|Human Rights and Rational Legal Systems||Misandry|
|Social Engineering and Psychological Violence||Psychological Reports|
Complaint. My automated email alert from Parliament gave me only two days' notice before the stated deadline for written submissions, so I applied to give an oral submission, to give me time to write a fuller submission than the Submission on the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill -- version 1which I managed to write in those two days. This is that longer submission.
Domestic Violence. I refer the Committee to Professor Fiebert's Annotated Bibliography of Domestic Violence research at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm which (as at 21 February 2013) states:
This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.
Some feminists object to the methodology employed in such studies. If that objection is raised, I suggest you examine the methodology of the research that is preferred by the feminists who make such complaints, because feminist research ignores the male victim's perspective altogether.
Human Rights and Rational Legal Systems. 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a Lesbian hate crime, perpetrated by the New Zealand Parliament on the men of New Zealand, and should immediately be repealed.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. The famous Jurisprudential writer, Lon Fuller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_L._Fuller ), listed Eight Routes of Failure for any Legal System, of which one was "Demands that are beyond the power of the subjects and the ruled." This section goes down that Route of Failure and enslaves men to the possibly irrational whims of women. I realise that most Members of Parliament and of the Ministry of Injustice are anti-male 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. Why worry about evidence, when man-hating feels so good?
Misandry. On the radio programme "Nine-to-Noon", recently, I heard a lawyer using the fact that most solo parents were women as grounds for giving them special consideration (with regard to benefit fraud). Similarly, when any disaster strikes, journalists take care to state whether any of the victims were women and children -- presumably because male victims were less important in some way. Similarly, in the recent furore about one Member of Parliament's proposed restrictions on the travel of young male Muslims, all the media emphasis seemed to be on his discrimination against Muslims -- ignoring the fact that he was also sexist (discriminating against men) and ageist (discriminating against young people)! This general reaction by the media is itself sexist (against men) and ageist (against young people). In Parliament, I have never heard any speaker ever mention the effect that any legislation might have on men, although speakers routinely speculate about the effect that legislation might have on women. In other words, Members of Parliament are sexist and misandristic (anti-male).
Vulnerable People. All references to "vulnerable people" should be deleted from the Bill, because this is presumably just 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 are chivalrous, have all been subjected to feminist brainwashing to a greater or lesser extent, and will generally favour women over men. See the research on Sentencing in New Zealand at http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/s/sentencing-in-new-zealand-a-statistical-analysis/documents/sentencing_1999.pdf . See also some of my writings on a Law School, on the Institute of Judicial Studies (the training institute for judges) and on the Police at http://blackribboncampaign.altervista.org/lawschoo.html at institut.html and at ispolice.html respectively. The courts will, therefore, interpret "vulnerable" as meaning "female".
Victims. 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.
Social Engineering and Psychological Violence. Rather than adding another example of psychological violence, all examples should be removed from the Domestic Violence Act. There are many examples that could be given, and putting just some of them in the Bill will have the effect of making the other examples harder to prove in Court. Adding an example to do with financial and economic abuse is -- yet again -- just following a feminist agenda. Because it refers specifically to employment, it will increase the pressure on parents for both of them to work, because one parent arguing against the other seeking work will be seen as being abusive, whereas arguably the gross and rapid decline in the New Zealand society is due mainly to both solo parenthood and no parent being at home to provide a refuge from the stresses of the workplace for the other parent. This is an example of the Domestic Violence Act being used by feminist insiders to create feminist social change -- to the detriment of children. For example, the Police Managers' Guild Trust ( http://equality.limewebs.com/polguild.html ) listed the following examples of psychological violence committed by women, most of which are left out in the Act (even after being amended):
Psychological Reports. No reason is given for banning the preparation and presentation of critiques of court-requested psychological reports or second reports on the same matters, except in so-called "exceptional circumstances". This provision should be removed and such critiques and second reports should be permitted at all times. The reason for this is that Psychology is not only not an exact science, but it is female-dominated and feminist-dominated, and Psychology departments at universities, where Psychologists are trained, are full of blatant anti-male sexism, and courses such as "The Psychology of Women" have nothing to do with the psychology of women, but everything to do with feminist propaganda. I base this on having studied Psychology at Massey University and on having noticed how the Psychology department at Victoria University has advertised itself in the past. Not only that, but there are no courses called "The Psychology of Men" in New Zealand. I have not bothered to search for any, because I am sure that there are none. Consequently, it is inevitable that the majority of Psychologists who write reports for the Family Court are anti-male, and so a father is almost bound to have to search around for one who is less anti-male than the rest, in order to produce a report that counter-balances the feminist one that has probably already been produced for the Court, on any given occasion.