The sole issue that the NZEEF wishes to address in this submission is the
issue of the openness or otherwise of the Family Court.
You are aware that section 25 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA)
guarantees the right to a public hearing in criminal matters, and that
section 27 guarantees the right to natural justice in all matters before a
court. The Family Court does not deal with criminal law, of course, but the
spirit of section 25, taken together with section 27, should be interpreted,
in my view, as importing a right to openness in the Family Court, because:
The changes in relation to openness that are at present in the Bill are
insufficient, as are the provisions that are already in the Care of Children
Act 2004. This is because the media are not -- any more than the judiciary,
the legal profession, or the Law Commission -- representative of the full
range of views within New Zealand society, and thus are capable of applying
anti-male bias. The following is evidence of anti-male and left-wing bias
in the media in Western countries:
- In his Canadian thesis at http://equality.netfirms.com/boycecnt.html, Jim
Boyce states "I examined coverage of gender and violence in 1242 headlines
published in seven major Canadian dailies from 1989 to 1992.... Considering
that statistics on violence typically show that men are at least as
victimized as women, the contrast in the amount of coverage given to each
was striking: Of the 540 headlines which directly referred to the gender of
victims, 525 (97.2%) focused on women and 15 (2.8%) focused on men, a ratio
of 35 to 1."
- An objective study at
by Tim Groseclose of the right-wing and left-wing sources quoted by United
States media outlets, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found
that "Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with
CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking
second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall
- Former television insider Ian Wishart reveals in his book Eve's Bite (
http://www.evesbite.com/ ) that ""There were times when one would cover a
stage-managed protest on some worthy liberal issue, with barely anyone
there, but the point of the story was to give favourable publicity to the
worthy liberal issue" (p. 32)...."TV news is heavily manipulated -- not
overtly but by the social views of the journalists themselves -- and
presents liberal views as orthodox, and conservative views as quaint or
outdated" (p. 33).
- I remember being refused entry to a journalism course at ATI in the
1970s -- apparently because I wore a suit and said I did not want to change
the World -- whereas a Leftist female friend of mine (with less impressive
academic qualifications) got in.
- I also refer the Committee to the chapter of my book on bias in the media
and education system at the page 13indoct.html
Therefore, I submit, the presence of "accredited media" is no substitute for
full openness of the Family Court.
In relation to the countervailing issue of privacy, which must be balanced
against the need for openness, I submit:
The legal and judicial professions contain organisations and features in
their professional education and professional associations which imply a
commitment to the belief that women are disadvantaged, relative to men.
This belief has never been tested in an objective fashion. Men, in the
Family Court (and elsewhere in society), often believe that they are
disadvantaged relative to women -- yet the profession that has all this
power over them appears to assume the opposite. Likewise, the media is
dominated by people who have grown up with the same belief that women are
disadvantaged, relative to men. The Law Commission also seems to be
dominated by people with this belief.
It is possible for both men and women to be disadvantaged in different ways,
but denying men open justice in the Family Court seems to be a sure-fire way
of ensuring the continuation of oppression by ideological prejudice.