Home > Issues > Domestic Violence > The Femi-Fascism of Phil Goff

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

The Femi-Fascism of Phil Goff

© Peter Zohrab 2009

(Open Letter to the Leader of the Labour Party)

Dear Mr. Goff,

On TV One's Sunday political programme (Q+A, 12 April 2009), Paul Holmes suggested to you that Labour might have lost the 2008 election because the party became a bit too urban feminist liberal. You were visibly startled that anyone in the mainstream media might dare to suggest that there was any alternative to Feminism -- and quite rightly so! The efforts of your allies to ban freedom of speech from the media have been extremely successful.

Paul Holmes kept suggesting that you were part of the old, failed Labour Party leadership, and therefore not destined to be party leader for long. However, you did say that you had been listening to what people had been saying to you, so there is at least a chance that you will change the old, failed Labour Party policies -- if not the faces of those who propose the policies. Maybe you could ask former Leader Mike Moore for advice on pro-men policies.

Because of your apparent inability to look past Feminism, I was reminded of a letter you wrote to the late Alan Sutherland about the Femi-Fascist criminal charge "male-assault-female" (section 194, Crimes Act 1961), which imposes a harsher penalty on a male who assaults a female than on a female who assaults a male. Despite the fact that the letter was written in the year 2000, when you were Minister of Justice, it is still highly relevant.

I reproduce it here, with my comments under each section:

You apparently have a first-class degree in Political Science, but you must have gained that without any logical reasoning or backing up of arguments with facts -- probably all you had to do was to agree with your left-wing lecturers! (Since initially writing this article, I have studied Political Science at Vicoria University of Wellington, and can confirm that the lecturers in that department are nothing but brain-dead, Feminist indoctrinators).

• There is no evidence -- certainly none that you have produced -- that the nature of assaults differs systematically as between male and female perpetrators in a way that could be made out to justify higher penalties for male perpetrators. I would have to speculate that you have come under the influence of the Lesbian Feminist man-hating dream called the Duluth (Power and Control) model of domestic violence -- for which there is absolutely no evidence;

• There is no logical relationship between the frequency of an offence and the penalty that should be imposed for that offence across a whole population group. If a particular person offends frequently, then they should be punished frequently, with more severe sentences once that person becomes a repeat offender. One could even introduce a "three strikes and you're out" policy -- imposing a life sentence on the third violent offence.

• It is fascistly discriminatory and insanely illogical to impose a greater sanction on every male offender than on every female offender just because it is thought that male violence against females is, in general, different from, and more frequent than female violence against males!

• It is grossly sexist and insane for you to make this generalisation, when you are absolutely, definitely, and totally unaware of any studies of the physical, emotional and psychological impact of female domestic violence on males. You are a liar, Phil Goff!

• In a Democracy governed by the Rule of Law (i.e. in countries other than in New Zealand), the courts look at the evidence on a case-by-case basis and produce a verdict and a sentence that take into account the actual physical, emotional and psychological harm done by a particular perpetrator on a particular victim.

• When one man assaults another man, there is no law that imposes a higher penalty if the man who committed the assault is more powerful than the man whom he assaulted. That would be completely illogical. The issue of the power of the perpetrator is only relevant insofar as it relates to the injuries suffered by the victim, which courts can assess on a case-by-case basis. To penalise all men because men are generally stronger than women is mad-dog insane.

• Apart from cases where the woman involved is stronger than the man involved, there are also such things as weapons, which you seem to have forgotten about, Mr. Goff.

1

That is the one true statement that you have made so far in this letter, Mr. Goff. However, there has to be a complaint to the police before there can be a prosecution and a sentence. The Government has published vast amounts of man-hating propaganda which depicts Domestic Violence as something that men do to women, and encouraging women to go to the police. The Government has never published anything that encourages men to report Domestic Violence by women, so (for that and other reasons) men are unlikely to report it.

Research into the actual incidence of Domestic Violence overwhelmingly shows that women are as violent towards men as, or more violent towards men than men are towards women. Have a look at Professor Martin Fiebert's annotated bibliography of domestic violence research at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm or my summary of it at dvsumary.html -- incidentally, Fiebert's bibliography includes New Zealand research: see Research on Domestic Violence in New Zealand.

The same applies to males who seriously assault females. That does not justify having a more serious penalty for every man who assaults a woman. Take a course in reasoning, Mr. Goff! Take a course in fairness! Take a course in justice! Take a course in human rights!

1

(I have not included this table, because it is irrelevant, as explained above).

There will be no change until the man-haters in politics and in the bureaucracy are kicked out. They are just not interested in logic or the Rule of Law.

Justice Ministry research: Sentencing in New Zealand: a Statistical Analysis indicates that men receive more severe penalties than women for the same offences. This is not surprising, given the insane sexism of man-haters such as yourself.

I understand that, unlike me, you do not have a law degree, so maybe human rights, discrimination, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and New Zealand's ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are just insignificant trivia to you. Of course, the matter I am raising only affects men, so all the vicious man-haters in your caucus would shunt you out of the leadership in a split second, if you did anything that appeared to admit that men have any problems to be rectified, in Feminazi New Zealand!

• "HOW CAN SHE SLAP?" Transcript: English Subtitles of Video of Several Men Assaulting One Man for Defending Himself Against a Female Aggressor on Indian Television

• Review: "The Battered Woman" by Lenore E. Walker

• Regulations Review Committee tells lies in support of the Domestic Violence (Programmes) Regulations 1996.

• The Insanity of Sir Douglas Graham

• The Influence of Non-Legal Research on Legal Approaches to Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protection Orders

• Sexual bias, fathers’ rights, domestic violence, and the Family Court – a reply to Wendy Davis

• Jan Logie: Man-Hating as a Religion

• Gender Differences in Domestic Violence: an Open Letter to Professor Fergusson

• Owen Glenn: A Fool and his Money are Soon Parted.

• The "People's Report": Self-Contradiction, Sexism and Stupidity

• Green MP Jan Logie Proves that Women's Suffrage Should Be Repealed.

• Research on Domestic Violence in New Zealand

• Protection Order

• Abolish Women's Refuges !

• Research Sexism

• Women Who Initiate Domestic Violence

• Member of Parliament Testifies to Mother's Abuse of Father

• Andrew Little Lies Like a Girl.

• The Fascist Thickshit, David Cunliffe

• Overview of Fiebert's Annotated Domestic Violence Bibliography