Sian Elias' Coup d'Etat
© Peter Zohrab 2009
Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias wouldn't know
justice if it came up and slapped her in the face. In order to dispense
justice, you have to be free of prejudice and discrimination, which she is
"... more than half of male prison inmates, and a staggering
60 per cent of female prison inmates are Maori, a calamitous state of affairs
for the health of our society."
Not many people would disagree with that, but, according to the Corrections
Department, a staggering 93.5% of prison inmates on 30 June 2007 were male,
whereas males comprise less than 50% of the population. Why didn't that
rate a mention by the country's first female Chief Justice?
The answer to that is she doesn't give a damn about men. After all,
she only became Chief Justice because some man-haters in the previous Labour
Government wanted to have a female Chief Justice. She probably wouldn't
have got the job on merit if she had been a man. One problem with the
corrupt mentality that believes in affirmative action, is that it produces
women in jobs who have the guilty knowledge that they don't deserve to be
there on merit, and who therefore have a vested interest in furthering the
favouritism towards women that got them where they are, in order to make this
favouritism seem normal and just. I have also heard a highly pejorative
epithet applied to her by a conservative male lawyer, but I will not repeat
it, even though it is arguably relevant.
Sian Elias had no business interfering in Government policy by opposing
the high rate of imprisonment, as she did in that speech. Law
Society President John Marshall has been reported as saying that her speech
did not criticise any specific Government policy, but that is a lie.
Amendment Act 2008 was one of Justice Minister Simon Power's first creations
after the election, and it makes bail harder to obtain, thereby increasing
the prison population. Remands in custody (the opposite of bail) was
one of the causes mentioned by Elias of the high numbers of prison inmates
which her speech criticised -- e.g. in paragraph 43. When studying at
Victoria University of Wellington Law School, I was taught by Professor Brian
Brooks and Lecturer Tony Shaw that lawyers tell lies, and John Marshall has
certainly proved them right! I am not a liar, so the Wellington District
Law Society decided that my character was not good enough for me to become
One important point made by Sian Elias, however, has not featured prominently
in media coverage of her speech -- what she calls the sometimes angry atmosphere
in courtrooms, because of the new emphasis on victims' rights. Judges
have a vested interest in their own personal safety and working conditions,
and, if they think that a particular government policy impacts on them personally
in that sort of a way, then they should have the right to mention it in public.
I was surprised, one day in Law School, when we were told during a lecture
that Sian Elias would be giving a lecture in another lecture hall straight
after that class. That was all the notice we received. I didn't
go to hear her speak, because I had made other plans, and saw her as a symbol
of Feminazi triumphalism -- irrespective of the detail that we are both of
The existence of the Institute
of Judicial Studies constitutes a coup d'état
by the judiciary, at least some of whom should be tried for treason.
The judiciary has no business running courses and empire-building. Its
job is to judge court cases. It is a gross abuse of power that the Institute
has been teaching man-hating courses under the heading of "Gender Equity",
and refusing to let me view the content of the propaganda that was being taught,
or to teach Gender Equity from a male point of view. Any lawyer who
wants to present a pro-male point of view in court before a judge who has
been taught the opposite by the Institute has had his client's right to a
fair trial stolen from under him by a bunch of harpies.
With the help of the Official Information Act and a former, decent Chief
Ombudsman, I was able, however, to find out the names of some of the presenters
of "Gender Equity" seminars, which is why I know that it was man-hating
propaganda. In addition, I was able to read the papers presented at
the precursor to the creation of the Institute -- the "Judicial
Seminar on Gender Equity" held at Rotorua in May 1997.
Sian Elias, or her nominee, is a member of the Institute's Governing Board,
and five of the other nine non-coopted members are judges, so she is deeply
involved. After I had publicised the total mindlessness evidenced by
that Seminar, one member of the Men's Movement passed a message on to me,
to the effect that Sian Elias did not agree with the teaching of "Gender
Equity" at the Institute. I am unwilling to believe that.
Sian Elias contributed to the Rotorua Seminar by speaking on her experience
as a woman in the workplace. It is to be expected (given the content
of the other speeches) that she complained about male behaviour --otherwise
she would not have been asked to speak. Granted, she may have had relevant
experiences to share with the audience, but her active participation in a
seminar that gave males no opportunity to complain about women in the workplace
hints at a Feminist mentality very much in tune with "Gender Equity"
The then Governor-General and former Appeal Court judge, the Rt. Honourable
Sir Michael Hardie Boys (to whom I am related), gave an address, in which
he showed both how confused he was about Gender Equity" and what "Gender
Equity" is really all about. Having mentioned that women constitute
50.9% of the population, he went on to say:
"To digress a moment, that figure: because the birth ration favours
the male: there are 106 live male births to 100 female. But women
are tougher and live longer, hence the
7% swing which gives women that slight margin in the total population."
In my reading of the literature on life expectancy,
I have seen no evidence that women are tougher. On the contrary, they
are extremely self-indulgent and pay enormous attention to their own health
and well-being, whereas men do not. The taxpayer pays for women to be
assisted in avoiding breast cancer and cervical cancer. Men take risks,
and are encouraged by women to do so, because women see risk-takers as sexy.
Men are conscripted into warfare, whereas women only fight if they happen
to feel like doing so. Women love men in uniform -- in fact, they love
any sucker who will lay down his life for her. Men predominate in the
dangerous and dirty occupations.
Michael was talking through his hat, but he revealed what all this "Gender
Equity" nonsense was all about: men being chivalrous towards women and
deferring to them in whatever they wanted.
2 August 2015