Sue Bradford is of course defending her bill in the run up to tomorrow's vote. Defending it very badly I might add.
"Thirty years ago, it was common to regard domestic violence by husbands as a man's right within the sanctity of his own home to 'discipline' his wife. Few people now hold such antiquated views, which were based on the notion of women as property. In time, I believe we will come to see violence against children in the same intolerable light."
There is a glaring problem with this piece of reasoning. Violence towards women has escalated, despite 'few people (now holding) such antiquated views.' So by the time we 'come to see violence against children in the same intolerable light' child abuse will also have escalated further? It appears to me, based on reports from police, women's refuge, and crime statistics, that we have domestic violence levels above any we have ever previously experienced despite all the laws intended to protect women.
Apart from which I very much doubt that in 1977, when I was 17, domestic violence was regarded as a man's right. I left home at 18. Lived with my boyfriend and hung out with his rugby mates and their girlfriends. One young man, an Islander, was suspected of giving his de facto the biff though I never witnessed it. Nobody accepted it. Nobody thought it was his right.
Sue Bradford's life experience must be very different from mine.
In Occupied Palestine – 17th December 2024
1 minute ago
9 comments:
Lindsay, a very apt title!
You say:
"Violence towards women has escalated"
Don't you miss the point?
Slowly, but at last, the world is beginning to recognise the truth: that women are just as violent, and just as prone to initiating violence, as men are.
Of course, there are differences. Men tend to use their fists. The injuries they inflict are mostly physical.
Women on the other hand tend to use much more sophisticated weapons, from kitchen knives to very often unwarranted (and extremely dangerous) ex-parte Protection Order applications, denial of "access" to children, law suits and so on. The injuries these violent acts inflict are almost always invisible, but are often far more injurious in the long term.
Surely, the truth is that Violence has escalated, across the board?
If you are researching this stuff, you would do women and the world a great service by proving that taking out a Protection Order (and particularly an Ex-Parte one) escalates the probability that the "Protected" women will be murdered by their husbands or partners. Just look at the news recently. About half the women murdered this year already had Protection Orders.
So much for the "Protection" - fact is, the whole idea is ridiculous, in a so-called civilised society. The only way to really protect such women is to lock one of the parties up, and where's the justice in that?
The simple truth, (in my years of observation and involvement) is that most Protection Order applications come as pre-emptive strikes commencing wars that ultimately, most often completely destroy the family concerned.
Usually with the full support and encouragement of so-called (Family) i.e. Women's Support agencies, such as James Family, CYFS and especially "Women's Refuge".
This is Feminist Government Policy, and is doing exactly what it was intended to do. Destroy the so-called "Patriarchal Family". And it's all backed up by the Family Court, the DPB and the so-called "Child Support" rort. Social "Welfare" (ie. destruction) at its very worst.
Ridiculous when you think about it. All this carnage, in the vain attempt to destroy a myth.
Anon, If you were a regular reader you would know that I have blogged about women's violence toward men.
The 'brawling' and pyschological abuse. On this occasion I kept to the subject of violence against women because that was the subject of Sue Bradford's argument
I have long questioned stats that come from the women's refuge (they refuse to answer e-mails) which is why I mentioned them here in the context of similar and supporting police reports and crime statistics.
I fully accept that men are often goaded, provoked, threatened and exploited by women. Equally there are insecure and jealous men who obsessively and odiously endeavour to control women to the point of destroying them and their children.
Sue Bradford wont understand the difference between a light tap and smack around the head with a lump of 4x2.She is determined to make criminals out of the middle and upper classes. They are her targets. She hates them with a vengence.Like all Communists and Socialists she is blinded by her belief that the enemy must be punished and bought to heel.In particular the men of the middle and upper calsees who are the worst of the worst of the enemy.We are all rapists All child abusers in her mind.
gd
Hi Lindsay,
Anon(1) here again. No I'm not a regular reader, so maybe some of my comments aren't in tune. Sorry.
I still say the stat's on the risk of "Death by Protection Order" would have to be revealing. Does it not interest you?
As for S59, according to the News tonight, it looks like it's going to fly through its Second Reading tomorrow.
OF COURSE, the eventual result will be yet another increase in Violence in New Zealand. Simply because the loss of parental control over their children will, in many families, grow into a family power reversal where the children are in charge. We've already seen the TV Shows of wildly out-of-control kids, and dogs, and so on.
What kind of adults do these kids grow into? Narcissistic Egomaniacs?
But get this: My own 10-year-old son believes its already the law, and has already told me that if I hit him, he'll call the Police on me.[**]
And that appears to be exactly what the current Government wants. I suppose you've already said this too, but that's exactly what the Nazis did...
But unlike most parents, I'm in the "lucky" position of being able to 'divorce' my children in order to avoid this risk, if I choose.
Like so many things these days, maybe it's just not worth it.
Just another absurd consequence of our loony NZ family law.
[**] I'm interested to hear what other parents in my position would do, if anyone has any thoughts.
Anon(1), you've missed something in your interpretation of the stats.
Of course women who take out a protection order have a greater chance of being murdered by thier partner...
... Because women who don't fear thier partners don't take out protection orders...
... Which means women who take out protection orders are generally in a more dangerous situation that those who don't.
Not cause and effect.
El primo has indicated she wants her MPs to vote for it and I guess Taito's vote will be cast by proxy and aren't some of the national nitwits happy with the amendments?
Not sure what you mean by "stats on the risk of death by protection order." How would we know whether a murder occurred because a protection order was in place or in spite of it?
A friend of mine had her daughter threaten to call the cops if she 'hit' her so Mum said, "I may as well make it worth my while then."
In the event the daughter did ring and the police talked to my friend, were sympathetic and took it no further.
My concern is not actually with children ringing the police. Its with them ringing CYPFS. A much, much scarier prospect.
Anon(1) again...
To cd, I say, of course, that's what we are supposed to think / believe.
However, having been involved in supporting dozens of people through FC proceedings, and I can tell you, without a shadow of doubt, that (metaphorically speaking of course) taking out a Domestic Protection Order and injecting lawyers into the mixture is THE single BEST way to throw a lighted match into a bath full of warm petrol.
It immediately turns a manageable situation into a raging firestorm. (Which is JUST what the lawyers love!)
And that's when these women get murdered, because they have pulled a really stupid stunt, and attacked a guy's security and stability, by getting him brutally chucked out of his own home (that he shared with his partner, up until that moment), AND in the same blow, completely cut off from contact with his own children.
Don't you think that's likely to upset most guys just a little?
If she was able to live with him and probably even sleep in the same bed with him the day before, she wasn't really at that much risk.
Even if things were turning bad, there are good and bad ways of dealing with any situation. Pouring petrol onto any sized fire is not a good way of bringing it under control and putting it out.
Of course, there is a very strong cause and effect relationship. Smashing a guy in the bollocks like that only makes him hurt and very angry. That's why DPO's are such a really stupid idea.
And they ARE, without question, a weapon of extreme emotional violence.
Violence begets violence. Cause and effect. Simple.
To Lindsay:
Your friend was female, and undoubtedly benefitted from the Gender Bias programmed into our Police force. It that had happened to a male, the result would have been very different. Ask any guy!
To spammer:
In fact, ringing the Police is not much different to ringing CYFS directly. It may actually be worse, because the Police have a discretionary duty to notify CYFS, and a Police notification to CYFS is a red rag to a bull.
I've seen that first hand. In that case, it happened to a woman, and she lost her daughter (for absolutely NO good reason) into a CYFS Foster Home for 13 months. She was lucky. She was one of the very few to get her child back.
But you should have seen the CYFS workers lie and twist and misrepresent in court. They are so arrogant. Most of them are of pretty low intelligence, but they have a lot of power and believe they are right, therefore it's okay for them to lie, because they are right and are "protecting" innocent children. Frankly, I'd rather have a doberman look after my kids.
You have to be so careful. Tape record every phone call. Video every meeting (if possible). Otherwise... Who's the judge going to believe?
Hello again Lindsay,
Having thought about your other point:
Not sure what you mean by "stats on the risk of death by protection order." How would we know whether a murder occurred because a protection order was in place or in spite of it?
I have to confess that I feel disappointed by your seeming lack of interest. Never mind.
I'm not a statistician, and I don't know how one would make this determination, but there must be statistical methods to get the answer. What sort of researcher are you?
The question is not whether a murder occurred because of a Protection Order - or in spite of it - because aren't those more or less the same thing?
The question is to determine:
The risk that a woman who takes out a Protection Order as the way [to resolve her relationship difficulties] will be murdered -
VERSUS
the risk that a woman who uses other methods [...] will be murdered -
- by her former partner.
That's what I can't get my head around. How does one assess and calculate that kind of risk?
But I'm willing to bet, that, comparing apples with apples, a Protection Order increases a woman's risk of being murdered by her "ex-" by at least a factor of 10. Even if it's only double, it's completely unacceptable.
AHA! Thank you. I think I know who to ask.
Post a Comment