Home > Issues > Human Rights > Submission on proposed legislation against the incitement of hatred/hostility

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Submission on proposed legislation against the incitement of hatred/hostility

Peter Zohrab 2021

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 Ministry of Justice)


Dear sir/Madam,


I am not in favour of the proposed legislation, as per the contents of the discussion document provided by the Minister of Justice , although I am in principle in favour of this kind of legislation.


My hatred/hostility towards this document arises for the following reasons:


  1. I can see no attempt in this document to distinguish between the incitement of hostility for the purpose of producing political change and the incitement of hostility for the purpose of producing violence against particular groups. The incitement of hostility is often necessary to motivate people to bring about change. That should not be made illegal.

  2. Parliament hates men, discriminates against men and incites discrimination towards, hatred of, and violence against men. Section 194 of the Crimes Act imposes a maximum harsher penalty on a man who assaults a woman than on a woman who assaults a man. In a letter dated 20 September 2013 , the then Justice Minister, Judith Collins (a discriminatory woman), stated that this section was necessary because it indicates "society's abhorrence for violence against women," which means that Parliament believes that violence against men is not abhorrent, or not so abhorrent. That incites violence against men -- especially by women -- because Parliament has sent a clear message that violence against men is not particularly abhorrent. There are many other examples of Parliament's discrimination against men. Since Parliament is sovereign in New Zealand, these examples amount to state incitement of discrimination against men. Since Parliament itself incites violence against men, it has no moral authority to outlaw the incitement of violence against anyone else.

  3. With Parliament's (and Society's) hatred of men as the background, we can confidently expect any new Law to be interpreted in an anti-male and pro-female way, which is how the Human Rights Commission and the courts interpret the Human Rights Act (1993) and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990).

  4. Having an effective Human Rights regime would involve thinking in abstract terms and applying the same rules to everybody. Unfortunately, the present Minister, the present Government and the current legal system (including -- especially -- the Ministry of Justice, the Human Rights Commission and the Institute of Judicial Studies) believe in a distinction between so-called "good discrimination" and "bad discrimination". They think that "good discrimination" is discrimination in favour of groups that they like (e.g. females) and against groups that they don't like (e.g. males), whereas "bad discrimination" is the opposite.

  5. The discussion document contains some downright insane attempts to lay down the law as regards some non-legal matters, which are totally outside the competence of Parliament, the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice. The Minister himself starts the discussion document by saying:

    "Our society is stronger because of the many different people who call Aotearoa New Zealand home."

  • It is simply an insane lie to say that New Zealand is stronger because of the many different people who call it home. The reason that this legislation is being discussed is that New Zealand's unity has been weakened by the violent hostility of some Non-Muslims towards Muslims, which was probably caused (or increased) by the violent hatred of Muslim groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS towards Non-Muslims!

  • The Maori Party, in a recent interview, has talked of abolishing New Zealand's democracy, which is incredibly destabilising -- irrespective of whether their arguments are valid or not. If there was no difference between Maoris and Non-Maoris, this would not have happened.

  • There is a vast difference between having a lot of ethnically or racially different individuals in a country and having a lot of different ethnic or racial groups. The former is not destabilising, because individuals assimilate, but the latter is obviously destabilising and has always been so everywhere in the World. The reason for that is that people love forming groups to oppose other groups -- even if the groups are just sports team supporters! I would say that most of the Muslims in this country -- if they haven't come here for financial or family reasons -- have probably come here to escape the inter-ethnic, inter-racial or inter-religious violence of their home countries! I have almost certainly lived in more countries and speak more languages (to some extent, anyway) than anyone in Parliament and my experience has been that both expatriates and locals always tend to have some degree of prejudice towards each other. Moreover, some of my ancestors were allegedly forced to leave a Muslim country because they were Christians! What would actually and truly strengthen New Zealand would be a policy of assimilating immigrants, rather than encouraging them to form in-bred communities, wallowing in their dislike of outsiders.

  • Legally, there is no such country as "Aotearoa New Zealand", and the Justice Minister should know this, if he was competent. Unfortunately, he is incompetent, because he is an ex-journalist from Television New Zealand, which specialises in making things up and manipulating and discriminating against people. It is racist and offensive and incites hatred of Non-Maoris for him to use the word "Aotearoa" in English, as if it was part of the official name of the country.

  • On page 12, some mentally confused person states:

    "The current incitement provisions target speech which would have others believe that a society made up of different ethnic groups cannot function and seeks to turn people against each other. The law prohibits the incitement of these attitudes because they are incompatible with human rights and Aotearoa New Zealand’s democratic values. These attitudes conflict with democratic principles because they are based on the idea that because of a shared characteristic, like ethnicity, religion or sexuality, some groups of people are less than others. There could be a belief that these groups should not have the same rights, be treated differently and excluded."

    As should be clear from what I have said above, there is a huge difference between saying that a society made up of different ethnic groups cannot function and seeking to turn people against each other. If you are pointing out the difficulties of having a society made up of different ethnic groups, you are not saying that they should turn against each other. What you are saying is that they probably do and will turn against each other. You could look at a map of Europe and see how it has split -- and is still in the process of splitting -- into smaller and smaller bits, because the various ethnic groups cannot live together. And you can look at a map of Africa and see how the European colonial powers divided the continent into countries which took no account of the ethnic groups living there -- which has resulted in huge problems, with groups divided between countries and groups forced to live unwillingly with other groups, which has even resulted in genocide (in Rwanda). We could also mention the Maori genocide of the Chatham Island Morioris in this context.


Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab


See also:


Someone has let women out of the kitchen -- and they have been telling lies ever since!




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

25 August 2021