Safety Orders
June 30th, 2010 at 6:24 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Police will be able to issue safety orders from tomorrow that remove an aggressor from a premises, separating victims of domestic violence from their abuser for five days.
The orders can be made when police do not have enough evidence to make an immediate arrest and allow time for intervention by social agencies. They are part of a number of measures being introduced tomorrow to help victims of crime, including more financial help for families of murder victims and a national phoneline to handle phone requests from police for Victim Support help.
“Often police attend a job and although we suspect an offence may have been committed, or we believe one may well be committed, we are unable to charge a person and take them into custody,” said Inspector Brigitte Nimmo, acting National Family Violence Co-ordinator.
The orders would allow at-risk people some “breathing room” and time to meet police and other agencies.
Ms Nimmo said that in some situations they could save a person’s life. “It certainly plugs what has been a frustrating gap for police providing an effective way of intervening in a situation to protect families from violence.”
Our current laws and framework are ineffective. The number of people who die at the hands of their partners is disgraceful. There is only so much the state can do to reduce this, but I think the new safety orders will be a much needed tool.
As with all tools, there is the potential for abuse, but the limited time period they can stay in force for, mitigates that.
Related posts:
- Principal Family Court Judge on Instant Portection Orders
- Protection Orders
- Domestic Violence report
- Public Protection Orders
June 30th, 2010 at 6:59 am
This leans the law more towards better protection for victims of violence alongside increased measures to bolster victim support, with an extra risk that some people are detained unnecessarily or maliciously. Some men may grizzle about this, but they would better serve fellow males by making it clear that violence is not acceptable and there is help available to those who have difficulty with it.
Men as a whole have a responsibility to protect their families, women and children, and not to abuse them. For too long there has been too much of a disgraceful silence, or worse – tacit support for thugs.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 7:50 am
With the police already having without notice protection orders in their anti father arsenal I find it rather offensive the need for 5 day safety orders which will further discriminate against men and allow false allegations to flourish. What hope does a victim of false allegations have now that a gender bias trained police officer has the power to destroy a family on the spot on the grounds of she says here say psychological or emotional violence? This is yet another nail in the coffin of kiwi fatherhood. These orders will be used with prejudice to assist the multi billion dollar fractured family business.Lawyers will win and once again children will lose. What a sad country for kids.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:00 am
It’s been a sad country for many kids and women. A large number thumped, and far too many killed by possessive males who can’t deal with anger and violence.
For a long time too many males have perpetrated far too much violence in their families. Some men may suffer some injustice, but far less than the women and kids of the country have and still do. They deserve protection.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:04 am
This is nothing short of an utter disgrace, and it proves what so many people already suspect- that our politicians are ignorant fools. Knuckle dragging big government barbarians uninterested in preserving the principles of the traditional justice system, namely that an accused is to be treated as innocent until found guilty, that every man has a right to trial, and that no man should pay a penalty as if he were guilty until he has faced trial.
This is an act that gives a policeman/ woman the power to act as judge and jury, turning again the basic principles of arrest, bail and arraignment on their head. Weakly justified by some emotioanl rubbish about protecting us from violence and death.
Utter rubbish.
There is a reason that certain evidence has to be available before an arrest can be made and that is to remove as far as possible the opportunity for abuse of the law by over enthusiastic or partisan police. Already there is far too much happening in our courts and justice system that centers on hearsay and non-evidential reporters. This takes these abuses of process to a higher level and it is an utter disgrace that a Minister of a party that once stood for protecting the rights of individuals should sign off on something so fascist in nature.
Power’s actions will of course find favour with the left wing, who always applaud any law that increases the power of the state at the expense of the individual. This is just another disappointment in a long line of such betrayals from National and proves once again that they are as useless as Labour, have no principles and are merely a shade only very lightly less pink than the collectivist crooks and abuses of process they replaced.
We are governed by troughers cronyists and barbarians with no knowledge of history and who ignorantly tramp over traditions of law that have extended for centuries. Ignorant vote seeking fools who will cave in on important principles to gain favour with some pissant ill advised and equally ignorant pressure group.
Anyone out there still stupid enough to think our governments, National or Labour, are ever going to amount to anything but a bunch of anti-liberty tyrants?? The Nats are just as bad, merely the other side of the same disgusting statist coin. Destroying those age old bulwarks that protect us from over-zealous government, stripping us of our traditional rights and gradually taking us down the same slippery slope into tyranny and slavery.
This law is an abuse and it will be abused, and National should be thrown out of office for their support of such an abomination.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:11 am
Peter George, you need to stop your cowardly lies and slander of our fathers and grandfathers. You do much on this forum that is offensive and disgusting but by constantly maligning so many good men as bashers and perpetrators of evil you take that offensiveness to a new level.
You are a disgusting coward, and exist in stark contrast to the brave men whom you constantly smear and especially the many who died fighting to protect us from such abominations as this law.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Excellent, anyone with a penis can be thrown out of his own home with nowhere to go without any due process on the say of any person with a grudge and no penis while they still have numerous options for seeking refuge elsewhere.
Helen will approve.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Shame on you pete george, did you know that 19 forced MALE clients of the Femily Court committed suicide last year? That will rise and more fatherless children will be created for the judicial system to deal with. Great just what an out of control society needs at present. You are a disgrace to manhood and very comment you make is nauseous.I didn’t know that police could determine on the spot on the balance of probabilities that emotional or psychological violence has occurred. Why have judges when Stupid Crusher has granted police the same powers!
This government needs a lesson in gender balance.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:39 am
“Helen will approve.”
Exactly- The National Party, in an act of utter betrayal, doing it for Helen Klark who was voted out. What a bunch of useless unprincipled losers, and Power, after endorsing this disgraceful attack on men in their homes, (an attack so transparently underpinned by socialist feminist lies and propaganda), is one of the worst.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:41 am
PG – Oh by the way did you know that police remove dad and the Femily Court gravy train steal his kids so they can pay for their golf club fees. Your types make my blood boil you vile twisted coward. Oh one more thing A MALE CANNOT EVER CLEAR HIS NAME ONCE BRANDED A DOMESTIC VIOLENT DAD> fact !!@!!
Crusher was a Femily Court leech and Simon Flower just another parasitic lawyer.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:46 am
The only knuckle draggers in this thread are the ones who seek to make family violence a political issue.
It is NEVER acceptable for a bloke to hit a chick or his kids, it is NEVER acceptable for a bloke to terrorise his family even if he never lays a hand on them, this is all about keeping the kids and family safe.
End of argument.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:46 am
TAB is paying evens that this new law kills more men than die on the roads. My advice to potential fathers move to Australia before the cops crush your balls.
big blouse – surely you are a vindictive and vengeful woman. Go do some washing up then go walk the dog darling.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:58 am
D4J
Unlike you I am 100% bloke, I do not threaten kids or chicks, I do not run away from my responsibilities and I believe that all kids have a right to live a life free from family violence.
Nothing matters here more than keeping kids safe, if that means the odd bloke has to spend a night away from his home then that is a cheap price to pay.
Being born a bloke comes with responsibilities, pity that some men do not accept that.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:06 am
“Unlike you I am 100% bloke”
Not really. I’d say at least 50% lame commie retard.
This is not an issue that you should view as part of your ongoing feud with D4J, (and which you continually selfishly foul this blog with) and the language you use in the post above is just full on Progressive rubbish. You constantly undermine the right with your failure to understand basic political principles.
“a cheap price to pay”
Go and join Labour you ignorant damn fool.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:15 am
I’m with Red on this one BB. Socialists are people who mistake nice iedas for good ones. This one WILL be abused and I’ve never bought into the lie of a “greater good” being an accpetable excuse for injustice.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Redbaiter
Check under the bed, them ‘commies’ are coming to get you.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Socialism thrives on injustice Murray, but don’t expect big blouse or petey gal too ever understand that.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Murray
You can be “with” who ever you like , unlike Comrade Redbaiter I do not run an approved thinking programme.
BTW….what part of “The number of people who die at the hands of their partners is disgraceful.” do you disagree with?
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Big Bruv,
Vote:God you a a fucking idiot
Women are just as likely to resort to violence as men, I know as it happened to me
My situation was i was late home from work and as soon as i walked in the door i was slammed in the face with a fry pan
after a trip to the hospital i went to the police station to make a complaint and was told if I persist with it I WOULD BE ARRESTED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE as it is now mandatory to only arrest the male!!!!!
and if you don’t believe me a recent Herald article in a survey of domestic violence when they went and interviewed hospital admissions 30% of those in hospital were men
June 30th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Keep thrashing that greater good line BB. It started at no sale hasn’t gained any ground.
People die on the roads every other day, ban cars, its for the greater good. Men rape women, have all males castrated, its for the greater good. Some defects are hereditary, gas all the defectives, its for the greater good.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Ban fry pans, its for the greater good.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:29 am
” What part of “The number of people who die at the hands of their partners is disgraceful.” do you disagree with?”
None, but if you were capable of thinking cleary rather than through the haze of progressive rubbish that fills your head, you would understand that murder and or manslaughter are already crimes, and there are already procedures in place to deal with them. Procedures based on traditional law.
You’re just cheering for this because you’re just an empty headed liberal. Your argument, presented in the emotional language of the Progressives rather than facts, shows what an ignorant dullard you really are.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:33 am
“disgraceful” is not a fact based argument.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:34 am
nigel
You claim that “Women are just as likely to resort to violence as men,” yet later in the post you mention a survey from the Herald that says that 30% of those admitted to hospital for domestic violence injuries are men, do you see anything glaringly wrong with your claim?
Tell me Nigel, if you have 100 people in a room and the men number thirty how many females are there?
I will give you an hour or so to work it out seeing as you are obviously an imbecile.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:37 am
“you would understand that murder and or manslaughter are already crimes”
Oh..there you go then, lets wait until some kid is killed before rushing into arrest anybody.
Some things are bigger than petty politics Redbaiter, child welfare being one of them, pity you cannot see that, but hey, what’s a few dead kids in the big scheme of things, just as long as them damn ‘commies’ do not have control.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:46 am
“Oh..there you go then, lets wait until some kid is killed before rushing into arrest anybody.”
So let’s just arrest everybody then. That will stop it. When the left have no rational arguments to support their actions, they always resort to the “safety of the children” or some other victim. The irony here BB is that because you’re so damn thick, you should ask for a law protecting you from yourself you pathetic child.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:47 am
You claim that “Women are just as likely to resort to violence as men,” yet later in the post you mention a survey from the Herald that says that 30% of those admitted to hospital for domestic violence injuries are men, do you see anything glaringly wrong with your claim?
I don’t BB. There are multiple reasons why both assertions in the comment could be correct. I’m not saying I agree just that what may appear to be an inconsistency isn’t necessarily the case.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Women can be and are violent. But I am picking that the safety orders will be almost exclusively granted against men because that’s the accepted orthodoxy. BB, men do not report domestic violence often because they are ridiculed for it. Also it isn’t clear whether the 30% is the percentage of total adult female and male victims, or includes children. Some men are highly dangerous in their jealousy and possessiveness and it is nigh on impossible to get away from them. But alongside that scenario there is a great deal of ‘brawling’ type violence occurring aggravated by alcohol and with questionable culpability of any one partner.
Too much power and indiscretion has been handed by National/Act to the police.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Redbaiter
“So let’s just arrest everybody then”
That is not a very bright idea Comrade, how about we only arrest the chicks or blokes who are violent or have anger issues?
When the idealogical bigots have no rational argument to support their ideas they resort to abuse.
You are never happy to debate an issue Comrade, I suggest this is because in your world you would not allow anybody to have a differing opinion, or perhaps it is because you are unable to do so.
This is not a left v right issue Redbaiter, it is about child welfare and protecting the victims (remember them?) of domestic violence, why do you refuse to admit that.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Yes, almost certainly, but how many women and children HAVE and ARE being abused, violently. 100 to each man that is dealt unfairly?
Redbaiter, you are being more pathetic than usual.
D4J – do you fly off the handle as easily in real life?
Yes, I’m aware that men commit suicide and murder when they can’t handle their situations – they need to learn to deal with things without having to resort to violence.
bb is wrong, it is a left and right issue, fists and boots from both sides.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:12 am
@ big bruv (8.46am) – agree wholeheartedly
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:14 am
BB
Vote:You really are a fuckwitt,
The point i was tying to point out was that WOMEN can be violent as well as men but it is now mandatory to arrest the man in all domestic violence cases.
I am all for no violence and have NEVER even raised my hands to a man woman or child but these safety orders are going to be used solely to arrest or take away the man
Do you not see the issue with this?
Just to make it easy would you accept because Maori in NZ are by proportion more likely to commit more violent crime than Caucasians that no matter what the evidence shows there is a mandatory order to arrest Maori
June 30th, 2010 at 10:15 am
As I understand protection orders can order a person out of their home on the allegation of someone who has no financial interest in the house. This is more bad law like the anti smacking law. I just heard on the radio the number of police who have been convicted of crimes including rape and incest. The police should not be given roles that should belong to the judiciary.
I wonder if any of you knights in shining armour consider domestic violence including murder could be the result of an unjust and totally inappropriate protection orders.
I have heard of cases where a woman who gets a protection order moves out with all the furniture and steals or destroys the man’s personal positions.
We know that if a woman makes a false rape complaint she gets a slap on the wrist compared to what a man would receive for attempted rape. The women in these cases are trying to put an innocent man in jail for many years. What will happen to a woman who lies to force a man out of his own home?
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:15 am
“Redbaiter, you are being more pathetic than usual.”
I’m pathetic? You’re the sneaking coward who constantly comes on here and smears all NZ men as violence prone abusers of woman. Are you one of them you arsehole? Is that the reason you need this law? Lack of self control? Wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Nigel
Do you have a stutter?
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:20 am
BB,
Vote:Just answer the question
June 30th, 2010 at 10:20 am
“You are never happy to debate an issue Comrade, ”
Not with someone as dull as you that is for sure. Pearls before swine. Here’s a clue- get yourself the set of books written by Arthur Bryant that starts with “Makers of the Realm” (if I recall correctly) and teach yourself something about our heritage and history. You Progressives have completely forgotten everything that made western civilisation the dominant civilisation, and you will not be happy until you have reduced us to Mongols.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:26 am
As with the anti smacking bullshit, the common sense part of my brain can’t figure out why we need so many rules and regulations, particularly ones which are glaringly one sided and open to abuse. Violence in any form is not good but why are the current rules around assault not enough? If someone smacks their partner they should be arrested, same as if it happened on the street or in the pub.
Why do all bureaucrats think that by coming up with yet another bullshit, cleverly worded rule they can change the world? Does anyone know if the police actually asked for this?
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Nigel.
If you ask me a question then I will answer it.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I was having lunch with a senior Police Prosecutor on Sunday who was advising that this law was a complete mistake.
- It is based completely on the officers discretion,
- There is no review process
- There is no obligation to allow the evicted person (which in his words will always be the male) to have a place to go or even opportunity to pack a bag of clothes.
- No reasonable process to have the decision reviewed/overthrown within the 5 day time line.
As a result you and you spouse may get into a loud verbal argument which results in a neighbor calling the cops.
A 20 year old kid fresh out of police college can bowl on up, without speaking to your spouse or listening to what she is saying boot you remove you from your home without your wallet, clothes or anything else. They are supposed to get approval from a Senior Sargent however there is no obligation for the Senior Sargent to actually be onsite or for them speak to the parties involved directly. As a result the approval will generally simply be done over the radio.
You will then be taken back to the Police station and advise you that you are not allowed back home for 5 days and if you do you will automatically locked up. At which point you will be left to fend for yourself. If you were to say “camp” in the police reception which was my “thats what I would do” he advised I would be locked up and trespassed.
You would have the right to have the protection order reviewed by a Judge however it would be unlikely you would be able to get a court appearance. The fastest method would be to purposefully breach the protection order and get arrested however then the Judge is unlikely to look upon the situation with any favour.
He wasn’t opposed to the concept of the law and after more than 36 years in Uniform believes that law should require officers ensure that the person being removed:
Vote:- Has a place to go
- A opportunity to get clothing, money etc
- A process that it can be reviewed and if applicable overturned easily within the 5 day period.
June 30th, 2010 at 10:32 am
BB,
Vote:this just shows you don’t even read the comments
the question as above is
I am all for no violence and have NEVER even raised my hands to a man woman or child but these safety orders are going to be used solely to arrest or take away the man
Do you not see the issue with this?
Just to make it easy would you accept because Maori in NZ are by proportion more likely to commit more violent crime than Caucasians that no matter what the evidence shows there is a mandatory order to arrest Maori?
June 30th, 2010 at 10:38 am
“This is not a left v right issue Redbaiter,”
You sad fool. This is an initiative pushed by socialists feminists devoted to implementing a fascist government that will eventualy override every right any indivual might have. You complain constantly about the National party being no different to the Labour party, and here, when you should be criticising them more strongly than ever, you’re backing them up.
Proving that it is unaware politically confused idiots like you BB, who deny the reality of the left’s long term Fabian ambitions, who are actually behind the rot that infests the National party. You in your sad political ignorance are as much to blame for National’s lack of direction as anyone.
This is just another stop on the train that’s heading to Grand Central Communist Station BB, and like so many other slobbering Progressive idiots, you can’t wait to buy your ticket and jump on board.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:39 am
nigel.
What am I supposed to ‘see’ an issue with?
You have made a statement about your own circumstances and then made a generalisation about what may happen when this law comes into use.
There is no bloody question to answer.
The second part of your post is just stupid.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:40 am
“The orders can be made when police do not have enough evidence to make an immediate arrest” So someone can be removed because someone “thinks” something might happen?????
That seriously and scarily reads like a line from “1984″.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
One of the biggest problems, as illustrated in this thread, is males who blow a fuse when they are questioned and can’t dominate.
Mr Nobody:
- It is based completely on the officers discretion
A lot of policing is based on police discretion. It’s imperfect but a fact of life.
- There is no review process
If not that is a problem that should be addressed.
The first thing is to err if necessary towards protecting people from violence (usually women and/or kids).
The next important thing is that those removed from the home should have a means of redress if they have been unfairly removed. But this has to be done with caution, some men in this situation (their authority removed) can be more angry than ever.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:48 am
petey gal you wimpish and foolish type troll – why is there not a female assault male criminal charge written into legal legislation? Surely this is unlawful gender discrimination?
big blouse continues to show she is completely out of her depth!
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:49 am
“One of the biggest problems,”
Its a measure of your cowardice and complete lack of a moral base that you would do something that destroys the whole basis of internet discussion groups, and edit another’s comment so as to change the meaning and then present it as something that the original poster has written. I don’t know how someone can portray themselves as so odious and morally bankrupt and not know it, but you Mr. George manage this feat surprisingly often, even for an extreme leftist.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:50 am
You have not had much to say in this thread D4J, are you having trouble keeping your temper under control?
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Get a job you twisted nutbar blouse. Go throw temper tantrums as you walk the dog you insane twit. I am happy as, in my line of work .
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 10:57 am
“You have not had much to say in this thread D4J, are you having trouble keeping your temper under control?”
Does this say anything on the subject? It is just goading. You’re just going to selfishly make this thread another example of your idiot inclination to allow your personal dislike to over ride any rational discussion and destroy Mr. Farrar’s blog.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Yeah yeah RB, except that you are wrong again. I repeated two of the statements you made, verbatim.
If you had never misrepresented anyone here then I might care. But you deliberately bullshit all the time so I don’t.
I apologise for that. I had forgotten that the only purpose of internet discussion groups was to provide one anonymous ranter a soapbox to spit rubbish from.
If you didn’t hold the fort that nice Mr Farrar wouldn’t have a blog, would he.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Having been in the position of Policeman called to a “domestic” I can understand the desire for this type of option.
That it must be policed properly with accountability is a given I would hope.
Most times where alcohol was not involved the alleged offender took the advice to go stay over with a mate.
However where Drink/drugs were involved it was harder unless they were drunk in public on the sidewalk whilst talking to us or they got ratty and abusive or committed assault whereby we arrested them and kept them in the cells overnight.
Much to their families relief
Calling at the same address week in week out is a waste of resources and providing this is policed properly, it may make intervention easier/quicker and even help some situations.
Vote:I hope so, having women and kids in fear and bashed is not something any society should tolerate.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Here is the whole quote:
Says Redbaiter. Model of self control?
Thanks Mike for contributing some sanity here.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:17 am
STILL arguing percentages against principle I see.
Its not ok to shit on justice for the sake of playing the numbers. That way you may as well go out and convict anyone you find for any crime committed. that way you can claim there was a crime and someone has been punised so its all good.
Arguing that a law will be abused it alright because 70% of the time it will be ok is another crap ideological argument from the people that “saved” our kids with their anti-smacking law.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:29 am
I agree with the thrust of your position Murray, you do make a good point.
Vote:That is why this needs to be policed properly and the officers must be seen to be punished and even sued/convicted should they act outside the law.
That said, whilst women do assault and bash, men are the main culprits.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:29 am
This law is bad because it tramples the presumption of innocence and because it will be useless, IMHO.
When you read about a domestic assault or murder, it invariably involves the abusee repeatedly inviting/accepting the abuser back into their home/life. Ultimately if you continue associating with your abuser, there’s bugger all the police and legal system can do to help. And trying to create law to get around that fundamental problem, will just result in bad law.
What’s the point of having a violent person kept away for 5 days, if you’re just going to let them come back again? And if you’re determined to have them charged and there’s evidence, then there are already plenty of laws to get that done.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:33 am
One of the problems is men who blow a fuse when treated most unfairly. I saw a family court case that was televised. A man came home to find his partner in bed with someone. I think it was the boarder. The man who was caught did a runner and the man pushed his partner – the mother of his child – against the wall. He might have roughed her up a bit but did not belt the crap out of her. Not only did he get booted out of his home but was restricted to supervised access.
What do you think a man should do if he comes home and finds his partner in bed with someone – sit in the corner and jerk off? Years ago some violence on the part of the man was accepted in the above situation. Things have now reversed. There is now no excuse for a man to be violent but countless excuses for women to be violent including murdering children.
This sort thing where a man gets nearly always gets kicked out of the home is bad enough when the house is jointly owned. Do any of the knights in shining armour think it is acceptable for a man to be kicked out of a home that he is the sole owner of?
Many years ago I was involved with some father’s groups. Many of the fathers who came to the group said until they struck difficulty they used to think like many men on this blog. That is domestic violence is almost totally men’s fault.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Russell you appear to see any attempt to prevent harm as being an act of interference by the government in the lives of individuals. Well it probably is and on some occasions it is the right thing to do.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:40 am
“That said, whilst women do assault and bash, men are the main culprits.”
Mike, can you support that with any research?
Children are more at risk of being abuse in the custody of the mother than in the custody of the father. However, you will not see
Vote:politicians making laws with the best interest of children in mind. Their top priority is votes.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:41 am
” Says Redbaiter.”
You Progressives / Communists need to disabuse yourself of the idea that you can make any kind of offensive cowardly smears concerning your political opponents and escape Scott free.
The era of political correctness that you ushered in and policed so energetically is fast drawing to a close, and soon, slime will be universally recognised as slime, and people will not hesitate to make that recognition.
The cost of not identifying you as what you really are is far too great for any free country to bear.
BB, if you had half a brain surely the fact that in so many of these disagreements, PG and other odious extreme leftists so often come out on your side would awaken you to your confusion.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:46 am
It obviously isn’t, friction, antagonism, anger etc are the responsibility of all those involved. The problem is when men get angry they cause most of the physical damage. And women and children experience most of the fear.
Was that his description? Have you ever been the weaker party involved in a little “roughing up”.
By many (but not all), including police and courts. Men were allowed to beat their wives, even with implements, eg “rule of thumb”. Most reasonable people now accept that it should not happen any more.
?? There should be no excuse for either.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:46 am
” it is the right thing to do.”
Hhahah.. thanks for the laff. As if someone who adheres to the political ideology that you do would have the faintest idea of what is right and what is wrong. As a Progressive, the whole thrust of your political plan is based on removing any regular distinction between those two concepts.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 11:47 am
“Most reasonable people”
Are you trying to make me kill myself laughing?? You arrogant presumptuous fraud.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
“Are you trying to make me kill myself laughing?? ”
No, but you could learn to laugh sometimes, it’d be good for you. Might shake you out of your sad yearning for the past that never was – when would you like to be today, 1901, 1850, 1740?
Try it now – type a colon, then a right bracket. Not the left! You know how bad that is for you.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Gawd you’re pathetic petey gal I need a sanity order so I can’t read your dribble!
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I know I am opening myself up for a torrent of abuse but I don’t understand why PG’s comment that “Most reasonable people now accept that it [Men were allowed to beat their wives, even with implements] should not happen any more” is so funny to RB
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
hmmm this doesnt sound good.
Are we just governing to the lowest common denominator?
Dime did grow up in west auckland and ive witnessed a lot over the years. Ive seen quite a few nutjob girls attack friends. its not all one way traffic.
Women can be evil bitches – look at how many rap complaints get throw out.
Now cops can and will remove guys from their houses on some nutty chicks say so?
what if the guy owns the house and his girl friend has been living there for 2 months? does the guy still have to leave his own house?
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
The real test of this law will be in a few years time. The police guidelines for use of the PSOs are such that it is easier to arrest someone than put a PSO on them. It should also be noted that PSO breaches are relatively toothless save for the power of arrest. My concern is that after the PSOs are bedded in the police will decide that in order to combat DV they will have zero tolerance and they will be thrown about like confetti. This will not only affect the innocent but potentially see police replace investigating and prosecuting a crime with a PSO.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Pete, I live in the real world. If someone spits in a police officer’s face the police officer would not be justified beating the crap out of the offender but if he blew a fuse and did should that cost him his career?
In the case I mentioned from TV the woman did not claim she was bashed up. So I accept the story as did the judge. I think the man’s actions were understandable. I do not think it should have affected his access to his child. Do you? If so, why?
Have you a source for the rule of thumb myth?
In my post you commented on some of my statements but ignored my one question. The question was.
You state, “There should be no excuse for either” in reference to family violence. That is nice in theory but not how things work. If a woman kills a child someone is ready to make an excuse. I remember the case in the US where a woman drowned her 5 children. Before they were buried feminist were blaming her husband for not helping enough around the home.
Closer to home I recall the case of the tattooist killed by his wife. I do not think she even went to jail. I remember some on this blog justifying her killing him because he was unfaithful on numerous occasions.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Susan Falls found not guilty of murdering her husband Rodney Falls..
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
“he man who was caught did a runner and the man pushed his partner – the mother of his child – against the wall. He might have roughed her up a bit but did not belt the crap out of her. ”
So a bit of roughing up is OK is it?
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Understandable, yes, but stupid, and potentially very dangerous. Just saying it’s “understandable” sends a signal to other men that it’s ok to react like this. It’s not.
There can be a fine line between “roughing up” a bit and bashing. Just one momentary loss of self control. I can understand that this guy would have felt very shitty (I live in the real world too) but what he should have done walked out of the situation until he had a chance to sort himself out and act reasonably.
One person’s roughing up is another persons beating the crap, so it’s not a good idea to show approval of anything like either.
Yes, the origin is disputed (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/rule-of-thumb.html), but it generally refers to the past “right” of a man to “to chastise his wife in moderation”.
In some situations, yes, if that is the safest and most practical interim solution.
Some people making excuses for some women who harm their children is hardly any different to some men making excuses or justification for harming (including roughing up a bit) women or children. If any of my daughters was roughed up a bit I’d want the bastard out of there.
I don’t think unfaithfulness is any justification or excuse to kill someone.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
“Are you trying to make me kill myself laughing?? ”
I doubt you have laughed in the last ten years Redbaiter.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
“BB, if you had half a brain surely the fact that in so many of these disagreements, PG and other odious extreme leftists so often come out on your side would awaken you to your confusion.”
Grow up Comrade, unlike you I try to separate the message from the messenger (unless it is a Green where it is safe to take everything they say as utter bullshit) sometimes the left do get it right. The seabed and foreshore legislation being one of those examples.
You are so blinded by hard right Christian ideology that you do not even consider what is written or said, you see a name and explode into another of your insult laden abusive posts, in the process you make not one ounce of sense.
Thank god people like you are as irrelevant as the Greens, your type will never be in a position of power and thank goodness for that.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Pete George,
Vote:You seem to have fallen into the fallacy that only men are responsible for the violence in domestic disputes
I have tried to get Big Bruv to respond but he is being very obtuse and doesn’t seem to be able to grasp anyone else argument so I will try to get a response to you
I think this is a bad law because it assumes that only the men are violent in domestic disputes and as I have pointed out earlier this is not the case
So would you also support a law which states that as Maori are prone to more violence than Caucasians if there is a dispute between a Maori and a Caucasian that the Maori should be arrested because they are more violent and are likely to cause more injuries
June 30th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
You might have missed this:
It obviously isn’t, friction, antagonism, anger etc are the responsibility of all those involved. The problem is when men get angry they cause most of the physical damage. And women and children experience most of the fear.
While domestic discord is the responsibility of both sexes men lead the violence problem by a long way. If men solved their anger and violence problems then I doubt we would see much violence in domestic disputes, if any.
Many men are not good at dealing with conflicts, and a significant proportion of men are not good at dealing with conflict without resorting to violence.
Your Maori/Caucasian question is flawed. If the man was Caucasian then he is more likely to be stronger and more likely to be violent and more likely to be dangerously violent than the woman.
If the law only applied to Maori (and how would you determine that, DNA or electoral roll?) there would still be a major unresolved problem of violence.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Want to talk about violence towards women, well read her story.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-22/ayaan-hirsi-alis-new-book-nomad-reviewed/full/
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Pete,
Vote:again you blame just men
In my case I was smashed in the face by a fry pan because I was held up in traffic
I did nothing it was my x partner who was angry and had the violence problem
I have since found out she was violent to 2 other partners as well
I was about to be arrested because I was the male and according to the police only males are responsible for domestic violence
Do you think it is acceptable under this new law that it would be me that is taken away with no access to clothing or my home which is what would of happened
June 30th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Yep Mike, as bad as violence against women is here it is far worse in some Muslim societies, they are stuck in the dark ages in that respect. I’d much rather that was addressed than worry about Muslims taking over the world, it’s a major, real, widespread problem.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Pete,
Your comment
Your Maori/Caucasian question is flawed. If the man was Caucasian then he is more likely to be stronger and more likely to be violent and more likely to be dangerously violent than the woman
Could be turned around and restated
genetically Maori are stronger than Caucasians and are more likely to be stronger and more likely to be dangerously violent than the Caucasians
Where do you stop
Dont’ get me wrong I want to stop all violence I just want things to be fare and just
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
That may be possible. However, the message that left wingers, feminists and knights in shining armour promote that that there is never an excuse for a man to hit a woman can also led to more women getting bashed up. The above message may convey to women that this gives them licence to be as vicious and as nasty as they like and not suffer any consequences.
Men like women are human beings and do not always act in their long term best interest. When women could not vote let along hold political office there was some justification for them getting special privilege. We have had the case of Robin Brooks on talk back. A man who has had too much to drink is supposed to be able to ascertain if a woman is sober enough to give informed consent.
What this law says is a man can be thrown out of a house that is 100% his by a woman who may have lived there for only a few months. He does not actually have to be physically violent. He comes home and find out his partner has had sex with someone else. He yells at her and orders her out of his house. She rings the police and says she is fearful. He gets ordered to leave. She then invitees her boyfriend around. Have you ever heard of love triangles with fatal consequences?
I am not saying that killing her would be justified but this law could in many cases increase violence it instead of reduce it.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Nigel, I don’t blame just men, I just say they are a major part of the problem. I’m against women and children being violent too. What sort of family was your ex brought up in? You say “about to be arrested” – were you able to explain what really happened?
As you explain your case it doesn’t sound fair. But to be frank, if I was assaulted with a weapon by a woman I wouldn’t want to stay anywhere near her. If it means it takes a while to sort property (and maybe kids) out then so be it.
It is a problem that men will usually be automatically assumed to be the most violent in domestic incidents (there’s a good reason for that, they usually are). It will mean that some men are unfairly treated, and that’s bad for them. As well as blaming that on violent women they can also blame in on a general acceptance of violence perpetrated and often unopposed by men.
I hope these new measures can be implemented as fairly as possible. Unfortunately life is sometimes unfair, there are no guarantees that an even hand will always be dealt.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Yes, that’s right. Being drunk is not an excuse for doing what you want regardless. I’d suggest that men who don’t have an inclination to shag anything they can have their way with don’t tend to make “mistakes” like this.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Where is your source that men are usually the violent ones in domestic incidents?
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Pete,
Vote:Thank you at least you are trying to make a honest argument
As for men being a major part of the problem you sound like you want to absolve women of any blame
as stated earlier is Australia a study was done at a hospital and 30% of the people that were admitted to hospital after domestic violence incidents were men
Laws are supposed to be fair, but here in NZ we have a mandatory arrest of the male only which is why I brought up the Maori/Caucasian argument because this would be deemed to be wholly unjust, just as the mandatory arrest of men is
June 30th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
“I doubt you have laughed in the last ten years Redbaiter.”
Every time you take yourself seriously Bruv.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
redbaiter, do you think you may be a repressed invert?
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Do you disagree?
Try: NZFVC Fact Sheet – Family Violence Statistics
Most violence statistics are heavily weighted against males. Of course this is only reported incidents.
Nigel, I don’t think it should be mandatory male arrest or removal, the police (and laws) should be aiming at who the most likely threat is regardless of sex or ethnicity.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Interesting posit Chuck.
What this law says is a man can be thrown out of a house that is 100% his by a woman who may have lived there for only a few months. He does not actually have to be physically violent. He comes home and find out his partner has had sex with someone else. He yells at her and orders her out of his house. She rings the police and says she is fearful. He gets ordered to leave. She then invitees her boyfriend around. Have you ever heard of love triangles with fatal consequences?
This is a consequence of not having a proper relationship with someone. tough titty, an unintended consequence of sex with no relationship or poor relationship.
Vote:But then I’m just a fundi god botherer (FGB)
June 30th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
An example of stats – 2000-2004:
45 females murdered by male partner or ex partner
3 males murdered by female partner or ex partner
Protection orders about 90% to female
But gender of adult who murder children 26 male, 15 female.
The stronger is usually the the more damaging.
I agree with Mike on the shacking up example, advantage of marriage is that it makes property ownership clear and usually demonstrates a better commitment to the partnership.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey. 67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts.
Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone. National Post
OTTAWA – Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study that deals a blow to the image of the male as the traditional domestic aggressor.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data — a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses.
Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.
When the original Alberta study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women.
The researchers, Leslie Kennedy and Donald Dutton, say they were primarily interested in male-to-female violence at the time.
In any case, the one-sided Kennedy-Dutton study was cited extensively in a 1990 House of Commons committee report The War Against Women, which ultimately led Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister, to call a two-year, $10-million national inquiry into violence against women. The inquiry’s 460-page report made 494 recommendations aimed at changing attitudes in governments, police departments, courts, hospitals and churches. It also led to a torrent of lurid news features about battered women.
The current study, which will appear this week — again, in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science — says that while the need to stop violence against women is obvious, violence against men is being ignored.
“Our society seems to harbour an implicit acceptance of women’s violence as relatively harmless,” writes Marilyn Kwong, the Simon Fraser University researcher who led this study.
“Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the possibility of women’s violence . . . jeopardizes the credibility of all theory and research directed toward ending violence against women.”
The study shows roughly that 10.8% of men in the survey pushed, grabbed or threw objects at their spouses in the previous year, while 2.5% committed more severe acts, such as choking, kicking or using a weapon.
By contrast, 12.4% of women committed acts of minor violence and 4.7% committed severe violence.
The violence is seldom one-sided. Of those surveyed, 52% of women and 62% of men reported that both partners were violent.
When questioned about who initiated the most severe conflicts, 67% of women believed they had started it; only 26% believed it was their male spouse.
Regardless of who started it, women appear to end up the losers in the struggle. A major U.S. study on the topic shows 3% of women suffer injuries in spousal violence, while only 0.4% of males were hurt badly enough to seek medical care.
Publication of the “other side” of the violence study provides a sharp illustration of how social science is manipulated to fit a particular agenda.
“It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story,” says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.
“Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.
“As some feminists say, it’s counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true.”
Even the federal government appears to turn a blind eye. In 1993, Statistics Canada began to keep track of assaults by men on women in its Violence Against Women survey. But it does not measure the female-to-male violence. “At the time, it was decided that since violence against women was more prevalent, we would only keep track of that,” explains spokesperson Shelley Crego.
Ms.Crego said this decision was based on police reports, noting women complain more frequently of assault by men than vice versa.
In her article, Dr. Kwong implies this creates an incorrect picture. “It is important to keep in mind that, within the criminal justice system, any of the physical acts endorsed by these respondents would constitute assault,” she writes.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I strongly disagree. I appreciate that you point out that you accept that this is only reported incidents.
Have you ever heard of the research by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz?
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-35.htm
When they originally did their research they were very sceptical of the results they got. This was genuine research unlike AGW so they doubled checked their results but accepted them even if the counterintuitive.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Pete
Vote:On marriage, if it was just a bit of paper why won’t so many just sign it?
June 30th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Pete,
Vote:if only men are arrested for domestic violence as what happens in NZ do you think any research done will be skewed to the side of men only being the perpetrators
I personally know of 2 women who have gone to womans refuge not because of violence but because they were going to be evicted, but they claimed they were beaten and had there partners arrested and had somewhere to stay for a couple of months, I now have nothing to do with them because of this, but hey will be in the statistics as being abused
June 30th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Pete, if you theory is correct there would be little violence in lesbian relationships. Research does not support this. The following is an extreme case but is show how violent women can be.
Yahoo!7News (Australia)
28 June 2010
Lover’s killing sadistic, court told
By Tim Dornin, AAP
The killing of a millionaire by her lesbian lover was sadistic, with
devastating, multiple injuries, a court has heard.
For the rest of the article
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/7476872/lovers-killing-sadistic-court-told/
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
There’s a whole heap I could say about the Family Court, having assisted several men through its labyrinth, but I’d pretty much be repeating the points made by d4j. However I think the best analysis is by Mr Nobody NZ (@ 10.28) – it’s one with which I wholeheartedly agree as it strips the emotion (on both sides of the debate) out and looks at the practicalities.
Instead I want to comment on one thing that lept off the page at me:
Pete George, who quite often portrays himself as taking a reasonable and liberal view of things, said:
In other words, c’est la vie if , as Mr Nobody NZ put it:
Whereas MikeNZ (an ex-cop by the looks of it), said:
Now Mike and I frequently disagree on issues of crime and justice and penal reform. He’s far more “right” than am I. But when it comes down to first principles, like accountability, it’s always more likely that someone from the right who’s going to defend personal liberty and freedom – in this case by demanding sanctions against agents of the state who abuse it.
Traditionally it was socialists and communists who clashed with police, who were seen as agents of the right wing state (cf the 1951 waterfront strike). On that basis there ought to be a healthy mistrust of the police almost inbred into anyone from the left. But it seems that gets subjugated to their desire to control the behaviour of others, for which the police are a handy tool.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Mike, that is like saying tough titty if a prostitute gets murdered as she is doing something immoral. You could also say the same if someone committing adultery gets murdered by a jealous spouse.
I wonder how many Christians would support your position.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Rex
But it seems that gets subjugated to their desire to control the behaviour of others, for which the police are a handy tool.
Sadly you are correct there and shows the base heart value of the philosophy.
One is very often pride (they know better) and the need to control and the other is wanting to free up people to make their own decisions and be unfettered. both are correct in a small way and if applied properly should cancel each other out.
I seem right to you as I think you self identify as left.
Vote:whereas I consider myself a centerist with different areas of belief/point of view on both the left and right.
I would dearly love to vote on the issue (and principle of the issue) as I would give my vote to those who had the “right idea” to address it.
That would mean I would vote for Labour on some issues and National on others and even Greens & ACT on others.
I might even vote for the Maori Party but for that they are racist as a base position.
maybe I’m too much of an idealist
June 30th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Chuck
I don’t give a flying fig how many Christians might support my view, it is my view and I don’t need anyone to support me or not. Please don’t use that argument again.
My point is that consequences happen.
If someone gets murdered committing adultery, shame.
They chose to do so, knowing that their partner/spouse wouldn’t like it. (If they didn’t know that they need their head read and a kick up the arse). They suffered a consequence it may have been unintended, but it wasn’t unforeseen .
I think you’re drawing a long straw here and have stepped out of the box.
Being a prostitute and transacting with clients is not the same as being “in a relationship” with all the ownership/investment that may entail.
My previous comment about “if it is just a bit of paper, why won’t they just sign it” illustrates this value clearly.
Your argument might work however with drug pedlars, burglars and shirt lifters at the boys toilets, as they are illegal (as well as society/relationship damaging) but for prostitutes I don’t think so.
Unless you are alluding to a angry spouse doing the deed on the object of their spouce’s affections?
Forgive my style, personally I’d rather have a beer and a curry with you to discuss this next time I come up for bloggers drinks.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
It’s refreshing to see that Mike, it is possible to view issues on their merits. There seems to be a tendency amongst people here to pick an alignment or party, and then try and fit every view to that, which often paints them into an ideological corner leading to some almighty contortions. Left and right is nowhere near as important as best and worst, good and bad, smart and dumb or right and wrong.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
“I don’t give a flying fig how many Christians might support my view, it is my view and I don’t need anyone to support me or not. Please don’t use that argument again.”
Mike , you raised the issue of being a Christian. If you had not i would not have. I believe it would be a minority viewpoint which you are entitled to.
i discuss and disagree with people who I also meet at bloggers meetings. I usually do not have a problem with that with one exception who I will not mention.
Cheers
Vote:Chuck
June 30th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Pete
I agree, but am guilty of wanting people to be free of bully’s and tyranny, that is found on both left and right.
That comes with the caveat that they act responsibly.
Problem is common sense only comes with common values and society has lost it’s moorings.
Chuck
Vote:You’re still outside the box.
June 30th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
“I usually do not have a problem with that with one exception who I will not mention.”
Please do tell Chuck.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
MikeNZ says:
Were that it were that simple
Actually I should have said “conservative” not “right”, and then mainly in the context of law and order issues. In fact I’m exactly like you in that:
Which is why I promote referenda and secretly dream of the abolition of outdated political parties, which were only necessary when decisions couldn’t be put to the people.
In fact I agree with you more often than you’d think, though don’t post “me too” comments with nothing else to add. When I mentioned on The Standard once that I admired your POV on an issue I was admonished by the lefties for agreeing with you on the basis that you’d said other things entirely with which I would presumably disagree.
A frightening example of the kind of groupthink to which you refer.
Since I also find myself sometimes in agreement with Redbaiter and mickeysavage (though not on the same issue… I’m not quite that mad) I’ve given up trying to describe myself other than as someone who seeks after workable solutions wherever he may find them.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
D4J:
If memory serves me correctly, I think Chuck means Philu…
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
I thought as much Nomestradamus.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
oh the irony of the comments on this post. The two Kiwibloggers with the most obvious narcissism and anger management problems come out against this law, frothing and carrying on and causing their cardies to pop buttons left, right and centre.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
It’s great not to have to live in New Zealand.
Way to go for National to continue the tradition of an increased Nanny State.
If National MP’s really feel the urge for “Somebody to do something” why don’t they just scrap the Courts all together and invest all powers in the police. Then you can have these “Judge Dredds” going around being Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Utopia achieved.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Posting bullshit again, Red.
A quick google search reveals:
“And what is the whole story? The story pretty much repeats all the findings of the past 20 years, as reported in dozens of domestic-violence studies conducted in both Canada and the United States. Contrary to what the Post would have you believe, the findings are no secret at all among social scientists, or even among feminists who think.
Nearly all physical conflict among couples is minor, infrequent, not injurious and mutual. In other words, women grab, shove and slap as much as men do.
The rate of conflict is highest among people who are young and dating and lowest among older, married couples (presumably because they’ve learned the hard way). In the Alberta survey, a little more than 12 per cent of the 350-odd couples surveyed reported a recent fight involving physical aggression.
“It’s important not to confuse the rates of aggression obtained in these surveys with the perception that some people may have of the prevalence of violence and its consequences,” Marilyn Kwong, one author of the study, told me. “There are not a lot of men out there who batter their wives.” She adds there are also not a lot of wives throwing punches.
The Post headline with the 67-per-cent figure is wrong. What the study found is that of the small number of women who reported any kind of fight that turned physical, two-thirds said they’d started it somehow. Headlines get repeated, so it’s good to get things straight.
Just about every study of domestic conflict reports that 3 to 4 per cent of women experience more severe forms of violence, and some of them get hurt. So do a small number of men. The main difference between the sexes is that women get hurt more often and more badly.”
http://www.fact.on.ca/newpaper/gm990715.htm
Never let facts get in the way of your bizarre fantasies. You should start reading something else than your hardcore rightwing propaganda blogs.
Vote:June 30th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
“Never let facts get in the way of your bizarre fantasies.”
Facts? Thanks for the laff. Its opinion.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 9:22 am
eszett, have you checked out the research by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz?
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-35.htm
The fact is that the lies put out by the feminist lobby that men are responsible for that vast majority of domestic violence are not true.
Key criticises Fiji but he is happy to turn New Zealand into a police state with police being given powers that should be with the courts.
Vote:July 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am
The following article might show how the law will likely be applied.
I quote Detective Sergeant Dave Wishnowsky
The fact is that someone does not have to commit any offence to be kicked out of their own home.
If Wishnowsky’s attitude is typical I doubt if the law will be applied fairly.
Law may make offenders homeless
By JONATHON HOWE – Manawatu Standard
Last updated 00:00 02/07/2010
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/3874000/Law-may-make-offenders-homeless
Vote: