Home > Issues > Politicians > Kiwi men should vote for New Zealand First in the 2017 General Election
The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Kiwi men should vote for New Zealand First in the 2017 General Election

(slightly edited)

Peter Zohrab 2017
Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map
 
(Open Letter to the Prime Minister)

Dear Mr. English,

 

If you go to the webpage of the New Zealand Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee , you will see the following image, with the caption shown:

 

I don’t know if you notice anything odd about that image and caption – but I will come back to it later. First I’d like to refer to your speech to the Rotary Club of Auckland on 2nd February 2017 .

In that speech, you talk about yourself. You mention your mother, but not your father. However, Wikipedia does say that you also had a father, called Mervyn. It is clear that you are so anti-male that your father does not rate a mention. Either that, or your election strategist (Steven Joyce) has told you that you can’t say anything nice about males in an election campaign. I find that offensive – but typical of the National Party’s attitude to men.

The National Party is like the riddle about the axe:if it gets two new heads and three new handles, is it still the same axe? The National Party is nothing like what it used to be, because the media told you that you had to discriminate against men (“Diversity”, which is an invented group “right” that discriminates against individual rights), so you obeyed the media and brought in a lot of obvious no-hopers – just because they were female or came from various ethnic groups.

As far as your early career is concerned, you call yourself a “highly indebted young farmer” and a “scruffy unemployed farm worker”. Magically, you forgot to mention that you also “worked in Wellington as a policy analyst for the New Zealand Treasury,” according to Wikipedia. I think that is a bit devious and deceptive of you. You also “forgot” to mention that your wife, Mary, is a General Practitioner. That is also devious and deceptive. You also fail to mention that you studied literature at university, which, in my experience, indicates a strong revulsion against logical thinking, since literature is the antithesis of logical thinking.

I think that you suffer from the same disease as the former and unlamented Leader of the Labour Party, David Cunliffe: You both have a professional wife who probably tells you what to think on “women’s issues” and tells you how intelligent you are and how you need to keep your intelligence secret from the New Zealand public, which has a well-known tendency to exhibit the Tall Poppy Syndrome. If it’s any comfort to you, I just think you’re one of these ex-Treasury thick-shits. How anyone could possibly take Economics seriously is beyond belief! When have Economists ever predicted anything accurately, and why didn’t they predict and prevent the Great Financial Crisis?

I was on the Executive of the Hutt South branch of the National Party the last time you were Leader of the National Party (and lost the election). I heard that you were going to visit Women’s Refuge in Lower Hutt, so I wrote and asked to meet with you and discuss the Men’s point of view on Domestic Violence, but you refused to see me. Women’s Refuge is just a bunch of sexist man-haters. Obviously, you don’t feel that men have any role in the political process, except to try to get to the top – and, if such men do get to the top, to help women oppress other men.

That is what you are now doing. You think you are top dog and that you can get all the women to like you if you make all Kiwi men subservient to women.

 

Because Kiwi men are indeed subservient to women:

 

But when I said in a Select Committee, some years back, that Feminism is the State Ideology of New Zealand, Gerry Brownlee said, “Bullshit!” In other words, Feminism is the State Ideology of New Zealand, but politicians (not just Gerry Brownlee, of course) are too stupid to realize it!

This brings me back to the image at the top of this letter. I doubt that you are capable of thinking, but I ask you to think about this image and caption, as follows:

  1. There is a woman in this picture, but you can’t see much of her face;

  2. There is no sign of her being in fear of anything;

  3. The only sign of any emotion is a clenched fist, which looks like a man’s fist;

  4. The clenched fist obviously indicates that he is angry about something;

  5. Why doesn’t the caption state “Man angry about abusive female”, since the only evidence of any emotion is his clenched fist?

  6. The answer is that the dyke-sluts who run the Domestic Violence industry are only interested in women’s feelings, in women’s injuries, in women’s interests and in women’s rights. Men – to them – are just objects to be dominated via the instruments of the politicians, the media, the police and the courts;

  7. The Justice and Electoral Committee’s caption “Woman in fear of domestic violence” therefore does not DESCRIBE the image; this caption EDITORIALISES and INSTRUCTS the New Zealand public as to how we are to interpret such situations. Any Domestic Violence situation is to be interpreted as a female victim and a male perpetrator, according to this caption;

  8. I have seen this image on television, but I don’t know if it was actually created by the slut-dyke media;

  9. The Injustice and Electoral Committee is thereby INSTRUCTING all New Zealanders that any situation where a man is angry about a woman’s abusive behavior is to be interpreted as a woman being in fear of domestic violence!

  10. The slut-dyke who chairs the Injustice and Electoral Committee, Sarah Dowie, is a National Party Member of Parliament who is female, a lawyer, and a daughter of two police officers. The low-life, sexist, man-hating, fiction-orientated attitudes expressed by that captioned image are absolutely typical of (a) Kiwi women (b) the police and (c) the legal profession;

  11. Since you have a background in English Literature, I am sure you must appreciate the way an ambiguous image has been creatively turned, by a caption, into a lying, multi-media polemic against men!

 

When your speech discussed what the man-hating, pussy-whipped Police told you about a supposed Domestic Violence case in Palmerston North, there was little chance that either you or the police had a clue what you were talking about. You said in your speech, referring to crime prevention:

It’s about doing things smarter.

Here’s what I mean. Last year I visited Palmerston North and was told about a family that Police had visited 87 times for family violence callouts in the previous year …. Social service agencies, working with Police, got together and identified one aunty the father would listen to ….

The following year those 87 callouts dropped to only one.

 

This is what I expect that aunty might well have told that father:

There’s no point in your calling the cops all the time – they will always take her side against you. They will never believe you. She could say that you attacked her with a pink flamingo, and the police will believe her! Just avoid having any arguments with her. This is New Zealand, not a civilized country! The Dykes are in control now. The cops are just women’s thugs!

 

You have no concept of basing your actions on evidence.You just base your actions on sexism and a felt need to discriminate against men.

 

Your office has admitted that:

  1. Despite the fact that Paula Bennett will be representing the interests of women at the highest level of government, no one will be representing the interests of men;and

  2. You have no plans to equalise the representation of the interests of men and the interests of women by either abolishing the Ministry for Women or creating a Ministry for Men.

 

Paula Bennett herself has admitted that she has no documents:

  1. which prove that New Zealand women need a Ministry for Women more than New Zealand men need a Ministry for Men or

  2. which discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of men's and women's roles in society. This does not include documents which discuss only disadvantages allegedly suffered by women, unless these documents also prove that men do not suffer any disadvantages.

 

Therefore, New Zealand men have no option but to switch their votes to New Zealand First, because:

  1. New Zealand First is the only party which has ever contemplated establishing a Ministry for Men; and

  2. Winston Peters’ apparent successor, Shane Jones, is on record as being concerned with the wellbeing of Maori men.That is admittedly racist, but it is much better than being totally uninterested in the wellbeing of men, as the National Party is!

 

The police discriminate against men by promoting the White Ribbon Campaign (which is about male violence towards women) and they discriminate against men by hiring women who don’t meet the higher male physical standards for entry into the police force. This obviously reflects a police culture in which women are given preference over men – which is what the police do when attending Domestic Violence cases.

Outside the Porirua Police Station, which is next door to the Porirua District Court, there used to be a huge totem-pole-like thing, with a huge image of a white ribbon on top of it. I complained to a lawyer about it, asking how judges could possibly treat men and women equally in Domestic Violence cases, when they passed this lunatic Dyke propaganda every day. Soon it disappeared, but that may have been because the local Police Commander became the Head of the Police College at Porirua. That shows what kind of training the police are getting! I wonder if he has that totem pole up at the Police College!

The Government, the police and the courts are not reducing crime – they are creating crime by discriminating against men, such that men have no legal way to get redress and must provide their own justice for themselves! The police and the courts have no self-interest in reducing crime, since that would give them less work to do, and some people working in the Injustice System might lose their jobs!

On Saturday 22 April 2017, I heard a short snippet of a book review on Radio New Zealand National’s Him Kill (Kim Hill) show, where Him Kill and her interviewee were talking about some (fictional or real) female institution, such as a boarding school. One of the two women spouted the Feminist line that the women who ran that institution had been recruited by men to oppress other women, just as colonialists had hired members of the subject populations to oppress their own people on behalf of the colonialists.

Whether that is true or not, it is certainly true that women rule New Zealand by using you and the police, etc. to oppress other men. I’m sure it must be the case in the town of Dipstick, where you come from, that anyone who can count to two joins Treasury and anyone who can’t count to two becomes a police officer! Judging by what I know of the police, it functions to some extent as a dating agency, where males of low intelligence can find sexy blondes, and vice-versa.

I once raised the issue of Human Rights with a police officer, and he immediately disappeared. It seems to me that Human Rights are something that the Police largely leave to defence lawyers. As long as male police officers can feel manly by helping women, and female police officers can feel Feminist by helping women, everyone’s happy – except their male victims!

Many men may be learning that the police and the courts will generally take the woman’s side against the man and that the Law is just there for women. So some men may conclude that they have to become outlaws or mount a revolution. What other option do they have?

There also seems to be a policy in the media (and possibly in the police) that no news item about an alleged rape or sexual assault of a woman can have the word “alleged” associated with it. This is because the Feminists, who control New Zealand, have imposed their LIE that women never tell lies about such matters. That is despite the fact that there has been at least one reported case that I know about where closed-circuit television proved that an allegation of that kind by one woman was false!

Men with high testosterone tell fewer lies than those with less testosterone. Since women have less testosterone than men, it is quite likely that women tell more lies than men do. But, since women control you and New Zealand generally, women have apparently imposed the lie that women tell no lies, as part of the Feminist ideology that dominates New Zealand!

See, for example, the statement made in Parliament by former Act MP, David Garrett. Apart from pointing out that it was his mother who was violent towards his father, rather than the other way around, David Garrett also stated that he was aware of two instances involving male acquaintances, not friends, where allegations were made against them and were accepted without any evidence, at all.

You may say that this is anecdotal, and that you want to see evidence.As regards evidence, I bet you have never even looked at any of the huge numbers of research papers listed at https://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm (some of which are about New Zealand), which “demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.”

You would also be ignoring the Minnie-Mouse nature of New Zealand universities.For example, a casual visit to Victoria University of Wellington would quickly demonstrate to you that the vast majority of students are female – and two of them assaulted me there last year – yet the student newspaper, Salient, was edited last year by a Lesbian couple who brought out a special issue about women (but none about men) and also had a special section about women in their regular issues – but none about men! The Feminist State Ideology insists that women are oppressed, and no mere facts are allowed to get in the way of that ideological tenet!

I have witnessed one Law Lecturer and one Psychology Lecturer saying that Domestic Violence was about what men did to women – but they were unable to provide any evidence! The Pychology Lecturer, Antonia Lyons, also refused to let me do a research project on student attitudes to Domestic Violence, claiming that the Ethics Committee would block it. That fits in with what another Men’s Rights Activist had told me, that university ethics committees are used to block any research that Feminists dislike.

When I was studying Law at Victoria University of Wellington, I saw a Samoan male in a lecture hall and attempted to give him some Men’s Rights material (a single sheet, as I recall). I had chosen him, because I thought that Polynesians might not be so brainwashed by Feminists as other students had been. However, he declined even to look at it.

Years later, I came across him at Wellington High Court, where he was wearing a policeman’s uniform. I was appealing a false conviction. He looked interested in why I was there, but I refused to talk to him, since he had refused to read what I had asked him to read previously. He must have followed my case, however, because, when I took my case to the Court of Appeal (representing myself), attempting to obtain leave to appeal, he was there and said to me, after the hearing, “No worries!”

As it turned out that I was unsuccessful in obtaining leave to appeal, he must have meant that he was glad that he thought I would be unsuccessful. That shows his mentality. As a stupid police officer, his mind was closed against Men’s Rights and he was glad that I was unable to overturn my conviction, although he had no means of knowing whether my conviction had been just or not.

I’d also like to refer you to the Sentencing Notes in the New Zealand murder case R v Danny Brian Mayes T8/02 - 19/12/02 Hammond J. The judge says that there were abuse "allegations" both ways, but Mr. Mayes' physical abuse of his female partner, Karni, is stated as if it were a fact, whereas her abuse of him is treated as a mere opinion of Mr. Mayes'. On the face of it, it appears to be anti-male sexism on the part of the judge.

The judge refers to a fight between the two of them, which had started when Mr. Mayes had made a hurtful remark to Karnia. Presumably, then, it was Karnia who had started the fight. However, the police came and arrested Mr. Mayes for assault. If a woman had made a hurtful remark to a male, who had then started a fight, it is totally impossible to imagine that the police would have arrested the woman. The police mostly operate on the basis: Arrest the man!

Having got Mr. Mayes arrested and charged with assault, Karnia then placed him in breach of his bail conditions by coming around to his house with a bottle of whisky. Then an “altercation” developed between the two of them, and Karnia was so violent that a neighbour had to hold her down and the police, when they came, had to handcuff Karnia to a post on the porch. Yet the policed still did not arrest Karnia. Since it was the woman who was obviously the aggressor, the police decided to take no action.

Later, Danny and Karnia had another fight, and (according to Danny) Karnia threatened to get a Maori gang onto him, and/or get someone to kill him. He stabbed Karnia to death. What choice did he have? The police had clearly demonstrated to them that they only existed to help women dominate men in their homes, so Danny declared himself independent from the New Zealand Matriarchy and killed Karnia! The Feminists obviously count his action as an INSTANCE of Domestic Violence, and Karnia’s Domestic Violence does not even feature in the statistics!

 

This is how the Feminists and their brainwashing of the police:

  1. Bring about Domestic Violence;

  2. Make sure that female Domestic Violence is not counted in the statistics;

  3. Make sure that men are forced to murder their partners, in some cases.

 

I will now give you some details of my own experience of police man-hatred and police Feminist hysteria.

  1. I once took my wife to see a Hutt Hospital psychiatrist (an American) at a Hutt Hospital outpost.In the waiting-room I saw a large poster of Women’s Refuge propaganda, so, when we went in to see the psychiatrist (I act as the English interpreter for my wife), I complained about it.He flew into a rage and ordered us off the property.We left.After we got home, the Head of Maori Mental Health came to our house with a White nurse.They wanted to see my wife, but I ordered them off my property, since I had just been ordered off their property.As a matter of fact, I consider it racist for the Head of Maori Health to have been involved, since my wife is not Maori and has absolutely no interest in things Maori.They took advantage of the fact that she speaks poor English and says “Yes” just to be polite.Then two male police officers turned up and demanded entry on the basis of some law or other.I let them in, but we had to wait in the corridor for my wife to come out of the toilet.I used the time to call them the “Women’s Police”.Then they took her into a bedroom and I followed them into it, in order to hear what they were saying to her.They immediately grabbed me, threw me down (not too hard) onto the floor of the corridor, handcuffed me, put me into the police car while they spoke to my wife, and then took me to the police station and charged me with Obstruction.I phoned a lawyer, and he eventually got the police to drop charges, since they had entered my property illegally.I later wrote and complained to Hutt Hospital and they said that the Head of Maori Mental Health was no longer working for them.In other words, this racist, sexist, moronic Maori woman (i.e. a typical Maori woman, in my experience) had activated her over-emotional female brain and decided that I was going to be violent towards my wife and had told the police to intervene.The police activated the “Feminist Hysteria” part of their indoctrinated mini-brains and rushed to invade my property on an illegal pretence, causing me psychological trauma and a loss of reputation.

  2. I once phoned the police, while holding a baby, after my wife had broken my glasses, but the male at the other end of the line asked me, “Did she hit you or did she punch you?”He was cross-examining the victim (me), because he refused to believe in the possibility of male victims of female violence. I refused to answer him, so he hung up.Later I rang the police and complained, and they apologised.

  3. Another time, I rang the police to stop my wife assaulting me, and a male and female police officer turned up.The male spoke to my wife, and I could see through the doorway that he was leaning forward in his chair, in a posture that indicated that he was drinking everything in that my wife said to him.On the other hand, the young, attractive, blonde policewoman (after I had said that I had been hit on the head and arms) just sneered at me and asked me if I had any bruises.I started to reply that I hadn’t looked, but she started speaking over the top of me.She could see that I had a long-sleeved shirt on, so she could have asked me to roll up my sleeves, but she didn’t.This slut had got into the police on lower standards than men have to meet, and then she proceeds to refuse to believe in the possibility of male victims of female violence.So I assaulted her.That was a political act.

I believe that there have many other such political acts, although they are never publicised as such, because all our politicians are women, and the only way a man can get justice against a woman is to create their own justice.That makes men so-called “criminals”, whereas it is actually Parliament, the Courts, the media and the education system which are the criminals. MEN HAVE NO RIGHTS IN NEW ZEALAND.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

See also:

 

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

29 October 2022

Top