Home > Issues > Humanities & Natural & Social Sciences > Submission on the Review of the Family Court Practice Note

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


Submission to the New Zealand Psychologists Board on the Review of the Family Court Practice Note

(slightly edited)

© Peter Zohrab 2010

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


I am a Men's Rights activist with a Law degree (including a paper on Family
Law) and an incomplete Graduate Diploma in Arts (Psychology).

I have reason to believe that the Fathers' Movement is generally
dissatisfied with the standard of objectivity displayed by Psychologists in
the context of their work for the Family Court. There is a suggestion that
this can be remedied by amending aspects of the complaints procedure, but my
reading of the Practice Note reveals no obvious defects in that procedure.

My experience of the Victoria University of Wellington Law School (albeit
under the previous Dean, with whom I had a public dispute), and of Massey
University's Psychology Department is such that my view is that bias enters
into the minds of future judges, lawyers and specialist report writers at
university - if not earlier - so that the bias is systemic, and that no
amount of tinkering with the complaints procedure can eliminate this bias to
any significant extent.

It can not be a coincidence that the people who are dissatisfied with court
psychologists are men, and both Law Schools and Psychology Departments teach
Feminist propaganda ("Feminist Jurisprudence" and "Psychology of Women",
respectively) to their students. I use the plural terms "Law Schools" and
"Psychology Departments", because I assume that other Law Schools and
Psychology Departments resemble the ones I attended in the relevant respect.

Moreover, Massey University is a totalitarian leftist environment with a low
intellectual level amongst staff generally (let alone students). One female
staff member removed my access to the course's online discussion facility
because I posted a link to an article I had written which criticised the
textbook's Feminist propaganda. One other female staff member refused me
permission to do research on students' attitudes to domestic violence on the
grounds that the ethics committee would turn the application down.  Their textbook
"Understanding Critical Social Psychology" is full of simplistic Feminism and Leftism.

I saw the name "Kahu" on their website at one stage, and Kahu was the name of
the female Head of Maori Mental Health at Hutt Hospital who was fired after
she called the Police to my house after I had had an argument with the
Psychiatrist of someone I was interpreting for about Feminist propaganda (a
Womens Refuge poster) which had been in the waiting room at a Community
Mental Health building. I am sure that people like Kahu pick up their
primitive, sexist, Feminist beliefs in part from departments such as

I will not go into further detail, but invite you to go to my website, where you
can find a lot of information about the Victoria University of Wellington Law
School, Domestic Violence, alternatives to Feminist dogma, and so on.




The Law does not pretend to be perfect. It does the best that it can in the
circumstances. The Law deems certain people to be experts. Those people
(e.g. Psychologists), if they are honest, admit to themselves that there is
a lot that their field does not know. However, they have to earn a living,
and courts have to make decisions as best they can.

That is a bad enough situation, from the point of view of the people whose lives are deeply
affected by court decisions. What makes it worse is that academics consider
themselves at liberty to impose their world view onto the students who later
are deemed to be Family Court "experts," as well as onto the students who
later become lawyers and judges.

The ideal solution would be for the New Zealand Psychologists Board to
refuse to allow graduates of university departments which taught one-sided
political beliefs (e.g. Feminism) from practising as Family Court specialist
report writers. Nothing else would suffice to remove the bias which is
complained about.


See also:




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

7 February 2019