| |
|
Empowering Men:
|
Daterape Scenarios
(twelve times updated and slightly edited)
Peter Zohrab 2021 |
|
|
Introduction: This is a sequence of letters
(about rape and other sexual violence) written to and from agencies
of the New Zealand government. My aim is to try to clarify the information
and anti-male ideology which underlie policy and law in this area, in
the words of these agencies themselves.
|
(Open Letter to
the Minister of "Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence")
Dear Marama Davidson,
As you also know, sexual violation only happens if there is in fact
no consent and if the relevant party does not believe on reasonable
grounds that the other party consents.
Man-Hatred (Misandry)
As you know, section
128 of the Crimes Act 1961 (as amended) defines "sexual violation"
as either rape or unlawful sexual connection. It defines rape as unlawful
sexual connection "effected by the penetration of person B’s
genitalia by person A’s penis." The penalties are the same
for both forms of sexual violation. So the only reason for retaining
the separate crime of "rape" is for all the man-haters to
keep on having this word in their vocabulary to whip up anti-male hysteria
with.
Myths
-
In her recent interview on Q+A, your
predecessor in the portfolio of "Prevention of Family and Sexual
Violence", Jan Logie, implied that the Sexual Violence Legislation
Bill has provisions which would ban so-called "myths"
from being used by defence lawyers in sexual violence cases. Logie
grinned at that point, obviously thinking that she had an unbeatable
argument there -- and, in fact, the interviewer did not ask her
for any details about these so-called "myths", which was
disappointing. I don't know if you have any idea what Democracy
means, but it is certainly not compatible with some man-hater declaring
that something-or-other is a "myth" and all males in the
vicinity instantly adopting a begging-doggie posture. Under
the Official Information Act, could you please detail for me all
the provisions of the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill which specify
what is deemed to be a "myth" and what beliefs, concepts
or ideas are not permitted to be used by defences in sexual violence
cases under that Bill?
-
For each of these so-called "myths", under the Official
Information Act, could you please detail precisely which legal personnel
have used them in court, where and when they used them and what
evidence there is to show that they are just "myths"?
Real Life Research
Setting aside the issue of rape by strangers and setting aside the
issue of someone having sex when they are too intoxicated to give consent,
under the Official Information Act, could you please state what Social
Science research there is which details the forms of consent which people
on dates actually ask for in real life
in New Zealand and before which specific acts (e.g. touching a male's
muscles or a female's breasts, kissing, touching the buttocks or groin,
etc.) people actually do ask for consent in real
life in New Zealand.
Gender Equity
-
Under the Official Information Act, could you please state whether,
amongst heterosexual couples, it is wholly or mostly the males or
wholly or mostly the females who are legally required to obtain
the consent of the other party, prior to penetration by the male's
penis (or envelopment of the male's penis). In this connection,
I point out that a female once performed an indecent act on myself,
which involved my penis entering her mouth, without my consent.
-
Under the Official Information Act, could you please tell me whether
women ever get convicted -- and whether is it legally possible for
women to be convicted -- of sexual violence against a male in an
instance where both the male and the female (in a heterosexual couple)
are too intoxicated to give consent and penetration by the male's
penis of the female's vagina (or envelopment of the male's penis
by the female's vagina) takes place. Could you also please state
whether it is legally always the male who has raped the female in
such cases -- given that intoxication is no excuse for offences.
-
Under the Official Information Act, could you please tell me whether
you have seen the recent Danske Mobler furniture advertisement on
television-- the long version, which has a couple sitting on a sofa
at (from memory) three stages of their life. I have written to Danske
Mobler, requesting a copy of this advertisement, but they have not
replied.
-
In that advertisement, there is a seduction scene on the sofa,
where an adolescent male seduces an adolescent female (and they
end up becoming a couple and having children). The male moves sideways
on the sofa towards the female, who immediately moves sideways on
the sofa away from him. She is looking away from him, but she is
smiling. He cannot see that she is smiling. In other words, she
is "playing hard to get." The implication of the story-line
is that sexual connection took place, effected by the penetration
of her genitalia by his penis, since they later had children.
-
If he had been put off by her moving away, she could have dropped
him and chosen some other person to be her partner (I had an experience
of that sort when I was an adolescent).
-
Assuming that that was a real-life event (and I assume that it
has happened many times to many people), under the Official Information
Act, could you please tell me whether the male could believe on
reasonable grounds that she consented to the connection -- without
any further communication or actions on her part.
-
If the male could not believe on reasonable grounds that she consented
to the connection, that would have been rape, unless she happened
to consent (which only she would have known).
-
Under the Official Information Act, could you please tell me what
legal penalties she was liable to suffer for not being clear about
her wishes and for leading him on to carrying out actions that she
could later complain about as being rape.
-
If the male could not believe on reasonable grounds that she consented
to the connection, it would have been totally up to her whether
she later claimed that she had not consented and so complained of
rape to the police.
Jan Logie hates men. Do you hate men too? Since
Feminists make the laws and Feminists hate men, all that Feminists want
to do is to burden men with legal obligations and penalise them if they
do not fulfill those obligations. If New Zealand was not a Fascist Matriarchy,
our laws and social norms would take into account the interests of both
men and woman -- not just the interests of women, as at present. |
In due course, I received the following substantive reply (email,
plus attachment), immediately followed by the two further emails below,
which purported to retract the substantive reply. Since the recall emails
were sent only three minutes after the
initial email, I think that the whole thing was an exercise in hypocrisy
and duplicity. She pretended to reply to my request for information
and then pretended to retract it -- without giving a reason -- and then
she did not send me any new substantive reply.
This is exactly how females manipulate men in
dating, sexual harassment and date-rape scenarios: the female is free
to send out ambiguous, unclear and self-contradictory signals and then
it is the male who has to decide whether to take the legal risk of following
up on her signals -- which could result in allegations by the female
of sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape. |
Subject:
OIA012 - letter seeking clarification
From:
"M Davidson (MIN)" <M.Davidson@ministers.govt.nz>
Date:
30/04/2021 2:51 p.m.
To:
"peter@zohrab.name" <peter@zohrab.name>
Kia ora Peter,
Please see the attached correspondence from the Office of Hon Marama
Davidson.
We look forward to receiving your response.
Nga mihi,
Crest
Office of Hon Marama Davidson
Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence
Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)
Private Bag 18041 | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand
Attachments:
image001.jpg 0 bytes
OIA012 - Request for Clarification.docx 281 KB |
30/04/21
Peter Zohrab
<snip>
Dear Peter,
Official information request for information about consent in various
sexual scenarios.
I refer to your official information request dated 11/04/21, in which
you requested information within a four page letter. However, we are
writing to request clarity on your request, as the current structure
of your letter does not make clear the information you are requesting
from Hon Davidson noting some topics are not within the Ministers delegations
and not public information under the Official Information Act 1982.
You can contact our office at M.Davidson@ministers.govt.nz
should you need further support to resolve this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Office of Hon Marama Davidson
Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence
Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness) |
Subject:
Recall: OIA012 - letter seeking clarification
From:
"M Davidson (MIN)" <M.Davidson@ministers.govt.nz>
Date:
30/04/2021 2:54 p.m.
To:
"peter@zohrab.name" <peter@zohrab.name>
M Davidson (MIN) would like to recall the message, "OIA012 -
letter seeking clarification".
________________________________ |
Subject:
Recall: OIA012 - letter seeking clarification
From:
"M Davidson (MIN)" <M.Davidson@ministers.govt.nz>
Date:
30/04/2021 2:54 p.m.
To:
"peter@zohrab.name" <peter@zohrab.name>
M Davidson (MIN) would like to recall the message, "OIA012 -
letter seeking clarification".
________________________________ |
I later emailed the Ombudsman as follows: |
Dear sir/Madam,
Could you please investigate and review the following:-
1. Marama Davidson's good faith, or lack of it, in sending me the
attached Request for Clarification and then recalling it;
2. Marama Davidson's failure to reply adequately to my Official Information
Request -- either in her unnecessary Request for Clarification or in
any other document.
I attach my original letter to her, her substantive reply (Request
for Clarification) and copies of her two emails recalling her Request
for Clarification).
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
Soon afterwards, I received the following email,
which merely repeated the contents of the above letter which she had
recalled (and added some highlighting). |
Peter Zohrab
<snip>
Dear Peter,
Official information request for information about consent in various
sexual scenarios.
I refer to your official information request dated 11/04/21, in which
you requested information within a four page letter.
However, we are writing to request clarity on your request, as the
current structure of your letter does not make clear the information
you are requesting from Hon Davidson. Noting some topics are not within
the Ministers delegations and some topics are not public information
under the Official Information Act 1982.
You can contact the office M.Davidson@ministers.govt.nz should you
need further support to resolve this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Office of Hon Marama Davidson
Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence
Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)
M.Davidson@ministers.govt.nz |
I replied to the Minister as follows: |
Dear Minister Davidson,
I have made many Official Information Act requests to many ministers
over the years and they (or their staff) have almost always been able
to understand my letters, to separate the questions from the background
information which I was supplying and to detail what specific questions
they were unable to answer and why.
My letter made seven Official Information Act requests, which were
all clearly signposted by the phrase "Under the Official Information
Act". The first request (about so-called "myths") had
several parts to it.
Please comply with those seven requests and give reasons, in any specific
case where you think you are unable to do so.
I have complained to the Ombudsman about your initial response (which
you recalled) and now you are, in effect, repeating that initial response.
I will forward this response to the Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
I also wrote to the Ombudsman as follows: |
Dear sir/Madam,
Below you will see my reply to Minister Davidson's email (and her
email itself), which I have just received, which essentially repeats
the initial response which I have already complained to you about.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
<snip> |
I soon received the following further email from Minister Davidson,
which I forwarded to the Ombudsman: |
Dear Peter,
I refer to your official information request dated 11/04/21, which
our office received on 19/04/21.
The OIA requires that we advise you of our decision on your request
no later than 20 working days after the day we received your request.
Unfortunately, it will not be possible to meet that time limit and we
are therefore writing to notify you of an extension of the time to make
our decision, to 17/06/21.
This extension is necessary because consultation with other departments
is necessary to make a decision on the request, as such that a proper
response to the request cannot reasonably be made within the original
time limit.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman
of this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available
at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.
If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request with us, including
this decision, please feel free to contact our office at M.Davidson@ministers.govt.nz
Yours sincerely
Office of Hon Marama Davidson
Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence
Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)
Parliament House 2.025, Museum Street| Private Bag 18041 | Wellington
6160 | New Zealand |
Soon after, I received the following further email: |
Kia ora Peter,
Thank you for your request for official information, received on 19
April 2021 requesting: Information about consent in various sexual scenarios.
As some aspects of your request pertain to justice and the courts,
we have decided to partially transfer your OIA request to the Ministry
of Justice, from which you can expect a response in due course.
You have the right, under section 28 of the Act, to ask the Ombudsman
to review our decision to transfer your request for information.
Nga mihi,
Office of Hon Marama Davidson
Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence
Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)
Parliament House 2.025,
Museum Street
Private Bag 18041
Wellington 6160
New Zealand |
I soon received the following reply from the Ombudsman: |
Dear Mr Zohrab
I am writing about your complaint about the way that Minister Hon
Marama Davidson and Prime Minister Rt Hon Jacinda
Ardern have handled your requests for information. The Chief Ombudsman
cannot consider your complaint because your information requests are
not considered ‘official information’, as per the Official
Information Act 1982 (OIA).
Official information Act requests
‘Official information’ is defined1
as ‘any information held’ by an agency or Minister that
is subject to the OIA. The OIA does not oblige an agency or Minister
to comment, explain or venture an opinion on a matter in response to
a request. Such requests would require the agency to create new information
rather than consider whether or not to release documents or information
already held.
Requests posed as questions can be problematic
Requests which are phrased as questions are often interpreted by
an agency or Minister as a request for information that they do not
‘hold’, and would therefore not be an OIA request. This
can result in an agency or Minister not providing the information sought
by the requester. You may find it helpful to refer to our ‘guide
for requesters’ before making future requests.
Minister conduct
This Office cannot investigate your complaint about the way that
the Minister or Prime Minister have handled your correspondence. This
is because the Chief Ombudsman has no authority under the Ombudsmen
Act 1975 to investigate the acts and decisions of Ministers.
Whilst no further action will be taken at this time, I hope this
letter has clarified matters.
Yours sincerely
Scott Martin
Manager – Intake and Early Assistance Team
1
Section (2)(1) of the OIA.
Our ref 551858 (Complaint ground: 551865, 551866, 553184)
Contact Rosie Walsh
31 May 2021
Mr Peter Douglas Zohrab
By email: peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz
|
Although I do not necessarily agree with all aspects of the Ombudsman's
letter, I modified my previous letter and wrote to the Minister as follows: |
5 June 2021
Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence
Parliament House
Wellington
(Open Letter to the Minister of "Prevention of Family and Sexual
Violence")
Dear Marama Davidson,
Re: Date-Rape Scenarios
On the advice of the Ombudsman, I am writing to rephrase my Official
Information Act request of 11th April 2021.
As you also know, sexual violation only happens if there is in fact
no consent and if the relevant party does not believe on reasonable
grounds that the other party consents.
Man-Hatred (Misandry)
As you know, section 128 of the Crimes Act 1961 (as amended) defines
"sexual violation" as either rape or unlawful sexual connection.
It defines rape as unlawful sexual connection "effected by the
penetration of person B’s genitalia by person A’s penis."
The penalties are the same for both forms of sexual violation. So the
only reason for retaining the separate crime of "rape" is
for all the man-haters to keep on having this word in their vocabulary
to whip up anti-male hysteria with.
Myths
In her recent interview on Q+A, your predecessor in the portfolio
of "Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence", Jan Logie,
implied that the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill has provisions which
would ban so-called "myths" from being used by defence lawyers
in sexual violence cases. Logie grinned at that point, obviously thinking
that she had an unbeatable argument there -- and, in fact, the interviewer
did not ask her for any details about these so-called "myths",
which was disappointing. I don't know if you have any idea what Democracy
means, but it is certainly not compatible with some man-hater declaring
that something-or-other is a "myth" and all males in the vicinity
instantly adopting a begging-doggie posture. Under the Official Information
Act, could you please inform me of all the provisions of the Sexual
Violence Legislation Bill which specify what is deemed to be a "myth"
and also inform me as to what beliefs, concepts or ideas are not permitted
to be used by defences in sexual violence cases under that Bill.
For each of these so-called "myths", under the Official
Information Act, please detail precisely which legal personnel have
used them in court, where and when they used them and what evidence
there is to show that they are just "myths.
Real Life Research
Setting aside the issue of rape by strangers and setting aside the
issue of someone having sex when they are too intoxicated to give consent,
under the Official Information Act, please state what Social Science
research there is which details the forms of consent which people on
dates actually ask for in real life in New Zealand and before which
specific acts (e.g. touching a male's muscles or a female's breasts,
kissing, touching the buttocks or groin, etc.) people actually do ask
for consent in real life in New Zealand.
Gender Equity
Under the Official Information Act, please state whether, amongst
heterosexual couples, it is wholly or mostly the males or wholly or
mostly the females who are legally required to obtain the consent of
the other party, prior to penetration by the male's penis (or envelopment
of the male's penis). In this connection, I point out that a female
once performed an indecent act on myself, which involved my penis entering
her mouth, without my consent.
Under the Official Information Act, please tell me whether women ever
get convicted -- and whether is it legally possible for women to be
convicted -- of sexual violence against a male in an instance where
both the male and the female (in a heterosexual couple) are too intoxicated
to give consent and penetration by the male's penis of the female's
vagina (or envelopment of the male's penis by the female's vagina) takes
place. Please also state whether it is legally always the male who has
raped the female in such cases -- given that intoxication is no excuse
for offences.
I do not know whether you have seen the recent Danske Mobler furniture
advertisement on television-- the long version, which has a couple sitting
on a sofa at (from memory) three stages of their life. I have written
to Danske Mobler, requesting a copy of this advertisement, but they
have not replied.
In that advertisement, there is a seduction scene on the sofa, where
an adolescent male seduces an adolescent female (and they end up becoming
a couple and having children). The male moves sideways on the sofa towards
the female, who immediately moves sideways on the sofa away from him.
She is looking away from him, but she is smiling. He cannot see that
she is smiling. In other words, she is "playing hard to get."
The implication of the story-line is that sexual connection took place,
effected by the penetration of her genitalia by his penis, since they
later had children.
If he had been put off by her moving away, she could have dropped
him and chosen some other person to be her partner (I had an experience
of that sort when I was an adolescent).
Irrespective of whether you have seen that advertisement or not, assuming
that that was a real-life event (and I assume that it has happened many
times to many people), under the Official Information Act, please tell
me whether the male could believe on reasonable grounds that she consented
to the connection -- without any further communication or actions on
her part.
If the male could not believe on reasonable grounds that she consented
to the connection, that would have been rape, unless she happened to
consent (which only she would have known).
Under the Official Information Act, please tell me what legal penalties
she was liable to suffer for not being clear about her wishes and for
leading him on to carrying out actions that she could later complain
about as being rape.
If the male could not believe on reasonable grounds that she consented
to the connection, it would have been totally up to her whether she
later claimed that she had not consented and so complained of rape to
the police.
Since Feminists make the laws and Feminists hate men, all that Feminists
want to do is to burden men with legal obligations and penalise them
if they do not fulfill those obligations. If New Zealand was not a Fascist
Matriarchy, our laws and social norms would take into account the interests
of both men and woman -- not just the interests of women, as at present.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
Soon I received a reply to my rephrased letter, as follows: |
Dear Peter,
On behalf of Hon Marama Davidson, we acknowledge receipt of your rephrased
official information request dated 05/06/21 for: Date-Rape Scenarios.
Minister Davidson will endeavour to respond to the "Real Life
Research" section of your request via the Joint Venture Business
Unit no later than 05/07/21, being 20 working days after the day your
request was received.
If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify
you of an extension of that timeframe.
All other sections of your below OIA can be addressed to the Ministry
of Justice at OIA@Justice.govt.nz, as they fall outside of Hon Marama
Davidson's ministerial delegations.
If your OIA request requires full or part transfer, we will contact
you within the required timeframe.
If any additional factors come to light which are relevant to your
request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that these can be taken
into account.
Yours Sincerely
Office of Hon Marama Davidson
Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence Associate
Minister of Housing (Homelessness) Parliament House 2.025, Museum Street|
Private Bag 18041 | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand |
In accordance with Minister Davidson's latest email (above), I forwarded
to OIA@Justice.govt.nz the modified version of my Official Information
requests. |
I received the following reply from Ministerial
Relations and Services Strategy, Governance and Finance: |
|
Kia ora Mr Zohrab
Thank you for your email to the Ministry of Justice. I note that this
appears to be an identical request to the one that was transferred from
the Office of the Hon Minister Faafoi and from the Office of the Hon
Minister Davidson to the Ministry of Justice on 27 May which we are
currently preparing a response for.
Can you please confirm, or otherwise, that this request is the same
as your previous one.
Nga mihi |
I replied as follows: |
Kia ora,
Yes, it is, in substance, the same request, but reworded as per advice
from the Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
Soon I received the following substantive response: |
|
|
|
|
I soon wrote to the Prime Minister about so-called
"myths" and to the Minister of Justice as follows: |
Failure of Ministry of Justice to respond to all of my Official Information
Act requests on Daterape
26 June 2021
Minister of Justice
Parliament House
Wellington
Dear Mr. Faafoi,
(Open Letter)
I am writing to complain that your Ministry of Justice has failed
to respond to all of the Official Information Act requests which I made
in my letter to the Minister for the Prevention of
Family and Sexual Violence dated 11th April 2021. Most of these
requests were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. I also sent
a rephrased letter (dated 5 June 2021), on the advice of the Ombudsman,
but the Ministry of Justice had not found fault with my original wording
anyway.
The two questions (including the relevant background) which your Ministry
has not answered were the following:
"I do not know whether you have seen the recent Danske Mobler
furniture advertisement on television-- the long version, which has
a couple sitting on a sofa at (from memory) three stages of their life.
I have written to Danske Mobler, requesting a copy of this advertisement,
but they have not replied.
In that advertisement, there is a seduction scene on the sofa, where
an adolescent male seduces an adolescent female (and they end up becoming
a couple and having children). The male moves sideways on the sofa towards
the female, who immediately moves sideways on the sofa away from him.
She is looking away from him, but she is smiling. He cannot see that
she is smiling. In other words, she is "playing hard to get."
The implication of the story-line is that sexual connection took place,
effected by the penetration of her genitalia by his penis, since they
later had children.
If he had been put off by her moving away, she could have dropped
him and chosen some other person to be her partner (I had an experience
of that sort when I was an adolescent).
Irrespective of whether you have seen that advertisement or not, assuming
that that was a real-life event (and I assume that it has happened many
times to many people), under the Official Information Act, please tell
me whether the male could believe on reasonable grounds that she consented
to the connection -- without any further communication or actions on
her part.
If the male could not believe on reasonable grounds that she consented
to the connection, that would have been rape, unless she happened to
consent (which only she would have known).
Under the Official Information Act, please tell me what legal penalties
she was liable to suffer for not being clear about her wishes and for
leading him on to carrying out actions that she could later complain
about as being rape.
If the male could not believe on reasonable grounds that she consented
to the connection, it would have been totally up to her whether she
later claimed that she had not consented and so complained of rape to
the police."
According to the office of the Minister for the Prevention of Family
and Sexual Violence (email dated 16 June 2021),
she had transferred all my requests to the Ministry of Justice, apart
from the following one:
"Real Life Research
Setting aside the issue of rape by strangers and setting aside the
issue of someone having sex when they are too intoxicated to give consent,
under the Official Information Act, please state what Social Science
research there is which details the forms of consent which people on
dates actually ask for in real life in New Zealand and before which
specific acts (e.g. touching a male's muscles or a female's breasts,
kissing, touching the buttocks or groin, etc.) people actually do ask
for consent in real life in New Zealand."
However, the Ministry of Justice did respond to this request (by saying
that it did not hold such information).
I would like to make the following comments:
1. It is illegal for the Ministry of Justice to refrain from responding
to an Official Information Request -- as opposed to refusing to do so
and giving a reason;
2. I would not find it credible, if your Ministry were to claim that
there had been a misunderstanding as to which requests had been transferred
to it. I think that my requests embarassed someone and someone has been
devious.
3. It is outrageous that neither your Ministry nor the Minister for
the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence holds any information as
to what Social Science research there is which details the forms of
consent which people on dates actually ask for in real life in New Zealand
and before which specific acts (e.g. touching a male's muscles or a
female's breasts, kissing, touching the buttocks or groin, etc.) people
actually do ask for consent in real life in New Zealand. There have
been frequent changes to the law on sexual violence in New Zealand in
recent years -- yet no one in a position of power or responsibility
has sought (sic)
fit to find out what people actually do! This verifies my own feeling
that all that Feminists wanted to do was to increase the male conviction
rate and increase the penalties which were imposed on men. New Zealand
is crawling with women and lawyers who just want men to be dildos. At
Law School I actually heard a female student state that this was what
she wanted men to be.
4. The behaviour of Danske Mobler has been tantamount to subverting
the New Zealand Constitution. They not only did not furnish me with
a copy of their advertisement -- they did not even reply to my inquiry.
Then they seemed immediately to alter their advertisement -- deleting
the section most relevant to my questions. Then they reinstated a refilmed
version of the long version of the advertisement, which was subtly altered.
In the second version, the young woman did not turn her head 180 degrees
away from the young man (as in the first version) and she did not have
the wide grin on her face that she had in the first version.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
Note: I
apologise for my bad proofreading. |
On 7th July, I received the following reply
from Minister Davidson: |
|
|
|
|
In due course, I received the following reply from the Minister of
Justice: |
|
So I wrote to the Ombudsman as follows: |
Dear sir/Madam,
Could you please review and investigate the failure of the Minister
of Justice, the Ministry of Justice and the Minister for the Prevention
of Family Violence and Sexual Violence to respond to the following Official
Information request:
"I do not know whether you have seen the recent Danske
Mobler furniture advertisement on television-- the long version, which
has a couple sitting on a sofa at (from memory) three stages of their
life. I have written to Danske Mobler, requesting a copy of this advertisement,
but they have not replied.
In that advertisement, there is a seduction scene on the sofa,
where an adolescent male seduces an adolescent female (and they end
up becoming a couple and having children). The male moves sideways
on the sofa towards the female, who immediately moves sideways on
the sofa away from him. She is looking away from him, but she is smiling.
He cannot see that she is smiling. In other words, she is "playing
hard to get." The implication of the story-line is that sexual
connection took place, effected by the penetration of her genitalia
by his penis, since they later had children.
If he had been put off by her moving away, she could have dropped
him and chosen some other person to be her partner (I had an experience
of that sort when I was an adolescent).
Irrespective of whether you have seen that advertisement or
not, assuming that that was a real-life event (and I assume that it
has happened many times to many people), under the Official Information
Act, please tell me whether the male could believe on reasonable grounds
that she consented to the connection -- without any further communication
or actions on her part.
If the male could not believe on reasonable grounds that she
consented to the connection, that would have been rape, unless she
happened to consent (which only she would have known).
Under the Official Information Act, please tell me what legal
penalties she was liable to suffer for not being clear about her wishes
and for leading him on to carrying out actions that she could later
complain about as being rape.
If the male could not believe on reasonable grounds that she
consented to the connection, it would have been totally up to her
whether she later claimed that she had not consented and so complained
of rape to the police."
I initially made that request to the Minister for the Prevention of
Family Violence and Sexual Violence in a letter dated 11 April 2021
(the file "msx11421.doc", which is attached).
The Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence
replied that she had passed on most of my questions to the Ministry
of Justice. Please see the two emails, which are in text format, from
her about that.
The Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence
gave me a substantive response to the one request that she had decided
to deal with herself, which was not the one that I have quoted above
-- see the doc-format attachment labelled "Peter Zohrab Response".
The Ministry of Justice gave me a substantive response (see the attached
file "mnj21621.pdf"), but they also did not address the particular
request quoted above.
So I wrote to the Minister of Justice (see attached file "mnj26621.doc)
to complain about this collective non-response to this request. His
response is forwarded below, including the attached file "210806
Peter Zohrab.pdf". He also completely ignored the request that
had been ignored by the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence
and Sexual Violence and by the Ministry of Justice.
I think this behaviour is appalling, unprofessional and would be regarded
as below par in a proverbial "banana republic."
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
In due course, I received the following reply: |
|
|
See also:
|
Someone has let women out of the kitchen -- and they
have been telling lies ever since!
|
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
28 August 2021 |
|
|
|
