|
Smith applauds call to open Family Court
Tuesday, 16 March 2004, 11:51 am
Press Release: United Future NZ Party
Smith applauds call to open Family Court
The Law Commission's proposal to allow media into the Family Court is a welcome change, United Future's justice spokesman, Murray Smith, said today.
In its report, Delivering Justice for All, the Commission recommends that the Family Court continue to be closed to the general public, but that discretion be given to judges to permit support persons to attend, and accredited news media be able to attend and report on family proceedings.
Mr Smith said that, while Australian experiences suggest that the right of media to attend and report on family cases is not widely used and has little apparent impact on cases, the principles of openness and accountability mean that media should be allowed to observe and report on proceedings unless there are very good reasons not to.
The restriction on publishing the identity of participants where children or domestic violence were involved was a good example of a situation where a restriction was justified, he said.
Allowing the media to observe cases would provide an independent oversight of the approaches taken by the court to family matters and hopefully lead to more detached, and therefore more accurate, discussion of the issues that arise, Mr Smith said.
END
Opinion Journal from The Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004760
CULTURE WARS
Save Marriage? It's Too Late.
The Pill made same-sex nuptials inevitable.
BY DONALD SENSING
Monday, March 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
Opponents of legalized same-sex marriage say they're trying to protect a beleaguered institution, but they're a little late. The walls of traditional marriage were breached 40 years ago; what we are witnessing now is the storming of the last bastion.
Marriage is primarily a social institution, not a religious one. That is, marriage is a universal phenomenon of human cultures in all times and places, regardless of the religion of the people concerned, and has taken the same basic form in all those cultures. Marriage existed long before Abraham, Jesus or any other religious figure. The institution of marriage is literally prehistoric.
The three monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) actually recognize this explicitly in their holy writings. The book of Genesis ascribes the foundation of marriage in the very acts of God himself in the creation of the world: "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him. . . . A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:18, 24).
The three great religions base their definition of marriage on these verses and others that echo them. In Christian theological terms, the definition of marriage is part of the natural law of the creation; therefore, the definition may not be changed by human will except in peril to the health of human community.
Psychobiologists argue that marriage evolved as a way of mediating the conflicting reproductive interests of men and women. It was the means by which a woman could guarantee to a specific man that the children she bore were his. In biological terms, men can sire hundreds of children in their lives, but this biological ability is limited by the fact that no one woman can keep pace.
Siring kids by multiple women is the only way men can achieve high levels of reproduction, but there is no adaptive advantage for women in bearing children by men who are simply trying to sire as many children as possible. For a mother, carrying and raising a child is a resource-intensive, years-long business. Doing it alone is a marked adaptive disadvantage for single mothers and their children.
So the economics of sex evolved into a win-win deal. Women agreed to give men exclusive sexual rights and guaranteed paternity in exchange for their sexual loyalty and enduring assistance with childbearing and -rearing. The man's promise of sexual loyalty meant that he would expend his labor and resources supporting her children, not another woman's. For the man, this arrangement lessens the number of potential children he can sire, but it ensures that her kids are his kids. Guaranteed sex with one woman also enabled him to conserve his resources and energies for other pursuits than repetitive courtship, which consumes both greatly.
Weddings ceremoniously legitimated the sexual union of a particular man and woman under the guidance of the greater community. In granting this license, society also promised structures beneficial to children arising from the marriage and ensuring their well-being.
Society's stake in marriage as an institution is nothing less than the perpetuation of the society itself, a matter of much greater than merely private concern. Yet society cannot compel men and women to bring forth their replacements. Marriage as conventionally defined is still the ordinary practice in Europe, yet the birthrate in most of Europe is now less than the replacement rate, which will have all sorts of dire consequences for its future.
Today, though, sexual intercourse is delinked from procreation. Since the invention of the Pill some 40 years ago, human beings have for the first time been able to control reproduction with a very high degree of assurance. That led to what our grandparents would have called rampant promiscuity. The causal relationships between sex, pregnancy and marriage were severed in a fundamental way. The impulse toward premarital chastity for women was always the fear of bearing a child alone. The Pill removed this fear. Along with it went the need of men to commit themselves exclusively to one woman in order to enjoy sexual relations at all. Over the past four decades, women have trained men that marriage is no longer necessary for sex. But women have also sadly discovered that they can't reliably gain men's sexual and emotional commitment to them by giving them sex before marriage.
Nationwide, the marriage rate has plunged 43% since 1960. Instead of getting married, men and women are just living together, cohabitation having increased tenfold in the same period. According to a University of Chicago study, cohabitation has become the norm. More than half the men and women who do get married have already lived together.
The widespread social acceptance of these changes is impelling the move toward homosexual marriage. Men and women living together and having sexual relations "without benefit of clergy," as the old phrasing goes, became not merely an accepted lifestyle, but the dominant lifestyle in the under-30 demographic within the past few years. Because they are able to control their reproductive abilities--that is, have sex without sex's results--the arguments against homosexual consanguinity began to wilt.
When society decided--and we have decided, this fight is over--that society would no longer decide the legitimacy of sexual relations between particular men and women, weddings became basically symbolic rather than substantive, and have come for most couples the shortcut way to make the legal compact regarding property rights, inheritance and certain other regulatory benefits. But what weddings do not do any longer is give to a man and a woman society's permission to have sex and procreate.
Sex, childbearing and marriage now have no necessary connection to one another, because the biological connection between sex and childbearing is controllable. The fundamental basis for marriage has thus been technologically obviated. Pair that development with rampant, easy divorce without social stigma, and talk in 2004 of "saving marriage" is pretty specious. There's little there left to save. Men and women today who have successful, enduring marriages till death do them part do so in spite of society, not because of it.
If society has abandoned regulating heterosexual conduct of men and women, what right does it have to regulate homosexual conduct, including the regulation of their legal and property relationship with one another to mirror exactly that of hetero, married couples?
I believe that this state of affairs is contrary to the will of God. But traditionalists, especially Christian traditionalists (in whose ranks I include myself) need to get a clue about what has really been going on and face the fact that same-sex marriage, if it comes about, will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it.
Rev. Sensing is pastor of the Trinity United Methodist Church in Franklin, Tenn. He writes at DonaldSensing.com.
END
From; K. C. Wilson (USA - ?)
This week's MenStuff column is at
http://menstuff.org/columns/wilson/current.html
Please feel free to re-post or pass it along. Thank you.
Domestic Violence Myths Are Violent
------------------------------------------------------------
The gap between public perception about domestic violence (DV) and its reality is astonishing. DV was recruited as a weapon in gender wars, but those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
In 1984, Diana Russell claimed that 54% of women were the victims of sexual abuse. In 2000, an advocacy group claimed that one in three women around the world have been physically assaulted by their partner. The horrifying statistics keep coming, and varying, but all insist that men are an inherently serious problem.
We rarely hear of the hundreds of serious, academic studies on intimate violence that have been done over the last 35 years. They do not serve those using violence for their own abuse of others. The most authoritative studies are the three Nation Incidence Surveys commissioned by the Department of Heath. While the rate of mild violence, such as slapping or throwing a magazine, are about the same per year for each gender (around 20%), women commit over twice the severe partner assaults as men: punching, kicking, and threat or use of a weapon: 4.6% of women and 1.9% of men.
Why has domestic violence been an effective tool for women when there has always been very little and women commit more of what does exist?
Because of the morality. Men are supposed to protect, especially protect women. Women are not. Men do not perceive women as a threat, so rarely complain even when seriously abused. But male violence against women, however rare, has a high emotional impact, especially upon those same, allegedly villainous men. Female violence is ignored while all are horrified by men???s, until it seems the only kind that exists.
As Patricia Pearson documents in her book, When She Was Bad, this means women get away with murder. Literally. And when everyone only reacts to male violence you can bully legislatures into special provisions for women and no protection for men, a dangerous imbalance that invites more female abuse of men.
The natural bias is understandable, but is a bias and should be so regarded. Is female violence less bad? Murray Strauss is one of the academic researchers who feels that, to a child, it doesn???t matter which gender it sees hitting which. It models violence as a response.
And should women get away with crimes we don???t tolerate from men? Gender double standards were considered bad, when women took their brunt. Do we want our laws and practices based upon emotion, or real threats?
Erin Pizzey established the first battered women???s shelter in the world, but by 1998 was so alarmed at the political use of DV that she wrote a scathing article for the London Observer. ???Unfortunately, at this time the feminist movement ??? hungry for recognition and for funding ??? was able to hijack the domestic violence movement and promptly set about disseminating dubious research material and disinformation.???
This is a disservice for real victims of DV, who can be anyone. The wrong thing is targeted, wrong solutions provided, and not provided to the right people. Advocates do not care about reducing family violence. They seek the power in vilifying others.
So far I???ve been nice.
Women commit 55% of spouse murders, 64% of all child abuse including 78% of what results in death, 81% of parent murders, and 55% of sibling murders. Mothers commit 55% of child murders while natural fathers commit 6.9%. Yet the more common forms of female aggression are relationship violence and emotional bullying.
In divorce, to protect children from violence, perhaps we should always award sole custody to fathers.
Want to play gender politics with DV?
??2004 KC Wilson
* * *
To nourish children and raise them against odds is in any time, any place, more valuable than to fix bolts in cars or design nuclear weapons. - Marilyn French
END
From; many sources
Considering there was a high concentration of the Anti-Family Brigade and
those deep within the legal fraternity researching these changes one should
perhaps be a little slow to celebrate.
JimBWarrior
````````````````
1 - The Government has welcomed the Law Commission's report Delivering
Justice for All, as a valuable input into continuing reform of
the justice and court system. See... Government welcomes review
of court system
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00331.htm
2 - ANNOUNCEMENT: Law Commission Proposes
More Accessible Court System.
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0403/S00117.htm
3 - Existing/Proposed Court Structure Diagrams
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0403/S00120.htm
4 - Delivering Justice for All - Recommendations
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0403/S00119.htm
5 - Delivering Justice for All - Summary Of Key Themes
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0403/S00118.htm
REACTION:
6 - ACT - Law Commission Proposal Doesn't Go Far Enough
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00332.htm
7 - United Future - Smith applauds call to open Family Court
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00319.htm
8 - & Smith: Govt must back court reforms with money
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00322.htm
9 - Greens - "Useful" law Commission report misses big picture
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00340.htm
10 - National - Law Commission Report A Mixed Bag
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00338.htm
11 - & Family Court needs more accountability
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00341.htm
12 - NZ First - Proposed Court System Wrong Says Jones
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00342.htm
13 - CTU Court Proposals Increase the Cost of Justice
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0403/S00122.htm
Yours from **3MI**
Traditional Family Orientated >> News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3MI
E-Mail Jim Bailey - JimBWarrior;
> handsonequalparent@i...
Cell;
> +64(NZ) 021-235-3729
END
Commission Proposes More Accessible Court System
Tuesday, 16 March 2004, 2:25 pm
Press Release: Law Commission
Delivering Justice for All
A vision for New Zealand courts and tribunals
MEDIA RELEASE
LAW COMMISSION PROPOSES MORE ACCESSIBLE COURT SYSTEM
The Law Commission is recommending significant changes to the court system, which it says has become an impenetrable maze to many New Zealanders.
The report, Delivering Justice for All: A vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals, was tabled in Parliament today (Tuesday 16 March).
The Commission makes 160 recommendations aimed at improving the way the court system works. It is the final part of a three-stage review, which has focussed on the daily reality for those using and working in the court system.
???The current court system does not serve New Zealanders equally well. For many people it is an unnecessarily difficult experience. Our reforms are aimed at simplifying the system and making it more accessible,??? says Law Commission President Justice Bruce Robertson.
???The court system has to do better at maintaining the confidence of New Zealanders from all communities.???
Initiatives to redistribute the heavy workload of the District Court are at the centre of the Commission???s recommendations. There are considerable shortcomings in the way the court system deals with its ???high volume??? criminal workload, namely preliminary appearances for all criminal offences, and less serious criminal cases such as drink driving, shop lifting and other theft, minor fraud and damage to property.
The Commission recommends that the structure, culture and process around the high volume part of the District Court???s jurisdiction be significantly changed and reorganised as a new court called the Community Court.
???This is where most New Zealanders encounter the court system, yet there are serious deficiencies in the way they are treated.???
The Community Court and eight other courts would collectively be named the Primary Courts. The full list of Primary Courts would be:
- Community Court
- Primary Civil Court
- Primary Criminal Court
- Family Court
- Youth Court
- Environment Court
- Employment Court
- Maori Land Court
- Coroners??? Court
The name District Court would effectively disappear from the system???s terminology.
???The Community Court would be free to develop a working style that will give effect to the concept of ???People???s Court???, emphasised by the 1978 Royal Commission on the Courts when it called for the District Court to replace the Magistrates??? Court,??? says Justice Robertson.
???This is not a new layer in the court system. It is however a new area of specialisation aimed at ensuring each individual gets the attention they deserve.???
???The way this work is done is critical to the level of public confidence and respect New Zealanders have for our court system. High volume cases need judges not only with sufficient practical legal experience but also the time to deliver appropriate decisions. More and more people are unrepresented and inadequately represented which means judicial officers need a robust knowledge of the law and the confidence and experience to be flexible within the law,??? says Justice Robertson.
The Report highlights areas requiring action including:
- Making legal information and initial advice more available
- Providing principled frameworks for cases dealt with outside the court by infringements, police diversion, restorative justice and mediation
- Reorganising ???first instance??? courts into a primary courts structure, with specifically warranted judges
- Creating as a primary court, the Community Court, to deal with the work that currently represents the less serious and highest volume, of the District Court???s caseload
- Reinforcing the pivotal constitutional role of the High Court
- The creation of uniform appeal rights
- The creation of an umbrella framework for the operation and administration of tribunals.
???During this review, the court system was compared to a house with a series of owners over the years, who had added, altered or redecorated it. Consequently, as you move from room to room you find an array of different styles and colours. There is now a pressing need to renovate the house to make it work better.???
???If we are to turn rhetoric about every one being equal before the law into reality we must be prepared to make the necessary changes to ensure the system delivers justice for all,??? says Justice Robertson.
The media release and publication will be available on our website at
http://www.lawcom.govt.nz from 16 March 2004 @ 2.00pm.
ENDS
STUFF
N A T I O N A L N E W S S T O R Y
Call for Clark to be charged with contempt over 'intimidation'
15 March 2004
Prime Minister Helen Clark should face contempt charges for mounting a campaign of intimidation against the judiciary, National's justice spokesman Richard Worth said today.
Miss Clark has criticised Maori Land Court Judge Caren Wickliffe for ruling the court should proceed with a large Maori East Coast coastal claim, despite government plans to stop the court granting private title to the foreshore and seabed.
Miss Clark said she thought the Maori Land Court had "rather better things to do with its time". She pointed out that an appeal to the Privy Council over an earlier case was under way, and the Government intended to legislate on the issue anyway.
Miss Clark also criticised Judge Wickliffe for not standing aside due to a conflict of interest.
"The judge is of Ngati Porou descent, and this case concerns Ngati Porou.
"I understand she is standing aside from any future dealings with it, the question is whether she should have stood aside before now."
The decision covers 11 Maori groups, who want the Maori Land Court to grant them freehold title to about 200km of coastline between Gisborne and Cape Runaway.
Mr Worth said Miss Clark's attack was inappropriate.
"I think Clark has crossed the line. This is the second thing she has done, she thought the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations were worthless," Mr Worth said.
"She has now embarked on a campaign of intimidation against the judiciary. It may be okay to embark on such campaigns against political opponents, but the ground has shifted now.
"She is involved in the constitutional area of separation of powers, where traditionally the legislature, the executive and judiciary remain distinct.
"It's hugely dangerous in constitutional terms."
The solicitor-general should apply the same rules to Miss Clark as he had to fellow National MP Nick Smith for discussing a Family Court case, Mr Worth said.
Mr Smith is currently awaiting a judgment on contempt charges for publicising a constituent's case in the court. Family Court proceedings are shrouded in suppression orders.
"There's one law for Labour and one law for National in all of this... perhaps," Mr Worth said.
"What should happen is the attorney general should refer these issues to the solicitor general for action.
"The chances of (attorney general) Margaret Wilson doing that are as remote as rarified Himalayan heights."
Mr Worth said the courts should stand firm and not be intimidated by Miss Clark.
Judge Wickliffe last week called the 11 applicant groups who lodged claims in the Tairawhiti region together for a judicial conference.
She rejected Crown Law submissions that a hearing should be stayed because the Port of Marlborough had lodged an application to appeal against the Court of Appeal foreshore ruling.
That decision raised the prospect of the land court issuing private foreshore and seabed title, in turn prompting the Government to move to prevent coastal privatisation through legislation.
In her judgment, Judge Wickliffe also rejected the Crown's argument that a stay was justified because of plans to draw up legislation on the issue, the New Zealand Herald newspaper reported.
The Land Court has set down two further applications for hearing foreshore claims next month, in Hawera and Wanganui.
END
NZ National Party
Press Release
March 16, 2004
Family Court needs more accountability
by Judith Collins
National Families Spokesperson
National Party Families spokesperson Judith Collins says the Law Commission's recommendations for opening up the Family Court would be little improvement on the current system.
"The current system uses children's 'best interests' to justify secrecy and incompetence when in reality children would be best served by having real accountability in the Family Court.
"The report appears to recommend that there be fewer restrictions on the reporting of family proceedings. However, in practice these recommendations would amount to an inability to report on proceedings other than those relating to property, wills and those too incapacitated to look after themselves.
"The prohibition on identifying a witness or other person connected with the proceedings without leave of the court means there is unlikely to be reporting of CYFS incompetence, counsel for the child, bad behaviour of custodial parents and incompetence parading as cultural sensitivity.
"Under the proposed changes parents will still not be able to talk about the proceedings without leave of the court. Again, this prevents proper accountability.
"While the problems of secrecy and lack of accountability are correctly identified, the report's recommendations would make little impact on the seriousness of those problems," said Ms Collins.
END
Greetings All,
Well its 12 Days to go and its looking good!
Numbers are very respectable and growing and all is on track on track for leaving Auckland on 28 March arriving Wellington 31 march.
A reminder to all Aucklanders and Wellingtonians to join us for the events planned.
If you want change to the CS Act 1991 and a fair and reasonable CS system you need to get active and if possible join the CONVOY! If you cant join us for all the trip join us for part of it.
Tee-Shirts are printed and available (Aucklanders contact Kerry Bevin-see the Rego Pack)
Invitation to Auckland And Wellington Events.
We would like to invite Auckland's and those nearby to the Auckland Launch Event. and the Queen Street Departure.
The Auckland Event we be held following the first day of the CONVOY taking the message for child support reform to the streets of Auckland
Sunday 28 March
Time 16:00
Venue : Auckland Domain (Gore Road) : Grandstand/Car Park
There will be guest speakers.
Public Launch of the Petition
Collection of Shirts for the "Shirt Off our Back's" Campaign.
PIKNIK (BYO)
It is hoped that a number of cars, groups and individuals will be able to join us for the departure from Auckland.
The CONVOY will be leaving Queen Street Auckland (Opposite Victoria Park) at 08:00 on Monday 29 Those partaking in the whole CONVOY will be gathered by 07:00 and ready to leave by 07:45.
Jim's Bus will lead the way, followed by other "all the way" participants followed by other supporting cars..
Wellingtonians and those nearby , how about joining us for the day we head through Wellington and Go to Parliament. The more the merrier. And don't forget the "break up" party afterwards.
Wednesday 31 March
Time 14:00
Event : Rally at Parliament
Guest speakers including politicians invited.
Time:16:00
Event:Shirt's Off Our Backs presentation
Venue:
David Udy's Office
Child Support Agency
Alley by Gubbs Shows
Leads to James Smith Carpark.
17:00
Its Celebration time!!! Social get together and wind down. Venue advised on the day.
Working Together
Thanks to all the many contributors to the CONVOY. Not long to go now till we are off.
Lets keep our eye on the prize, men have worked together throughout the country to get this up and running.
Support has come from unexpected sources and thanks for that support.
The crew from Auckland have been giving a "wake up call" to Hamiltion this week and tell me they are going to Wake Up Auckland next week.
Thanks guys.
Lets not forget to keep spreading the message.
The Petition is Comming wording is being finalised so keep and eye on your email.
Regards
Jim Nicolle
END
Mum's the word now that fatherhood's redundant
By Bettina Arndt
March 15, 2004
Young women aren't free to choose when to have children because their men aren't interested. Men are too self-absorbed, too career-oriented. That's the latest suggestion to emerge in the ongoing debate on fertility, where men are being scolded for failing to shoulder the collective responsibility of a declining birthrate.
Why should men be interested in fathering children?
Confronted with the very strong societal message that children do fine without fathers, is it so surprising that some men may decide the risks of having children are just too high?
Every week we see pregnant celebrities or soap opera stars flaunting their decision to bear children on their own. There's a howl of outrage when governments attempt to confine access to IVF services to families with fathers. Children do just fine without fathers, is the constant refrain.
All you need is love, mother love. The message is clear: fathers are disposable. But surely this makes taking on the job of the throwaway father a mug's game?
Conservative US-based columnist Maggie Gallagher wrote recently on the townhall.com website, describing a conversation she had had with a young college student who was raised in a lone mother household. They were talking about the debate on same-sex marriage, and the student was convinced kids do just fine in lone parent or same-sex households. "Kids just accept whatever their family situation is. It doesn't matter," the student said. "What about you?" Gallagher asked him. "Do you think you'll matter to your kids?" The young man was taken aback. "No," he said finally. "Not really."
If it is beginning to dawn on young men that many people think fathers don't matter, if they realise they have a good chance of partnering a woman who sees them as irrelevant to raising children, if they are beginning to believe that they would be unimportant in the lives of their future children, why would they want to get on board?
Forty-four per cent of young (18- to 34-year-old ) men questioned in the 2003 Australian Social Attitudes survey agreed that "a single parent can bring up children as well as a couple", compared with about two-thirds (63 per cent) of same-aged women. So two in three young Australian males are likely to partner a woman who may think she can do just as good a job parenting on her own, and almost half of these men don't see fathers as essential. That's a lot of males having bought the message that they won't play a critical role in the lives of their future children.
Many have yet to discover how much their kids will matter to them. It matters so much it can annihilate men when they experience that intense connection and then have it taken from them.
I'll never forget a painful conversation I once had with a mother who watched her adult son give in to despair when his former wife disappeared with his nine-year-old twin sons. After spending months trying to track them down, he gave up and killed himself, gassed in a car. The mother saw it coming but didn't know how to help. All those years she had tried to protect him - Band-Aids on grazed knees, comfort when night-time bogymen came calling, solace when other children snatched his favourite toy. She'd never imagined he could end up in such pain.
It spooks me. Having spent many, many hours over the past decade trying to comfort men who have confronted similar losses, who face the indifference of the Family Court to their struggles to remain fathers to their children, I'm nervous for my sons. Much as I would want them to one day know the extraordinary joy of being a parent, I fear it is a risky course.
Fatherhood is like playing with illicit drugs which promise unimagined delight but have the real possibility of blowing your life up from under you.
The worst thing is they may not be given a choice. Men are always at risk of the supposed "accident", when the woman may decide she is ready even if the man is not. I once watched an afternoon television chat show where men who had been tricked into paternity - through holes in condoms and other dastardly acts - faced a largely hostile female audience. The women weren't interested in the emotional and financial fall-out for these duped men. "If you don't like it, keep it zipped," was one woman's unsympathetic response.
Keeping it zipped - that's too tough an order. But avoiding fatherhood must be tempting.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/14/1079199096930.html
END
Police rape allegations must be kept separate
Friday, 12 March 2004, 8:46 am
Press Release: New Zealand Government
Police rape allegations must be kept separate
Allegations about the undercover police programme will not be included in the Commission of Inquiry into the handling of complaints of sexual misconduct by police, says Attorney-General Margaret Wilson.
"The allegations that have been made relating to the undercover police programme are serious and need to be investigated.
"This is a matter for the police, however, and I understand that the Police Commissioner will be undertaking such an investigation.
"http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00263.htm
END
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|