Home > Issues > Policing > Predetermination in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Predetermination in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct

© Peter Zohrab 2008

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


The main reason why New Zealand and other Western countries are only sham democracies is that Feminist ideologues and organised pressure-groups dominate the media and education system and determine the questions that Society focuses on and predetermine the answers that will be given to those questions. The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct is a classic example of this predetermination, and the diagram below outlines the process in that particular case.


Two women make allegations of police misconduct, and sections of the Feminist media turn this into a major campaign.
A female Prime Minister, Helen Clark, establishes a Commission of Inquiry
The Commission of Inquiry comprised one man and one woman
The man is removed.
The sole woman in charge proceeds to appoint anti-male "experts" and to pursue an anti-male agenda.


In the Simon Wallace case, for example, a man was shot dead by police, and the family had to go to the expense of a private prosecution, because no Commission of Inquiry was established.

In its Submission to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct, the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation made some initial comments, and in the article "Open Letter to Helen Clark on Lesbian Feminist Morality," I criticised some aspects of the mentality underlying this Commission of Inquiry. However, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry itself is also in need of severe criticism.


Terms of Reference

Margaret Bazley refers to "the exploitation of vulnerable people", but the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry related only to the specific offence of sexual assault and the moral issue of sexual behaviour, although the wider issue of police conduct in general was touched on as well. Therefore Bazley was not likely to have received evidence about police exploitation of vulnerable people in general, but only as it related to sexual matters -- principally involving female complainants. This limitation meant that she was not really in a position to refer to the exploitation of vulnerable people in general.

This limitation of the terms of inquiry is a result of the sexist hysteria of the media which precipitated the inquiry, and the gross sexism of Helen Clark, who set up the Commission of Inquiry. See my article: Dyldomedia Angry at Police Insubordination. Bazley states that "the risk that misconduct, particularly sexual misconduct, poses to public confidence in the police is a significant one." Again, the issue here is that (from evidence that has come to my ears, and from my own experience) a certain (perhaps large) proportion of the male population already has a low level of confidence in the police, because of anecdotes or personal experiences relating to non-sexual misconduct towards males. Since Bazley's terms of reference (which are not her fault, but the fault of the feminised media and of the Prime Minister) were focussed on sexual misconduct, there is a huge risk that the male population will see this inquiry as evidence that the media and the Labour Party only care about women, which is fact the case.


Private Sexual Behaviour

Bazley also refers to "sexual activity of an inappropriate nature", but neither she nor the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, have stated by what right they can set moral standards for the police, or what method they have used to decide what is or is not sexual activity of an inappropriate nature. If New Zealand were a Democracy, rather than the Distributed Feminazi Dictatorship that it actually is, then these two women would have been forced to explain in a transparent manner what the legal basis is for banning heterosexual group sex among the Police, while subtly promoting Lesbianism, for example. See my Open Letter to Helen Clark on Lesbian Feminist Morality


Sexist Incompetence

Bazley also refers to "negative, stereotyped views of complainants; and a culture of scepticism in dealing with complaints of sexual assault." However, the validity of this description depends on the nature of Bazley's own biases and the state of her knowledge about sexual allegations. After all, she is just a former public servant who was probably promoted over the heads of more able male colleagues, in order to prove that women were not being discriminated against. There is no evidence that I have heard that she has qualifications in the sexual allegations area. She almost certainly does not know that one study found that 40% of complainants actually admitted having made complaints of rape that were false (Kanin, Eugene (1994): "False Rape Allegations." Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol 23,No.1: 81-92 ). Both Bazley's biases and competence are at issue here. I see no reason to regard her as anything but a silly old bint carrying out a political hatchet-job on male police officers.


Police Culture

Bazley criticises what she sees as the police's "strong bonding amongst colleagues, a male-oriented culture, attitudes towards the use of alcohol, and dual standards with respect to on-duty and off-duty behaviours." Strong bonding, although it makes the investigation of police misbehaviour diffcult, is obviously a positive feature in other respects, as the report itself points out. If this bonding is reduced, then the positive effects of bonding will also be reduced, and the police will become demoralised and less effective.

The implication is that female work culture is superior to male work culture, which is a sexist and baseless assumption. The term "male-oriented culture", as a term of abuse, is obviously a feature of the Wellington Lesbian culture. One must assume that Bazley prefers an office culture of mutual female bitchiness.

Similarly, men tend to have traditions around alcohol that one could not expect a Wellington Lesbian to approve of (if that is the standard being applied here), but that is not relevant. And "dual standards with respect to on-duty and off-duty behaviours" are obviously essential, because the police must maintain high standards at work, but must be allowed to let their hair down when off-duty, or stress will get on top of them and no one will want to be a police officer. It is clear that Bazley's ideal police officer is a woman -- if not a Lesbian. It seems that Bazley has not done any relevant reading, so I recommend she read relevant sections of "Introduction to Forensic Psychology", by Arrigo and Shipley (2nd ed., Elsevier 2005), even though the book is grossly Feminist and sexist in other respects.


So-Called "Experts"

Bazley hear evidence from what she was pleased to call "international experts." It is facile to attach the label "expert" to such people, because Western universities are grossly politicised, and the Social Sciences, in particular, are little more than Socialist, man-hating political parties. Jan Jordan, in particular, is grossly anti-male and has long been, until recently, in denial about the reality of fales sexual allegations, and her Criminology colleagues at Victoria University seems to be much the same.


Getting Rid of the Man

While there was still a man on this Commission of Inquiry (the Hon Justice Robertson), and I was not taking a detailed interest in it, I went to see a lawyer about a totally unrelated consumer rights matter. I had also (unsuccessfully) tried the get that lawyer to take a Men's Rights case -- also in a totally unrelated matter. When I went to see him, that lawyer, Michael Leggat, used the opportunity to suggest to me that Margaret Bazley was level-headed and able to carry out the work of the Commission by herself. Since he was asking for my opinion, I repled that I didn't know anything about her, to speak of. Although Michael Leggat was in other respects an exemplary lawyer, I object to what seemed to be almost a corrupt way of sounding people out before making political changes.

Since the Government appoints judges, and the Hon Justice Robertson was appointed to the Court of Appeal shortly after resigning from the Commission of Inquiry, I think it is highly likely that he was offered a promotion in order to allow Margaret Bazley to make unfettered, sexist use of her powers as sole Commissioner.


Non-Sequitur Recommendation

The recommendation:

R50 New Zealand Police should continue its efforts to increase the numbers of women and those from ethnic minority groups in the police force in order to promote a diverse organisational culture that reflects the community it serves and to enhance the effective and impartial investigation of complaints alleging sexual assault by members of the police or by associates of the police

is not based on an impartial consideration of all the evidence that would be relevant. No submissions were called on this issue. It is grossly incompetent and sexist of Margaret Bazley to claim that this conclusion can fairly be drawn from the information submitted to the Commission. This conclusion is a predetermined, a priori agenda long held by Feminists, and the only way it can be put into practice is by discriminating against men and certain ethnic groups, by enforcing doubl\e standards. See my article: Police Legal Adviser Calls Police Human Resources Manager a Liar, in which you will see that a Police Legal Advisory Officer states (in letter of 21 December 2006, paragraph 3) that a change in the number of women may not necessarily change the culture of the organisation. I am not siding with one against the other here -- my point is that Margaret Bazley made Recommendation R50 on the basis of a predetermined agenda, rather than on the evidence.




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

19 March 2016