Home > Issues > Feminazism > Incompetence, Predetermination, Freedom of Expression, Conflict of Interest and Equality Before the Law

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

 

Incompetence, Predetermination, Freedom of Expression, Conflict of Interest and Equality Before the Law (updated)

© Peter Zohrab 2015

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

 

(Open Letter to the Prime Minister)

 

Dear Mr. Key,

 

Equality Before the Law

 

I realise you don't know much about the Law, but neither do most lawyers -- especially about Human Rights. For example, you support the discriminatory, anti-male White Ribbon Campaign, and I have seen a lawyer write that no judge in New Zealand would rule that the White Ribbon Campaign was discriminatory. That may or may not be true, but (if true) it only speaks to the intellectual quality and anti-male bias of the judges. For example, in my Crimes course at Law School, the head of the course, Elisabeth McDonald, told us that she would be showing us law students a video on Domestic Violence, but that we did not have to attend on that day, because it would not be included in our course assessment. So why was this lecturer using taxpayer-funding to show a video which was so irrelevant to the course that it would not be examined?

I turned up on the day (which she had clearly hoped I would not do) and found that it was an over-the-top, emotive, Feminist propaganda video featuring an emergency call to the police by a woman and a talk by a bull-dyke in black leather and crew-cut to a hall packed with adoring women. Students coming straight from school are impressionable, and think that university lecturers know a lot (which they usually don't), so how can we expect our Ministers of Justice, lawyers and judges to have an objective view of Domestic Violence (or anything) after this sort of education?

Turning to the (so-called) Minister of Justice's call for submissions on "Strengthening New Zealand's legislative response to family violence", I note the following:

  1. She says in her preface to that the Government is committed to "keeping victims safe, particularly women and children." Women got the vote on the basis that they wanted "equality" with men, and here we have a Femifascist Minister of Justice saying that men are a lower priority, as far as being safe from family violence is concerned. What happened to Equality Before the Law? This anti-male sexism is a logical consequence of your own Femifascist prioritisation of women over men in the White Ribbon Campaign.

  2. At the front of this document, there is an unexplained, full-page photograph of a woman, which underlines the message that this minister is just about women.

Predetermination

  1. Since the above document refers to "strengthening" what New Zealand already has in place, it has predetermined that what we have in place is fine, and that all we need to do is strengthen it. Therefore I will not be making any submission, since what we already have in place is the product of Femifascist man-haters.

  2. The document claims that the Domestic Violence Act 1995 was "world-leading" -- yet it also states "Clearly something isn't working." What isn't working is the Domestic Violence Act 1995, which was world-leading in irrational man-hatred. See my article The Influence of Non-Legal Research on Legal Approaches to Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protection Orders. As I showed in my article Incompetence and Man-Hating Victimisation of Men, women tend to be more fearful and more emotional than men, and their power over the Justice System and the Domestic Violence industry has turned these two institutions into mere playthings of women's irrrationality.

 

Incompetence

  1. On TV One on Sunday 2nd August 2015, I heard Amy Adams say that:

    • Most Domestic Violence is committed by men; and

    • Domestic Violence involves "control"

Amy Adams may or may not know something about the Law, but she clearly knows nothing about Domestic Violence research. It is absolutely typical for lawyers (in the Law Commission, for example) to go on a power trip and make law change proposals, when they don't understand the social phenomena that their laws are supposed to regulate. I have already mentioned my article Incompetence and Man-Hating Victimisation of Men , which proves that the Ministry of Social Development is incompetent in this area, and it was probably from that Ministry that Amy Adams obtained her belief that most Domestic Violence is committed by men. in fact, men are unlikely to report being victims of Domestic Violence to the Police -- and they will become even less likely to report it, now that Amy Adams has made it clear that 'the Government is committed to "keeping victims safe, particularly women and children."' Men do and will increasingly feel that they are second-class citizens, and that the Police only exist to hep women. There is a huge mass of research which proves that "women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners."

The notion that Domestic Violence often or always involves "control" is pure man-hating fiction, originating in the "Duluth Model" or "Power and Control Model", for which there has never been any evidence. Amy Adams presumably also obtained this belief from the Ministry of Social Development, who attempted to DEFINE Domestic Violence as involving control, since they couldn't PROVE that it was! The sheer stupidity of the relevant female ministers and public servants is completely beyond belief! No wonder Amy Adams refused to allow me to come and see her to discuss sexual violence!

 

Freedom of Expression and Conflict of Interest

  1. I seriously suggest to you that you abolish the news and current affairs media, for the following reasons:

  • They only exist for women. I have been a Men's Rights Activist (MRA) since 1987, speicalising in Domestic Violence issues, and neither I nor any of my colleagues has ever been allowed to debate relevant issues in the media with Feminists, so that the public would be able to decide between the two sets of views.

  • They are undemocratically powerful. For example, you were forced to give Syrian refugees preferential treatment over other refugees because of the media coverage that they received.

  • Men have no freedom of expression in New Zealand, because media propaganda reaches vastly more people with the same Feminist message than Men's Rights Activists can reach with a contrary message.

  • The Broadcasting Act and Press Council provide no practical remedy for persistent, perpetual anti-male bias in the media, as opposed to one-off events.

  • The news and current affairs media have passed their use-by date, since the Internet makes them unnecessary, to a large extent.

  • There are no conflict-of-interest laws that prevent the media from mounting campaigns or being politically biased. For example, after you announced your Cabinet, the TV One evening news mentioned that one third of the Cabinet was female before even starting its programme! The television channels push Feminist policies while ignoring Masculist policies.

 

In other words, the country which you claim to govern is in fact a Femifascist dictatorship, more or less.

Reply from the Prime Minister:

Prime Minister's Reply

 

Reply from the Minister of Justice:

 

Justice Minister's Reply

In fact, there was no correspondence on 10 December 2015 -- just a phone call from me to her office, asking when I would get a reply. I was told that the Minister does not necessarily reply to all letters, and I subsequently received the above letter. The issues I had raised were very important issues, but I have received no substantive reply.

 

See also:

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

23 May 2016

Top