Home > Issues >Men and  the Law > Mr. Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail can not get a fair trial in New Zealand

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


Mr. Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail can not get a fair trial in New Zealand

© Peter Zohrab

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 Prime Minister of Malaysia -- slightly edited)


Your Excellency,

Mr. Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail can not get a fair trial in New Zealand. I say that as someone who has a Law degree and who is a Men's Rights activist. My father was New Zealand High Commissioner to Malaysia in the 1960s, I once chaired a very contentious meeting in Wellington of the Malaysia-Singapore Students' Association, and I am probably the only person ever to have sliced three consecutive tee-shots off the tenth tee into the carpark at the Royal Selangor Golf Club in Kuala Lumpur!

The New Zealand justice system is mickey-mouse, as a result of decades of Feminist activism and Feminist domination of all sources of information, apart from the Internet. The New Zealand national slogan is: "Duh, it's women, stupid!" A Ministry of Justice report called "Sentencing in New Zealand: a statistical analysis" states the following (Section 11.3.4):

"Gender' is not in and of itself a justification for discriminating between offenders'.... Yet, the results of the multivariate modelling show that females are more likely than males to receive community service, community programme or no sentence and less likely to receive a prison sentence, periodic detention or a monetary penalty. Thus, gender differences in sentencing persist even after taking account of differences in the type and seriousness of the offence committed ... and in the extent of previous offending. Indeed, gender is the amongst the (sic) most significant variables influencing the probability of receiving a community service sentence or a monetary penalty.

The reason for these gender differences in sentencing cannot be determined from the statistical analysis....."

Prima facie, the obvious conclusion is that the New Zealand justice system is biased against men. However, this conclusion does not even occur to the author of this report, who is a woman! There has been no sign that anyone in the justice system or Ministry of Justice has researched the possibility that the system could be biased against men.

Not only do New Zealanders ignore the evidence of bias against men -- they actually assume bias against women without any evidence that compares men and women! The Law Commission funded a Feminist woman's study about women's access to justice which assumed right from the start that there was a problem here for women, which ignored my submission, and which concluded that there was indeed a problem! However, the study was so biased that the Law Commission refused to publish it under its own name! Similarly, the Government funded a study, written by a woman, on the way the Police treated women -- without there ever having been a study of the way the Police treated men, which is probably much worse!

Since Mr. Rizalman is accused of attempted rape, it is highly relevant to look at the New Zealand law on rape. If you look at section 128 of the Crimes Act and compare subsections (2) (on rape) and (3) (on unlawful sexual connection), you will see that subsection (2) is totally unnecessary, since rape is defined as being just a type of unlawful sexual connection that can only be committed with a penis, and it attracts the same penalty as any other sort of unlawful sexual connection ! Since I made a submission to Parliament at the time that this law change was made, I can tell you that the only reason the word "rape" still exists in the Crimes Act is that Feminists demanded that it stay there, so that they had a word for the Feminist media to write hysterical headlines with! The term "unlawful sexual connection" just isn't hysterical enough!

I would like to keep this email short, so I will mention only one other matter: most citizens do not have any experience of diplomatic immunity, in practice. However, when my father was an Ambassador (not to Malaysia), his locally-employed chauffeur took me for a ride in his own, new sports car. I could smell beer on his breath. He lost control of the car at the first bend and crashed the car against a tree. The car was a write-off, I was thrown out onto grass, but no one was injured. The Police wanted me to testify in court, but my father invoked diplomatic immunity and told me not to testify. The chauffeur suffered no legal penalty, he kept his job, and my father avoided any possible friction between New Zealand and the host country which could have damaged relations. If New Zealanders realised that diplomatic immunity helps New Zealand in other countries, they might have a different view of this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

2 August 2015