|
From http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2004/04/04/local.20040404-sbt-FULL-A1-Domestic_violence.sto
April 4, 2004
Domestic violence affects male victims, too
Police reports show local cases involving female perpetrators
By CAROL DRAEGER
Tribune Staff Writer
While men still dominate as domestic-abuse perpetrators, area police reports reveal that women are increasingly being arrested for spousal battery.
In separate instances this past weekend alone, two St. Joseph County women were arrested and charged with battery after they struck their spouses or ex-boyfriends, according to police.
In one case, a 37-year-old Mishawaka woman was arrested last Saturday at about 1 p.m. by St. Joseph County Police after she allegedly punched her husband several times in the back and chest for spending a tax refund check the couple received.
The woman was charged with domestic violence for also allegedly slinging a shock absorber at her husband while he was in his truck attempting to leave the family's home.
The shock absorber caused a welt on the man's right forearm. The woman also allegedly injured her thumb when she swung the shock absorber at him, according to a police report.
Police catalogued the bloodied shock absorber as evidence. The woman apparently grabbed the shock absorber because it was inside the truck and hadn't yet been installed.
The woman's husband also had a raised knot on his lower back from being punched, according to police. The woman, who is 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighs 140 pounds, told police her husband hit her while they were arguing, but police couldn't find marks on her body where she said she had been hit.
Police also talked to the couple's 8-year-old son, who said he saw his mother punch his dad "a bunch of times" and when his father was inside the truck, his mother "was in the back of the truck swinging a metal thing" at his dad. The boy told police he didn't see his father strike his mother.
The woman posted a $500 bond last Sunday and was released from the St. Joseph County Jail, jail officials said.
She has a court date on April 13 at 8 a.m. in traffic and misdemeanor court.
The woman told police she became "irate and punched" her husband "several times" when he told her he spent the tax refund money on football tickets.
In the second case, a 32-year-old Granger woman was arrested and charged with battery and criminal trespassing on March 26.
She is accused of forcing her way into the home of a man with whom she has a child and hitting him and his female friend.
She told police she came to the man's home to "talk to him about missing their daughter's birthday party," according to a St. Joseph County Police report.
She told police the man let her inside, but then he shoved her against a wall and hit her.
The man and his friend told police a different story. He said the woman pulled into his front yard and began looking in his garage and banging on his home's doors. He said the woman allegedly forced her way inside and hit his female friend and pulled her hair.
The woman is also accused of hitting the man, causing "several scrapes" on his arms, according to police.
When police arrived, the man was holding the woman so she couldn't escape. Apparently the woman has shown up at the man's house on several occasions, harassing and breaking in, he told police.
County police said they have been called to the man's home on at least five previous occasions because the woman allegedly broke windows and entered the home.
Police noted that several of the windows in the home and garage were boarded up.
Police found wood molding from the home's windows inside the woman's Dodge Caravan.
The woman was released from St. Joseph County Jail last Saturday after posting a $250 bond.
She is due in traffic and misdemeanor court at 8 a.m. April 12, jail officials said.
Laura Berry, executive director of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said the majority of battered victims are women. She said that when women become violent, it's often to defend themselves against their aggressors.
But she said generally men who are victims of abuse make up about 3 to 5 percent of the total domestic abuse cases reported to police.
"I think there is a greater stigma attached to men reporting incidences," she said.
According to the coalition's statistics, of 61 adults who died in domestic abuse instances last year in Indiana, 23 percent were men and 62 percent were women. The remaining 15 percent accounts for the number of men -- nine -- who committed suicide during a domestic disturbance. The figures represent deaths from July 2002 to June 2003 collected by the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
St. Joseph County domestic-abuse statistics were not available from local officials.
Berry said that in general men are less likely to report abuse because it's not the norm.
"There's the idea that men are powerful and they shouldn't be abused by a female. It would be very embarrassing," she said.
In addition, men are reluctant to report abuse because there is a "lack of visible" places that men can go to get help, she said.
But she said men can seek, and have sought, help at Indiana shelters.
Last year, an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 abuse victims, mostly women and children, sought help at Indiana shelters, she said.
Staff writer Carol Draeger:
cdraeger@sbtinfo.com
(574) 235-6368
END
From http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=508195
Geldof: custody is the new battleground
By Nicholas Pyke and Robert Verkaik
04 April 2004
Middle-class fury at the way the family courts treat fathers is turning the child custody debate into a new electoral battle ground, Bob Geldof warned yesterday.
The popstar, now at the forefront of the campaign for fathers' rights, said a huge and politically active constit- uency of angry parents want fundamental changes to the law.
In an interview with The Independent on Sunday, he repeated his demand that the legal presumption in favour of mothers be overturned when families break up. He said there was no evidence that women make better parents than men.
Controversy over the failure of the family justice system has intensified in recent months. Campaigners dressed as cartoon superheroes, including Spiderman and Batman, have staged protests on Tower Bridge and the roof of the Royal Courts of Justice.
And last week, Mr Justice Munby staged a withering attack on the family courts, saying he was ashamed at the treatment of a father who was denied all contact with a child for two years.
"This is dangerous for the Government," said Mr Geldof, who went through a custody fight over his three children with his former wife, Paula Yates. "It's a huge constituency out there of women as well as men. It's not just the father who's affected, but the grandmothers and aunts as well. As many women stop me on the street as men. This is coming home to roost big time," he said.
Even the middle-class members of the Townswomen's Guild have been campaigning to give fathers more access to their children and, in June, Mr Geldof will be the keynote speaker at their annual conference. He is making a film on the issue for Channel 4.
"This law doesn't have a heart or soul. It's cold rubbish. It's deeply and fundamentally flawed," he said yesterday.
"Society has moved ahead of the law. The law is so stupid, so brutish in its implementation and simply against the father."
Mr Geldof said: "You haven't got a hope in hell of getting what you want. It's a hopeless battle before you even start. Most men are told to accept their lot, and that's no longer being accepted. We know that because of the growth of activist groups.
"The way that the law treated me and men in general was with contempt. It was humiliating."
Mr Geldof said that ensuring that fathers were given the right to equal access could help stem the tide of divorce, which now affects half of all marriages.
He predicted that the law would change within the next few decades, making a 50:50 access split the norm - in line with Denmark, Sweden and some US states.
According to the recently formed Fathers 4 Justice group, about 100 children a day lose contact with their fathers through breaches of court access orders.
Yesterday, the Government promised a green paper to improve the system, including plans for helping parents resolve disputes without resort to the courts.
The IoS, though, has learned that ministers intend to go further by targeting mothers who falsely accuse their former partners of domestic violence.
"There is no doubt domestic violence is very serious ... but there are some cases, and I don't know how many there are, in which domestic violence is being used as an excuse to restrain contact," said Lord Filkin, a minister at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is responsible for the family courts.
The green paper would include proposals for "diagnosing" at an early stage whether an allegation of domestic violence was well-founded. While genuine allegations of domestic violence had to be dealt with firmly, action should also be taken against mothers who make false claims.
The move follows a legal battle in which a mother fabricated an allegation of domestic violence as a means of stopping the father having contact with his child. In that case the claim that the father had abused the child was rejected, leading the judge, Mr Justice Munby, to make an outspoken attack on the way the family court system settles disputes over children.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was forced to give up his five-year battle for access to his seven-year-old daughter after 43 court hearings, which were presided over by 16 judges.
Have you had problems with the family courts? The 'IoS' would like to hear about your experiences. Write or email sundaynews@independent.co.uk
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE LAW
Courts can't stop mothers from flouting contact orders that grant fathers access to their children. Although judges have the power to impose tough prison sentences for persistent and deliberate breaches they rarely believe it is in the interests of the child to send its mother to prison. Judges lack a range of middle-ranking punishments and incentives to encourage mothers to comply with contact orders.
The family court system is based on the adversarial rules of litigation which force divorcing parents to adopt hostile and aggressive positions when they put their cases to the judge. Lawyers advise their clients to throw as much dirt as possible at the other side in the hope that some will stick.
The Government has failed to come up with an alternative to pleading fault for getting a speedy divorce. This has also helped to create an adversarial culture in the family court room.Mediation and conciliation services have not been promoted properly as an alternative to litigation.
Family cases take too long to go through the court system. In last week's case a father spent five years trying to get the courts to allow him proper access to his daughter. In the end he gave up after the judge agreed that the system had failed him. And the secrecy of the family courts means that mothers and fathers are not discouraged from litigation by the prospect of bad publicity while the media is banned from scrutinising obvious failures of the system.
END
From http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,1184360,00.html
Judge backs angry fathers over contact with children
Call for sweeping changes to family justice system after 'shameful' court failures
Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
Friday April 2, 2004
The Guardian
A high court judge yesterday launched an extraordinary attack on the family justice system for failing separated fathers and their children.
Mr Justice Munby, a respected judge of the Family Division, said he was going public with a judgment following a private hearing, while keeping the parties anonymous, because judges needed to "face up honestly" to the failings of the system so as not to forfeit public confidence.
He called for sweeping changes to the system after a father had to abandon his five-year battle for contact with his seven-year-old daughter following 43 court hearings in front of 16 judges. The "wholly deserving father", who last saw his daughter in December 2001, had left court "in tears, having been driven to abandon his battle for contact".
The delays in the case were scandalous, added the judge, who said he felt desperately sorry for the father, whose case was "far from unique".
The judgment follows a number of high-profile protests by fathers who accuse the family courts of treating separated fathers unfairly.
Mr Justice Munby said the last two years had been, from the father's perspective, "an exercise in absolute futility".
It was "shaming to have to say it" but he agreed with the father's view that he had been let down by the system.
The judge suggested that the way the courts dealt with contact applications might even breach the European convention on human rights, which guarantees the right to respect for family life, the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and the enforcement of court orders.
He said he could understand why there was disappointment that a pilot scheme announced by the government this month to try to divert contact disputes from court only encouraged mediation rather than making it mandatory.
Fathers' groups have condemned the scheme as "doomed to failure".
The judge called for a new protocol for handling contact disputes, with every case allo cated to a single judge who would set a timetable for cases to be dealt with in weeks rather than months. Even serious and complex cases would be finalised in months rather than years.
In difficult cases, an independent social worker could be appointed who would be "on hand on Saturday morning to make sure that the handover takes place" or even act as go-between if the mother could not bring herself to meet the father.
Where mothers were determined to flout contact orders, a "flabby judicial response" encouraged them to believe court orders could be ignored with impunity, he said.
A judge might stipulate in an order for Saturday contact that the father's solicitor should notify the judge on Monday if there were any problems, so that the mother could be summoned to come to court on Tuesday and an order made committing her to jail, but suspended.
Then, "the mother can be told in very plain English that if she again prevents contact taking place the following Saturday, she is likely to find herself in prison the following week".
He said the mother in yesterday's case had obstructed contact with threadbare excuses and made groundless allegations that the father had frightened the child, forcibly fed her and threatened not to return her.
Despite the court rulings, the mother continued to obstruct contact until the father snapped and lost his temper with her in December 2001.
Mr Justice Munby said that although it was the father who made the first move that day, it was the mother who carried the legal, parental and moral responsibility for what happened.
The judge ended with a public apology to the father, who was described as a warm and caring man, and his daughter. "We failed them. The system failed them."
He added that the debate in the newspapers on problems in the family justice system made uncomfortable reading for the judges. "We need to take note. We need to act. And we need to act now."
END
From http://www.peterellis.org.nz/FamilyCourt/2004-0403_NZHerald_JudgeAttacks.htm
NZ Herald
April 3, 2004
Judge attacks Family Court laws
by Phil Taylor
Some children's relationships with their parents are destroyed unnecessarily by inflexible family laws, says a senior Family Court judge.
In a strongly worded speech this week, Judge Jan Doogue said laws introduced 10 years ago lacked the sophistication needed today.
She said the laws were "social experimentation", and hinted they were introduced without thorough evaluation.
Speaking at a child and youth law conference, Judge Doogue called for measures to ease the negative effects of the laws while proper research was done into their impact.
The laws - the Domestic Violence Act and section 16B of the Guardianship Act - tended to alienate the parents, generally fathers, who had lost custody, she said.
This often began with the serving of temporary protection orders, and became entrenched by delays in having a court hearing.
The law required disputed orders to be heard within 42 days but, said Judge Doogue, who has presided in the Family Court since 1994, that seldom occurred because of lack of court time and staff.
The result was that banned parents could go months without seeing their child at a critical time, jeopardising long-term relationships.
A study of the Domestic Violence Act in 2000 found that all 15 males respondents who discussed access arrangements were no longer in contact with their children or saw them rarely.
This, Judge Doogue said was "worrying".
"They were embittered about the effects and implications of the legislation."
The Union of Fathers lobby group said the judge's comments were a realistic acknowledgement of what was happening in the Family Court, and agreed it needed to be much more closely looked at.
"Something like 400,000 children live in disrupted families," said national co-ordinator Bevan Berg.
"If we don't deal with that rationally and sensibly and put in place the best plans we can to cater for the impact on those children, you can imagine what's going to happen down the track."
The laws came about as a result of an inquiry in 1994 by former Chief Justice Sir Ronald Davison into the Family Court handling of a case in which a father killed his children.
Sir Ronald concluded that a new social philosophy was needed to deal with domestic violence.
He acknowledged that the law might deprive some children of a close relationship with a parent but said he could see no middle course.
Judge Doogue said the laws had "de-normalised domestic violence" but lacked the flexibility to fit many cases now coming before the court.
Supervised access had been regarded as way of balancing a child's right to be safe and a parent's right for access, but this sometimes worked against the best interest of the child.
Judge Doogue made nine recommendations, including more research, better resources, a call centre operator dedicated to family cases and steps to overcome language-based misunderstandings.
Mr Berg said the blame shouldn't be laid at the feet of "one person who thought he had a good idea".
It should be remembered that hundreds of people were involved in shaping how family law worked.
Acting Justice Minister Margaret Wilson said she not seen the speech and could not comment.
DOOGUE'S VIEW
* Judge Jan Doogue says family laws are "social experimentation", lacking in sophistication.
* Parents who lose custody, generally fathers, tend to be isolated.
* Banned parents can go for months without seeing their children.
END
From http://www.peterellis.org.nz/people/NickSmith/2004-0403_NZHerald_Defiant.htm
NZ Herald
April 3, 2004
Defiant Smith refuses to apologise
by Helen Tunnah deputy political editor
Defiant National MP Nick Smith has shown no remorse for his attacks on the Family Court despite being fined $5000 for breaking the law by trying to pressure a woman into giving up a child she was caring for.
Though the moderate size of the fine means a byelection in Nelson is now remote, Dr Smith did not let yesterday's High Court contempt of court penalty deter him from a strike at legal processes he says alienated parents from their children.
Just moments after facing strong criticism from two High Court judges, Dr Smith walked from the Wellington court and levelled serious accusations against a woman involved in the confidential Family Court case which his contempt charges related to.
Though he conceded the guilty verdict had taught him some lessons, he refused to offer an apology to the woman he telephoned and asked if she felt guilty for stealing the child from his birth parents.
"I do not regret fundamentally taking up this case for my constituents," he said.
"Certainly the scale of the fine makes it less likely that I'll appeal, either to the Court of Appeal or ... to the court of public opinion."
Dr Smith is the first MP found guilty of contempt and he said though $5000 was a hit in the pocket, it was a small price to pay if he could effect change to laws affecting families in New Zealand.
Dr Smith, TV3 and Radio New Zealand had last week been found in contempt of court for various public comments, actions and broadcasts involving the same custody case.
Dr Smith and TV3 were both found to have tried to influence the Family Court and undermined public confidence in it. TV3 was yesterday fined $25,000 and Radio New Zealand, which admitted guilt and expressed remorse in court, was fined $5000.
Solicitor-General Terence Arnold had earlier claimed TV3's contempt of court for its 20/20 programme on the case was the worst in New Zealand's history and urged Justices John Wild and Alan MacKenzie to impose a fine of $100,000 or more, twice the previous largest fine.
A spokeswoman would not say last night if Mr Arnold would appeal against the sentences.
In court he labelled Dr Smith a "bully" and said his actions in talking about the case were "designed to gain maximum political benefit".
In delivering the judges' sentence, Justice Wild said Dr Smith's conduct since the guilty verdict had been devoid of any expressions of regret.
"To be unrepentant is your prerogative. We find it disappointing and for someone of your standing, surprising."
The judges said they accepted he wanted to help his constituents, but added: "You do not help people by harming other people. You don't right one injustice by creating another, nor do you change the law by breaking the law."
In setting the fine, the judges accepted Dr Smith had already paid the legal fees of his constituents. It has also cost him $28,000 defending the contempt charge, but that could reach $80,000. A trust fund has raised $54,000 for legal fees.
TV3 bore the brunt of the court's criticisms. Justice Wild said it had been "opportunistic and cynical" in trying to influence the child's caregiver and influence a Family Court judge in its documentary.
TV3 continued to deny that yesterday. Dr Smith said last night he now urgently wanted a ruling from Speaker Jonathan Hunt about his status as an MP. Though there remains some uncertainty about his position, that appears to have substantially evaporated because the fine was not large.
There was only a slight chance he may have been forced to resign his seat under the Electoral Act, which has punishments for MPs who commit a "crime".
However, if he had received a hefty fine, his moral authority as an MP would have been dented and he may have had little choice but to ask voters to decide his fate.
Speaker Jonathan Hunt could not be contacted last night, but is expected to make a decision early next week confirming Dr Smith's seat is secure.
Advice from the Clerk of the House, David McGee, and the High Court have indicated Dr Smith will not be forced out of Parliament.
The judges also said yesterday it was unclear if a conviction would be entered against Dr Smith's name. No costs were awarded.
END
From http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0404/S00078.htm
Nick Smith takes sentence on the chin
Friday, 2 April 2004, 10:26 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Hon Dr Nick Smith Nelson MP
02 April 2004
Nick Smith takes sentence on the chin
Nelson MP Nick Smith says the fine imposed over his contempt case allows him to move on and focus on reform of the Family Court.
"I'll take this on the chin and move on. If this is the price that must be paid to open up the Family Court to scrutiny, it will be worth every dollar.
"On top of this $5000 fine, I also have a huge legal bill.
"I am extremely grateful to the 500-plus New Zealanders who have supported me through this nine-month ordeal.
"I must also thank my Parliamentary colleagues and particularly the people of Nelson who have been so supportive and loyal to my family and me.
"I still question whether this prosecution was justified, given the special circumstances of this case.
"Meanwhile, I can today confirm that this penalty makes a by-election less likely.
"However, I still require an unequivocal ruling from the Speaker that my position as an MP is beyond question, given the view of the Judges and the High Court Registrar that the law is unclear," says Dr Smith.
Ends
From http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0404/S00003.htm
Muriel Newman: The Winds Of Change
Thursday, 1 April 2004, 9:09 am
Column: ACT New Zealand
Muriel Newman ??? The Column
The Winds of Change
The winds of change are now sweeping towards New Zealand???s Family Court. In a report to Parliament earlier this month, not only has the Law Commission recommended that the Family Court be more open but, both the former and present Chief Family Court Judges have indicated that the judiciary is relaxed about more openness and that it is now time for Parliament to address this issue.
The Family Court ??? which deals with matters effecting families ??? was set up in 1980, as a result of recommendations of a Royal Commission on Courts. While it has predominantly been a closed court since then, over recent years ??? fuelled by the belief that the court was no longer achieving the best outcome for children ??? pressure has been mounting to open the court up to public scrutiny.
In particular, families torn apart by this secret court???s judgements believe they have been denied their fundamental right in a free society to speak out about their perceived injustice. Similarly, the media have been prevented from reporting such cases under threat of prosecution. Last week???s conviction of National MP Nick Smith ??? along with Radio New Zealand and TV3 ??? for speaking out about just such a case has significantly raised public concern about the Family Court, adding impetus to the mood for change.
In light of these developments, it is timely that my Private Member???s Bill to open up the Family Court ??? the Family Court (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill ??? is presently before Parliament. I am hopeful that all political parties will recognise the need to take this issue seriously and support the Bill to a Select Committee.
Moves to make the Family Court more open are not unknown to new Principle Family Court Judge Peter Boshier. Three years ago he took the unusual step of inviting the media to report on events in his court because of concerns over the Department of Child, Youth and Family???s on-going failure of to uphold the orders of the court. In fact, he was so outraged by the incompetence of the Northland branch of the Department that he threatened to charge CYF managers with contempt.
Earlier this year another Family Court Judge, Tim Druce, continued the judicial name and shame campaign against the Government???s child welfare agency by ordering a judgement regarding the failure of the same branch of CYF to be made public.
Overseas experience has shown that a reduction in child abuse occurs if a Family Court is more open. With the prospect of the regular reporting of inefficiencies and failure ??? instead of isolated cases ??? the state child welfare agency has a strong incentive to improve its performance. Other children who are the major beneficiaries of a more open court are those caught up in family breakdown battles. Many of those children walk into a courtroom with two parents, but leave with one. The court effectively tears families apart under the guise of being ???family friendly???, causing heartbreak, suicide, anger, and pain, and creating an enormous sense of injustice and loss.
But it goes deeper. There is now overwhelming evidence that the awarding of sole custody of children to mothers ??? historically the predominant outcome of Family Court custody cases ??? can lead to the widespread alienation of fathers. The problem is that limiting a father???s access to his children has now been shown to cause them significant disadvantage, with boys more likely to drop out of school and get into trouble with the police, and girls more likely to become sexually promiscuous. In light of this, having laws in place that weaken the relationship between a father and his children no longer appears sensible. Unfortunately, many New Zealanders are largely unaware of the problems caused by ???fatherlessness???, because they arise as a result of judgements made in the secret Family Court. Ensuring such issues are more widely understood is one of the strongest reasons for lifting the veil of secrecy that shrouds the Family Court.
There is little downside to a more open Family Court ??? so long as judges retain the right to protect the identity of the individuals and close the court on a case-by-case basis. Leaving judges with such veto powers means that access can also be restricted in cases deemed to be too sensitive. If New Zealand follows the experiences of other countries, open justice will provide significant benefits: children better supported by parents and grandparents, less parental alienation, a drop in litigation as more couples choose mediation, a reduction in the cost of legal aid, a decline in the number of false allegations made by parents against one another, less child abuse, and, through the efforts of the fourth estate, a far greater public appreciation of the profound effects of family law legislation on children, families and society.
Do you think it is time for the Family Court to be more open?
ENDS
From http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00622.htm
Peter Dunne Speech - Political Correctness
Monday, 29 March 2004, 10:12 am
Speech: United Future NZ Party
Hon Peter Dunne
Leader, United Future
Political correctness: its full influence on the political process.
Maxim Institute Conference Auckland, Saturday, 27 March, 2004
Ladies and gentlemen
Lesbian dads. Pakeha being referred to as 'tauiwi' at graduation ceremonies of otherwise reputable institutions. Prostitution being turned into just another job. Prisoners being referred to as 'clients'. Civil unions becoming a back door to marriage...
You might well ask, just where do we want to start with political correctness? However, a better question would be where are we going to stop with it?
And stop it we must.
Let us make one thing very clear: political correctness is not simply an alternative worldview that you are free to adopt or reject. It is coercion. It is bullying.
It is dressed up as a form of tolerance of diversity, but in reality is anything but. It is an ill-disguised, highly intolerant attempt to subvert the way we think, the questions we ask and the positions we hold, in order to change the very nature of our society to fall in line with an agenda of a truly undemocratic elite.
It despises so many of the values that have been at the heart of this nation since day one.
It wages war on the family, as the base unit of our or any society; undermining its parameters and chipping away at its building blocks, for no more profound reason than the fact that traditional concepts of family do not fit the perceptions of some of its advocates.
United Future's adherence to common sense is based on the notion that it reflects our shared experience, which is why we are anti-political correctness.
In a world where political correctness has increasingly held sway over recent decades, that has made our messages very unwelcome to many of the country's self-appointed elites.
But equally it has made them very, very welcome at the dining room tables and in the living rooms of middle New Zealand.
Common sense, as shared experience, is the antithesis of political correctness.
The two cannot live and breathe in the same space, and we make no apologies for being the common sense party - the voice of reason, the voice of moderation, the voice of middle New Zealand.
Kiwis are not extremists - we never have been and we never will be.
We do not tread breezily down that path; but there are one or two aspects of our national character that have perhaps laid us open to the subversive plotting of the PC brigade.
First, they have preyed upon one of our very real strengths as a people - our sense that every last one of us deserves a fair go.
This is our spirit, it is our tradition and long may it be so.
But it can be, and has been, abused.
As we pick through the Treaty of Waitangi and debate its role and its meaning today, and the way it has been both used and abused, I invite you to stop for just a minute and consider one very simple matter.
For all our failings and frailties over the years as a nation; for all the breaches and the scandals, for all the acts of commission and acts of omission, I would like you to point to another nation anywhere in the world where coloniser and colonised stopped to draw up a founding document of such inherent dignity and humanity?
That spirit that existed in 1840 is still here today among all our races.
But it needs to be brought to the fore to replace the prevailing spirits of guilt and greed because the original mood is what will eventually vanquish political correctness in favour of common sense and an honest and noble future.
The real New Zealand spirit is one of fairness and reasonableness - but it is one that has also been used to form a wedge in the door upon which the PC armies have pushed.
And they have pushed and they have pushed until they have marched on through on issues as diverse as race and gender, of the dumbing down of our education system and the sanitising of our institutions.
The second and very real area of our national character that has left us vulnerable to those who insidiously push their agendas upon us is our somewhat laid-back, undemonstrative nature.
It takes a lot to rile the average Kiwi enough to bring them to their feet in protest.
And in the case of political correctness, it is fair to say that our laid-back nature has contributed to the ease with which we, as a nation, have succumbed to very deliberate, underhand and sustained campaigns.
However, let's be very clear - battles have been fought, but the war is far from over. And daily, the tide is turning in favour of common sense.
Although it takes a lot to rile us, we can be brought to our feet.
When Kiwis say 'enough is enough', they do so with a boldness and clarity that is at times breath-taking
And the message has come through loud and clear that Kiwis will no longer brook political correctness. They will no longer tolerate the narrow ideologies of others being shoved down their throats.
The events of recent weeks make it clear that the 'pink think' agenda, which United Future has railed against throughout this term of Parliament, is no longer going to be accepted.
And about time too!
New Zealanders have over many years been pushed and cajoled - at times with great subtlety and at other times with the gauche over-reaching of too-cocky-by-half governments - very often second-term governments pursuing second-term agendas.
They have been pushed by governments and politicians with an eye on their political legacies; by bureaucrats and pressure groups with the most Machiavellian tendencies.
The surest sign that has been happening was the insanity of lesbian fathers in the Care of Children Bill - a clause that United Future succeeded in protesting right out the door.
But how did this type of thinking ever come to outweigh the plight, for instance, of kids suffering Third World illness while growing up in our largest city, to name but one issue?
When Maori and Pacific Island lesbian sports junkets and hip-hop fact-finding world tours outweigh sending old soldiers who laid their lives on the line for this country to their fields of battle one last time, things have gone too far.
When a government is more concerned about protecting the 'rights' of gangs to hold their illegally earned property, while giving them the wet-bus-ticket treatment as they ruin a generation with P and other drugs, things have gone too far.
The world might not have gone mad, but the PC brigade certainly has.
And today there are stealthy moves afoot to tell New Zealand families; New Zealand husbands and wives that their marriages hold nothing that is simply between a man and a woman.
Note again, they haven't asked New Zealand husbands and wives and families what they think. They tell them.
Indeed, more often than not, they are not even afforded that courtesy - legislation is simply driven through Parliament.
So let met tell you here and now that United Future is going to push for the Civil Unions Bill to be dropped.
This misguided piece of legislation is pure social engineering and the ultimate in political correctness.
And what's more, this Parliament has no mandate from New Zealanders - I repeat, no mandate - to push this through.
It is claimed that the Bill would allow de facto and same sex couples to legally register their relationships, and even have civil ceremonies.
Let's be honest here: this legislation is about one thing and one thing only.
It is about extending the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, without calling it marriage.
The media have it right this time when they call it the gay marriage law.
Does anyone believe for one moment that gay couples that 'unite' under this law won't consider themselves to be married?
Now while New Zealand society has progressed to a stage whereby we are tolerant of alternative lifestyles, and will willingly respect them as a private affair, many will baulk at the idea that the nature of marriage, an institution that also exists outside narrow legal definitions, is being altered in this way without their consent.
I support recognising the property rights of people in committed long term relationships, as the law currently does, and in resolving outstanding issues like next of kin status or rights of inheritance for people in same sex relationships, but I draw the line at creating a parallel form of marriage to achieve it.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of this politically correct, 'pink think' agenda is the message it sends to the country about national priorities.
Why are we putting gay marriages before making sure that there are enough police on our streets, before ensuring that the sick get quick and effective treatment at our hospitals, before unclogging our roads and before giving our kids the education they need to survive in an increasingly complex world?
The Civil Unions Bill should be seen for what it is - an out and out attack on the values of mainstream New Zealand.
United Future will mount the strongest possible campaign against this deeply flawed Bill, and I will be writing to all party leaders to seek their support in opposing it.
This Bill does not stand alone.
Political correctness has now become so ingrained that it transcends all parties and governments.
'Smoke free' legislation pursued by both governments with equal vigour over the years is a classic example, with last year's draconian legislation supported by both National and Labour MPs the classic example.
We have seen it in gambling legislation; in occupational safety and health legislation; in all manner of legislation dreamed up by public health zealots who have had the ear of Ministers in every government since the late 1980s, and there is no real commitment by either of the major parties to curtail this nonsense in the future.
But where is the demand for this kind of radical social reform?
There has been no clarion call from middle New Zealand for such changes, yet they have been steadfastly imposed with an arrogance and intolerance that has been breathtaking.
What has arisen in recent years is a new accompanying line that goes beyond our right to disagree and now resorts to personal denigration of those who do not worship at the altar of political correctness.
So we are ridiculed as a bunch of rednecks if we happen to think that fathers should be men.
Or if we believe that marriage is a union between a husband and a wife.
Or if we think that everyone should be able to take the kids down to the coast for a bit of fishing without permission from the local iwi.
It has never been the role of any government to change the way we think.
That is our prerogative as New Zealanders and we must treasure it. United Future will yield to no one in our determination to preserve that most basic right.
ENDS
From http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00679.htm
Disregard for family court accountability
Tuesday, 30 March 2004, 5:21 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Judith Collins
National Families and Associate Justice Spokesperson
30 March 2004
Minister shows disregard for family court accountability
By supporting the non-disclosure of statistics relating to serious delays in the Family Court, the Minister of Courts is showing complete disregard for accountability within the justice system, says Judith Collins National Families and Associate Justice Spokesperson.
David Benson-Pope, on behalf of the Minister of Courts, confirmed in the House yesterday that he agreed with the Family Court's policy of keeping no records on the number of cases that are delayed, or any other statistics about the court.
"This appalling and is direct contrast to an answer to an earlier question stating that he did not regard the court as secretive," says Ms Collins
"How many other parents have been waiting in excess of three years to find out whether or not their children can come home to live?
"Until the family court is opened up, injustices like that highlighted by Nick Smith will continue to occur."
Ends
From http://www.peterellis.org.nz/FamilyCourt/2004-0329_NZHerald_Government.htm
NZ Herald
March 29, 2004
Government heeds caution over Family Court changes
The Government says it will take into consideration doubts expressed by the country's top social worker over opening the Family Court to wider scrutiny.
Shannon Pakura, Child, Youth and Family's chief social worker, said the court dealt with vulnerable children.
She also questioned whether details of cases should be put in the public arena.
Ms Pakura said more openness would be a revelation for the public.
"You would learn the level of violence that adults inflict on one another. You would learn about what adults do to children," she told National Radio.
More openness would also highlight the number of people who used the court to focus on their own interests instead of children's, she said.
Associate Justice Minister David Benson-Pope said any changes to Family Court media coverage rules would take into account Child, Youth and Family's views.
"We would all have to be pretty cautious about any risk involved in making some of these very private and very painful cases more public than they need to be."
Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier has backed a Law Commission report recommending that the Family Court be opened to some media coverage.
The issue was highlighted when National MP Nick Smith was convicted of contempt last week after publicising a Family Court case involving a family in his Nelson electorate.
National Party spokeswoman Judith Collins said that while children should not be named, parents and others involved in Family Court cases should be able to speak out.
"In keeping Family Court proceedings secret, we allow individual injustices to go unnoticed and run the risk that the court will lose sight of the interests and values of the community it serves."
END
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|