(Open Letter to the
Minister of Justice)
Dear Mr. Goldsmith,
Introduction
"All animals are equal, but some animals
are more equal than others."
Countries such as New Zealand formally adhere to Human Rights laws,
but get around them by creating Communist-style loopholes and making
lists of favourites, in order to make sure that some (human) animals
are more equal than others.
What I am talking about here is exemplified by section 19 of the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
19 Freedom from discrimination
(1)
Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds
of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.
(2)
Measures taken in good faith for the
purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged
because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue of Part 2 of
the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination.
(Although I am not up to date on this matter, I assume that this section
is still in force.)
I propose that the phrase "in good faith"
be deleted and replaced with the phrase "on the basis of objective
evidence", because it is a very low bar to require only that someone
have an ideological or religious faith or belief that something is true,
in what purports to be Human Rights legislation.
The reason for this proposal is that New Zealand lacks both a democratic
media sector and a democratic education sector. Instead of these
sectors examining both sides of every issue, they are full of activists
who concentrate on furthering particular political agendas (especially
Feminism) and blocking the expression of views or publication of evidence
that contradict these agendas. This totalitarian approach has
the effect of brainwashing both decision-makers and the public about
exactly who fits the description "persons or groups of persons
disadvantaged because of discrimination." This instills
in the minds of decision-makers and the public a quasi-religious faith
about such matters. This is what makes Feminism the State
Ideology of countries such as New Zealand.
This presumed "good faith" then leads to so-called "positive"
discrimination (affirmative action), which discriminates negatively
against other groups of people (especially men), making women more equal
than men.
Some Examples
Here is a particularly glaring example of the Feminist bias of the
media. In my article, "TV3's Primitive
Religion", I wrote:
"On the 19th of September 2013, Simon Shepherd, on TV3's
"Firstline" programme, used the occasion of Suffrage Day
to dish out some one-sided Feminist propaganda about employment issues.
He actually stated that he was spewing out this propaganda because
it was Suffrage Day.
Now, Simon Shepherd is clearly fairly stupid. He
did not spell out the connection between Suffrage Day and women's
employment issues, because there is none. (And this is quite
apart from the fact that he did not invite me,
or anyone else, to advocate for men on this issue).
The only way one could possibly think that there was a connection
between Suffrage Day and women's employment issues was if one believed
in a Feminist religion which taught that women
were always and everywhere oppressed, and that it was the job
of journalists to expose this oppression, which once denied women
the vote and now denied them jobs.
In fact, of course, men used to be conscripted into the armed
forces in wartime, in return for having the vote, but women got the
vote without having to be conscripted. And women are allowed entry
to the Police at lower physical standards than men are, whereas men
are never allowed entry to professions at lower standards than women
-- even when the professions are female-dominated (e.g. teaching and
nursing)."
The media also disseminate blatant Feminist
lies, which is why it has become famously acceptable for certain
US politicians to retaliate by telling their own lies. For example,
TV One's "Breakfast" programme recently mentioned the fact
that a woman had started a petition against the wearing of g-string
bikinis at her local swimming-pool. According to Radio New
Zealand, "Her campaign started after her eight-year-old son
was exposed to some g-string wearers while he was at a swimming lesson.".
However, TV One explained the issue as being about the sexualisation
of women's bodies -- as if women were (as always) the victims of men
in this case. In fact, the issue was that some women gave themselves
the right to be exhibitionist, and subjected young males to non-consensual
titillation, for the benefit of the women's own feelings of sexual power
and domination.
The media also train men to think and behave
in a Feminist manner. On 15 July 2024, at 8:15 AM1,
TV One's "Breakfast" programme took it upon themselves to
interview a self-styled "expert" on what they called
"Healthy Masculinity." That is extremely sexist, arrogant
and discriminatory. They should interview me about "healthy
Femininity", so that I can tell the media how they (since they
all are -- or think like -- women) should think and behave!
And here is a particularly glaring example of the Feminist bias of
the education system. In my article, "New
Zealand, the Nazi Germany of the South Pacific" I wrote:
"When I was enrolled in a course on Moral and Political
Philosophy at Victoria University of Wellington, I remember one particular
class discussion. The lecturer, Simon Keller, put a definition of
Feminism onto a screen or whiteboard at the front of the class. The
definition stated something about Feminism being about equality.
I disagreed with that definition and asked if we could define
Feminism, instead, as "the application of the 'Victim of Oppression'
model to women." Keller asked if I thought that the 'Victim of
Oppression' model did not properly apply to women, and I agreed that
I meant that it did not apply to them. Keller thought for a moment
and then declined to accept my definition, without giving reasons.
If that university believed in intellectual freedom, he
should have given reasons, which we could then have discussed.
Keller obviously had no idea what Men's Issues are and couldn't care
less about them. He used his position of power in the university to
prevent students from having a free and fair discussion of Feminism.
I was in the position of having to suck up to him, because that low-life
was the one who handed out the marks on the course!"
It is a factual matter, dependent on evidence, whether women are oppressed
more than men are, or men are oppressed more than women are, or both
are oppressed equally, or neither are oppressed. But these factual
matters are never debated transparently in the media or education system.
Instead, the Feminist doctrine that women are oppressed (and men are
not) is taken for granted. There is a mass of evidence that men
are discriminated against more than women are. See, for example,
this Manifesto.
Official Information Act Requests
I refer to section
5 of NZBORA, which uses the phrase "a free and democratic society".
-
Under the Official Information Act 1982, could you please inform
me whether it is Government policy that the media and education
system -- without fair and transparent debate -- should determine,
teach and instruct the New Zealand public who the "persons
or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination"
are, as per section 19 of NZBORA?
-
Under the Official Information Act 1982, could you please inform
me whether it is Government policy to ensure that New Zealand is
a free and democratic society?
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
NOTE: I could have been watching on Channel 11,
which shows programmes with one hour's delay.
|
