|
Evidence
No 9 Autumn 2004
Pages 10-15
Maxim Institute
MERE MALE???the new oppressed sex?
By Alexis Stuart
Alexis Stuart looks into allegations of a "poisonously anti-male subtext" in New Zealand popular culture and finds support groups for men are growing as fast as the Family Court is spitting them out.
Feminists sometimes like to think in terms of a "men???s movement" and a male "backlash". However, the groups they refer to can no longer be dismissed as 36 angry white men and the power of the internet. They may not be a unified body, but they are organised, internationally networked, and full of vitality and scholarly research, the groups speaking for men and/or fathers present a range of perspectives.
Nevertheless, men???s and fathers??? groups in New Zealand???including Union of Fathers, Families Apart Require Equality (FARE), Man Alive and New Zealand Father and Child Society???would agree that clich??s about divorce, custody and domestic violence don???t adequately convey the civil liberties disaster that is taking place.
Is there a "poisonously anti-male subtext" in our popular
culture? Many men in this country think so. They believe that, dangerously, men???s humanity is no longer acknowledged.
It was not too long ago that "suffragettes" were getting themselves deliberately chucked in prison, starving themselves and throwing themselves in front of coaches.
Second-wave feminists like Andrea Dworkin openly advocated that women become vigilantes and murder the men who "oppressed" them.1 Anger was a leading instrument in the feminist movement. Why should it be more acceptable from women than men?
Not all feminists will appreciate this intrusion on to what has been their turf for decades, but can we have a healthy discourse when only one side has a voice?
Women have opportunities now that our great grandmothers only dreamed of. But if misogyny is out, misandry (the hatred of men) is often excused or trivialised, even justified.
Some feminists claim that hostility towards men is a corruption of feminism. But there does not have to be hostility for men to be sidelined. A focus solely on women, or selective choice and interpretation of evidence to favour women, is sufficient.
"At the end of the day, gynocentric ideas (and their misandric results) have become so persuasive???trickling down to popular culture???that they cannot be explained away as the results of a few academic loonies," say Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, the authors of Spreading Misandry.2
"In the 1970s, when the men???s movement began to emerge, the women???s movement was already splintering," says Dr Paul Callister, an independent social researcher based in Wellington. "Society is becoming more diverse, so the men???s movement never had the same unity that the early women???s movement originally had."
Some men???s and fathers??? groups have concentrated on grass roots supportive agencies, others on government legislation. They represent a variety of political opinions and often disagree on what the solutions are, but all agree that men are the new oppressed sex.
The largest area of men???s activity is the fathers??? movement.
Callister, who also researches for the New Zealand Father and Child Society, the mainstream voice of the father???s movement, has lodged a detailed complaint to the Human Rights Commission over the injustice of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Act. The Society believes it is a breach of the section of the Human Rights Act which makes discrimination on the basis of sex unlawful. It argues that fathers should have access to paid parental leave.
Callister explains that New Zealand has yet to understand that the natural co-requirement for equality in the paid workforce is equality in parenting.3
The most prominent item in the debate concerning fathers has been claims of the Family Court???s systematic bias against fathers.
ACT MP Dr Muriel Newman has tirelessly campaigned on this issue for years. She introduced a private member???s bill to Parliament to allow shared parenting and to open up the Family Court, but it was defeated by the government.
Darryl Ward and Bruce Tichbon of FARE backed Newman???s defeated Bill. FARE claims, "There has been a long and carefully orchestrated political campaign over recent years, much of it funded by the government, to put in place affirmative action policies under the label ???gender equity??? (often simply called ???equity??? or ???fairness???). The aim of the gender equity policies is to tip the social balance more in favour of women. The Family Court is being used as an instrument to implement a politically motivated affirmative action campaign. The courts themselves have thus become political."
Stuart Birks, Director of the Centre for Public Policy Evaluation at Massey University says, "The courts themselves have, perhaps unwittingly, become political. It has happened through the acceptance of underlying assumptions about such things as the nature of family violence (patriarchal power and control), the preference for sole custody, and the substitutability of ???male role models??? for fathers."
Newman herself explains, "Our Family Court system is a disaster zone: it is often regarded as unfair and unjust, its costs are excessive, the processes take far too long, it fails to uphold court orders, it perpetuates false allegations, it is totally biased against fathers, and in alienating fathers and grandparents it is damaging to children".4
Feelings are running deep in other countries, too. The Hon. Peter Lewis, the speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, recently claimed the Family Court there was "racist, sexist, abusive, biased, crook and criminal".5
Recently, in The New Zealand Herald, Patricia Schnauer, a lawyer and interestingly an ex-ACT MP, took issue with Newman???s criticism. Schnauer claims the Family Court in New Zealand does a good job within the legislative context in which it resides.6 It still begs the question???is the Family Court a reflection of government legislation or popular opinion?
Darryl Ward claims that "Judges are schooled in feminist mythology, and counsellors, psychologists and other so-called ???professionals??? who receive work from the court must provide politically correct results or their funding dries up."
Dr Stephen Baskerville of Howard University, the president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC), claims: "The combination of ???no-fault??? divorce and new enforcement law has created a system that pays mothers to divorce their husbands and remove children from their fathers. A father who has done nothing wrong can be hauled into divorce court and deprived of his children, his income, his savings, his home, his inheritance??? he can lose everything he has and he doesn???t have to have done anything wrong, and he doesn???t have to have agreed to a divorce...
When you think about it, it???s a very dangerous principle.
You???re talking about the government seizing control of the children of citizens who have done nothing wrong."7
How did we reach this point throughout the English-speaking world?
Our sociologically confused background is rooted in the feminist movement which, while rightly contributing to the recognition of the equal value of men and women, also allowed androgyny to flourish. This has lead to the present deeply embedded belief that men and women are not only equal in value but also in function.
Fiona Mackenzie, a family lawyer and senior Counsel for Child working in the Family Court, says: "Men and women, fathers and mothers, should be complementary to each other.
They should not compete, but complete. So for fathers to be saying to the Family Court and anyone else who will listen that they can do anything mothers can do and do it better, is actually buying into the same feminist rhetoric which they have soundly condemned. Two wrongs don???t make a right."
Melanie Phillips, author of The Sex-Change Society, claims feminist ideology has led to the view that: "Male oppression of women is only made possible by the fact that men are intrinsically predatory and violent, threatening both women and children with rape and assault. Men are therefore the enemy, not just of women but of humanity???the proper objects of fear and scorn."8
In some feminist circles it has become heresy to suggest there are degrees of suffering and oppression which need to be kept in perspective. It is heresy to suggest that a woman who has to listen to her colleagues tell stupid sexist jokes has a lesser grievance than a woman who has been physically assaulted by her supervisor. It is heresy, in general, to question the testimony of self-proclaimed female victims of date rape or harassment or domestic violence and abuse.
The implication is that men are always guilty. By the time false accusations have been dismissed, the accuser has gained sole custody of the child by default. The procedure has threatened the very concept of innocence.
The Manawatu Evening Standard editorial of January 23 ended: "But there are still many men for whom women are playthings and for whom the notion of consent seems to be a trifle. The possibility of some complaints turning out to be false is surely a small price to pay for ensuring that the sexually violent among us are detected and put behind bars."9
This is a weird view of justice. Does it not matter if some who are innocent are put through a major ordeal, or falsely found guilty? Does it not matter that there are some women who think men are fair game for wild accusations, cutting them off from their families and causing them to lose their jobs?
Misandry has been mainstream in popular culture since the 1980s. The signature slogan of Star Trek has shifted from its original "to boldly go where no man has gone before" to (25 years later) "boldly go where no one has gone before".
Whereas The Shadow (1994), was marketed with its original slogan, "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men".
Philip Chapman (who likes to be called Guy Chapman) is the President of the New Zealand Father and Child Society. He warns, "Our culture sees men as a risk, not an asset. In some schools, male teachers have to be accompanied by female teachers in the boys changing rooms".
Darryl Ward points out that when a man contributes to the public good he is a "police officer" or "fire fighter" because "policeman" and "fireman" are apparently sexist. But if he does something negative, his sex is emphasised.
He is called a "gunman", not a "gun person". Paradoxically, we hear no objection to the use of the term "princess".
Advertising and shows in which women show contempt for men have been applauded as sophisticated commentaries. Adverts like Tip Top???s Things get UGLY without a Choc Bar???in which a woman without a Choc Bar??? fatally stabs a man in the back with a red stiletto???and shows such as Sex in the City and The Vagina Monologues are commended for pushing the boundaries.
"Patriarchal society, like the Marxist ???bourgeoisie???, is seen as inherently wrong. Matriarchy on the other hand can be celebrated as a sign of strength," says Ward.
Peter Zohrab, acting president of the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation, says: "Nowadays, feminism is so mainstream that Mussolini???s grand-daughter, the leader of a neo-Fascist party, described herself as feminist."10
Steve Flynn, the Christchurch Area organiser of Union of Fathers, claims the real attack on fatherhood came from WINZ. The Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) was introduced in 1972 to help women escape violent relationships and raise children on their own. Promoters of the Social Security Amendment Bill predicted that the number needing assistance would never be more than 20,000, including widows. It was expected to cost $250,000 per year???it now costs close to $2.5 billion and supports approximately 110,000 women. Who needs a father when the state will provide?
Lindsay Mitchell, an advocate for welfare reform says, "In defence of it, we are commonly told that before the DPB some women (and doubtless some men) were trapped in violent and dysfunctional relationships. These were exceptional cases, however, and there were emergency benefits already available. This was the beginning of subsidised single parenthood and the erosion of fatherhood. The result, at the last Census, is we have over 140,000 families with dependent children headed by a single parent, usually a woman, and around 83 percent of them rely on a benefit."
No-fault divorce came in with the Family Proceedings Act in 1980 and the Property Relationships Act 1976. These also served to weaken commitment in relationships. Since then, the divorce rate has settled about 70 percent higher and co-habitation has increased.
Barry Maley, a senior Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, explains: "The change to unilateral, no-fault divorce law has opened up opportunities for spouses to exploit one another. Such opportunism affects both men and women. Women in traditional marriages concentrating on domestic production and raising children are vulnerable.
Men are vulnerable to losing contact with their children".11
It is telling that in over a century of feminism, and with all the legislative changes that have resulted, family life has become increasingly fractured. One wonders if the men???s movement will be any more successful. Perhaps that depends on whether it just responds to (and perpetuates) the feminist divisive paradigm, or whether it challenges the basic assumptions of feminism.
Birks contends that polarisation between the sexes helps no-one. "Should people be encouraged to show allegiance to their sex ahead of their partners, children, parents, siblings? How would that help them in their personal lives?"
One of the strengths of the men???s movement is that it is decidedly more pro-marriage than feminism. It is essentially a reaction against ideological feminism, rather than an ideology that seeks to redefine social norms. Most men involved in these groups still assume that men and women need each other and children need both.
"Men have been hamstrung by the way criticism of feminism has been misinterpreted as criticism of women. Most men are not anti-women, and see their lives and society as a whole as involving men and women working collaboratively. It is feminists who have chosen to divide society into two camps, describing men as ???the enemy???. Unfortunately, there are few women prepared to publicly question the value of this perspective. Even the government is seeking separatist outcomes, with autonomy and independence for women," says Birks.
To date, feminists have successfully silenced or rubbished most opposition. Not for long. The shared parenting debate isn???t going away. MP Muriel Newman has already proven her tenacity, and the men???s groups are growing as fast as the Family Court is spitting them out.
What isn???t clear is what shared parenting means. Is it simply the 50:50 "equal time" week-about arrangement promoted by some men???s groups, or is it based in a recognition and sharing of responsibility, parental authority and valuing the respective roles of mother and father, which are not always going to be the same in either time or function? To leave this in its present confused state assists no-one, least of all children.
What is clear is that divorce is traumatic for all involved. Research from Australia and America suggests that even modest shifts towards shared parenting have a lowering impact on the divorce rate.
"A sure means of lowering the divorce rate? Now wouldn???t that be something? With most Western countries struggling with the high cost of divorce, a drop in divorce rates has to be seen as a giant leap for mankind, somewhat akin to finding the cure for cancer," Bettina Arndt wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald.12
Talk to mothers and most acknowledge that if they ever entertain thoughts of leaving their marriages, they do so assuming their children will come with them. They admit they would never think of leaving without the children.
Selective non-judgementalism seems kind, but consequences are cruel. Shared parenting, whatever that may end up meaning, may go some way to serve justice, reduce divorce or alleviate negative impacts of divorce on children. But it will only go so far. A move away from no-fault to a realistic acceptance of fault might be radical but is likely to be more effective.
A society that values and celebrates life-long marriage, and recognises a family comprising of the biological father and mother as the ideal environment for raising children, would be better still.
At the Ministry of Social Development???s "Strengthening Families" conference in December, the Minister of Social Development, Steve Maharey, in a now infamous claim said that he knew "of no social science that says a nuclear family is more successful than other kinds." 13
The very next speaker, Professor Paul Amato, a Professor of Sociology, Demography, and Family Studies at Pennsylvania State University, gave a detailed account of an extensive study that detailed how weak father-child relationships negatively affect a child???s well-being and education.14
The next international speaker, Professor Thomas Bradbury from the University of California, gave a detailed account of how divorce and insufficient positive experience of a father and mother relating negatively impacts the success and stability of a child???s future relationships.15
Significantly, Mr Maharey left before these speakers took the podium.
Alexis Stuart is a freelance journalist and social commentator from Christchurch.
Endnotes
1 Andrea Dworkin, ???Kill Wife Beaters Who Go Free, Feminist-Rights Activist Urges???, Montreal Gazette.
2 Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, Spreading Misandry, McGill-Queens University Press, 2001, Preface xiv.
3 http://www.fatherandchild.org.nz/contactus.htm Complaint to Human Rights Commission regarding the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave) Amendment Act ??? The New Zealand Father and Child Society.
4 Muriel Newman, ???Racist, Sexist, Abusive, Biased, Crook and Criminal???, 8 Jan 2004, http://www.act.org.nz/item.jsp?id=2517
5 Hon. Peter Lewis, MP CLIC, Independent Member for Hammond, House Of Assembly, Australia, 31 December, 2003.
6 New Zealand Herald, 22 January, 2004.
7 Stephen Baskerville, interview on "The O???Reilly Factor": 10/16/00 transcript
http://www.dadi.org/b-factor.htm
8 Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society, Social Market Foundation, 1999.
9 http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstandard/0,2106,2791969a6504,00.html
10 Peter Zohrab, ???Sex Lies and Feminism???, New Zealand Equality Party, 2001.
11 Barry Maley, Divorce Law and the Future of Marriage, The Centre for Independent Studies, 2003 pxv.
12 Bettina Arndt, ???For better or worth???, The Sydney Morning Herald, 19/08/2000.
13 Strengthening Family Relationships Conference, 4 December 2003, full notes available www.msd.govt.nz
14 ibid.
15 ibid.
From Maxim Institute???s Evidence journal, issue 9, Autumn 2004
Maxim Institute, 40 Cape Horn Road, Hillsborough, Auckland, Tel. 09 627 3261
END
From http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.asp?id=37932
Supreme Court prepares for first hearing
The Supreme Court, which replaces the Privy Council, considers its first case in May
23 March 2004
A temporary courtroom is being readied for our highest court.
The Supreme Court, which replaces the Privy Council, considers its first case in May.
It is a Family Court matter heard by the Court of Appeal in February which the Supreme Court has to decide whether to formally hear as an appeal.
Registrar-designate Gordon Thatcher says the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a range of cases from the Court of Appeal touching all aspects of New Zealand law.
Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias presides over the court, with the other members being former Appeal Court judges.
???? 2004 NZCity, IRN
END
From http://www.independent.com.mt/daily/newsview.asp?id=24284Local News
Web posted on March 18, 2004 at 9:00:00 AM CET
Chaos claimed in the Family Court
Staff Reporter
Opposition justice spokesman Anglu Farrugia said yesterday that some weeks after it had opened, there was still absolute chaos in the Family Court.
Dr Farrugia said that cases that had been passed to mediators weeks ago had ground to a halt and the parties concerned had not even received any form of acknowledgement of their case.
He said it seemed as if the situation had spiralled out of control. ???Worse still, no decrees on child and spouse maintenance and custody have been issued because of the mediation process,??? said Dr Farrugia.
Dr Farrugia said that before the Family Court was opened, these preliminary decrees were treated with urgency in the Second Hall of the Civil court to ensure that children did not suffer.
He said the reform of the court system that the Nationalist Government had embarked upon without any form of consultation had caused more problems for broken families instead of making the legal process easier.
END
From http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20040322T220000-
Growing demand for Family Court's parenting seminars
Observer Reporter
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
THESE days, when most Jamaicans attend the Family Court in Kingston and St Andrew, they are taught anger management and parenting skills that will allow them to better relate to their wards and improve their family life.
For the past two years, the Family Court has been staging parenting seminars, designed primarily for its litigants and people utilising its services.
The seminars come against the background of a recognition by the court that there are serious deficiencies in the parenting skills of litigants.
Rosemary Neale-Irving, Resident Magistrate and Judge at the Family Court, told JIS News that the aim of the seminars is to further improve the litigants' knowledge in parenting.
"Bearing in mind that part of the services that we offer at the Family Court would include counselling, we are able to identify persons who are really deficient in major areas of parenting. We in turn, invite them to come to the parenting seminar," Neale-Irving explained.
The format of the seminars is informal, allowing participants to relax in a group setting while recounting their experiences and the difficulties they encounter as parents.
"Through group counselling, we provide strategies for parents to overcome the challenges they face," she said.
"We have identified resource persons who come and address the participants on specific topics that we consider important. These include adolescent reproductive health, family planning, immunisation, money management and financial counselling, generally," she said.
Neale-Irving also pointed out that a number of areas are covered to improve parenting skills, such as chemical dependence, anger management, nutrition, self-esteem, child abuse, social skills, discipline, child development and communication.
The Resident Magistrate noted that the staff of the Family Court had played an integral part in the formation of the parenting seminars. In fact, she said the members hosted the November 2002 pilot seminar out of pocket.
"This certainly reflected their commitment to improving family relations," she said, adding that they had continued to work tirelessly in organising the seminars on a limited budget.
"It must be noted, however, that the selfless contributions from the staff for the seminars have been replaced with funding from the budget of the Social Conflict and Legal Reform, via the Coalition for Better Parenting. This assistance has allowed us to continue the programme," said Neale-Irving.
She emphasised that resource persons donated their services free of cost.
"We have not really advertised the seminars because of the limitation in resources, which allow us to cope with 60 persons at any given time," Neale-Irving said.
The seminars, which are held twice yearly, covering one and a half days (Friday and Saturday), are fast growing in popularity. The number of people participating has grown because of the benefit derived. These people have in turn told other litigants and over time, the number of participants has burgeoned to 60.
"We would like to be in a position to cater to more persons because the general objective is really to improve the parenting skills, so that we will have less conflict and violence amongst our children and their parents," Neale-Irving remarked.
Commenting on the actual impact of the parenting seminars on people involved in lawsuits, the Resident Magistrate said the main method of assessment was seeing whether people returned to court on the same issues that brought them there in the first place.
"In many instances, some problems arise from custody applications. The parties will return later on asking for consent judgments, and this is an indication that they have solved their problems," she noted.
Neale-Irving noted that the court was always interested in voluntary service. "If persons have particular skills that they feel would be of assistance to other parents, we would be quite happy if they would offer their services to us."
She explained that the court would be encouraging "friends" and "advocates" of the Family Court to help spread the message that family relations in Jamaica must improve in order to create a better society.
Family Courts were established under the Judicature (Family Court) Act of 1975, which aims to prevent family breakdown, and where this is not possible, ensure that the welfare of the children is protected.
END
From http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0403/12/d06-89688.htmFriday, March 12, 2004
Joint custody drive kicks off
Dads of Michigan seek law mandating divorced couples must share kids
By Kim Kozlowski / The Detroit News
Fathers would no longer spend thousands of dollars and hours in court fighting for joint custody of their children under a proposed ballot initiative being launched today by Dads of Michigan, a local fathers rights group.
The group is beginning a petition drive, which needs 254,206 signatures by May 26 for the measure to appear on the November ballot, to amend Michigan???s custody law so there is a presumption of joint physical and legal custody of divorcing couples, unless one party is declared unfit.
Family court judges decide custody issues, and fathers have long pointed to statistics that they say shows the system is biased and nearly always favors the mother in custody decisions.
???Right now, the paradigm is one parent is better than the other and will have custody of the children while the other parent should be the every-other-weekend kind of parent,??? said James Semerad, chairman of the Dads of Michigan Political Action Committee based in Bloomfield Hills.
Called Children Need Both Parents, the initiative follows two similar but unsuccessful legislative attempts in the mid-1990s and 2002 and a petition drive in 2000 that failed because the 10 people who collected signatures failed to get enough.
This time, Semerad said, there are more than 1,000 people collecting signatures, and many will be outside local post offices Saturday and other days until enough support is collected.
Gary McDonald, a Dearborn Heights father who recently fought for nine months and spent $11,000 to get joint custody of his 2-year-old son, Justin, hopes to see the measure on the ballot and written into law.
???The love from a father is no different from what a mother would have,??? said McDonald, 44. ???They are equal to begin with.???
You can reach Kim Kozlowski at (313) 222-2024 or kkozlowski@detnews.com.
Friend of the Court custody recommendations
Out of 13,430 cases in 2002:
* 8,669 cases, or 65 percent, for the mother
* 1,942 cases, or 14 percent, for the father
* 2,594 cases, or 19 percent, for joint custody
* 225 cases, or 2 percent, for a third party
Source: Marcia McBrien, spokeswoman for the Michigan Supreme Court
END
From http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00480.htm
Truancy: Govt Breaches UN Obligations On Kids
Tuesday, 23 March 2004, 11:55 am
Press Release: ACT New Zealand
Truancy: Govt Breaches UN Obligations On Kids
ACT New Zealand Education Spokesman Deborah Coddington today accused Labour of breaching its UN obligations by not ensuring that truant children attend school, after reports that thousands of truancy cases are not being referred to the Non-Enrolment Truancy Service (NETS).
"These revelations, that the Education Ministry could be withholding details of thousands of missing children from NETS, are a disgrace. Budget constraints, or not, it's unacceptable for children under the age of 16 to be missing out on an education. Why have a truancy service if you're not going to support it?" Miss Coddington said.
"Leaving aside whether you agree with the UN Convention of the Child, Labour is now in breach of it. This was ratified by New Zealand in the early 1990s, and obliges countries to take all possible steps to ensure children are in school getting a decent education. Article 28 states that nations must `take measures to encourage ... the reduction of drop-out rates'.
"The Government has both a legal and moral duty to ensure that all of our children are being taught to read, write and add up. One Auckland school has 27 missing children - that's a whole classroom!
"ACT believes that every child deserves a fair start in life. New Zealanders will not tolerate youngsters being abandoned. I urge the Government to establish a comprehensive central database to monitor truant children immediately - for the sake of our future as a prosperous nation,' Miss Coddington said.
END
From http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0403/S00155.htm
Child Tax Must Go
Monday, 22 March 2004, 9:39 am
Press Release: Men's Convoy
Child Tax Must Go
"It is child tax, not child support", is how Jim Nicolle, spokesperson for MEN'S CONVOY 2004, describes the current child support system
"It is calculated on gross income using an inflexible formula and mostly ends up in the consolidated fund. It targets a group called 'liable' parents and it takes no account of individual circumstances. The Child Support Act 1991 is focused on collecting money, not on supporting our children, and nothing more than a tax applied to 'liable' parents".
"Parents have had enough of being viewed as walking chequebooks and the rebellion against this unjust and unfair regime will not go away".
"MEN'S CONVOY 2004 - Men on the Move for Child Support Reform will leave Auckland on 29 March and travel throughout the North Island to arrive in Wellington on 31 March. It will be drawing attention to the injustices of the child support system and collecting signatures for a petition calling for repeal of the Child Support Act 1991. It also will collect 'shirts off backs' from parents to deliver to Inland Revenue".
"We are not against paying child support; we just want the system to be fair and reasonable. Inland Revenue say it's their job to be fair. We want to hold them to their word", concluded Nicolle.
END
From http://tamworth.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&category=general%20news&story_id=294349&y=2004&m=3
Khan has law group backing for reform
By Gary Ruddick
Monday, 22 March 2004
TAMWORTH solicitor Trevor Khan has persuaded the Family Law Committee of the NSW Law Society to give unreserved support for a new procedure for children's cases in the Family Court.
Mr Khan, the endorsed National Party candidate for New England at the upcoming federal election, said the change was aimed at making the process less formal and adversarial, thereby reducing the potential of parties to become locked in disputes over past differences.
A member of the Family Law Committee since the start of 2003, Mr Khan said the Law Society committees were presently dominated by city-based lawyers.
"One of my reasons for becoming involved in the Family Law Committee was to provide a
regional voice.
"As in all professions, the vast majority of those who sit on professional boards and committees are from the city and therefore do not have an understanding of the problems of people in regional areas," Mr Khan said.
The new initiative involved a radical change in the way children's futures were managed in the Family Court and would provide an opportunity for people involved in family disputes to reduce the time, costs and emotional energy involved in disputes over children.
Mr Khan said he believed the time and costs could be halved.
Many cases involving parties in the Tamworth region took between nine and 18 months to be heard and ran for between three and seven days, and longer.
"If the initiative is adopted, it should reduce most cases to between two and three days and reduce the hearing delays to between three and six months," Mr Khan said.
The trial program would initially be run through the Sydney and Parramatta registries of the Family Court and involve about 100 cases.
If successful, it should be adopted in regional areas.
"The Family Court's aim was to reduce the complexities of children's cases and a major feature of the program would be the early intervention of judges in the
proceedings.
That was to ensure that the parties, and the lawyers, focused on the real issues relating to the children, rather than on the issues which may have led to the breakdown of the relationship.
"In addition, the usual rules of evidence will be relaxed, in an effort to make the proceedings less complex and confusing for the parties.
"The judge will help the parties identify the issues and determine whether various witnesses need to be called.
END
From http://www.odt.co.nz/cgi-bin/getitem?date=22Mar2004&object=HJD38C3660LS&type=html
Man still awaiting explanation for 2002 visit by police
By Lea Stewart
Almost two years after police "barged" into a Dunedin man's home following a threat to blow up the Family Court, he is still seeking answers from authorities.
Gordon Holmes (50) said he still had not received an adequate explanation of why police knocked on his door on August 12, 2002, and "barged" into his home waving a search warrant.
It took the Police Complaints Authority almost 18 months to reply to his complaint about the incident, and recently he received a letter stating he needed to call at the Dunedin Police Station to pick up items seized from his home during the search.
The search of Mr Holmes' house in 2002 came the same day as police received an anonymous letter saying a bomb was due to explode at the courthouse at 9.47am.
Mr Holmes was dealing with the Family Court at the time and had written about six letters to the court expressing his disappointment at the way his case was being handled.
However, he never made any threats in the letters, he said.
That claim is backed up in a letter from the Family Court: "I . . . confirm that there was no letters from yourself to the Court containing threats to people or property."
Mr Holmes, an Englishman with New Zealand residency, lodged a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority six days after the incident.
In it, he claimed he was "pushed" back into the house by one of six police officers after answering the door and was only informed after 15 to 20 minutes that the visit from the police was in relation to the bomb threat.
He was made to address 10 envelopes to police in Dunedin and claimed the police treatment was intimidating and aggressive.
He said he was not allowed to use the toilet and claimed the officers made comments about his weight, condition of his house and reading ability.
"It was just a vicious, vindictive approach.
"I have never been in any trouble with the police or courts and have no police record - not even a parking or speeding ticket," Mr Holmes said in his complaint.
Monday, 22-March 2004
END
From http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1501538,00.html
Murderers target young men
21/03/2004 22:14 - (SA)
Antoinette Pienaar
Pretoria - Men between the ages of 25 and 29 are most at risk to be murdered of all the age groups and genders in South Africa.
The Medical Research Council's 2002 report on unnatural deaths shows that men become relatively safe from violence only after the age of 40.
However, even elderly men are murdered more often than women.
Researchers visited 32 mortuaries all over the country and studied 32 890 deaths that occurred between January and December 2002.
They found that more than 77% were victims of unnatural deaths, such as murders, suicides and road accidents. About 20% were natural deaths, while the other 3% were uncertain.
More than 11 500 people were murdered, 7 081 of them with guns. This outnumbered the total number of road deaths (6 878).
Researchers found that 38 boys and 28 girls under the age of four were murdered, while 19 boys and 12 girls in the five to nine age bracket were murdered.
However, once over the age of 10, the number of murders of male victims increases dramatically. In the 10 to 14 age group, 54 boys were murdered compared to 17 girls.
This number becomes more dramatic for youths between the ages of 15 and 19, where 654 boys were murdered as opposed to 105 girls.
However, in the 25 to 29 age group, 1 910 men were murdered and only 165 women. This age group represents more than 20% of all murders.
This group is most at risk to be shot dead, beaten or stabbed.
Road accidents were the biggest cause of unnatural death among women. Accidents such as drownings and burns were the biggest cause in toddlers between the ages of one and four.
END
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|