MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Gender-political corruption accompanies the favouritism, financial and employment corruption recently uncovered in the Immigration Service. On National Radio today Immigration lawyer Ms Olinda Woodroffe exposed a case in which the NZ Immigration Service in Samoa assisted a woman to remove her two young children to NZ without the father’s agreement. (Hear it here or if the link has expired request it from me.) This apparently was based on the woman’s claims of domestic violence for which no evidence existed such as previous police complaints, medical evidence or corroborative accounts. Once in NZ the Immigration Service here assisted the woman in applying for residency for herself and the two children, and obstructed the lawyer’s efforts to obtain information needed to represent the father in legal action to have his children returned.

The Immigration Service joins the many other government departments and indeed most political parties in parliament that operate as extensions of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

In the Auckland High Court last Friday an Auckland father brought an unprecedented question of law before Justice Allan. The questions had been framed by Judge Rogers from the Manukau District Court. The father appeared at Court with several supporters who were permitted to remain after an inquiry by the Crown if this was appropriate.

The questions asked firstly if the father was entitled a departure from child support given that his children had been abducted and secondly whether jurisdiction remained with the Court to hear the application of a stand alone departure Order. Justice Allan explained that the answer should be able to be given in a word or a sentence, yet the debate surrounding the issue was extensive and the questions that had been asked appeared too broad for the answer that would be required. The father had refined the question to inquire if it was not repugnant to justice to remove child support from a liable parent where no-one knew where the children were or even if they were alive. Robust comments from the father on what otherwise looked like money laundering brought spots of humour to the otherwise serious proceedings.

During the proceedings it was clear that the provisions in legislation to protect parents and children from abduction are significantly inadequate. This was made clear when Justice Allan defined that the primary purpose of the Child Support Act was to protect the right of children to be maintained by their parents. This statement of legislative inadequacy to protect this father at that time, or any parent and their children to any state protection or support against the most horrendous emotional trauma saw the first of two of the father’s supporters leave the Court in audible disgust.

Justice Allan to his judicial credit did not excuse the Court from recognition that there was no capacity for the child to be produced if proof should be demanded that they were the beneficiaries of the support. After hearing all of the facts and the submissions of all parties the judge has reserved his decision.

This report has been prepared and released with appropriate anonymity under publication strictures as required.

Benjamin Easton of a fathers coalition

Does anybody know what percentage of protection orders issued are for the protection of men?

Also, of the protection orders issued to women, what percentage is for women without any children?

I suspect that not many women from a childless relationship apply for protection orders. Am I right on this?

I also suspect that it is women who are getting the vast majority of protection orders.

I am still finding the Family Court is very much tilted in favour of the woman. Consider protection orders. In Australia they expire after a year or two depending on type. Here they last forever unless you can persuade a judge to discharge it. I am making my third attempt in 5 years to get mine discharged. I don’t even see my ex or my kids. Whether the lunatics running the Family Court asylum consider this to be sufficient reason for a discharge remains to be seen.

Perhaps the best approach would be to try to get a men’s boycott of the Family Court going. Comments please.

Pastors, Don’t Use Mother’s Day to Bash Dads
By Paul Coughlin, Crosswalk Contributor

A learning season is upon us, and it’s worth our time to heed its teaching.

This lesson is the difference between how we handle Mother’s Day compared with Father’s Day in church. If it’s like in years past, it won’t be pretty.

This Sunday we will extol the value and benefit of motherhood, which is great. But in some churches, this will be done by degrading Christian husbands, which is not great. “Our pastor makes us husbands get on our knees on Mother’s Day and beg for forgiveness. I don’t want to do it again this year,” one reader tells me. Another writes, “Our minister makes husbands write on paper all the things we’ve done wrong. Then we’re suppose to give it to our wives and pledge that we won’t do them any more.”

Most preachers will not be this heavy-handed. They will wait till Father’s Day (Sunday, June 18) to tell men how to be better fathers. Of course there’s nothing wrong with this message when taken as an isolated event. But when compared with Mother’s Day, we’ll discover that for some reason many ministers believe that fathers need correction on Father’s Day (and Mother’s Day) but women don’t. Why this double-standard?

Because much of the church sees men as a problem to be fixed when compared to women, not a gender to be appreciated. There’s prejudice and bigotry against a man’s nature in too many churches, Christian publishing, and on Christian radio (I was a program director of a Christian radio station - I
was part of the problem too), all of which have been beating men up for decades.

For example,
(more…)

The cold War in New Zealand

The ussr and the usa started a cold war, after WW2

Cold war means there is no killings just monetary control.

So why is this in New Zealand

 (Well it is best to ask Helen Clack our sexist prime minister)

When policy is put in place many people make heaps of money, so if you have a woman rightist government whom supports woman movement groups you have an unbalanced democracy

What does that mean. It means anyone that supports that policy will make a lot of money by putting unjust policies in place.

So who would support it?  

It will be the lawyers, the judges, the police, woman and any one else that can benefit from the policy.

Why?

Because it makes them money, gives them power and makes their jobs secure.

Government will say that crime has gone up, and statistics will now show this, because Government has created a new policy. 

The government can now justify more police, judges and needless to say lawyers.

But why would Government want to do that ?

More judges, more police give a government more power. It is just like owning an expensive car.

 The labour government has realised the differences in race economics within New Zealand these are minor concerns when compared to male and female ratios. This is votes and power.

If you’re a bloke you’re a bloke it does not matter if you are white, black, yellow, green or blue. As long as you’re bloke.

But put it together and now we have one competition male vs. female.

So we need more Police. Government say crime has gone up, so more police are required and of course more police more court time which means more judges and of course more lawyers and hence higher taxes are required to pay for this.

For example : we will reduce taxes by bringing in GST, or council fees will be reduced by bringing in metrowater. We only need to add up our tax rate plus GST or our rates and Water rates to find they have just put up costs significantly more

So government looks good. The police look good the judges sit back making money hand over fist and the lawyers have cracked it.

Secondary effect.. Woman say look at the crime rate, men are bastards. We need support.

Look at the rates of protection orders, men cannot be trusted we need help for our children and now.

Lawyers, judges and the police are in support. The woman groups complain to Helen Clark. The law sytem supports there claims, and gives them further funding. Of course this is big money.

Question: well what happened to the fathers?

Hey they are criminals, they should pay with their blood the are wankers, say the woman groups.

The blokes say hey back the truck up dude… but it is to late policy has been passed and you are guilty if charged.

One must think, where is the government funding for these men to defend them selves in an impossible court, where is there no support.. You are a criminal unless you can prove your self other wise.

This is why men die younger than woman.

They put up with far more stress.

I came to the conclusion that for me to have a life is just as important as for me to see my daughter or son.

If Helen clark and her cronies want to take fathers away from there children then we have little hope.

Like with the Maoris maybe will we have a claim to settle for this ignorant injustice?

We cannot do it now even though our fathers fought for freedom this is a cold war. A sad war and it will repeat on us for life.

Our sons and daughters deserve better, they are our lifeblood and no matter what happens we must believe that they love us as we have the unconditional love for them.

We have been robbed of our children, but we must stand and fight for future Fathers. We will fight them in the government, we will fight them in the courts but we will not fight them in our minds.

Our minds are reserve for our children and their welfare.

I cannot let this kill me; I will not let this kill me.

We have to be strong in these times, and we need to stick together as we did during the war times, this is the cold war my friends and it is wrong. We have to fight it, and we will.

What follows is a verbatim copy of a letter sent by Toran’s mother to Polly Gillespie at the ZM radio station. I feel it deserves as much attention as it can possibly receive, so please read on and consider going along if you are able to do so.

From: Maria Bradshaw
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:50 AM
To: Polly Gillespie
Subject: Toran Henry

Hi Polly

I’m Maria Bradshaw, the mother of the 17 year old boy Toran Henry who committed suicide nearly 4 weeks ago.

You may have seen in the news that I found my baby hanging in our garage after he had been let down by his school and told by mental health services that he should take prozac and could drink alcohol in the weekends. (more…)

Hello Heroes of the ‘JUSTICE SYSTEM’

Hello Fathers (Jews) of the Holocaust

300,000 of Your children are in mini orphanages called Solo parent homes (IRD Stats)

If you can document false allegations, lies and perjury that have happened to you and your children in this ‘Court system’ and you would be willing to appear on TV please email me, including only your name and telephone number and a brief description of the allegations and documentation.

Keep in simple!! PLEASE!!

To mdwood@xnet.co.nz

Thanking you in advance

Sincerely
Jim Bagnall (Coalition of Fathers)

Its not often that I am surprised by the next attack on Dads who are in debt for child support. I guess it never occurred to me that Fox TV would create a Child Support Reality TV show.

‘Bad Dads’ Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy
May 02, 2008 03:54 PM ET | Adam Voiland | Permanent Link

This week, I received an intriguing E-mail from Glenn Sacks, a men’s advocate and journalist, crying foul about the possibility that a reality show called Bad Dads might air on Fox. The show’s producers and officials from the National Child Support Center plan to hunt down deadbeat dads and humiliate them into paying child support with the cameras running, according to an article first published in the Hollywood Reporter and then by Reuters, which calls the concept “ambush reality TV—but for a noble cause.”

No doubt Judith Collins is negotiating for the New Zealand Rights for the show. Don’t worry, Peter , I’ll get into bed with any political party, Dunne will probably fund IRD to run a reality TV Child Tax show here.

Squads of Child Tax Police (aka IRD Officials) hunting down Parents (mostly Dads) who owe Child Tax. The loonies (officials and Families Commission) are already running the asylum, designing policy with a model is seriously flawed. The lunatics are indoctrinated with an organisational culture that focuses on collecting money not supporting children. Watch the research results and what they suggest and get ready for Reality Child Support TV

Regards
Scrap

$164m for cervical cancer vaccine

It’s so good to see that Auntie Helen values each woman’s life as worth $1,093,333.
That’s how much she is willing to spend of our tax money to immunise young girls to prevent them catching cervical cancer.
$164,000,000 over 5 years, = $32,8000,000 per year, to save an estimated 30 lives.

Since Prostate Cancer kills some 600 men each year, can we expect Auntie Helen to be just as generous? That’s only $3.28 BILLION over the next 5 years. How about Auntie Helen? How about it?

Or don’t you care?