Family law

Muslim sense of humor

Some of you will recall a post I did about a website called Happy Muslim families. Since I visited it and downloaded some Pdfs containing tips to help husbands and wives have a happy marriage I have been receiving regular newsletters in my in box.

My latest newsletter is too good not to share. It provides we infidels with an insight into this chaps sense of humor and the reality of how easy it is for a Muslim man to divorce his wife or control and cower her by threatening divorce.I wonder if the female New Zealand converts to Islam featured in the Herald on Sunday are aware of their new diminished rights and status under Islam?

Screen shot 2015-02-23 at 10.04.56 AM

Irfan Ullah Khan Co-Founder Happy Muslim Family

 

This is one of the funniest and rare stories about the people
who threaten with divorce.

In one of their conversations, a man told Khaleefah Ar-Rasheed: “I was informed that an Arab had divorced five women in one day.”

2fad034c-e577-49e4-8242-50579fb31248_thumb1

Read more »

The Christchurch ‘ sex ‘ romp, what if it had happened in an Islamic Country?

SCCZEN_C_NZH0556181874_620x311

The Media have been making quite a meal of this encounter between two consenting adults. In a democracy like New Zealand these two have been subjected to humiliation and moral condemnation. It may even affect their employment as the encounter occurred in an office. Len Brown still has his job however so maybe they will be alright. Their main mistake was leaving the lights on. Moral condemnation aside ( the man is married ) they are fortunate to have not been caught doing this in a country under the law of the religion of peace.

Read more »

An end to cock tax? Not likely…but women are more economically empowered now

Apparently, according to Jane Shilling at The Telegraph women have moved on from gold digging.

But if anyone thinks that this is an end to cock tax then I have a bridge I can sell you.

I have never been to an Islington dinner party, mainly because I’m nervous of the conversations I might have to endure. Over plates laden with Nigel Slater’s pumpkin laksa, I shudder to imagine the banter that embraces the outrageous cost of educating one’s children or the thrilling rise in London property prices – areas in which I find myself sadly short of conversational roughage.

Then again, the independent peer Baroness Deech, evidently an habituĂ©e of such gatherings, suggests that the discourse runs in different channels. According to her, the hot topic for kitchen supps in north London isn’t state versus private or equity release, but d-i-v-o-r-c-e. “Go to an Islington dinner party and say the word divorce,” she remarked recently, “and people will tell you the most horrendous stories.”

Divorce, like people’s operations, does lend itself to horrendous stories. When flesh or emotions are raw and weeping, the narratives tend to come up lengthy and lurid. But what the Baroness really seems to have meant is that it’s the men who will tell you horrendous divorce stories. And on this vivid anecdotal basis, she proposes a change in the law.

Baroness Deech is currently steering a private member’s Bill through the Upper House that would make pre- and post-nuptial agreements binding. The idea is that in future, when couples divorce, the assets they acquire after their wedding should be divided, but that the division should not include whatever the parties brought to the marriage. A jolly sensible idea, you might think, and a boon to the sweet-natured Bertie Wooster type of chap who gets his assets ruthlessly stripped by gold-digging trollops from vaudeville and other low joints.

Do they still exist, these delightful stereotypes? Yes indeed, according to Baroness Deech – though in a slightly different social milieu from that of PG Wodehouse’s Drones Club (or, indeed, the Islington dinner tables or the High Table of St Anne’s College, Oxford, where she was principal for 14 years). Existing divorce legislation, she argues, intimates to young women that financial security lies not in an honest day’s toil, but in marrying a rich man.   Read more »

French Senate approves gay adoption

The cheese eating surrender monkeys are set for a whole lot of protest after the French Senate moved to approve gay adoption:

The French Senate has approved adoption for same-sex couples.

On the evening of 10 April, the second article of the ‘Marriage for All’ bill was adopted by the upper level of French parliament.

The vote came just one day after the Senate approved Article 1, the provision allowing gay couples to marry.

The Senate must now complete a review of the legislation in its entirety, although passage of both articles almost guarantees gay couples will soon be able to marry and adopt in France.  Read more »

Open Mic: Addressing the misinformation campaign of Family First, by Kevin Hague

Capture

Most MP inboxes are again starting to fill up with lobbying emails and letters again on the Marriage Equality Bill. I wouldn’t call it a flood, but there’s a steady stream.

Most of those opposed have introduced a curious new note: they are terrified or outraged that the words “husband” and “wife” are going to be outlawed, or at least expunged from the NZ Statute book. They think this because Family First has done its usual scare-mongering and exaggeration trick, making this their main response to the Select Committee report released this week.

This fear that the language in NZ law was going to be changed was something that appeared in a very small number of submissions, but Family First is making a big deal of it now because the Select Committee has made it absolutely clear that churches won’t be required to do or say anything different, making religious freedom a non-issue.

I have to say I’m tempted to respond by asking which legal reference to “husband” and “wife” is their favourite, as I’m quite certain that my correspondents have only the vaguest notion of what’s actually in the law, but that might be unhelpful.  Read more »

Targeting Dead Beat Dads

About time someone started focusing on dead beat dads who do a runner leaving the taxpayer picking up the tab for their offspring:

A crack hit squad has been set up by the IRD to track down thousands of parents who have fled the country and skipped on child support payments.

Number one in their sights is one parent who currently lives in Australia and owes $48,812 in outstanding payments.

That person sits atop a list of 18,000 defaulters across the Tasman and another 6900 hiding out in other countries.

The new hit squad has been given access to Australian Government databases to track down the defaulters and the right to contact their known associates.

The taxman now also has the power to apply directly for arrest warrants in Australia and warrants to seize personal property, and even order house sales to pay off the mounting debt the defaulting parents have left back here in New Zealand.

The crackdown comes as the number of New Zealanders owing child support surpasses the threshold which Australian authorities can manage.

About 80 per cent of them are fathers, said Inland Revenue spokesman David Miller.

I know of a little paper that might just start featuring one dead beat dad a week. What do readers think?

Colin Craig does a Chris Christie

ᔄ 3 News

Colin Craig has taken the Chris Christie approach to same-sex marriage, which is a half way house. At least he has the courage thought to say he opposes it:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says he is opposed to marriage between same-sex couples but he would support a referendum on the issue.

The Conservatives are yet to win representation in Parliament but they are polling higher than some of the Government’s current coalition partners.

A poll conducted by Colmar Brunton has found that 63 percent of New Zealanders think same-sex couples should be able to marry, while 31 percent are opposed. Civil unions between same-sex couples have been allowed in New Zealand since 2005.

Mr Craig told Q+A today that he would support a referendum on the issue.

Supporting a referendum is gay. We don’t really need to spend several million dollars to find out….for a man who is opposed to waste I would have thought wasting money on a referendum for a law change that will affect a few hundred people every year, costs nothing to implement and has no negative effect on society would have been something he would oppose.

Well done Young Nats, Ctd

Back on 8 May I blogged about the Northern Region Young Nats putting up a remit regarding adoption:

That the National Party legalise adoption for those who have entered into a civil union partnership.

This morning at the Northern Region Convention that remit was passed.

Well done to the Northern Region Young Nats who put up that remit. It now goes to a policy committee to consider remits for the conference.

I will be watching closely to see if the party tries to bury it.

Chart of the Day

States in America that allow gay marriage vs. States that allow first cousins to marry.

In America, there are more states in which you can marry your first cousin than states in which you can marry the love of your life — if that first cousin is of the opposite sex but that love of your life is of the same sex. Same-sex marriage is illegal — not just not possible, but specifically outlawed, sometimes via a constitutional amendment, in 31 states, and legal only in six states, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, along with the District of Columbia.

But marriage between first cousins — despite the aspects of incest and potential for genetic risk — is legally condoned far more than same-sex marriage.

Interestingly NZ forbids same sex marriage yet allows first cousins to marry.

Permission for bus trips but not for abortions

Judith Collins is injecting some sensibility into the debate currently being had over abortion procurement for under 16y.o. girls by schools without parental advice.

Police Minister Judith Collins has pledged to support a call for laws to prevent girls under 16 having abortions without their parents being told.

Collins said she would support a private member’s bill requiring parents to be involved before a termination could take place.

She could not introduce it herself, because ministers can only introduce legislation related to their own portfolios, but her stand comes after the Sunday Star-Times revealed a mother’s anger that a school counsellor arranged an abortion for her teenage daughter.

While in opposition in 2004, Collins proposed the Care of Children Act be amended to make parental notification mandatory for girls under 16. The act allows a female of any age to consent to an abortion. Collins proposed that if a girl objected to parental notification, a doctor would contact the district court to arrange an appointment for the girl to see a judge in chambers within 24 hours.

Judith Collins is being consitant with her position when she was in opposition. It is beyond ridiculous that children, yes if you are under 16 you are a child, can have medical procedures performed on them without parental consent or at the very least informing them.

Liberal tossposts like Bomber will scream that this is interfering with womens rights, and these would be the same people like Phil Goff who proposed legalising consensual sex down as far as 12 years old when he was last in government. This is nothing to do with women’s rights and they know it.

What is farcical is the bevy of forms and permission slips that get sent home from school asking parental permission to attend swimming, or a bus trip to see a play, and the forms for school camp are truly tree destroying. Yet the same schools that insist on parental permission to attend a play at another school via a bus trip seem to want to willy-nilly be able to truck a young girl off to the abortion clinic to have an unwanted child reefed out all without informing the parents.

Sorry it doesn’t work that way. If you have to have parent’s consent for a bus trip then you sure as hell need on for an abortion.