1. I complain that I subscribe to emailed notifications from Parliament
about Bills from noReply@www.parliament.nz but I was not notified until 11/02/2013
about submissions to this Bill, which end today, 13/2/2013. Could you please
look into this for me and explain why I was given so short a time to write
a submission. (I will give a fuller submission for presentation orally).
2. As I point out in my paper at dvpobora.html
, Section 13 (2)(a) of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 is a gross breach of
human rights, constitutes a Lesbian hate crime, perpetrated by the New Zealand
Parliament, on the men of New Zealand, and should immediately be repealed.
Only a Lesbian matriarchy would make a judge take into
account what goes on in the mind of one person, when determining the guilt
or punishment of another person, because a person is only responsible
for his own actions, and cannot control what goes on in another person's mind.
I realise that the Act's language is gender-neutral, but only a man-hater,
influenced by the Duluth (Power and Control) model -- for which there is zero
evidence - would contemplate putting such a section into an Act. I realise
that most Members of Parliament and of the Ministry of Injustice are incompetent
and do not understand the need for evidence, so I am wasting my time saying
that there is no evidence for the Power and Control model.
3. All references to "vulnerable people" should be deleted from
the Bill, because this is an obviously manhating code for "women",
and is therefore sexist and discriminatory. Men are much more vulnerable than
women in relationships, because the police, lawyers and the judges have all
been subjected to feminist brainwashing to a greater or lesser extent, and
will all favour women over men. The courts will, therefore, interpret "vulnerable"
as meaning "female".
4. All references to "victims" of domestic violence should be
deleted from the Bill, because that word implies that there is generally one
victim and one perpetrator, whereas domestic violence is probably generally
a two-way street (see Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan,
K. (1992) at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
) , and the choice of who the "victim" and who the "perpetrator"
is is generally made on the basis of sex. The feminist or chivalrous police,
lawyers and judges select the man to be the perpetrator and the woman to be
the victim. I would like to give details about a relevant (non-domestic) case
that I am involved in, but that is before the courts (However,
I can state that the Police Prosecutor, at the last court appearance, suddenly
became unable to say how long the case would take, but foreshadowed reducing
it from three days to three hours -- because I had emailed the police pointing
out, amongst other things, that all of their witnesses -- mostly female --
who had mentioned one particular incident were provable liars, on the basis
of the only objective check on the veracity of their testimony that exists).
The Power and Control model comes in here, because that, of course, only mentions
men as perpetrators and women as victims.