Our short submission refers only to the proposed amendment,
whereby all sexual offences (with the exception of rape, which is a male-against-female
offence only and is retained in the new bill) are expressed and applied in
a sex-neutral manner.
We submit that there is no reason -- other than Feminist sexism and deliberate
discrimination against men -- to retain a separate male-against-female offence
called "rape" (or, indeed, under any other separate name). Either
you understand the word "equality" (under which banner Feminists
have persuaded vast numbers of men almost all over the World to institute
changes to legislation), or you do not understand the word "equality".
We submit that the above planned exception for rape indicates that the Government
does not, in fact, understand the word "equality", that it is therefore
incompetent to be politically active in a country that is purportedly "free
and democratic" (section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990), and should
resign forthwith from Government and from Parliament en masse.
Under section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Attorney-General has,
we hope, received a report from the Ministry of Justice or the Crown Law Office,
stating that this exception breaches the Bill of Rights Act 1990, and we hope
that the Attorney-General has reported to Parliament with the same conclusion
-- but there is reason to doubt that either the Attorney-General, the Crown
Law Office or the Ministry of Justice understands the word "equality".
Our best guess is that all the nearest they come to understanding "equality'
is "equality for women", or "gender equity (for women, stupid
If this Bill is passed with the rape exception in it, we might hope that
the courts would declare it to be in breach of section 19 of the Bill of Rights
Act 1990. However, that assumes that judges understand the word "equality",
which again is very doubtful. The Institute of Judicial Studies has been teaching
judges a Feminist version of "gender equity" -- i.e. "equality
for women", or "gender equity (for women, stupid !)" -- and
has refused to teach gender equity from a Masculist prespective.
I am not aware of one single case in New Zealand where the Bill of Rights
Act 1990's prohibition against sex discrimination (section 19) has been used
-- successfully or otherwise -- to benefit a male who has been the object
of sex discrimination by statute or secondary or tertiary legislation. This
cannot be because no male has been the object of such discrimination -- this
very Bill is an (incomplete) attempt to cure the anti-male discrimination
that is presently in the Crimes Act 1961, after all ! I refer you also to
the webpages: http://equality.limewebs.com/menorits.html
I put it to you that the male equivalent of a woman's being allowed to abort
an unborn child without reference to the wishes of the child or of its father
is for a man to be able to place his penis wherever he wants to and whenever
he wants to. If Parliament and the Courts thinks it is permissible for it
to continue to discriminate so brazenly against men as it does at present,
we may end up with a situation where rape is in fact the only satisfactory
avenue of protest left to men. Rape will become an act of political protest
against Feminist discrimination. For some men, this may already be the case
We would like to make an oral submission as well, please.
In the course of the oral submission, we would like to ask the MPs present
if they know of any case where any male in New Zealand has successfully made
a complaint or pleaded an argument that he has been discriminated against
on the grounds of sex.