial Cyfswatch website because of threats posted on the blog site yesterday against Green MP Sue Bradford.

Google spokeswoman Victoria Grand said the US-based giant had previously censored postings that breached its terms of service but had now closed the site permanently because of “repeat violations”.

She said Google investigated the site when the New Zealand Ministry of Social Development first complained about it last month, and again after the ministry lodged a new complaint about the postings threatening Ms Bradford yesterday.

Cyfswatch said yesterday that it had details of Ms Bradford’s home address and would post them unless she withdrew her “anti-smacking” bill. The bill, removing a defence for parents against assault charges if they used reasonable force to “correct” their children, passed its second reading in Parliament by 70 votes to 51 last night.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Social Development said the ministry would not comment on the site’s shutdown.

Cyfswatch, whose authors have always remained anonymous, issued a statement today saying Google’s action was “a breathtaking display of socialist censorship”.

It said a mirror site was now available.

Google’s terms of service prohibit the posting of content that is “unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable”.

Where is CYFSWATCH????????????????????

2007-02-23T00:31:00.000+13:00

It seems that CYFSWATCH has been removed overnight.
Another blow for Free Speech in New Zealand.

New CYFSWATCH Yahoo Group started.

2007-02-15T21:52:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

Description:In defence of CYFSWATCH New Zealand and Free speech.

Group Email Addresses:

* Post message: watchingcyfs@yahoogroups.com
* Subscribe: watchingcyfs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
* Unsubscribe: watchingcyfs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
* List owner: watchingcyfs-owner@yahoogroups.com

Posted by cyfswatch at 20:19

Your Views: Row over site critical of Cyfs

2007-02-06T00:14:00.000+13:00

Row over site critical of Cyfs

Thursday January 25, 2007

Five years after their baby son died in state care, a West Auckland family has hit back at the social workers involved by naming them on a renegade website aimed at holding such people to account.

What do you think of this?

Send us your views
Read the story

Here is the latest selection of your views:

H
I am a married 19 year old and I got given my sister because my mother couldnt handle her shoplifting. I then put her under some strict rules which seemed to be working, until a CYFS councilor told me I had serious mental issues for someone my age and needed to see a doctor to get medication(I am actually a pretty well adjusted person). She then got given to my aunt, who sees my sister as nothing but extra income, and my sister still has no-one to address her problem of shoplifting. My mother has called CYFS repeatedly to get them to address the problem, and they have only contacted her now because my aunt cannot handle my sister, and now wants to dump her back on my mother. It seems strange that CYFS is supposed to be helping my sister through her problems, yet she is the one who is being ignored.

Joy
New Zealand has such a poor record for abuse of children. But now it seems that the organisation which holds itself up as the ultimate child caring one is partly to blame for it. I feel sorry for the parents, for the children and for those many social workers who do have integrity and justice in their hearts. Their bullying colleagues have let everyone down. Lets hope their managers see fit to redeploy them and rebuild CYFs tattered reputation.

Lloyd
High time some of these seemingly inadequate people were held accountable. If they do a good job, they should not have too much of a worry. There will always be the odd person that goes over the top with their criticism, & they should be dealt to as well. From the top down, NZ is infested with faceless bureaucrats that ride roughshod over the ordinary & generally law abiding Kiwi.

Kristina Harrison
I fully support the naming and shaming of CYFs social workers. When kids are dying after CYFs have been called with concerns obviously something is not right. When non-custodial fathers are being told that the only reason they are ringing CYFs with concerns about their children is because they are overbearing, there is a problem. When kids are dying in the care of CYFs approved homes, there is a problem. The government should be getting rid of people who are assisting in the abuse of our children by their inaction or prejudices, rather than trying to pass a bill through parliament that allows us to make criminals of good parents.

Mark
Great job, about time, well done.

Sharon
Cyfs should be held accountable for these children who apparently slip through the net and end up dead.

James
It is interesting that the CYFS workers and PSA are so concerned about a blog that personaly identifies poorly performing staff. I am a teacher and myself and every other teacher has a page on the website www.ratemyteachers.co.nz in which teachers are criticised--several quite severely and many unjustly.There has been not horror and action to take this website down. CYFS workers need to get used to the way things happen in the 21st centry and stop being so precious and get on with improving their performance like the teachers website has prompted them to do.

Errol
Peter Hughes has hit the nail on the head. All responsibility for child abuse should rest squarely on the shoulders of the parents and adults in the house. If it were not for the neglectful, errant, irresponsible and downright cruel behaviour of some of our parents , there would not be the need to have an organisation like CYF in the first place. The numbers speak for themselves . New Zealand has the highest rate of child abuse in the world, therefore its no wonder that CYF is overworked and their attention spread thin over the number of cases each officer can handle. If they get some wrong , who is to blame. We can keep pointing fingers at the government, underbudgeting , lack of workers, nurses and the whole shebang of excuses but the fact remains that the blame lies with us as parents and caregivers. If a couple of seconds of orgasmic pleasure experienced one drunken afternoon results in the birth of a child then maybe we as a society should take a long hard look at ourselves and ask some serious questions about the choices we are making . That blog should be wiped off cyberspace and that family be prosecuted for scandal.

Dave
If they want to name and shame social workers why dont we have an identical site naming and shaming families who have had their children removed and why? Its only fair to have both sides to the story.

"We're not backing down from these New Zealand Public Service pricks - even if it ultimately costs us our freedom".

2007-02-05T23:58:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

Dear CYFS Watch team,

Once again we applaud this site and remain one of its biggest supporters. The service that you are doing for our abused and brutalized is immeasurable, however we do have concerns.

We ask that you PLEASE ensure that you adhere to Google’s TOS. As tempting as it may be to post some of the more controversial “remarks”, these postings may in fact result in the total loss of the voice you've allowed us to have.

It would be a shame for the thousands of victims of this evil regime (CYFS) to be once again condemned to forced silence and frustration for the sake of a few unwise “remarks”.

For the benefit of the greater majority, it may unfortunately be necessary to check and alter the content of dangerous postings. We ask future posters to please take care with their content as we are all in this fight together and we have all faced the immeasurable pain that is CYFS.

Please remember, we need the public to continue to hear our stories and voice their support to achieve the JUSTICE we all so desperately need.

Regards,

Craig and Louise Martin

(09) 8133647

(NEVER anonymous!)

CYFSWATCH Replies:

Hi Craig and Louise,

Guys, it won't matter if they shut the site - we will simply find a new site, re-publish, and let everyone know what the new website address is.

If we give in, in any way - the Government wins.

If we succumb to ANY bullying - CYFS wins.

However, if the New Zealand Government shut down the site - what message will that send to the rest of NZ? That free speech is only as free as the Government allows it to be?

We would have truly transitioned into a totalitarian state if this is the case.We're not backing down from these New Zealand Public Service pricks - even if it ultimately costs us our freedom.

CYFSWATCH.

CYFSWATCH refuse to be bullied by NZ Government.

2007-02-05T23:17:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

CYFSWATCH are aware of the strenuous efforts that the Ministry of Social Development and the New Zealand Government are making in order to shut down the CYFSWATCH site.

Unfortunately, the powers that be have been able to put sufficient pressure on Google to start deleting posts to CYFSWATCH, without Google first informing CYFSWATCH of what issues they may or may not have with particular posts.

CYFSWATCH can not and will not accept such a gross abuse of free speech, sanctioned by the New Zealand Government, and will continue to post deleted posts until prevented from doing so.

In the event that the CYFSWATCH site is shut down, we will simply move to another site, and advise everyone who has emailed us of the new site address.

Last time we looked, this was still a free country.

So now CYFSWATCH is a threat to MSD staff?

2007-02-05T22:44:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

TV 3 Website 5/2/07:
Battle begins between CYFSWATCH and Google
Mon-05-Feb-2007
9:18pm

A website designed to humiliate Child Youth and Family workers has begun a battle of wills with Internet giant Google.

The Ministry of Social Development told Google last week the site could put its staff in danger.

Google today deleted threatening comments from the blog, but the site's creator reposted them.

The blogger says more than 60 people have made copies of the website, so it can be restored if Google shuts it down.

What they are saying about CYFSWATCH - In Wales.

2007-02-05T22:20:00.000+13:00

As posted from connexions & CYFSWATCH

New Zealand government threatens watchblog

Thursday, January 25th, 2007

by Bene Diction

Politicians put their feet in their mouth every day.
So it takes a fair bit of rhetoric to get my attention.

New Zealand Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Development, Head of CYFS New Zealand, Peter Hughes got my attention with some serious foot in mouth.

And I think he deserves more attention.

Around the world would be nice.

Not just for what he said, but for why he is saying it and what he is doing about it.

It involves a blog that has been up for about a month. It’s raw, it’s anonymous and among other things it posts emails from families that have heartbreaking and enraging encounters with CYFS. It is what is called a name and shame blog.
It is not unlike rate your teacher or rate your doctor, only it’s a lot harder to read because it involves families and children colliding with a bureaucracy.
There is an online forum called panic.org.nz that deals with similar issues, but this blog has started to get New Zealanders talking.

Hughes is furious, and blew up in the media.

…”do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website”.
“We will be working 24/7 until that is done,” he said.

While lawyers scrambled to obey, within hours the Social Workers Registration Union put up a press release.

Newspapers have been threatened if they put up the link.And Hughes made good on his threat today, as this becomes the perfect information storm.

Hughes has dispatched lawyers to Google demanding the site be shut down.

Government lawyers have gone to the internet giant Google in their bid to shut down a website that “names and shames” Child, Youth and Family Services social workers.

Auckland lawyer Andrew Tetzlaff, who has acted in the past for a Google subsidiary, confirmed yesterday that Ministry of Social Development lawyers had contacted him because the site had been set up using Google’s Blogger technology.

He said he had no continuing involvement with the company and had simply passed on the ministry’s messages to a Google contact in the United States.

Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes vowed on Tuesday to get rid of the website.

By late yesterday, 44 postings had named 40 CYFS social workers, lawyers and others involved in taking children from their parents. Most postings were from parents, although some were from relatives, friends and children themselves.

There are 81 posts now, and they may not be up much longer.It is entirely possible and probable Google will comply, after all as a private company, they have no dog in this fight. The only people that can really speak up about this are New Zealanders. And in the perfect information storm, different interests, concerns and needs are diverging.

When a government official threatens the media about linking to a site, when they dispatch their legal people to Google with demands for immediate removal, it gets people talking.
Opinions about CYFS Watchblog are understandably mixed, frustration levels are rising, chatter is increasing…

One of the things that disturbs me is that New Zealand does not have an independent review board for the cases mentioned at panic forum and at the watchblog.

Of the 5314 children in care at the end of last June, about half of them are Maori. The Children’s Commissioner received 343 complaints about the service in the year to June and another 56 complaints went to the Ombudsmen.

Many vulnerable families are not getting redress - which is what the watch blog is saying. Contrary to early media reports this week the blog is not run by disgruntled parents, but it is run anonymously. Why it is, is said very starkly on the sidebar.

In the perfect information storm that has kicked up this week, the needs and stories of the children and families could once again be getting lost because a politician wants what he wants when he wants it; and Hughes has made no bones he will use all his power at his disposal to see he gets it.

And at www.haeusler.co.nz......

2007-02-05T22:09:00.000+13:00

As posted from http://haeusler.co.nz/?p=16...... and CYFSWATCH

CYFS and Censorship

Time to get a bit political now, I didn’t really want to have too much political stuff on this blog, but this should be fine.

There is a government department Children, Youth and Family Services, or CYFS, that have been caught out acting in a fairly incompetent fashion, time after time again. A blog has started up with the goal of reporting their activity by naming and shaming those responsible, which is something I think the web is perfect for.

It exposes some fundamental issues that the department needs to address, and the responsible thing to do would be to take some action to improve their services, and the way they do them. Well they have taken action all right, not to try and improve themselves, but by devoting all their (tax-payer funded) resources to shutting down the blog instead! This would be fairly normal for North Korea, China or the US or somewhere, but for a New Zealand government to try and do this is unbelievable and embarrasing.

I am a firm believer in protecting the right of free speech, regardless of whether I agree with it or not, so in this case I am 100% behind the free speech rights of the blog (but not necessarily 100% in agreement with whatever they say) and 100% opposed to the CYFS reaction in this matter.

I guess CYFS are one of those people who believe free speech should have limits. Those people are among those whom I despise the most. Free Speech as a right exists fundamentally to protect ideas that are somewhat removed from the mainstream. Any reason someone can think of for limiting free speech, I say thats the very reason why it needs to be protected so vigorously. This quote I found on another forum says it rather well:

“The right to offend ought be understood as the essence of free speech rather than an exception to it.It’s hard to imagine Free speech, as a principle, arising from a need to protect safe, bland, orthodox, or popular speech.We ought be mindful, too, that freedom of opinion and expression ought entail the right to be and express that you are offended.”

Anyway the blog is here. Aardvark has also been following the case recently.

Time to take advantage of technology?

2007-02-05T21:34:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

Can I make a suggestion based on all the blogs I have read on this site.

With all the microphones and micro-cameras one can buy today, why don't some of the victims on this site record the dealings they are going to have with these scum and post on You-Tube for all to see.

I am sure it would shut the CYFS defenders up once and for all. Maybe one of the main stream media groups will grow some balls (yes we know you will be reading this site) and support someone and help with the gear.

The NZ people need to see and hear the truth. All we need is someone brave enough to let their story be seen in the public eye. I would support anyone who chose to do this as would the NZ public.

Posted by cyfswatch

Why an internal Complaints Authority will not work for CYFS.

2007-02-05T21:23:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

The Police Complaints authority is a complete and utter waste of time.

The vast majority of complaints made to it are referred back to the Police 'professional conduct division'.

The police officers who fill this division will:

1. Try to convince you to agree that you complaint was groundless. the formal name for this is conciliation, and in the official report it gives the impression that some form of redress or apology or conciliation has been offered. This is far from the truth, what in fact happens is that police use sophisticated interrogation and manipulation techniques to destroy your confidence in your complaint and to get you to drop it.

2. If you refuse to be 'conciliated' you will be subjected to character assassination and ad hominem attack - your motives will be questioned - and the complaint will be denied. Any lie put forward by the offending officer will be accepted out of hand and your evidence counts for nothing.

3. You have the right to protest this Police investigation of themselves -- and the PCA response will be to refer your response back to the police, and they will get to concoct another series of denials of it all.

4. This carries on until you get sick of it.

5. Even if the PCA does come down on your side the Police can give it 2 fingers as it has no authority over them at all.

These are the stats for complaints from last year taken from the PCA yearly report:

A. Total complaints - 2829

B. Accepted for jurisdiction - 2481

C. Not pursued - 164

D. Sustained or partially sustained - 96

E. Conciliated or not sustained - 563.

The balance are still ongoing.

So in a year, Police accept they were out of line in a whopping 3.8% of cases.

There sure are a heck of a lot of people out there making false complaints aren't there?

How lucky we are to have a police force that can be trusted to investigate themselves eh?

Now, apply the same process to CYFS complaints....................

"Non-custodial parents rights a big delusion".

2007-02-05T21:11:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

Posted by Dads4Justice:

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHRRT/2005/7.html

CYFSWATCH currently negotiating with Google regards CYFSWATCH posts.

2007-02-05T20:45:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

Hi Blogger team,

Our team is more than willing to work within the guidelines - its just that it is very difficult for us to make any amends to our postings, if Blogger Support don't first inform us of what amendments need to be made, and to what postings. Simply whipping off postings from our blog keeps us ignorant of what changes may need to be made.

In future, could we ask that you advise us as to which posts you receive complaints about, the nature of the complaints, and the amendments you wish to be made to a particular posting? That way, we will at least have the opportunity to act on the complaint. Alternatively, please feel free to forward any complaints to us, and we can deal with them directly?

We would also add that we have received no information whatsoever that any of our postings are outside the gambit of NZ or US law. We accept that Blogger support may make subjective judgements about posts, however we would again request that, should any complaints be made, we at least have the opportunity to rectify the issue ourselves.

Thanks.

CYFSWATCH.

>From: "Blogger Help"

>To: "cyfswatch cyfswatch"

>Subject: Re: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed

>Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:52:06 -0800
>
>Hello,
>
Thanks for your reply. As described in Blogger's Terms of Service(available at http://www2.blogger.com/terms.g), we reserve the right to remove posts or blogs, or to terminate accounts, that violate Blogger's content or member conduct policies. When we receive complaints that a post appears to violate the privacy of others by, for example, publishing non-public personal information like residential addresses, we remove the post. Likewise, we may remove posts that appear to threaten actual harm to specific individuals.

To the extent that you're able to remedy these violations by modifying the posts or otherwise addressing these violations, the Blogger team will not take any further action to enforce its Terms of Service. But please be advised that repeated violation of our policies may result not only in the removal of specific posts but also in the termination of your account and deletion of the entire blog.

We trust that this addresses your concerns.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team

Original Message Follows:

>------------------------

>From: "cyfswatch cyfswatch"

>Subject: RE: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed

>Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:01:16 +1300
>
>
>Dear Blogger Support,

On what grounds in New Zealand law does any post on www.cyfswatch.blogspot.com breach your TOS? Such alleged breaches would have to be proved in a NZ Court of Law, or a US Court of Law depending on relevant jurisdiction.

Please therefore re-list any posts you may have removed.

CYFSWATCH

>
>>From: "Blogger Help"
> >To: cyfswatch@hotmail.com
> >Subject: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
> >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:04:57 -0800
> >
Hello,

We'd like to inform you that we've received a complaint regarding your blog cyfswatch.blogspot.com. Upon review, we've noted that your blog is not in compliance with Blogger Terms of Service(http://beta.blogger.com/terms.g). As a result, we've been forced to remove the infringing posts from your blog.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team

Latest CYFSWATCH media report (Newstalk ZB, TV3).

2007-02-05T20:40:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

Threatening Internet post deleted - then re-posted5/02/2007 15:12:03

A battle of wills is underway in Cyberspace.

Internet giant Google has deleted a threatening post on the controversial name and shame CYFSwatch website.

However the website has flouted internet protocol and re-posted the item.

The deleted item contained threats to social workers - with the writer saying they would be "watching and waiting and never far behind"

Internet specialist, David Farrar, says Google was right to delete it, and flouting Google's terms and conditions may result in the website being shut down.

Mr Farrar says, although many are sympathetic to the grievances aired on the blog sit, there is a limit to what Google can accept.

Geldof On Fathers

2007-02-05T17:02:00.000+13:00

As posted on Menz Issues

A must watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQeNwLsA058

How Parliament deals with complaints about CYFS.

2007-02-03T23:23:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made.

CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been upheld.

CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made by falsely accused parents or caregivers.

CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made as a result of malicious or vexatious notifications.

CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made by parents who are involved in custody or divorce proceedings.

CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made about registered social workers.

CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made about unqualified social workers.

CYF doesn't know how many social workers have been disciplined as a result of complaints made about them.

CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made about managers.

CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been misplaced/lost.

CYF doesn't know how many complaints are waiting to be investigated.

CYF doesn't know why they don't have national statistics on complaints.

Don't they use Key Performance Indicators for their managers?

Shouldn't the KPI's include accurate information about client satisfaction?

Aren't complaints procedures an important method of discovering gaps in service shortfalls?

Aren't complaints about staff linked to Human Resource records?

All of the above queries could be easily answered after a week's work by a competent SQL analyst/programmer.

Could the minister be prevaricating?

5 months ago in Parliament . . .

Questions And Answers -Thursday, 24 August 2006

Thursday, 24 August 2006, 6:03 pm

Press Release: Office of the Clerk

Child, Youth and Family—Complaints

3. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does Child, Youth and Family record the number of complaints received from those who feel unfairly treated by the actions, procedures, or decisions of the department; if so, how many complaints have been received in the last 5 years?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): I am advised that all complaints that the department receives are thoroughly investigated, but currently there is no central database that captures all complaints made to Child, Youth and Family staff.

Judy Turner: Does she agree that Child, Youth and Family should be accountable to an organisation outside itself, given its statutory powers; if so, will she support the call of United Future to establish an independent complaints authority for Child, Youth and Family?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I certainly agree that the actions of Child, Youth and Family staff, like all other public servants, should be accountable. In terms of the latter part of the member's question, I am certainly prepared to review existing pathways for complaints to be made—for example, the Social Workers Registration Board, the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission, and any others—and will discuss the outcomes of those considerations with the member.

Georgina Beyer: What is Child, Youth and Family doing to strengthen its complaints procedures?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am pleased to advise that work is under way to develop a new national database that will ensure that complaints can be collated centrally. The database is just one of the benefits we are seeing as a result of the merger between Child, Youth and Family Services and the Ministry of Social Development.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister aware that the Police Complaints Authority—for which the Child, Youth and Family's equivalent could be considered comparable—costs approximately $2.1 million per year, yet its effect on public confidence and accountability is considered priceless; and, if so, is not a Child, Youth and Family complaints authority a very small cost for a very significant and necessary benefit for parents and families?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I am familiar with those figures and I will certainly take that information into consideration when undertaking the existing complaints pathways review.

END OF QUESTIONS ABOUT CYFS COMPLAINTS

Message from CYFSWATCH

2007-02-02T00:59:00.000+13:00

As posted on CYFSWATCH

* 203 posts in 1.5 weeks;

* 96 CYFS Social Workers / CYFS Caregivers named and shamed;

* 83% public support for CYFSWATCH remining live;

* Over 60 copies of the CYFSWATCH site downloaded in New Zealand and around the world;

* Website and blog links to CYFSWATCH both nationally and internationally;

* Registered SWRB Social Workers revealed as appalling interventionists;* Other "name and shame" blogsites started in the past week;

* Attempts by well resourced Government agency to shut CYFSWATCH down failed;* Open, uncensored, non-PC debates between CYFS Social Workers and clients;

* Massive multi-level media commentary on CYFSWATCH;

* Not a peep from any Government MP, either in power or on the Opposition benches.

PEOPLE, WE THINK YOU HAVE JUST GOT YOUR POWER BACK.

CYFSWATCH

Message to others who share our cause - copy the CYFSWATCH Site NOW in case we are shut down.

2007-01-26T12:21:00.000+13:00

As posted from CYFSWATCH

In the event of CYFSWATCH being shut down by the Ministry of Social Development or CYFS, CYFSWATCH encourages anyone who shares our cause to copy the CYFS website material in total, and then email CYFSWATCH at cyfswatch@hotmail.com to advise that you have the copy. CYFSWATCH will then set up another blogsite, collect the material, and relaunch the site. CYFSWATCH is also copying all material as it is posted, however if our systems are seized by the police, we will need to have people out there who have the hard copy material for re-launch purposes.

CYFSWATCH.

CYFS, you can't beat the Net - another tragic story.

2007-01-25T15:43:00.000+13:00

Posted from www.aardvark.co.nz & CYFSWATCH

CYF, you can't beat the Net

24 January 2007

The website currently highlighting concerns over the culture of arrogance that seems pervasive within the government's CYF agency is now the focus of intense legal pressure.

According to NZ Herald reports, the Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has told taxpayer-funded lawyers to "do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website" and claims "we will be working 24/7 until that is done.

Well I've got bad news for Peter, this kind of stormtrooper tactic simply is not going to work when it comes to suppressing material on the Net.

Clearly Mr Hughes lacks even the most basic understanding of how the technology, and more importantly -- the culture of the Net actually work.s

The concept of a government (or agency thereof) suppressing fact, opinion or open discussion through the rule of law has long since disappeared in the 21st century -- it just can't be done.

And today, I'm telling my story of the way CYF wastes taxpayer's money while indulging in bullying, blocking and decidedly unprofessional tactics.

As I mentioned yesterday, my teenage daughter found herself unexpectedly pregnant last year and decided that it would be in the best interests of the child, herself and some childless couple that an adoption be organised.

Now I have to say that this was a very brave and selfless decision on her part, in an era when adoptions have fallen to an all-time low and there's almost a stigma surrounding anyone who'd give up their child in this way.

However, there's just no way that a 19-year-old, in the middle of her education and without any job or other independent means of support could really give a child the opportunities and quality parenting that such kids need to grow up as positive members of society -- and she knew this.

My partner and I were in no position to contribute to the upbringing of such a child but towards the end of the pregnancy, we became aware (through friends) of a couple who would make ideal adoptive parents.

Now this would seem to be a win-win-win situation for the baby, my daughter and the otherwise childless couple involved.

This couple came highly recommended by friends and after examining their own situation and establishing that they were good people who'd simply been dealt a tough hand by mother nature, everyone appeared happy.

What's more, this couple had already applied to adopt children and had thus been carefully vetted by the relevant authorities -- what could go wrong?

Well the answer to that was (of course) CYF.

We figured that the best way to handle the whole matter was for the adoptive parents to roll up to the hospital during the delivery and take the child home with them as soon as it was declared fit and healthy.

This would avoid the situation where the mother's hormones kick in and subsequently create a strong bonding emotion with the child.

But CYF said no.

Their "policy", we were told, was that the birth mother should look after the child for a period of almost two weeks before it could be handed over to the adoptive parents.

Now this seemed utterly stupid to all concerned. Why force a birth mother into the situation where she will inevitably form a strong bond with the child before they are separated? Why make the adoptive parents wait such an interminable length of time with the threat that the birth-mother will be overwhelmed by hormones and bonding to the point where she changes her mind.

It should be mentioned right now that there is no law that forbids the adoptive parents from collecting the child from the delivery room, none at all. It's quite legal for them to do so -- but it's CYF "policy" that this must never happen.

When I asked CYF what would happen if we allowed the adoptive parents to do this the threats started rolling out.

If my daughter handed over the child in this way, CYF would oppose the adoption and a placement order would be denied. The child would be taken from the adoptive parents and placed into a home of CYF's selection.

This was made extremely clear -- if you don't adhere to our "policy" (which is *not* the law) then the child, your daughter and the adoptive parents will pay the price.

At this stage I asked why this was CYF policy.

We were told that it was because the mother needed a reasonable period of time in which to change her mind after the birth.

I pointed out that right now (before the birth) my daughter was thinking rationally, reasonably and logically. Whether that frame of mind would persist after many hours of labour and a flood of hormones was unpredictable - and that being made to care for that child over a two-week period would almost certainly confuse and complicate issues to the point where her decision-making abilities may well be compromised.

Was this in the best interests of the child?

Indeed, I asked just that question -- and got this rather stunning response:

"The United Nations has declared that the best place for a child is with its parents and if that's not possible, with family. If that's not possible then it's with someone of their own race in their own country and if that's not possible, it's adoption to a foreign country".

What the hell?

I asked why the CYF person was telling me what the UN was deciding was best for my daughter and her soon to be born child.

She repeated this little bit of canned prose "The United Nations has declared...

" Yes, it was brick-wall time!

So I asked to speak to her supervisor.

Exactly the same "I'm sorry but this is our policy and you have no choice" attitude was encountered.

I then moved further up the chain...

You guessed it -- those I'd spoken to earlier were 100% correct, this is CYF policy. Even though you may be legally entitled to hand over the child at the delivery room, it's against our policy and we will take the child if you do.

I also asked whether it would be possible for someone else to look after the child for those first couple of weeks prior to hand-over.

That would be fine I was told, it's only the (already approved) adoptive parents who couldn't do this without breaching CYF policy.

"So *anyone* else can look after the child? Even someone we just picked at random off the street?"

"Yes, that's right -- although I wouldn't recommend that" was the reply.

Hang on a minute. According to CYF policy, I could haul some potential paedophile or murderer off the street, hand over my daughter's child for two weeks and leave them to care for it -- and that's okay with CYF.

It's no wonder so many of our most defenseless kids have been abused or slaughtered while in CYF's "care" if this is their attitude.

I should mention that all during this time, we had another CYF worker trying to convince my daughter to keep her child and go on the DPB, like so many other young solo mothers.

"Why not keep the child, the government will pay you a good benefit and you can bring it up yourself?" was the message being regularly delivered here.

I thought CYF was supposed to be non-judgmental and unbiased in respect to a parent's choices?

Maybe I'm old-school or just stupid, but isn't it better that a child be brought up in a loving, caring two-parent home where there it gets a good chance at life?

Doesn't it make sense that my daughter continue her education and become a positive contributor to society rather than a drain on the public purse for the next 16 years as a solo mother, struggling to provide a balanced upbringing to her child?

At this point my partner and I decided that we had no option but to care for this child during those first couple of weeks. Now you might think that this should have been our first option anyway -- but we are/were on the bones of our arse so having my missus take two weeks off work immediately before Christmas was a major problem.

I asked CYF "If this child were placed in a CYF home for those two weeks, would that home get some kind of financial support?"

"Yes" I was told.

"So if my partner and I have no option but to care for this child for two weeks, will we get any compensation for the costs and lost income involved?"

"No" I was informed, "you are family".

Me: "What if I dragged someone off the street?"

CYF: "They could apply for assistance during that period"

I then asked "if the child were taken into CYF care for those two weeks, could you guarantee me that it wouldn't end up becoming just another victim of that care in the way that too many others have?"

CYF: "What do you mean?"

Me: "I mean abused, or killed while in CYF care"

"Yes, I can guarantee that" I was assured.

Me: "How can you guarantee that, will you be looking after it yourself?"

CYF: "No, but our carers are all approved by the department"

Me: "Were the 'carers' of those other kids that were abused or killed approved?"

CYF: "Yes"

Me: "So what's changed? How can you possibly guarantee the safety of my grandkid then?"
At which point I was told that the conversation was going nowhere and that if I wasn't happy with the department's stance, attitude or policy I should take it up with the Commissioner for Children or the minister.

That's my rather unpleasant dealing with CYF.

They *do* bully people.

They *do* threaten people.

They are interested only in following policy and seemingly unconcerned with the best interests of anyone but themselves.

They *did* say my daughter could give her child to *anyone* (even a potential paedophile or murderer) to care for -- but refused to allow the already approved adoptive parents to do so during that first couple of weeks.

Escalating complaints and concerns within CYF gets you absolutely no where, the higher you go, the greater the obstruction.

I now know why there are so very few adoptions these days and why so many young women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant are forced into becoming solo mothers or having abortions. The amount of pressure applied to such women to become a burden on the taxpayer is intense -- they are made to feel as if they are bad people if they don't keep their kid and go on the DPB.

It's no wonder we have such a problem with youth crime when so many young women are forced into the role of parent by this pressure, at a time when they are totally unprepared and often unwilling.

Is this what we pay our taxes for?

Is this what CYF is really about? It would appear so.

Fortunately, all has ended well -- in spite of CYF, certainly not because of them.

My partner and I looked after the kid for a couple of weeks although, because my daughter was living with us, it became an intensely difficult and emotional job to give up the child. I curse CYF and their "policy" enforced under threat of "confiscation" for causing such heartache and grief so unnecessarily.

Our family is still trying to recover from the financial burden that the loss of income and other factors have created in the wake of what should have been a very simple, straight-forward and happy event.

The adoption is an open one, my daughter is able to visit her son and will always be known to him as his birth mother. The adoptive parents are over-the-moon with their lives and the child is thriving with their care and attention. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he'd gone into CYF's "care" or my daughter had been brainwashed into dropping out of her education and living in a one-bedroomed flat while trying to bring him up herself?

So I am pleased that someone else has also had the guts to raise these issues but I remain pessimistic that anything will change as a result.

Rather than admit their wrongdoings and culture of arrogance, CYF seems more interested in using an army of lawyers to suppress the truth and the revelations provided by those who have been CYF victims.

Thank God we live in an age when technology is stronger than a bunch of bureaucrats who have utterly failed in their duty of responsibility.

CYF, wake up! Put outcome *ahead* of policy and everyone will be better off.

Even if you were tempted to believe that the people on the CYFWatch blog site are simply whining unreasonably, I trust that regular Aardvark readers will consider my story to be an objective and honest representation of my own family's experiences with this "out of control" government agency.

I'm not publishing names, registration numbers, addresses or anything but that's only because I don't think it would make a single scrap of difference. Although each individual should be held accountable for their actions, the most important thing is (as with the IRD) to get rid of this culture of arrogance and abuse of public money and rights. CYF should remember -- it is not *you* who are important, it's the people you are supposed to serve!

And tomorrow we will return to our normal programme :-)

Family defends CYF criticism

2007-01-24T18:48:00.000+13:00

Family defends CYF criticism

A west Auckland family is defending its decision to criticise Child Youth and Family on a website.
The website has posted personal information and criticisms of Child Youth and Family staff and is being condemned by Social Development Ministry bosses.
Craig Martin, whose son Patrick died while in CYF care four years ago, says writing on the website is a final attempt to get some kind of closure. He says no one has been held responsible for the death and the website has enabled his family to lay the blame at the feet of those he believes are responsible.
Mr Martin says his family never got a chance to fight for Patrick while he was alive and will continue to fight for justice.

CYF to Gag Name-and-Shame Site

2007-01-23T21:08:00.000+13:00

As Posted on FreeSpeech.org.nz

Lindsay Mitchell is reporting (UPDATE: So is NZPA) that Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has “instructed lawyers to work 24/7 doing whatever they have to, to shut down the CYFS Watch blogsite.”

CYFSWatch is a controversial new blog that is attempting to hold Child, Youth and Family staff accountable for their allegedly destructive actions by publishing ‘name-and-shame’ articles about the individuals involved in various cases.

CYF is likely to be under pressure from the PSA, its staff’s union, to do something about the site, which is threatening to publish the personal details of CYF staff including photographs and home addresses.

If the allegations made on the site are true then the authors have every right to publish them, however “robust” you might find their methods. If not, the answer is not for an arm of the government to shut down the site but to sue the authors for libel although, given their anonymity, that could prove difficult.

It will be interesting to see what CYF does here and, if it comes down to it, whether Google (Blogger’s owner) will do the government’s dirty work and censor the site. Given the nature of the Internet, any information that is censored will no doubt just pop up somewhere else.

Gold Diggers Are Alive and Well in 2006

2007-01-18T10:38:00.000+13:00

Gold Diggers Are Alive and Well in 2006

By Marty Nemko

I so often see this syndrome in my female clients: She comes in ostensibly wanting a career but finds an objection to every option, except going back to school, which defers having to work. Or she's done as much school as she can possibly justify, agrees that a particular career goal is appropriate, but refuses to do the work necessary to land a job.

When I ask, “Do you really want to work?,” most say no. So often, they’ll admit that what they’d really love is a man to support them so they can stay home—even if no children are involved.

One of my clients, a 20-something project coordinator for Sun Microsystems said, “If I could, I’d stay home in a minute. And that’s true for all of my (female) friends.”I was amazed by one of my clients, a recent graduate of a prestigious college who fit that profile perfectly, saying she’d love to meet a husband who made enough money that she could be a full-time housewife. What amazed me was that she said her most deeply held value is that women are constantly oppressed.

I had thought the era of gold diggers ended in the ‘60s with the women’s movement. But I’m here to say that from where I sit, it’s still alive and well. Perhaps today’s women, seeing their mothers not so happy in the workplace makes them decide they’d rather stay home and have a man support them, if they can find one.

My anecdotal experience is supported by others. For example, Time, 60 Minutes, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine all did major features on today’s women not wanting to work. Often cited, for example, was a study of Stanford MBAs. 95 % of the men were working full time while only 38% of the women were. In their book What Women Really Want, pollsters Celinda Lake, a Democrat, and Kellyanne Conway, a Republican, found that seven in 10 women say they would stay home with their kids if they could afford it.

I’m surprised that so many guys don’t mind being the sole breadwinner. Many of them, however, change their minds when I say this to them:

Today, it typically requires two incomes for a family to own a home and support a solid middle class lifestyle. If the wife refuses to work and especially if she pushes hard to own a home, have children, and spend heavily on clothes, jewelry, spas, going back to college, vacations, etc., it means that the man must try to find a very high-income job. Those jobs are very difficult to land and, once obtained, typically demand long, stress-filled, often unrewarding hours, for example as corporate lawyers, bond traders, insurance salesmen, or executives in which pressure to generate profit is high and the power to implement change is low.

Meanwhile, the wife gets a far more pleasurable existence, even when she has children to raise. Evidence it’s more pleasurable: In studies in which men who work outside the home offer to switch roles with their stay-at-home wives, most women refuse.

Finally, remember that men die much younger than women, with stress being a major killer. Do you really want to be a beast of burden so your wife can live a cushy life, and then after you die, inherit the money you’ve earned so she can continue her lifestyle?

Even after my lecturette, some men say they’re happy to be the sole breadwinner, but more say the lecturette opened their eyes—they agree that they would have more rewarding, less stressful career options and, overall, better lives if their wives contributed significantly to the family income. Most of the men say they will talk with their wives about it, but when they return for their next session, they usually report that their wife pulled out all the stops to avoid having to work: they cried, yelled, guilt-tripped, or avoided talking about it—anything but look for work.

These women use various excuses to avoid working, most commonly:

It’s better for the children. In fact, the data is equivocal about that. And anecdotally, I’ve seen many examples in which a stay-at-home mom overprotects a child, resulting in a less self-confident child than if the child were in a high-quality child-care program.

I don’t have earning potential. The definitive book on the subject, Why Men Earn More by Dr. Warren Farrell (Amacom, 2005) finds that for the same work, in many fields, women earn more than $1 for each dollar men earn. Even low-skill-required jobs such as waitressing can yield $50,000-$100,000 a year.

Men, I urge you to be more conscious about whether you are allowing yourself to be turned into being a beast of burden to pay for the expensive house, kids, and all the material “stuff” that you might well be willing to trade away for a more pleasant life.

And if you’re single, consider whether your life will be better if you hold out for a woman who will share responsibility for the family income. Besides, by requiring that, you’ll know that the woman wants to be with you because she loves you, not because—as a surprising number of my female clients have admitted in the privacy of my office--that she considers you a cash cow.

A Woman Can Do Anything a Man Can Do (Well, Almost)

2007-01-18T10:15:00.000+13:00

A Woman Can Do Anything a Man Can Do (Well, Almost)

August 21, 2006Vox Populi

By Carey Roberts

Fact and feminism keep tripping over each other.For decades, radical feminists have prostrated themselves upon the altar of androgeny, flatly declaring that all differences between the sexes are socially constructed. So when men earn more money than women, they say that’s proof of sex discrimination.

But men have the Y chromosome, while women don’t. And it turns out that one chromosome contains 78 very important genes. Those genes contain programming instructions that control a man’s brain structure, sex hormones, and a host of other functions.

These critical genetic differences play out in thousands of ways that influence risk-taking, sex relationships, and social roles. Steven Rhoads’ book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, is an information-packed, must-read on this topic.

Women conceive babies, men can’t. Women are better at decoding facial expressions, hearing a baby’s whimper in the night, and simultaneously talking and listening. Fine.

But what happens when we insist that men and women are social equivalents, twisting like neutered cogs in a giant gender nirvana?

Last year I was talking with a woman who insisted female athletes are just as skilled as the men. A few months later, the US female Olympic hockey team played a boys’ high school team from Warroad, Minnesota. The small town boys prevailed 2-1 over the elite Olympians – and that was a non-checking game.

Then there are the women-in-combat zealots. They parade girls like PFC Jessica Lynch as living proof that women can handle the fierce demands of front line combat. You may recall that war heroine Lynch later admitted about her Iraqi mishap, “I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that’s the last I remember.”

What about women in the media? Remember, they were going to bring us a more balanced and empathic perspective on the world.

Well, that was before Oprah Winfrey predicted one in five heterosexual Americans would die from AIDS by 1990 and Meryl Streep duped the EPA to ban alar.

Let’s not forget Connie Chung’s scientific discovery that breast implants make women sick. Even though researchers could never prove the link between implants and connective tissue disease, the ensuing hysteria-driven lawsuits eventually forced Dow Corning into bankruptcy.

Of course there’s the ever-apoplectic Maureen Dowd, left to wonder why the New York Times circulation numbers tumble ever-downward. And rumor has it that once Katie Couric debuts at CBS News, she’s planning to sign up Cindy Sheehan as a political analyst for the upcoming November elections.

And women, it is said, will make the political arena more ethical and fair: “Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” That quote comes to us by way of senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, which practically makes the claim self-refuting.

We were promised that women in academia would bring important new insights. But soon the ladies came to the sobering realization that Beethoven composed Ode to Joy to induce men into a sexual frenzy, and Newton’s Principia Mathematica is actually a rape manual.

We should all feel especially sorry for MIT professor Nancy Hopkins.

As a biologist, she no doubt learned how primates engage in sex-specific courtship rituals and hunting patterns. But then ex-Harvard president Larry Summers suggested that innate differences in the human species also might exist, causing the ever-delicate Dr. Hopkins to lapse into a swoon.

Smelling salts, anyone?

Those examples are mostly amusing. But there’s one variation on the woman-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do theme that’s downright dangerous. It’s the “mothers and fathers are interchangeable” mantra.

The reason is simple: little boys don’t identify with their moms the same way they bond with their dads. And girls learn different lessons from dads than from moms.

Want proof?

Look at inner city ghettos ravaged by Great Society programs that required dad to vacate the home before mom was entitled to collect her welfare check. Bereft of their loving fathers, boys looked to the media and gangs for their male role models.

Is anyone surprised when all manner of social pathologies take root and flourish?

It’s one of the conundrums of our time that while demanding fealty to the dogma of androgeny, feminists condemn the expression of masculine qualities by men and then turn around and demand that “liberated” women exemplify exactly those same attributes.

As my mother used to say, Who said women had to be logical?

A Woman Against Feminism And For Men's Rights

2006-12-30T01:43:00.000+13:00

A Woman Against Feminism And For Men's Rights

Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men

This list really stands on its own, and doesn't need an introduction. Plus, there are three bonus indicators!

Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men

The American woman by the 1960s lived in the nation with the world's highest standard of living and owned 65% of the wealth in that nation.

Feminists "felt victimized", however, and convinced American women that they are "discriminated against".

Never have they been required to nor been able to produce a shred of statistical evidence to back up that claim.

Twenty one key statistical indicators each illustrate how men have been and are being systematically discriminated against by government fiat.

1. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the country's wealth [Fortune Magazine]

2. CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]

3. INCOME: Men constitute 60% of workplace hours, work longer hours, work harder, and are more qualified, rarely file sexual discrimination or harassment lawsuits or take pregnancy leave, yet earn only 42% more than women [Dept. Labor]

4. SUICIDE: Men's suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than women's [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 males vs 5,700 females]

5. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men's life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women's [National Center for Health Statistics -- males 72.3 yrs vs females 79 yrs] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and medical costs.

6. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Men are discriminated against BY DESIGN through affirmative action.

7. FEDERAL TAXES: Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes women constitute 11% more of the voters.8. VOTE: Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent.

9. WAR: Men, not women, fight and die in battle [Dept. Defense -- Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs 74 women] while women sue the taxpayer when they have their butt pinched.

10. WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Men account for more than 95% of workplace fatalities.

11. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 men vs 5,700 women]

12. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]

13. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]

14. JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Even though the amount of the average "child support payment" due from women is half the amount due from men, and even though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments, fathers are 97% of "child support" collections prosecutions [Census Bureau]

15. WELFARE: Even though men are the recipients of less than 10% of all welfare disbursements, men are required to refund welfare payments made to women.

16. SECONDARY EDUCATION: Even though zero percent of American 12th grade girls were able to correctly answer basic math and physics questions, less than one quarter of America's secondary and elementary school teachers are men.

17. HIGHER EDUCATION: There are more than 200 all-female colleges for women and now not one single all-male college for men. 5.8% fewer men than women are enrolled in 4 year colleges, even though two thirds of those who score higher than 550 in SAT Math are males. In 1993 only 44.5% of college enrollment were men, and that figure has declined since then. Only 45.8% of of bachelor's degrees were conferred to men in 1992, even though 98.2% of the top fiftieth percentile of the GRE are men, and ZERO PERCENT of American high school girls correctly answered 28 out of 67 TIMSS advanced math questions. Only 38.4% of private 4 year college students were men as of 1990, and this figure has declined since then.

18. LEGAL SYSTEM BIAS: 96% of physical altercations resulting in injury to a spouse occurs AFTER the date of separation. [Read: spousal abuse laws that pretend that husbands are dangerous discriminate against husbands when we know that only a very small percent of domestic violence is associated with them]. [Chadwick and Heaton, "Statistical Handbook of the American Family"]

19. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Even though study after study shows that women are the majority of the initiators of domestic violence, and 58% of the above mentioned physical altercations are initiated by the female, Congress passed the obviously anti-male VAWA and VAWA II.which are known would make the problem far worse. [Read: despite the fact we discriminate against husbands in protective orders, women still cause more than half of domestic altercations because they know they can get away with it].

20. CHILD VIOLENCE: Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of women.

21. FAMILY BREAKDOWN: The US Surgeon General notes that divorce is more harmful to a man's health than smoking tobacco, yet as much as $1.3 Trillion of federal expenditures accomplish little else than undermine family stability.

22. WOMEN PILOTS: Even though women pilots have an accident rate four timesthat of men pilots, federal laws require that airlines risk the safety of passengers and hire women pilots anyway.

23. WOMEN DRIVERS: Even though the crash rate of women drivers is twice that of men drivers, and even though drinking alcohol increases the crash rate of men by only 5%, the majority of those imprisoned under DUI laws are men, and women are almost never imprisoned for their much higher number of non-alcohol-related crashes.

24. INCARCERATION: Even though feminists brag that 1.4 million American brides commit adultery, and even though women file more than 90,000 false allegations of rape, every year, only 99,000 of the 1.8 million Americans behind bars are women.

Feminists Push for Shutting Down Men’s Rights Sites Under the Cover of Hate Speech Legislation

2006-12-29T23:50:00.000+13:00

Dateline: Canada
By: Jim Hodgins of The National Post (article now removed)
Via: The Honor Network
Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)

A federally funded report says “masculinists” are orchestrating a backlash against feminism and blaming women for oppressing and discriminating against men.
The report’s authors claim that masculinists portray men as victims and link feminism with boys’ poor performance in schools, male suicide, loss of male identity and discriminatory divorce and child custody laws.
“A process of levelling the power relationships of men over women is taking hold, not only to mask continued inequality but also to attack some of the gains made by the women’s movement,” says the $75,000 report, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse.
The report says “masculinist discourse” aims to discredit feminism and challenge the gains made by women in education, at work and in family life.
The report was written in response to a call from Status of Women Canada, a federal department, to research the subject: “Where have all the women gone? Changing shifts in policy discourses.”
A disclaimer on the front of the report says, “This document expresses the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the official policy of Status of Women Canada or the Government of Canada.”
Among the report’s recommendations is that an organization similar to Hate Watch be established to monitor men’s groups on the Web, that inciting hatred on the basis of gender should be a hate crime and that women’s groups establish a network to counter the masculinists’ views.
Men’s groups listed in an appendix to the report said they were outraged at being “smeared.”
Ken Wiebe, from British Columbia, said his Web site, fathers.bc.ca, was set up as a resource centre for fathers who have had trouble in the divorce courts. He denied it promotes hatred of women and said it demands equality.
“There is no question that I have very little patience for feminists, especially the radical variety of feminism here in Canada,” he said. “But I have a wife, I have daughters. This notion that because we are opposed to the feminists’ political agenda, that that somehow equates to a dislike of women, is just propaganda. That’s some kind of smear campaign.”
Mickey MacMillan, of Kamloops Parents of Broken Families, said he was angry at being put on the “hit list.” “All I’ve ever done is advocate for equal parenting,” said Mr. MacMillan, who represented Canada as a boxer in the 1962 Commonwealth Games.
“I have no agenda against women. I don’t like feminists because I think they’re radical and I think they’re against men, but I don’t think they should try to criminalize me. And my government paying for it, it is a disgrace.”

- Jim Hodgins, of the Canadian Committee for Fairness in Family Law in Ontario,

The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics

2006-12-29T22:20:00.000+13:00

"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Men's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too.

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.
Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)

Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable.

Examples:
"You're bitter!"
"You need to get over your anger at women."
"You are so negative!"

Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.

Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)

Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women.

Examples:
"You need to get over your fear."
"Step up and take a chance like a man!"
"You're afraid of a strong woman!"

Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.

Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing "Chicken Little").

Examples:
"Stop whining!"
"Get over it!"
"Suck it up like a man!"
"You guys don't have it as nearly as bad as us women!"
"You're just afraid of losing your male privileges."
"Your fragile male ego ..."
"Wow! You guys need to get a grip!"

Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.

Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male.

Examples:
"Grow up!"
"You are so immature!"
"Do you live with your mother?"
"I'm not interested in boys. I'm interested in real men."
"Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."

Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.

Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) - The Elevated Threat Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.

Examples:
"You guys are scary."
"You make me feel afraid."

Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man's legitimate freedom of expression.

Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) - The Sour Grapes Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems.

Example:
"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."

Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) - The Brown Shirts Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.

Examples:
"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the KKK."
"... more anti-feminist zaniness"

Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").

Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)

Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question.

Examples:
"Are you gay?"
"I need a real man, not a sissy."
"You're such a wimp."

Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.

Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)

Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women.

Examples:
"I'm not like that!"
"Stop generalizing!"
"That's a sexist stereotype!"

Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)

Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general.

Examples:
"You misogynist creep!"
"Why do you hate women?"
"Do you love your mother?"
"You are insensitive to the plight of women."
"You are mean-spirited."
"You view women as doormats."
"You want to roll back the rights of women!!"
"You are going to make me cry."

Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of "argumentum ad misericordiam" (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or "argumentum in terrorem" (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).

Charge of Instability (Code White) - The White Padded Room Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.

Examples:
"You're unstable."
"You have issues."
"You need therapy."
"Weirdo!"

Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.

Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)

Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits.

Examples:
"You are so materialistic."
"You are so greedy."

Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"

Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) - The All-That-Glitters Charge

Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences.

Examples:
"If you didn't go after bimbos, then ..."
"How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?"

Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, "high-maintanence" women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).

Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) - The Ugly Tan Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.

Examples:
"I bet you are fat and ugly."
"You can't get laid!"
"Creep!"
"Loser!"
"Have you thought about the problem being you?"

Response: This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.

Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)

Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation.

Examples:
"Stop being so negative."
"You are so cynical."
"If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat."
"C'mon! Men are doers, not quitters."

Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.

Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) - The Pink Whip

Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.

Examples:
"No woman will marry you with that attitude."
"Creeps like you will never get laid!"

Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Pink Whip" is to realize that a man's happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).

Fathers' protests stir law society

2006-08-08T20:14:00.000+12:00

By DEBORAH DIAZ

Auckland District Law Society is trying to broker a truce with protesters against Family Court lawyers.

Fathers' rights groups have staged weekend protests for months outside the houses of lawyers, judges and court-appointed psychologists, as well as targeting court buildings and MPs.

The "botherings", as organiser and men's advocate Jim Bagnall calls them, have frightened lawyers' children, led to the arrest of a woman for squirting a hose at protesters, and rocks have been thrown. Top Family Court judge Peter Boshier accused the men of pursuing vendettas because cases had not gone their way.

Protests have been held in Auckland, Tauranga, Hamilton, Palmerston North and Havelock North. In the latest, in Auckland's Grey Lynn, a group set up with banners including a swastika and shouted "Give back our children". They accused lawyers' families of living off fathers' misery.

Auckland's law society has called a meeting for tonight to try "to progress things". President Gary Gotlieb said he told the protesters he would meet them if the protests paused, but he had to talk to society membership first.

The society accepted a forum was needed to identify and resolve real, if rare, miscarriages of justice in the Family Court, he said.
Retired judge Sir Thomas Thorpe had recommended the Government set up a Miscarriages of Justice Commission, and such a body might also look at Family Court cases.

But the protesters were going about things the wrong way, he said, with individual lawyers attacked simply for representing a client in acrimonious cases where a winner and a loser were inevitable.

He believed legal action against protesters was possible, but would prefer a constructive truce.
Protesters say the Family Court is biased and unfairly gives mothers custody, depriving men of contact with their children. They say it is too easy for a parent to make unsubstantiated allegations against the other.

Mr Bagnall said the protest group wanted a way for parents to resolve issues outside the courtroom, as less formal discussions could take some heat out of the process. The law society had been asked to consider acting as a go-between in such cases.

Mr Gotlieb said the society could not act on particular cases, but could advocate systemic changes.

Domestic Violence Against Men, Is it Real?

2006-08-01T13:53:00.000+12:00

In our society there is much talk and funding about programs that support the stopping of domestic violence. However, these programs without question are geared towards for women and children. For the sake of conversation we will leave children out of it for the moment. Most, if not damn near all of these programs are for women. The entire notion of domestic violence is primarily focused of male violence against women. Just say the words [domestic violence] and instantly images of men in A-cut undershirts beating their wives and girlfriends is conjured. Men are victims of domestic violence as well. There is not a rational person that would disagree with that, however society at large as a whole believes this fairy tale notion that domestic violence against men is a joke.
Domestic Violence Against Men, Is it Real?

Hose ends fathers' protest outside lawyer's home

2006-08-01T11:46:00.000+12:00

Tuesday August 1, 2006
By Louisa Cleave

Protesters from a fathers' group were squirted with a hose and had rocks thrown at them as they demonstrated outside the home of an Auckland lawyer.
About 20 men and women were protesting with banners and megaphones outside the Pt Chevalier home of Ross France when a woman came from behind a hedge and turned a hose on them.
Protest organiser Jim Bagnall said medium-sized scoria rocks were also hurled at the group but no one was hit.
"The rocks missed but they were aimed at our feet," he said. "She was screaming out at people to 'go home'. Well, we weren't going to go home for 15 minutes. We did tell her that."
Mr France refused to comment on the incident. When approached yesterday, his wife, Ina Kara-France, would also not comment.
Acting Sergeant Scott Leonard said police had investigated and a woman would appear in court on a charge of common assault.
He said the protest on Sunday had become heated but the alleged assault was "at the lower end of the scale".
Fathers' groups, including the Union of Fathers, have been staging noisy protests outside the homes of Family Court judges and lawyers, complaining they are treated unjustly.
It was the second time they had targeted Mr France's home in as many months.
In May, Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier said protesters were going beyond acceptable limits.
"It has all the hallmarks of personal vendetta by individuals who do not respect the legitimacy of the court," he said.
Mr Bagnall said the soaking would not deter the protesters.
"Some of the guys were saying this is the most fun they've had for ages."

Fathers face resistance

2006-08-01T11:37:00.000+12:00

30/07/2006 16:04:02

A Fathers' Union protest took an unexpected turn in Auckland this afternoon. The Union has been spending the day travelling to various Family Court judges and solicitors homes protesting at what it says is unfair rulings against fathers.
Spokesman Jim Bagnall says a protest outside a Mt Albert home became interesting when a woman and boy came out of the house and, he alleges, started throwing water and a rock at the protestors.
Police were called to the scene. No one was hurt in the incident and it is not yet clear whether charges will be laid.

Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms

2006-06-19T20:52:00.000+12:00

Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms

Saturday June 10, 2006
By Chris Barton

Graeme MacCormick retired as Family Court judge in December after serving 15 years on the bench. Here are his views on men's groups' protests.

Will judges be intimidated by the men's groups' protests?

I do not perceive the judges of the court will be in the least influenced in their decision-making by any protest outside their homes. They have a job to do on behalf of the community. The children whose lives are affected are the children of their birth parents and also children of the community.
What often seems to get overlooked in criticisms of the Family Court is that the originating problems brought to it are not of the court's making. There are frequently power and control issues between the birth parents or between them and subsequent caregivers.

Many in the men's groups vent a lot of anger. What's behind this?

Anger is a natural emotion which shows other people our boundaries. It is precisely where our boundaries lie and the way we deal with our anger that counts. Anger that is not properly dealt with too often leads to physical outbursts and assaults and is, quite frequently, a feature of the more difficult Family Court cases.
Where I think men - as a broad generalisation - find themselves disadvantaged is when women have been the primary caregivers before separation and men have been the primary providers.
When the relationship breaks down and the woman tries to hold on to her role to the substantial exclusion of her former husband or partner, then the father is left with resort to the Family Court, which is not always resourced to be able to respond as quickly as the father - or indeed the court - would like. Nor might the outcome be exactly what either partner wants, depending on the circumstances and the perceived welfare and best interests - and views - of the child or children. Those are the determining factors with the law as it stands.

The protesters want equal parenting as the default position of the court in decisions about the care of children. What's your view of that?

I question whether they are going about that in the right way. They need to convince a majority of members of parliament of the need for a law change and that it will be best for children. Men's groups would need good research to back their position.
In the meantime, the judges of the court will try to apply the law, as it stands. It seems to me there is little point in attacking judges as a body for doing that.
I doubt that you are likely to achieve change by targeting the wrong people. Good, positive time with both birth parents, subject to issues of physical and emotional safety, is clearly the ideal. In an increasing number of cases that is equal time.
But sometimes extreme, ongoing conflict between birth parents, both locked in a battle over their children that they become ever more determined to win, makes this impossible to achieve.
Sometimes children have had so much conflict in their lives, without being able to see an end to it, that very occasionally and as a last resort a choice may need to be made for care by one birth parent to the exclusion of the other, hopefully temporary.

Men's groups say the court grants protection orders against men too easily.

There have also been complaints, on behalf of women, that "without notice" applications for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act were not being granted readily enough and that too many were being placed "on notice", with significant physical risk to women and children. This demonstrates the difficulty of satisfying everybody. When temporary protection orders are made without notice, in perceived situations of a threat to safety, and when children are involved, the court is increasingly scheduling a review of the temporary order within one or two weeks.

Men's groups also complain about mothers making false testimony to the court.

For "false testimony" one can often substitute "a different perspective or perception". If there is genuinely false testimony before the court and it is not acknowledged or corrected and it is material provided with intent to deceive the court, this can clearly ground a prosecution for perjury. On occasion, the Family Court will refer a matter of perceived perjury to the police for consideration of prosecution. Anything in the nature of deliberately false evidence or misleading testimony will almost inevitably be counter-productive to the position of the person on whose behalf it is provided.

The protesters say they are targeting lawyers because they lie to the court. Why would they make such claims?

This probably refers to the lawyer for the children, with whom dissatisfied litigants of both genders will frequently take issue. Their job is to represent the child or children independently of the parents or caregivers.
Their client is the child. But they are not meant to give evidence to the court - as opposed to making submissions based on the evidence.
It is, however, normal for the lawyer for the child to advise a child's views and the child's instructions, if the child is able to provide them. That may not be exactly what the child has said to his or her parents.

What do you think of the men's groups' tactics?

Men's groups can frequently be helpful in providing a "McKenzie friend" or support person for a father acting on his own behalf. Likewise they fulfil a useful purpose in keeping before the public the importance of birth parents to children.

But Family Court judges are well aware of this and need no reminding. Men's groups need to be carefully focused if they are not to be counter-productive.

I suspect that the protests may, in their targeting, say more about the protesters than about the operation of the court. If their intention is to embarrass, harass or intimidate might not similar traits and tactics have been factors in the breakdown of their marriage or relationship?

Author
•
More by Chris Barton
•
Email Chris Barton

New era for child law

2006-06-19T20:41:00.000+12:00

New era for child law

16 June 2006

By Andrea MilnerContent supplied by NZ Lawyer Issue 42NZ Lawyer is published by LexisNexis

Principal Family Court Judge Boshier has signalled major changes ahead for the dispute resolution process used in children's cases, including the possible adoption of the non-adversarial process to be used in Australia.

Speaking at a child law conference in Auckland recently, Judge Boshier unveiled his vision for refining Family Court processes regarding resolution of childcare proceedings, which represent over a third of the work of the Family Court. He described the Court as "the final step" if all else fails, or where there is an urgent situation requiring decisive intervention.

The conciliation services of counselling and mediation should be expanded and made available to more people, he said. "Mediation should be separate and clearly defined as a final means of resolution between the parties, without needing to involve the Court." The Family Court has been running a mediation pilot which takes mediation sessions away from Judges and into the hands of specialist mediators.

Australia has been trialing a non-adversarial process which Judge Boshier advocated could be successfully adapted to New Zealand. Its Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, which comes into force on 1 July, moves the initial counselling phase outside of the Court's management and into the community.

Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) will be established throughout Australia. They will be separate from the Family Court, and offer a community-based disputes resolution service. FRCs will be contracted out to existing providers, and offer a variety of services, including free mediation sessions, some legal advice, and referrals to specialist services. Parties will be required to attend an FRC before being granted access to the Family Court, unless the case involves sexual abuse, violence, or contravention of a Court order.

Judge Boshier also referred to a programme trialled in the Sydney and Paramatta Family Courts aimed at reducing the adversarial nature of proceedings, and implementing a more child-focused dispute resolution forum. One objective of this Children's Cases Programme (CCP) is to reduce the amount of delay and harm caused by "the filing of vast amounts of irrelevant evidence," Judge Boshier said.

"Parents are parents for life. They separate from each other, not from their children. It is for the Court to encourage an ongoing relationship, as required by the Care of Children Act, by creating processes that are conducive to agreement, rather than the process itself becoming a hindrance to cooperation."
He said this can partly be achieved by Judges playing a more active role in steering the course of proceedings; deciding what the key issues are, and what evidence is required to prove them, rather than this being determined by the parties' perception of those issues, and their selective evidence.
"If the Judge can take a proactive role from the start, the irrelevant evidence can be eliminated, and the evidence that the Court truly requires can be drawn out," he said.

An evaluation report of the CCP recently delivered to the Australian Family Court compared the outcomes for families that had entered the programme with those who had gone through the traditional Court system. It suggests many parents received benefits from the Judge taking a more active role in resolving the dispute, while the parent's relationship with their child was seen to have suffered as a result of the mainstream process.

The Australian Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act makes it possible to roll out a less adversarial dispute resolution process over the entire country. The changes make it possible for the Court to dispense with certain rules of evidence without the consent of the parties, as is currently required for involvement in the CCP.
Judge Boshier said New Zealand needs to "seriously consider" implementing a system along the same lines.

Cultural diversity and context

2006-06-19T20:34:00.000+12:00

Cultural diversity and context

16 June 2006

Content supplied by NZ Lawyer Issue 42NZ Lawyer is published by LexisNexis

The "browning of New Zealand" and the extent to which our society is becoming ethnically and culturally diverse were brought into sharp focus at the 5th Annual Child Law conference held in Auckland recently.
Kate Woodd reports.

Among the defining principles that must be considered in an assessment of what is in the best interests and welfare of a child under the Care of Children Act 2004, is the principle that a "child's identity as part of their family, family group, whanau, hapu or iwi and including, without limitation, his or her culture, language, and religious denomination and practice, should be preserved and strengthened".

Section 133 of the Act now gives the Family Court jurisdiction to request a cultural report from someone it considers qualified for the purpose, the substance of which "may address any aspect or aspects of that child's cultural background".

Considering a child's cultural background in decisions regarding their welfare and care is not an entirely new concept. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 similarly compelled the state child welfare agencies to consider issues of culture, particularly in the context of their "whanau, hapu and iwi". That legislation, enacted 17 years ago, was one of the first steps in overhauling the laws affecting children's welfare and care since the Guardianship Act 1968. It also sought to recognise the cultural importance of whanau to Maori and to ensure the Crown discharged its Treaty of Waitangi obligations to Maori.

However political rhetoric that New Zealand is a bicultural society with Pakeha and Maori as the predominant cultural groups is fast losing its persuasiveness. Presenting her paper, "Cultural Diversity and Context: Responding to the Needs of 'This Child' in 'This Family'", senior researcher at the Centre for Asian and Migrant Health Research at the Auckland University of Technology, Ruth DeSouza, together with barrister Fazilat Shah and Families Commissioner and barrister Sandra Alofivae, spoke of the significant challenges facing professionals in their efforts to effectively work with clients from different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds to their own.

De Souza believes that "biculturalism is a good beginning and we should be looking at how we implement principles such as partnership, participation and protection in our professional practice and then expand this to other groups".

DeSouza's paper presented some staggering statistics on the multi-cultural make up of New Zealand's society today, projections for the future and the implications for family law professionals working with families.

Describing herself as a Tanzanian born Goan-Indian raised in East Africa, who has variously been mistaken for being Maori herself, DeSouza's own ethnic identity and background graphically demonstrates how easy it is to make incorrect assumptions as to a person's cultural identity or race.

According to DeSouza's references, "The world's migrant stock increased by 75 million between 1980 and 2000, with Europe's migrant numbers rising from 11 million to 33 million between 1980 and 2000. The US foreign born population grew from 14 million to 35 million between 1980 and 2000. Now, one in every 15 people in Europe and one in every eight in the US was born overseas (La Guardia, 2005). In the developed world, migration accounts for a greater share of population increase than natural growth".

In New Zealand, "almost one in five New Zealanders was born overseas. This rises to one in three in Auckland, where half of the migrant population resides. The highest proportion of Pacific and Asian migrants live in Auckland."

"Between 1991 and 2001 the number of people identifying as Asians more than doubled to almost 6.4 per cent of the population exceeding Pacific peoples. Chinese are the largest ethnic group within the Asian population, followed by Indian and Korean. In the Auckland region, 1 in 8 people are Asian, 1 in 8 Pacific and 1 in 10 Maori. It doesn't end there though, the fastest growing ethnic groups were Korean, Arab, Croat, Iraqi, South African and Russian, while the greatest increase in counts of overseas birthplaces between 1996-2001 were China, South Africa, India, Fiji and Korea. Linguistic and religious diversity were also a hallmark of the 2001 Census, which noted a 20 per cent increase in the number of multilingual people and an increase in people whose religion was non-Christian, including Hindu 56%, Buddhist 48 per cent and Islam 74 per cent".

With children the picture is somewhat different. "The 2001 Census found ...First, that New Zealand children were more ethnically diverse than adults, and secondly that they were less likely to have been born overseas than adults. A significant number of children in New Zealand were born here rather than overseas, compared to adults. Nine per cent of children were born overseas, compared with 23 per cent of adults. Of the children born overseas, 34 per cent were born in Oceania (Australia and the Pacific), 27 per cent were born in Asia and 21 per cent were born in Europe. The trend towards a growing diversity is expected to continue with projections for 2021 showing that, relatively speaking, there will be fewer Europeans (1 per cent increase), more Maori (28 per cent increase), more Pacific people (58 per cent increase) and more Asians (122 per cent increase)."

Despite this growing multiculturalism in our society, DeSouza notes that "New Zealand has yet to encompass multiculturalism as a social policy framework". She reasons that this is possibly due to our early links with the UK and Ireland, and that "when the time did come to explore issues regarding nation and nationality, this coincided with a rise in indigenous concerns and the Treaty". By comparison to the multicultural policies developed in Australia and Canada in the 1970s, New Zealand was instead "debating issues of indigeneity and the relationship with tangata whenua".

In the Family Court context, however, one might argue that it should be relatively simple to recognise when and from whom a cultural assessment is required to assist the court in its decision as to what is in the best interests of a child. The reality for many family law professionals is, however, quite the contrary. As Alofivae notes, significant challenges and questions now exist for the Court and lawyers in identifying whether a cultural report is needed and secondly, "who is qualified to give it and on what basis are they qualified for the purpose?" Difficulties exist in obtaining interpreters and identifying those 'qualified' in their particular cultural, ethnic or religious communities to assist.

Before even getting to that point, however, DeSouza's challenge for all family law professionals is the ability to appropriately recognise the importance of, and subtleties that can exist from a cultural perspective when working with family law clients.

DeSouza suggests that "legal services, family lawyers, judges, specialists and professional advisers in the area of child law need to delicately balance between the universal (treating people equally) and particular (responding to people's different needs differently) in order to be equitable. Provision of universal services can result in stereotyping, as the importance of culture is minimised and differences put down as individual. Equally universalism as a guiding ideology can be a means of indirect discrimination which is when service provision is the same for everyone but people from various ethnic groups cannot access or gain maximum benefit because of language, religious or cultural reasons".

In the health sector, "cultural safety" and "cultural competence" have become well established concepts, and it is the embrace of cultural competence by the individual professionals at one level and the framework of the court system at another that is critical if more than mere tokenism is paid to considering the cultural issues involved.

Cultural competence in the health context has been defined as "the ability of systems to provide care to patients with diverse values, beliefs and behaviours, including tailoring delivery to meet patients' social, cultural and linguistic needs".

DeSouza notes that "cultural competence is becoming an increasingly relevant concept in health care, and The New Zealand Medical Council recently consulted its members on cultural competence as a response to the introduction of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, and in line with its responsibility to ensure the cultural competence of medical practitioners. The consultation document includes a proposed framework and says that cross-cultural doctor-patient interactions are common, and doctors need to be competent in dealing with patients whose cultures differ from their own".

While there is an increasing awareness and acknowledgement of the diversity of families before the Court, DeSouza suggests "a number of strategies will need to be considered at different levels to ensure the application of cultural safety and cultural competence. Professionals in the Family Court arena need to enhance their knowledge, skill and understanding of how to relate to the different families they deal with. Part of this process is an openness to reflect on one's own attitudes and beliefs".

The full version of Ruth DeSouza's paper and other speaker's papers are available for purchase from LexisNexis Professional Development.
Please phone 09 486 9572 or email seminars@lexisnexis.co.nz.

Duluth model

2006-06-06T13:23:00.000+12:00

The Duluth model was created in Duluth Minnesota as a result of a group of activists gathering after a particularly gruesome murder of a woman by her husband. They put their heads together and came up with a group of ideas about how to keep that sort of incident from ever happening again. They developed a model that saw the world of violence in a socio-political context where, as the initial tragedy had shown, men wielded power over women in a violent fashion. Since that time the Duluth Model has become the theoretical framework of choice in the domestic violence industry. In some situations I am sure it is a very good fit, however, in many I am sure it is not. As we shall see the Duluth Model has no connection to any reputable theory of behavioral change and exhibits a major failing in its inability to differentiate any potential clients who might be better served by a different type of treatment. It is a truly "One size fits all" approach to the complex world of domestic violence. It's primary focus (resulting from it’s original precipitating incident) is on the power and control of men over women. Recent research however has proven that domestic violence is not a male-only endeavor. Women have been shown to initiate violence in relationships at a rate higher than that of males and research also indicates that women incur about 62% of the domestic violence injuries while men incur 38%. These studies have confirmed that domestic violence is surely not a simple male on female problem. They have shown that 25% of domestic violence is initiated without provocation by women, 25% by men, and 50% simply a brawl between the two parties. With numbers like these it is patently clear that a model that is based solely on a man’s violence towards women sees only half the problem and leaves its proponents with a spurious picture of the real world of domestic violence. The Duluth model is profoundly outdated, inappropriate and inadequate to help victims of domestic violence.

Let’s have a quick look at the assumptions that underlie the rhetoric of the Duluth Model.

The Duluth model makes some serious assumptions about men. The first assumption is that all men are trained by our culture to dominate women. Here's a quote from Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model by Pence and Paymar: "Men in particular are taught these tactics in both their families of origin and through their experiences in a culture that teaches men to dominate" This quote is not directed at some men, it is directed at all men. It reveals the Duluth’s profound bias against men. It literally assumes that all men are taught both in their families and in their culture to be dominant towards women. While this is undoubtedly true in the original murder that brought forth the Duluth model and in some instances of domestic violence today it is surely not true of all men. It also leaves no explanation or understanding for instances when women are the perpetrators. I think that most men would tell you that they were not taught to dominate women in their families of origin. They would likely tell you that they were taught just the opposite: not to batter women but to respect, care for, and protect them. My estimation is that most men were taught one of the worst things you can do is to hit a girl. Most men have probably never hit a girl or a woman though most men have probably been hit more than once by a woman. I would bet that this is the experience of millions of men in this culture but the Duluth Model frames all men as dominators and abusers in waiting.

This model believes that men have set things up from the beginning to be in their favor. That men across the board have stacked the deck to put themselves on top and women on the bottom. Here is a quote: "The historic oppression and continued subjugation of women in most cultures occurs because men have defined almost every facet of their societies, thereby perpetuating a sexist belief system and institutionalizing male privilege." This model believes that men have intentionally created a system that favors themselves and is intentionally hurtful to women. They go on to assume that domestic violence is a logical extension of this by having men use violence to enforce this advantage. This may be true for a handful of men but it is certainly not true of all men. The implication is that all men are consciously seeking advantage over the women in their lives. I question the veracity of this and also would like to point out that a presumption such as this can only be antagonistic towards the very group that they seek to help.

The next assumption is that battering of women by men is commonplace. This book claims that 50% of men batter their wives at some time in their marriage. In a nutshell that means that if you are a male either you or your next door neighbor are wife beaters. Is it you or your next door neighbor? They go on to say that one out of four men use some type of physical violence against their spouse during the course of a given year. These are obvious exaggerations and distortions of the truth. Domestic violence is bad enough without having to exaggerate the statistics. A common ploy to inflate statistics is to water down the definition of abuse to such extremes that the statistic simply doesn’t mean a thing. There is a factoid that is popular on the internet and in domestic violence literature that states that every 15 seconds a woman is battered. What you are not told is that using these same overblown definitions of abuse that a man would be battered every 14 seconds! The Duluth model exposes its inherent sexism and once again gives us only one side of things. Statistics like this are not useful in helping people understand the truth of domestic violence. There is no reason to exaggerate something so horrid, but that is what the Duluth model proponents do.

It is disturbing to me that the Duluth model discourages therapy and makes the assumption that a man's violence is not related to drugs, psychopathology, previous abuse, impulse control, communications, alcoholism, or other difficulties. The Duluth Model book states: "These factors are contributors or modifiers of a mans' behavior but they do not cause (emphasis mine) his violence." The cause according to them is the socio-political elements inherent in a man's socially constructed "dominance." This is what they see as the enemy and what needs to be eliminated. They see psychopathology, drugs, previous childhood abuse, and other problems as distractions and urge their group leaders to not allow the participants in their programs to focus on any of these "distractions". While they know that the majority of these men have been abused as children they urge the group leaders "To keep the group focused on the issues of violence, abuse, control, and change." This might be likened to a patient coming to the emergency room with profuse bleeding, a broken leg, and a bloody lip and receiving treatment for only the profuse bleeding and having all other symptoms ignored as "distractions." Present day psychotherapy is in agreement over very few things, but one is that when you treat a person with difficulties you must treat the whole person, not just one part. Duluth intentionally treats only one part.

The Duluth model seems to take a very archaic approach to healing: force the client to order his reality in the way you want and hope that change may occur. The energy is put into keeping the client “on topic”, that is, the topic of their own dominating behaviors. Then there seems to be a magical jump from this into the “hoped for” behavior change. It’s as if the model is saying “If we can keep this man focused on his dominant behaviors sooner or later he will change.” There doesn’t seem to be any explanation for this hoped for transformation nor any way to measure the outcome of the expected change. The Duluth model seems to be more a way of thinking into which the clients must become indoctrinated rather than a theoretical healing framework. The clients are forced to puppet back in the groups the words that harmonize with the group leaders ideas. If they can do this it seems to be taken as a confirmation that change is taking place. This of course is a dangerous assumption.

We have noted that the Duluth model fails to see the man as a whole, it assumes that the status quo of masculine behavior is to intentionally keep his woman down, and assumes that he is trained by his family and his culture to be dominant and violent. These are all indicators of a profound anti-male bias in this model The underlying and unspoken message is clear: Men bad, women good. Men perpetrators, women victims. How can we expect a system to help people through a crisis if it carries such judgement and bias? The vilification of one gender and the passive glorification of the other is blatantly sexist. I know of no other psychological model that pre-judges its potential clients prior to treatment. That’s preposterous. Perhaps this is a result of the Duluth model being originally linked to a heinous crime and therefore is naturally linked more to punishment than to healing. It reads more like an indictment than a path toward healing. Sexist theories have no place in government funded programs.

It seems clear to me that this model is inadequate and needs to be replaced. It maintains a profound and consistent bias against men, lacks a connection with any accepted form of behavioral change, leaves no explanation or treatment for female violence, and lacks any capacity to adjust treatment based on individual difference. It seems to be more a biased and sexist way of thinking that is masquerading as a change agent. The time has come to find more functional and balanced alternatives.

http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183

Child Support Corruption

2005-07-04T20:41:00.000+12:00

Child Support Corruption.
If child support is going to be the issue that the major political parties refuse to face purely for the financial implications of reviewing it, then it may well be the dog that bites them on the arse.
The average man suffers a harsh and destructive punishment, when he objects to child support on principle, and has his earning ability estimated so he must pay the maximum child support.
Compare this to the high paid academic objecting on the same principles, who normally would be required to pay the maximum amount of child support but is being allowed to pay half that amount.
Surely this betrays the philosophical face of the current administration, or perhaps those would be occupants of the incontestable moral high ground are claiming states prerogative.
If one hand is a false obligation surely the other is a false duty. The more pragmatic might ask - “Will the issue be ignored before the election and the corruption continue afterwards.” Regardless, such complicity betrays both a decent society and our children.
Our continuing battle to have child support reviewed will not be assisted if we either, remain in isolation and accept this sort of harassment and intimidation or if we put ourselves in voluntary isolation after accepting a state bribe.
Such situations illustrate to me a disturbing lack of unity amongst men in New Zealand and a furthering of the profound weakness developing in our society.

60% of reported child abuse false

2005-03-27T17:37:00.000+12:00

The rather startling news that 60% of reported cases of child abuse now turn out to be completely unsubsantiated (or “incorrect” according to current jargon) gets a completely different spin in the Dominion Post story below. Presumably Stuart Birks said something meaningful to the reporter about the subject of false allegations, but it didn’t survive the editing process.

Radical femimist insistance that “women and children never lie about abuse” means that false accusations are one of those subjects that mainstream media sometimes prefers to avoid.

CYF wait list rises in capital

In the Wellington and upper South Island region, more than 380 cases of suspected child abuse are waiting to be assigned to a social worker, compared with 260 in September 2003. Of those, 312 were defined as “urgent” and 77 were “low urgent".

Incorrect reports of child abuse to Child, Youth and Family each month have soared in the past five years… with 899 cases in December 1999, compared with 2370 in December 2004. Incorrect cases are those that are investigated fully but, for whatever reason, no evidence of abuse is found. They now make up about 60 per cent of claims – compared with 45 per cent five years ago.

Ms Angus was not concerned about the growing number of unproved claims, which reflected an increase in overall reporting of child abuse. There had been a 57 per cent increase in notifications in the past three years.

“Child abuse is not acceptable and the message is getting across.”

New Zealand Father and Child Society vice-president Stuart Birks said the figures raised questions about who was reporting child abuse. Allegations of child abuse could be damaging to families and children.

Couple speak out about Victim Support

2005-03-27T17:28:00.000+12:00

Stephen and Diane Jelicich were a couple whose split became as acrimonious as it can get.

It culminated in January with Stephen running off with their baby daughter Caitlin and hiding from police for 10 days.

Diane went back to Wales not knowing where her daughter was or when she would see her again. But the couple believe it should never have been that bad.

They told Close Up they blame Victim Support for creating the situation which made Stephen take Caitlin.

It all started on December 22 when Stephen called police claiming Diane had assaulted him and damaged his eardrum.

A few hours later police and Victim Support arrived and took Diane and Caitlin to Women’s Refuge while Stephen was out.

At the same time, a warrant was issued for his arrest. However, the couple did not signal they wanted to be separated.

While it was Stephen that was the alleged victim that day, it was Diane and Caitlin that were rescued by Victim Support.

Previous items about the Jelicich case:

Custody clash father tells why

2005-01-21T23:58:00.000+13:00

An Auckland father at the centre of an international custody dispute has told his family he is hiding with his 5-month-old daughter because of an “unfair” court decision to award custody to her mother.

Police yesterday appealed for 39-year-old Stephen Paul Jelicich to contact them and hand over baby Caitlin, following a request by Interpol.

But Stephen Jelicich’s father, Paul, last night told the Herald that his son would give himself up in exchange for a new custody hearing.

Paul Jelicich said Stephen and his wife arrived home at the end of October for a family holiday in Kumeu, West Auckland.

The relationship, which he described as “volatile", soured during the visit.

“She said [to Stephen], ‘I’m going to Wales and taking Caitlin with me and there’s not a thing you can do about it, and I don’t want you to come back’.” Mr Jelicich said his son took advice from police and lawyers and sought custody of his daughter.

The case went to the Family Court before Christmas but was adjourned until January 10.

Mrs Jelicich applied for an urgent hearing and it was granted on January 6, when the court declared the case should be heard in Britain, where Caitlin was born, and awarded the mother custody.

Stephen Jelicich claimed the custody hearing was rushed and “all he wants is his day in court", said his father.

“Nothing was done right,” said his mother, Jan Jelicich.

“He was supposed to be given 48 hours’ notice [of a hearing] but because it was going to be Christmas Day he was given 24 hours.”

Mr Jelicich snr said his son was a “good father” but “the system let him down” and running was his only option.

The Big Half-Truth and It's Tragic Consequences

2004-12-16T23:58:00.000+13:00

RATIONAL ANARCHY PUBLISHING

The Big Half-Truth and It's Tragic Consequences

The Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools
Public Consultation
Violence and Abuse Within The Family
The Neglected Issues
June 9,1995 & June 10, 1995

The Big Half-Truth and It's Tragic Consequences
by
Ferrel Christenson, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy
University of Alberta
(Transcription by Lazarus Long)

To introduce my theme via an analogy, let me remind you of a recent shocking incident: the appeal-court case of Guy Paul Morin. The allegations made against police and prosecutors were twofold:
(1) That they had withheld data indicating his innocence;
(2) That they had failed to gather obvious evidence that would very
likely have proven his innocence.
In both cases, the evident motive was a pre-existing desire to make him appear guilty.

I don't know whether these particular claims about suppression of fact are true or not' but I can say something about suppression of facts in general. ONE CAN PROMOTE A FALSEHOOD WITHOUT EVER LITERALLY TELLING A FALSEHOOD NAMELY, BY TELLING HALF-TRUTHS AND THE MOTIVE FOR SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE IS THE SAME AS FOR TELLING OUTRIGHT FALSEHOODS: DECEIVING OTHERS. So if the investigators in the Morin case were to defend themselves by saying "Hey, we never actually lied", I hope no one would be taken in by it.
Unfortunately, large amounts of similar distortion of the truth are gotten away with, and there are often tragic consequences. That brings us to the reason for holding this forum. It is an attempt to raise public consciousness to one massive contemprorary distortion of the truth, and to the thousands of Guy Paul Morins who are its victims.
Let me illustrate the problem concretely by reading some brief passages. It's from a preliminary report of a few years back, by the Family Violence Committee, of a mayor's taskforce on safer cities, opening paragraph: "Family violence encompasses violence against women and children, perpetrated by men". Then throughout the report it's the same story; only men are mentioned as abusive in the family, even toward children.

This from a recent newspaper report in the same vein, indicating that nothing has changed in the interim: "men who abuse their spouses and children will be more likely to seek help under the plan to coordinate city agencies...." and again, the entire article reads as if there were not enough family violence by women to mention, even in the case of the battering of children.

THIS IS SIMPLY INCREDIBLE. About half the battering and killing of children is done by women. There is no dearth of statistics on this. The women who are doing this need help and deterrence, but the message that they are getting is that they don't have a problem. The message others are getting is that they don't have a problem, women are only victims, never victimizers. IT'S AS IF THOSE WHO WRITE SUCH THINGS AS JUST QUOTED WERE WILLING TO SACRIFICE HALF OF THE CHILD VICTIMS ON THE ALTAR OF SEXIST IDEOLOGY.

Now here's a shocking fact: the two items I have just cited are completely typical. The same distortion is committed day in and day out, in news articles, commission reports, literature by churches and volunteer organisations, police pamphlets, bulletins from government ministers, and so on. Even research reports by social scientists often suppress or fail to gather half of the evidence on this subject as Professor Strauss pointed out last night. IT WOULD BE SHOCKING IF SUCH A SERIOUS DISTORTION WOULD OCCUR EVEN ONCE, THAT IT IS COMMITTED HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS OF TIMES A YEAR, YEAR AFTER YEAR, IS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE. ONLY A VERY POWERFUL SET OF INFLUENCES COULD PRODUCE SUCH A MASSIVE DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH.

Just what those influences are is a large topic for another general ones can be mentioned. There is the psychological power of tradition in this case, the tradition of sexist chivalry that says that men are nasty and women pure. There is the power of preconception, especially ideology, to distort the perception of facts in this case, contemporary feminist ideology. There is the strong human tendency toward black and white thinking, ignoring all the statistical gradations in between. And there are sweeping stereotypes: "Men are like this, women are like that." Then there is the herd like behavviour so common among human beings. BUT MOST OF ALL, THERE IS THE SAD FACT THAT NOBLE CAUSES, ARE OFTEN USED AS A COVER FOR WRONGDOING. Because if you oppose the wrongdoing, you will be accused of opposing the good cause itself. You'll be accused of backlash, intimidation by the fear of being thus accused, I submit, is a major reason for the grotesque distortions of the truth we have been seeing.

Though all theses influences can be very powerful, they can be challenged. That is why this forum has been organised: to promote a more balanced view of family violence, by revealing how seriously the facts being given to the public have been distorted. That will not be easy to do however: the very influences that have caused the problem in the first place will continue to operate.

For example: in an earlier forum with Senator Cools in Edmonton, the organizers were accused in the local paper of simply being picky about statistics, of fostering a debate about "who is worse, men or women". That is simply insane. If there were merely more emphasis out there on male violence in the family, we would never dream of spending our valuable time and resources on an event like this one today. What we are trying to do is to create recognition that there is an appreciable amount of family violence and abuse by women and that there are many male victims.
Because of the tendencies towards black and white thinking, even some very legitimate concerns can be carried to extremes. Let us consider a few of those legitimate concerns. "But a major reason why there is so much child battering by women", it is pointed out, "is that women spend much more time with the children". That is perfectly true.

Now, we mustn't read too much into this "time at risk" explanation. A major reason for Male Violence against children is precisely spending too little time with them to bond properly. But experiencing so much of the frustration of child-rearing surely is a major source of abuse by mothers. That fact, however, is not the only one that matters here.
The majority of parents spend a lifetime with their children without being seriously violent towards them: those that do become violent whatever the reason, maybe need help and deterrence. But they will not receive that help and deterrence if it is not politically correct even to acknowledge their violence in the first place.

Here's another legitimate concern that is carried to an extreme: the fact that in general outside the family, males are more physically violent that females. For both biological and cultural reasons, this is true. On average, men have greater muscular strength and energy, for example; and, those with a greater capability to be violent, statistically, will be more violent. (There are also other reasons for this gender difference regarding violence. Though it would be valuable to discuss them, other matters are closer at hand).

Now, the average gender difference regarding muscular strength is not relevant in the case of violence done to small children, women can do it equally well. Even regarding the abuse of older children, and the abuse of spouses, however, there is no justification for the massively one-sided publicity the subject always receives. Let me note the reasons. FOR ONE THING, VIOLENCE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DIRECT. THERE ARE MANY WAYS OF GETTING OTHERS TO COMMIT VIOLENCE FOR YOU. In recent years, one particular form of indirect violence, namely, the making of wrongful accusations has been a veritable epidemic. That is why, in this forum on violence and abuse, a session has been scheduled specifically on the subject of wrongful accusation in family conflicts. Especially during divorce, THIS CAN BE A VERY POWERFUL WEAPON, IN ITS MOST VICIOUS FORM IT USES CHILDREN AS WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION. It is every bit as serious as the form of abuse that are endlessly discussed in the literature that I have mentioned. And yet it has not been recognised in the publicity as a form of domestic violence and abuse. That must change.

Notice well, now: to suggest that women commit this indirect form of violence more often is not to denigrate women, any more than to admit that men are directly violent more often, is to denigrate men. It is merely to admit that any human being who wants to harm another is apt to use the means that are available. Parenthetically, the same goes for acts to help other people. About 90% of the physically heroic acts in society are also performed by men but women would perform them just as much if they were equally able.

The next point is related to the last. NOT ONLY DOES SERIOUS HARM TO ANOTHER PERSON, NOT HAVE TO BE DIRECT, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PHYSICAL. AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WAYS TO HARM OTHERS, WOMEN ARE AS CAPABLE AS MEN. NOT ONLY ARE THEY EQUALLY CAPABLE, BUT LARGE AMOUNTS OF SURVEY DATA INDICATE THAT THEY COMMIT VERBAL ABUSE EQUALLY OFTEN.

This brings us back again to the massive literature on abuse in the family. Even when discussing verbal abuse, the literature still talks as if only men commit it and only women suffer it, (a certain defeated Liberal leader in Ontario believes that). AS I HAVE NOTED EARLIER IN REGARD TO CHILD BATTERING: IF THIS GROSS DISTORTION WERE COMMITTED ONLY ONCE IT WOULD BE SHOCKING; THAT IT IS BEING COMMITTED OVER AGAIN, DAY IN AND DAY OUT, IS BEYOND BELIEF. ALSO AGAIN, SUCH A GROTESQUE DISTORTION COULD ONLY HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF VERY POWERFUL SOCIETAL INFLUENCES.

Though there is much to be said on the subject of psychological abuse, for the present purposes, two special kinds are singularly important.

First there is wrongful accusation again.
Even when it does not involve physical force exercised through the power of the state, which it often does, it still can inflict massive emotional pain and harm.
Second, attempts to obstruct or poison relationships between children and those who love them is another vicious form of emotional violence.

That is why a special session of this public forum, on family has been slated to discuss it. Attempts to keep a child away from a parent or even to poison the child's mind against that parent, also occurs especially in divorce cases. Only in a small number of them, but in numbers affecting thousands upon thousands of parents and children.
This last form of family abuse is also rarely mentioned in the family violence literature. And even when it is mentioned, the pretense once again is that only men do it. Given the pervasive biases in society against men as parents, however it is overwhelmingly women who have the power to commit child-access denial and parental alienation. A parallel here may be instructive. Just as men's traditionally much greater economic power has left wives more vulnerable to abuse in the family, WOMEN'S GREATER POWER IN REGARD TO CONTROL OF THE CHILDREN HAS LEFT MEN MUCH MORE VULNERABLE TO THIS KIND OF ABUSE IN DIVORCE. SOONER OR LATER, UNBALANCED POWER WILL BE ABUSED.

Now for one more legitimate concern that has been carried extreme: that involving direct physical abuse of a spouse. In serious cases of physical violence in the family, women are certainly the ones most often harmed, by far. No one speaking from this podium would minimise the serious societal problem of battered wives. Once again, however, it is precisely because the problem is so serious that it can be employed in manipulative ways, from which others are afraid to dissent. MOREOVER, EVEN IN REGARD TO THIS CASE THE STANDARD LITERATURE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS VERY MUCH IN THE WRONG FOR PRETENDING THAT ONLY MEN COMMIT IT AND ONLY WOMEN SUFFER IT.

Perhaps an analogy will help clarify why this is so. It is not uncommon for the extreme right wing in U.S. Politics to point out that blacks commit crimes against whites far more often than whites commit crimes against blacks. (In the case of murder, the ratio is 9 to 1:in the case of rape it is higher than that). Would these statistical figures justify constantly talking as if the only interracial violence were by blacks against whites? Would it justify, for example, government literature with titles like "The War against Whites"? I hope you recoil in horror at the thought. It was not so long ago in the U.S. that a white woman's accusation against a black man was a virtual death warrant. The same principles apply even in less serious cases, like the one at hand. One of these principles is, that of not turning a statistical difference into a sweeping black and white stereotype. An individual male who has been brutally harmed by his wife needs help and deserves sympathy, every bit as much as a woman does. Yet the black and white thinking plainly says that male victims need not apply.

IT IS VERY REVEALING AND VERY TROUBLING THAT MANY OF THE SAME PEOPLE WHO TREAT SPOUSE ABUSE AS AN ALL AND NOTHING SITUATION INSIST ON STRICT GENDER NEUTRALITY IN DESCRIBING CASES WHERE MEN ARE OVERWHELMINGLY THE VICTIMS. On Remembrance Day lately, one hears mostly of "the men and women who gave their lives in war for Canada".

So notice well! I am not suggesting that equal emphasis be put on male and female victims of physical violence toward a spouse. If it is the wife who is harmed in, say, six or eight times as many cases of serious physical violence, that is how much difference in emphasis there should be on the two types of victims.
Notice a second point equally well, however. The plight of the victim is only half of what is significant in a case of abuse; the other half is the reprehensible behaviour of the offender. In discussing this half of the issue, JUSTICE WOULD DEMAND THAT THE EMPHASIS BE RATHER EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE SEXES IN THE CASE OF DIRECT PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. I have already hinted at the reason. There is no moral virtue in lacking the ability to do as much harm as someone else. Moral virtue and vice reside in how willing one is to harm others, not in how able one is to do it. So when we're looking at who is repsonsible for violence, rather than at who suffers from it, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNISE THAT MEN AND WOMEN INTIATE SPOUSAL VIOLENCE ABOUT EQUALLY OFTEN, AND THAT PERHAPS HALF OF SPOUSAL VIOLENCE IS MUTUAL FIGHTING.

Of course, even when discussing the offender rather than the victim, only one sex is mentioned in the standard literature. THE MESSAGE IS THAT OF HALF-TRUTH IS PLAIN: ONLY MEN ARE EVIL ENOUGH TO ATTACK A PARTNER; WOMEN ARE ALWAYS JUST INNOCENT VICTIMS. THAT MESSAGE IS TERRIBLY, TERRIBLY FALSE.

In the same vein, it is important to notice how little of the family-violence literature mentions children. In my local newspaper, generic articles on violence again children are outnumbered by fifty or a hundred to one by those on violence against women. Much of the same is true of the other family violence literature. Where is the House of Commons document titled "The War against Children"? (Senator A. Cools speaks "That is coming") Then child victims are mentioned, they are usually tagged on after women. Why is this? Is it perhaps that children are less vulnerable than women. Certainly not. Are there perhaps fewer child victims of battering than women victims? Certainly not. Given all the other biases in the standard literature, I'm afraid I have a pretty good clue to the reason: the longer you discuss child victims, the harder it is to evade the fact that women commit about half of the serious violence against children.

IN ANY CASE, LUMPING "WOMEN AND CHILDREN" TOGETHER AS THE VICTIM CLASS ONCE AGAIN SENDS THE CLEAR MESSAGE THAT WOMEN ARE NEVER VIOLENT - EVEN TOWARD CHILDREN.

One final point may be made regarding direct physical spousal abuse. It involves a singularly important example of half-truth and distortion. Surveys find that in the large majority of cases of spousal violence, the victim is not appreciably harmed. (As you might expect). This is true for both male and female victims. So when we consider all acts of aggression between spouses - not just those where serious harm is done -the typical male victim and the typical female victim are equally harmed - that is to say, again, not harmed. And yet even when reporting on this general case, THE STANDARD LITERATURE PRETENDS THAT WOMEN ARE VICTIMS AND MEN ARE NOT. EVEN WHEN MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL AS OFFENDERS AND EQUAL AS VICTIMS, WE GET THE TOTALLY SAME ONE-SIDED STORY.
IN ORDER TO GET AWAY WITH ALL THIS DISTORTION, ONCE MORE, THOSE WHO PRODUCE THE LITERATURE MUST SUPPRESS HALF OF THE EVIDENCE. Now, some who write this material are simply decieved themselves. The distortion is so widespread that many simply do not know the truth. But many others do know the difference. As a philosopher of science, I AM SHOCKED AT THE BEHAVIOUR OF MANY SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND JOURNALISTS IN THIS REGARD, - though that is another long story for another time. Here is the only explanation I can think of: numbers are high, men and women are about equally victims and equally victimizers. THEY WANT TO PROMOTE THE IDEA OF A WAR AGAINST WOMEN BY MEN. But if they use the statistics covering all degrees of spousal violence, where the numbers are high, men and women are equally victims and equally victimizers. On the other hand, if they use only the statistics for really serious cases, in which women are the victims much more often, the numbers are very low. The solution? Use the high numbers, but evade half of the evidence either by hiding the data you have gathered, or by not gathering that half of the data in the first place. Hence my comparison to the Guy Paul Morin case. The same kind of gross dishonesty engaged in there on an individual level is committed in the publicity on family violence, but on the massive level of group stereotyping.
The Consequences
Gross dishonesty cannot but create gross injustice. If the truth in the Guy Paul Morin case had not come out, he would be rotting in jail for a crime he did not commit. AND GROSS DISHONESTY ABOUT ENTIRE CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE CANNOT BUT CREATE MASSIVE INJUSTICE. If Canadians know anything about this subject, they know that the case of Donald Marshall was not unique. The attitude "you belong to the guilty group, therefore you are guilty" is one of the greatest sources of injustice in this society. THE REASON I AM HERE TODAY IS THAT THE LIE CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEN AS A GROUP IS CURRENTLY A MASSIVE SOURCE OF SERIOUS INJUSTICE IN CANADA.

Since the stereotype says that only men do evil things, whenever a woman accuses a man, he is presumed guilty, unless he proves himself innocent. Whenever it is her word against his word, he must be the one who is lying. Even those not personally taken in by the stereotype can still be intimidated by it, as already noted.
EVERY JUDGE ADJUDICATING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN KNOWS THAT IF THE DECISION GOES AGAINST THE WOMAN, THERE MAY BE SCREAMS IN THE PRESS AND ON THE STREETS; IF THE DECISION GOES AGAINST THE MAN, ALL WILL BE SERENE. THE SAME PRESSURE, IN DIFFERENT FORMS, IS ON POLICE, SOCIAL WORKERS AND AUTHORITIES AT EVERY LEVEL.

A lot of men in this room have experienced this travesty of justice first hand. I have personal knowledge of scores of such injustices involving the wrongful accusations attended to earlier. IN FACT, THE STEROTYPE THAT ONLY MEN DO EVIL THINGS IN THE FAMILY IS A VIRTUAL INVITATION TO WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS BY WOMEN IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS WELL AS A POWERFUL SOURCE OF PRESSURE TO BELIEVE WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS WHEN IT OCCURS.

In the instance of those who don't care about pain as long as it's male pain, let me point out that it is inevitably shared by females in their lives. Those who wished me Godspeed in coming to this forum in Toronto were 3 women whose grandchildren's lives had been smashed by the stereotypes. They had been smashed because these women's sons were helpless to protect their children against abusive mothers. They were helpless because police and social workers and judges refused to believe a woman could be the guilty one, in spite of clear and powerful evidence, until after it was too late.

A woman that I cannot name wrote to me " my son committed suicide in 1992 after being run over by a car driven by his spouse. He was charged, not her, and taken to a jail rather than the hospital for examination and treatment". After years of abuse from his spouse he told me he would kill himself rather than go to jail for what she did". We need to gather and document these personal horror stories, and let the public and the Government of Canada know the horror that is happening, by the denial and suppression of the facts, and of the serious social problem that has been created.

This File Courtesy ofRational Anarchist BBS(905) 646-8229ClasLibNet 350:2/100

Created: Monday, February 12, 1996, 18:05 Last Updated: Monday, February 14, 1998, 18:05 Return to the Rational Anarchist Men's Issues Page

http://www.rational.ca/rational/anarchist/ferrel.htm

Christmas card and a copper to counter domestic violence

2004-12-14T22:30:00.000+13:00

Manukau homes with a history of domestic violence will receive a Christmas card and a visit from police in a bid to prevent abuse during the festive season.
Operation Merry Family Christmas will target up to 125 households throughout Otara, Otahuhu, Mangere, Papatoetoe, Howick and Pakuranga that police have been called to in the past year.
Police say analysis of priority one jobs in Counties Manukau’s east and western areas reveals almost half the workload is attributed to domestic violence.
Western area Senior Sergeant Cornelius Kluessein and Eastern Senior Sergeant Lynne Mathieson say the first phase of the operation will involve a bulk mailout to the identified families.
“The letter will tell them that we care they have been repeat victims. We want them to know we’ll be keeping a close watch to make sure the entire household has a great Christmas without the threat of domestic violence spoiling the season, especially for the kids,” says Mr Kluessein.

Holiday pressures raise violence risk

2004-12-14T22:26:00.000+13:00

As investigations continue into three separate homicides, anti-violence groups are warning people to be more careful around the holiday period.
The National Network for Stopping Violence Services says the holiday period is a difficult time and people should ask for help if they need it.
Network manager Brian Gardner says there are steps which can be taken to reduce the risks of domestic violence.
He says people should think about budgeting and preparing for situations where there are family pressures and alcohol.
Mr Gardner says the next three months are a dangerous time for some couples as holiday pressures are sometimes like throwing a log on the fire.

At-risk youth suicide rate halved

2004-12-14T22:14:00.000+13:00

Children involved with Child, Youth and Family (CYF) are 15 times more likely to commit suicide than other New Zealand children, according to studies.
Between 1994 and 1999 almost half of the 129 children under the age of 17 who killed themselves were in contact with CYF. But the new programme changed all that.
Towards Well-Being, launched in 2002 with the Wellington School of Medicine, has reduced the number of suicides among CYF youths from 15 in the two years before the programme started, to just six in the two years since it began.
And while the number of admissions to hospital for “deliberate self-harm” has increased by 25 per cent for non-CYF young people since 2002, it has stayed the same among CYF young people.
CYF chief social worker Craig Smith said the results are encouraging.

Redressing The Balance: The Men's Manifesto

2004-12-14T21:57:00.000+13:00

Tuesday, 14 December 2004, 9:56 am
Press Release: Men's Coalition

Redressing The Balance: The Men's Manifesto

The social landscape of New Zealand will be need to be changed dramatically if men are to have a “fair go” in New Zealand society, according to James Nicolle, Coordinator of the Men's Coalition.
Mr. Nicolle was commenting on the release today of the Executive Summary of the MENZTABLE REPORT; a manifesto for men's rights.
"Men in New Zealand are increasingly marginalised and persecuted by powerful trends in the socio-political agenda", he said.
”Men have reached this conclusion because of the raw deal we are getting in the Family Court, the Child Support system, social development, health and education.”
“Our political and social systems have progressively devalued the place of men in New Zealand today.”
“It is time for Men to reassert what is valuable to us and reclaim our right to be men,” he said.
The MENZTABLE REPORT has come from a meeting of representatives of men's organisations held at Taupo in July.
The product of this meeting, the Men's Coalition of New Zealand, is coordinating the preparation and release of the Report.
Mr. Nicolle said the body of the Report would be released in sections during 2005 to highlight men's concerns throughout the election year.
“We see this as a seminal document which provides the vision and agenda of real men seeking to redress the balance and even out the scales.” Concluded Nicolle.

Call for Women’s Refuge Enquiry

2004-11-27T17:33:00.000+13:00

Women’s Refuge, thirty years established in New Zealand, is widely assumed to be universally respected, and to be the only such agency offering help, counselling and accommodation to victims of family violence. In N.Z. it holds an annual Appeal Week every June, complete with much innovative, and even at times highly questionable, media coverage and celebrity support.
Yet all is far from being what it seems with Women’s Refuge, and many have had deep concerns about its operation and huge amounts of public funding, and even long before this most recent call to have it greatly boosted.
Read this recent article by Barbara Faithfull: Public Enquiry Overdue: Let’s Start With Women’s Refuge

1 in 3 women beaten by partner

2004-11-27T17:32:00.000+13:00

One in three women will face violence from their partners in their lifetime, and the experience will cause long-term health problems, a study has found.
The University of Auckland study suggests New Zealand has a higher domestic violence rate than the United States of America or Australia.
A second study, by Auckland University of Technology (AUT) researchers, published yesterday found that 44 per cent of women interviewed at an Auckland emergency ward had suffered partner violence in their lives, and one in five had been victims of partner violence in the past year. The statistics have prompted fresh pleas for early intervention by doctors.
The first study involved 2855 women aged 18 to 64 in Auckland and Waikato. It found 15 per cent of women had suffered physical abuse from someone they are not in a relationship with, while 10 per cent will face sexual violence from a man they are not involved with.
“We teach women to fear walking into dark alleys and (violence) by strangers, but the biggest risk for women is violence from their partners,” said researcher Dr Janet Fanslow.
“These are very worrying statistics. As men we should be ashamed,” said Brian Gardner, national manager of the National Network of Stopping Violence Services.
“As a man in New Zealand I feel sad and ashamed that so many men are beating, abusing and killing their partners. That’s not how to support and care for those close to us.”
Christchurch Women’s Refuge manager Annette Gillespie said … it was important to remember that physical abuse also included things such as pinching, restraining, pulling and flicking. “And these will be surrounded by a whole lot of other abusive tactics.”

Study confirms family violence is common in New Zealand

2004-11-27T17:28:00.000+13:00

National News Release 9:01am 26 November 2004
Police have welcomed the findings of Auckland University’s research ‘Violence against women in New Zealand: prevalence and health consequences, says Inspector Rob Veale, Violence Reduction Manager.
“The report concludes violence is a common experience in the lives of women, and women are more at risk of experiencing violence from their partners than from other perpetrators,” he says.
Mr Veale said the report released today highlights concerns not just for police but for all communities in New Zealand.
“The first step in reducing violence in homes begins with a change of mind. Domestic violence survives when there is silence – when people believe that it’s private and personal, that it’s not their business.”
Mr Veale says police have always been on the front line when it comes to dealing with family violence. Police have a pro-arrest approach to family violence whenever they find evidence of an offence. “We are continuing to improve our understanding and response to family violence. Police have a number of initiatives in place, including training and improved methods of gathering evidence and identifying risk indicators, which helps Police assess the safety of people who may have been affected by the violence they may have experienced or witnessed.
“Police are committed to reducing family violence and we need the community alongside us to make it happen,” says Mr Veale.
Ends

Domestic abuse study ‘misleading’

2004-11-27T17:26:00.000+13:00

A study which found that one third of women are physically or sexually abused by their partners is part of a misleading campaign, a men’s umbrella group representative says.
“The ongoing campaign seems to deny the existence of domestic violence of women against men,” Christchurch Men and Fathers’ Network facilitator, Don Rowlands, said.
University of Canterbury associate sociology professor Greg Newbold said the report should have also addressed violence against male partners.
“It’s not enough to say, yes, he assaulted me. Reports from New Zealand show that women commit low-level assaults more frequently.”
Profile given to domestic violence by the study could be dangerous. “Especially like this when men are not included. It gives rise to uninformed opinions.”
Spokeswoman for the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, Janet Lake, did not accept that domestic violence against men was as serious as that for women.
Bryce Hawkins, of support and personal development group MensTrust, said that anecdotally he was aware of a high incidence of women abusing men in Christchurch.
“A lot of this research comes out as if men are the big monsters.”
Auckland University senior lecturer in general practice and primary health care, Dr Felicity Goodyear (sic; should be Goodyear-Smith), said doctors should keep in mind that male patients might be victims of domestic abuse. “It can have a huge psychological effect on male patients.”
Women’s Refuge spokeswoman Cheryl Hann says the study proves what they already suspected.
Ms Hann says it is sad the statistics have been confirmed but it is a good wake-up call.

2004-11-20T16:08:00.003+13:00

Pacific Island women and domestic violence

Intimate Partner Violence within a cohort of Pacific mothers living in New Zealand

Reducing violence by Pacific peoples has been identified by Pacific communities and government agencies as an important issue. However, there is little research into the nature of intimate partner relationships among Pacific families living in New Zealand.

This study reports the 12-month estimated prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) experienced by a cohort of Pacific mothers living in New Zealand. The Conflict Tactics Scale was completed by 1,095 women who had given birth in the past 12 months, and who were married or living with a partner as married.

The 12-month prevalence of “victimization” through verbal aggression was 77%, 21% for “minor” physical violence, and 11% for “severe” physical violence.

The 12-month prevalence of “perpetration” of verbal aggression against a partner was 90%, 35% for “minor” physical violence, and 19% for “severe” violence towards their partner.

Family court judges won't edit media reports - top judge

2004-11-12T13:20:00.000+13:00

11 November 2004

Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier has moved to allay fears held by journalists that his judges will misuse their power to vet media stories.

Last month the Government announced that Family Court proceedings would be opened to the public and media with tight restrictions in place.
One proposed restriction strongly opposed by journalists was the power for judges to demand to see stories before publication.

Commonwealth Press Union (CPU) New Zealand chairman Gavin Ellis said "the suggestion that journalists should give up their copy to judges for vetting is totally unacceptable.
"It casts judges in the role of editor. That is unacceptable, it is a form of censorship."

Judge Boshier has written to Mr Ellis over those concerns.
"There has been a view expressed by media that judges are to be given the power to vet or censor journalists' copy in reporting on Family Court proceedings," he wrote.

"This is a misapprehension of what is proposed."
Judge Boshier said it was proposed that journalists would be able to report proceedings as of right, subject to the exclusion of details identifying parties or children.
It was also proposed that in some circumstances the media could apply for leave to publish some of those details.

That was likely to occur in cases in which the identity of the parties would be of significant public interest, he said.

"However, it is also likely that when children are involved the court will make orders protecting their privacy," he said.

"In those circumstances the judge would want to be able to ascertain that the orders have been complied with before publication - and for no other reason.
"This is to ensure that the children's rights have been protected - if such details are published then privacy is lost and cannot be regained.

"It may also assist the media in avoiding a contempt through breaching the orders."
"I do not see the proposed legislation as an attempt to muzzle the media or prevent them from doing their job," Judge Boshier said.

"The judges want no say in the content of media reports but only the opportunity to ascertain that any orders made with regard to non-publication of certain details are complied with."
The Government said the changes were designed to improve transparency without compromising proceedings.

Media and others could attend hearings with the judge's permission, while involved parties could ask for outsiders to be excluded.
Judges could direct that draft news reports be submitted to the court to check they complied with court directions.

Any breach of those directions would mean individuals were liable of three months' imprisonment or a $2000 fine and organisations up to $10,000 in fines.
Associate Justice Minister David Benson-Pope said broader publication would give a clearer picture of the court, but "strict guidelines" would be put in place.

Father on run for days with daughter

2004-11-06T14:54:00.000+13:00

Father on run for days with daughter
06.11.2004
By LOUISA CLEAVE

Lapana Seve had been on the run with his 4-year-old daughter for three days before she was found murdered in the back seat of his car beside Auckland's Northwestern Motorway.
Mr Seve, 45, picked up daughter Storm Apera-Seve from his estranged wife's Grey Lynn home on Friday and was supposed to take her back on Sunday night.
Storm was due at pre-school on Monday morning and her mother desperately tried to contact Mr Seve.
She went several times to his home and left notes for him.
The little girl was found dead in the back seat of her father's car on Wednesday afternoon.
Mr Seve abandoned the car and died when he stepped in front of a truck in heavy rush-hour traffic on the Northwestern.
Police are treating Storm's death as a homicide, but are not looking for anyone else in connection with the killing.
It emerged yesterday that Mr Seve had not returned Storm after weekend visits on other occasions.
Mr Seve had weekend custody of his daughter, but is believed to have wanted full custody.
"He's been quite wrapped up in his daughter, quite obsessed with his daughter ... wanting her with him all the time," said Detective Sergeant Megan Goldie.
Storm's mother did not contact police when he failed to return the preschooler.
"She did not have concerns for the child's welfare, as such," said Ms Goldie, "more that she wanted her back. She was supposed to be at pre-school on Monday."
John McKeown, a friend of Mr Seve for 15 years, said Storm's parents split about a year ago and a problem had developed over custody.
"I gather he wanted to look after her and his parents were talking about helping him look after her," he said.
Police have examined an area of the Avondale Racecourse where Mr Seve and Storm are thought to have slept rough in his car.
Ms Goldie said Mr Seve was seen there on Wednesday and in the days before his death on the motorway.
Storm was seen with him earlier in the week, but was not seen on Wednesday, said Ms Goldie.
Tests are being carried out on patches in the parking area which may be blood stains.
Police cannot yet say when Storm died and have not revealed the cause of death, although it is understood she had stab wounds.
A forensic examination of Mr Seve's vehicle has been completed.
Ms Goldie said police were not looking for a weapon. "We think we have what we need in the car."
Members of the Richmond Rovers Rugby League Club last night gathered in Grey Lynn to remember Mr Seve, a coach, referee and player they knew by the nickname "Squash".
Friends said Mr Seve was devastated by the death of his close friend Afi Ah Kuoi from cancer last May.
Mr Ah Kuoi died two years after losing his wife, and Mr Seve was close to the couple.
"He was very close with the family, then when this custody thing came up, maybe it was the final straw for him and he just cracked," Mr McKeown said.
George Apelu-Tumaseve, who had known Mr Seve for 30 years, told 3News last night that any custody battle "would have tipped him over the edge, if it happened that he'd lost custody of Storm, knowing how close he was to Storm ... She was the apple of his eye".

Fathers must ask for help

2004-11-06T14:10:00.000+13:00

A plea for fathers to ask for help.

The call comes as police investigate an apparent murder-suicide in Auckland.
Forty-five-year-old Lapana Seve died after being hit by a truck on the northwestern motorway on Wednesday afternoon.
His four-year-old daughter Storm Apera-Seve was found dead in his car.
Union of Fathers national president Jim Bagnall says fathers need to know there is help out there.
He says they should not vent their frustrations with the system by taking drastic action.
Jim Bagnall believes the system is skewed towards mothers, but says the Union of Fathers can offer support and advice.

Govt slammed for refusing DNA paternity tests

2004-11-06T13:58:00.000+13:00

Friday, 5 November 2004, 5:10 pmPress Release:
United Future NZ Party
5 November 2004

United Future MP Gordon Copeland today expressed his frustration and disappointment at the government’s steadfast refusal to use DNA-testing to prove paternity.
During debate in Parliament on the Care of Children Bill, Mr Copeland outlined a real-life case to the House.
“A young couple became the proud parents of a beautiful baby girl. Not only the mother and the father but also the maternal and paternal grandparents bonded with the child. She became the apple of their eye.
“However the story did not have a happy ending. A couple of years later, for whatever reason, the mother showed the father the door and wanted nothing more to do with him.
“The distraught father, wanting to maintain long-term contact with his daughter, sought access rights. The mother blocked this by suddenly, for the first time, claiming that he was not the little girl’s dad .
“This came as a huge shock, both to the father himself and to the paternal grandparents. They were grief-stricken at being cut off from all further contact with the child.
“More than three years later and in spite of a string of lawyers, the paternity or otherwise of the young man concerned has not been established because a DNA test involving the little girl can only be done with the consent of her mother.
- 1 -“This is an unmitigated tragedy for the grieving father and the grandparents and even more so, in time, for the child who may never get to find out who her real father actually is.
“Yet none of this need happen. A simple Family Court-ordered DNA test would establish paternity once and for all.
“We have a clear-cut means of establishing the truth in these kind of situations, but the government refuses steadfastly with incomprehensible reasons to go there. In doing so they fail the families of New Zealand.
“We have more than 19,000 birth certificates involving more than 30,000 children where the father’s name is not recorded and yet we have a scientific means at hand to clearly establish paternity.
“The particular instance I am describing represents the tip of an enormous iceberg, a systemic problem which becomes bigger by the day.
“Since I entered Parliament in 2002, together with my colleagues in United Future, we have consistently urged the government to follow the science so that truth replaces confusion, suspicion, dishonesty and the financial impropriety which flows from the current system, but the government continues to stonewall.
“It’s just not good enough,” said Mr Copeland.

Govt misses chance to help children of divorce

2004-11-06T13:51:00.000+13:00

Press Release: United Future NZ Party
Friday, 5 November, 2004

Turner: Govt misses chance to help children of divorce

The Government has missed a huge opportunity to help children whose parents are divorcing by failing to take note of innovative mediation approaches overseas, most notably recent Australian reforms, United Future's Judy Turner said today.
"They have also failed to consider Law Society recommendations on mediation and the startling results of a North Shore Family Court pilot scheme, where parents in custody disputes have to attend two parent education sessions before getting to court.
Mrs Turner, who has sponsored a Member's Bill backing just such a scheme, was critical of the Government's failure in debate on the Care of Children Bill in Parliament this morning.
"Four hours is not a lot for parents to give to focus on the impact on their children at a time when they often get so wrapped up in what is happening to themselves.
"It is about letting them know what their children face in the middle of a family storm. Sometimes that gets lost, even for otherwise good and well-meaning parents."
Mrs Turner, United Future's family affairs spokeswoman, said she believed that most parents would see this move as positive. Some 97 percent of those who have been through the North Shore Children in the Middle pilot scheme have since stated that it should be mandatory.
"In the end, parents love their kids and a few hours of mediation and education can make a huge difference," she said.
"The fact is that by the time a couple are standing before a Family Court judge, their children have already been damaged and they have proved that can't negotiate a healthy resolution.
"Anything that helps short-circuit this by encouraging sensible, non-legal alternatives can only benefit both parents and children," she said.

Moment Of Truth For Shared-Parenting

2004-11-06T13:48:00.000+13:00

Press Release: ACT New Zealand
Moment Of Truth For Shared-Parenting
Friday 5 Nov 2004
Dr Muriel Newman - Press Releases - Social Welfare

ACT New Zealand Deputy Leader and Social Welfare Spokesman Dr Muriel Newman today accused Labour, United Future, New Zealand First and the Greens of giving Kiwi fathers false hope about their support for Shared-Parenting.
"Last night, Parliament had an opportunity to change the law, to help fathers, grandparents and children throughout New Zealand who have disadvantaged by our Family Law system - but these Parties threw it away," Dr Newman said.
"I urged the House to support my amendments to introduce Shared-Parenting as a rebuttable presumption into the Care of Children Bill. My amendment introduced two shared parenting concepts:
· `shared parenting means joint day-to-day care of a child, arranged in such a way that the best interests of the child is paramount, but that the starting point is the equality of parental responsibility and rights'
· `rebuttable shared parenting as a default position for the starting point of day-to-day care determinations is based on the principle that just as two parents are equal in their parenting responsibilities and rights before a relationship breakdown, so too they should be regarded as equal afterwards, unless it can be proved that one of the parents in unfit'.
"Sadly, New Zealand First, the Greens, United Future and Labour voted the amendments down. In fact, the only other Party to support Shared-Parenting was National.
"New Zealanders who believe that Shared-Parenting should be introduced as a core principle of Family Law should realise that Shared-Parenting will only become a reality when ACT and National are in Government.
"All hope of persuading other Parties to stand up for the rights of fathers and children, by supporting Shared-Parenting, has been shown to be false," Dr Newman said.

2004-11-05T17:46:00.000+13:00

Bad Parenting

New option for custody possible

2004-10-31T17:24:00.000+13:00

A pilot programme for parents involved in custody disputes is being launched, to allow families to appear before a mediator, rather than a judge.

The $1.5m trial will take place on Auckland's North Shore from February, for parents involved in custody, access and guardianship cases.

The Minister for Courts, Rick Barker, says at the moment parents who can't agree on custody arrangements have to appear before a Family Court judge. He says under the new system, parents will see a mediator, who will make a recommendation to the court on custody arrangements for the children.

Barker says this will speed up the process, and will be a less scary experience for children.

Anger over wife-beater home-detention ruling

2004-10-31T16:56:00.000+13:00

Concerns for the safety of a woman and her children were raised last night after a Christchurch judge allowed a convicted wife-beater to apply for home detention.

Eru Morete, 22, was sentenced to one year behind bars after being found guilty of assaulting his pregnant girlfriend, but after a ruling on Thursday he could serve part of his sentence at home.

The move has angered domestic violence support groups who say judges and parole boards will have blood on their hands if home detention prisoners reoffend.

The man is alleged to have knocked the 36-week pregnant woman to the ground and threatened her with a knife, causing her to go into premature labour.

He then refused to telephone for an ambulance, although she screamed for help.

Brian Gardner, the national manager of the National Network of Stopping Violence Services, said the man should never have been allowed to apply for home detention.

"If he gets home detention his partner will effectively be his jailer," he said.

"Courts are abdicating their responsibility for care and protection by sending an abusive man back to the house with his victims."

Home detention orders are only served with the consent of the woman involved, but Sheryl Hann, the policy research adviser of the National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges, said victims might agree because they were fearful of retaliation.

"Victims feel tremendous guilt after their partner has been arrested and convicted," she said.

"The reality of the violence fades and they feel hopeful that things will be different but this is not borne by statistics. We know that when there is a serious assault like this there has usually been a history of abuse and it's not likely to change without intense intervention.

"Judges need to realise that domestic violence is a life and death situation and that home detention should never be allowed under any circumstances."

Applications are assessed by parole boards and Hann said campaign groups lobbied the Government this year to ban domestic violence offenders requesting home detention.

Pilot scheme should be more successful

2004-10-31T16:41:00.000+13:00

There are hopes a pilot scheme for resolving child custody issues will be more successful than the current system.

Early next year families on Auckland’s North Shore will be given the option of accepting mediation not led by a judge.

Courts Minister Rick Barker says currently families referred to mediation can wait weeks or even months to be appointed a Family Court judge.

He says this way, properly trained mediators can speed up the process and help families find their own solutions.

Family Court Scheme Could Be Success

2004-10-31T16:32:00.000+13:00

31/10/2004 10:53 AM
NewstalkZB

The Union of Fathers believes a new Family Court pilot scheme will be a huge success, if it is well resourced.

A non judge-led mediation service is being trialled to resolve custody and access issues on Auckland's North Shore.

Union of Fathers spokesman Jim Bagnall says it is critical highly skilled mediators are used, so parents understand what is best for their children.

Mr Bagnall says interest in the pilot is huge because New Zealanders want change in the Family Court.

Woman cries rape for revenge on abuse

2004-10-29T21:20:00.000+13:00

A Rotorua woman lied to police about being raped and kidnapped by her partner to get revenge on him for seriously assaulting her, the Rotorua District Court was told.
The 55-year-old, who has interim name suppression, pleaded guilty to a charge of fabricating evidence and will be sentenced in December.
The woman alleged her partner held her captive at a Rotorua house this year before taking her to a beach where she was assaulted, raped and violated.
The man was committed to trial after a depositions hearing but the woman later signed an affidavit saying the rape and kidnapping allegations were false.

Wipe my tax debts or I'll shoot

2004-10-29T19:21:00.000+13:00

A Westport man who threatened to shoot people unless his tax debt was wiped was jailed for two years when he appeared in the Westport District Court.
Wayne William Anderson, 45, was sentenced to two years in jail for drink-driving, possessing a rifle and ammunition and holding a firearm without a licence.
On July 22, Anderson was phoning Inland Revenue when he threatened to go out and start shooting people within 30 minutes if his debts were not cleared.
Police found Anderson 50 minutes later with a loaded rifle, 72 rounds of ammunition and bottles of spirits in his car.
His lawyer, Doug Taffs, said Anderson's offending followed the tragic death of his son. His stress was exacerbated by the tax department trying to recover child support debt.

Protest at Counsel for Child Workshop

2004-10-29T18:06:00.000+13:00

The New Zealand Law Society’s October 2004 Advanced Counsel for Child Workshop at Waipuna Lodge in Auckland was the target of a Union of Fathers protest last Monday.
Men have long complained that counsels for child often act as a second lawyer for the mother, and typically fail to protect the father/child relationship. Union of Fathers members say that the generous fees paid to lawyers who help remove fathers from families would be better utilised in mediation, conflict resolution and communication courses, and other interventions which aim to allow children continuing contact with both their parents following a relationship break-up.
One reporter from a local paper turned up to cover the protest, but as none of the superheros present were prepared to undertake dramatic or disruptive actions, television reporters were not interested. Fortunately, menz.org.nz has obtained video footage of the event for your entertainment:
Download Counsel for Child protest video here [486KB .wmv]

Traditional Kiwi Male Threatened

2004-10-29T18:03:00.000+13:00

Well away from pig hunting and jugs of beer, in the halls of Waikato University, psychology lecturer Dr Darrin Hodgetts says for the last couple of decades men have been told that there’s something wrong with expressing the sort of manly traits idealised by brewery and ute adverts…
A couple of decades of feminism has negatively influenced the thinking of universities and the public sector towards the traditional Kiwi male, Hodgetts says.
He has published research on women’s health, but has also studied post-feminist theory and says the academic view of masculinity has been skewed too far to the negative.
Women’s studies academics at Auckland University have sensed anti-feminist attitudes in his research topic, and challenged him to a debate. The glint in his eye indicates he’s looking forward to it.
It shouldn’t be sacrilegious to question why there isn’t more male gender research being done, he says, particularly in the field of men’s health.

Worried father can’t find his 15-month-old son

2004-10-29T18:02:00.000+13:00

Wiping away tears, Hamilton man Wayne Pruden talks about how he went to pick up his 15-month old son yesterday and came home without him.
He should have had his 15-month-old son returned to him after a four-week holiday in Vietnam.
But Mr Pruden, 42, has no idea where his son is, though it is believed he is back in Hamilton.
The toddler left a month ago with his Vietnamese mother and was to have returned to New Zealand last week.
The boy’s passport has since been surrendered to Hamilton District Court in accordance with a Family Court ruling and Mr Pruden expected to see his son yesterday as part of a shared custody agreement.
But Mr Pruden – who hid his son in a Hamilton motel in a bid to prevent him from leaving New Zealand last month – waited in vain at the usual meeting place in the city and wonders whether his son is in New Zealand at all.

Are Dads Getting A Fair Go?

2004-10-29T18:01:00.000+13:00

First it was Wayne Pruden who kidnapped his son, now another father has taken the law into his own hands abducting his son, so is the Family Court giving fathers a fair go, or are some Dads out of control?
Streaming video of Holmes interviewing Jim Bagnal from Union of Fathers

Toddler safe after police drama

2004-10-29T17:57:00.000+13:00

A 20-year-old man who allegedly snatched his two-year-old son from his former partner in the Far North yesterday will appear in the Kaikohe District Court today.
Up to 50 police, including the armed offenders squad, were involved in the operation from about 7.30am.
The boy and his mother were the subject of a protection order.
A hunting rifle was in the vehicle but Mr Swann said his understanding was that the firearm was not carried during the alleged abduction.
After the kidnap, the man eventually made his way to Teal Bay where he parked his dark green 1997 Ford Falcon station wagon under a pohutukawa tree at a reserve at the end of the beach, near an estuary.