(See also:

• Complaint to Human Rights Committee, Geneva, about Institute of Judicial Studies and

• Combatting Distributed Dictatorship: Submission as to the jurisdiction of the ombudsmen under the Offical Information Act 1982 with respect to the Institute of Judicial Studies

• Removal of the Chief Justice

 

Introduction

There now exists in New Zealand an Institute of Judicial Studies, run jointly by the judges, who have a slight majority on the Governing Board, and the Department of Courts. It came into being as the result of Feminist complaints about judges who made decisions, and expressed views, that Feminists disagreed with.

 

The Institute Director, Richard Moss, was adamant (when I spoke to him on the telephone) that Women's Refuge and Rape Crisis won't have input into educating judges, but there is plenty of scope for that to happen -- directly or indirectly, e.g. in the course of their published Strategy:

"2.6 Work with and assist co-operating groups in the development of programmes to meet the needs of the Judiciary and the overall goals of judicial education."

 

How the Institute of Judicial Studies Teaches Judges about "Gender Equity"

I have had to use the Ombudsmen's Office and the Official Information Act, in order to force the Institute to supply the information that one of the people teaching the judges "gender equity", Maria Bradshaw, has the same name as a Spokeswoman for the Women's Refuge movement, according to the webpage: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/gender/viol/insight.htm . She is described in the ring-binder "Judicial Seminar on Gender Equity, Rotorua, 15-17 May, 1997" (published by the Judicial Working Group on Gender Equity) as follows:

"Maria Bradshaw was a primary school teacher before she became involved with the Women's Refuge. Her work in a local refuge included designing and delivering programmes for child victims of family violence, facilitating groups for women victims, and delivering training for police, other government agencies and community groups. She was employed by the National Collective of Independent Women's Reuges from 1991 to the end of 1996, firstly as National Training and Education Coordinator and then as Policy Coordinator. She wrote the Women's Refuge submission on the Domestic Violence Bill and worked with the Police on their family violence policy. She now works in the Department for Courts Policy and Legislative Unit."

Not only that, but (according to their annual reports prior to 2002):

• Two of the three judge presenters are female;

• Three of the five non-judge presenters are female; and

• The male non-judge presenters are from the Police -- an organisation which I can testify (having been frequently harassed by them when working in the Police National Headquarters building, and having had other experiences of Police anti-male bias) has a large degree of anti-male bias. This, indeed, is built-in by their recruitment policies, which reject male applicants who only achieve the physical standards which suffice to allow entry to female applicants;

• Joy Liddicoat (a non-judge presenter) received a grant from the NZ Law Foundation to publish the "Feminist Law Review", according to: http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/grants/research-legal.htm .

I realise that "gender equity" is a term that arose in a Feminist context, and that Feminists never apply gender equity to the process of defining that term (or, indeed, to anything else). Nevertheless, the Institute of Judicial Studies should not just be teaching judges to toe a Feminist party line, but should be interested in practising gender equity itself, and -- more importantly -- teaching judges to practise gender equity where this would benefit males, as well as where this benefits females.

 

Who the Institute of Judicial Studies does NOT want teaching Judges about "Gender Equity"

The Institute of Judicial Studies rejected my two applications:

 

1. to be appointed as a community representative on the Institute of Judicial Studies' Governing Board;

2. to present a session on gender equity at the Institute of Judicial Studies.

Their brief rejection-letter of 14 October 2002 gave reasons, but without stating which purported reason applied to which of my two applications:

• They referred to the material which I regularly email to the Institute, which they said indicated that I have a narrow range of interests. (I assume that that reference relates to my application to sit on the Board, because it is not relevant to an application to present on a specific topic how broad one's interests are, i.e. in respect of other topics. To the contrary, the narrower one's interests, the more likely one is to have a deep knowledge of one specific topic, perhaps.) The Institute has absolutely no reason to assume that the range of topics I happen to email them about is any guide at all to my range of legal interests, and they have made absolutely no effort to find out from me what my actual range of interests is.

• They also referred to the "well-publicised" nature of my interests as limiting the contribution that I could make to the Institute. Again, that assumes, counter-factually, that the range of topics I happen to email them about is any guide at all to my range of interests in the legal area, and it assumes that I email them about the same topics on which I would like to instruct the Institute. In addition, there are entire institutions (the Ministry of Womens' Affairs, Women's Studies departments, Women's Refuge, etc.) devoted to publicising the Feminist cause, so their determination in this respect is grossly iniqitous. Specifically, I applied to present a session on gender equity, and I have never emailed them my views on this topic, as far as I am aware. The reason for my having suggested this topic for a presentation was that a Feminist had already presented a session on this, and I consider it vital -- in terms of gender equity itself -- that a Men's Rights position on this vital topic be presented to the Institute. Their refusal to hear me on this topic testifies to their totalitarian mind-set and brainwashing agenda.

• Once appeals to the House of Lords have been abolished, as the current Government has proposed, the Institute of Judicial Studies will, in effect, function as if it were New Zealand's highest court. Of course, it is not actually a court, but the Institute is teaching judges what it is politically acceptable for them to think -- with the implied threat that new procedures which have recently been discussed, in the context of a proposed "Judicial Commission" will one day make it easier to remove judges, if they do not take the brainwashing on board. Judges will see the writing on the wall and will become more Feminist in their judgements, in consequence -- if only to reduce the pressure for the creation of a Judicial Commission. Their invitation to Feminists (Maria Bradshaw and Joy Liddicoat) to make presentations, without giving me the opportunity to present a rebuttal, amounts to putting the men of this country on trial in a courtroom with no Defence Counsel.

 

Conclusion

The Institute of Judicial Studies is undemocratically putting into place one-sided ideological beliefs as the supreme law of New Zealand, and I consider them to be in breach of our democratic constitution -- specifically, of the Bill of Rights Act.

 

CONTACT DETAILS: Institute of Judicial Studies, Level 8, 70 The Terrace, PO Box 10-269, Wellington. Ph.: 471 1365 Fax: 471 1381 Email: ijs@clear.net.nz DX SP23514

 

See also: Submission to the Law Commission on Women's Access to Justice