Home > Issues > Gendercide > The Legal Profession’s Scientific Incompetence

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

The Legal Profession’s Scientific Incompetence (four times updated)

(slightly edited)

Peter Zohrab 2016

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

 

Initial Letter to Minister of Science & Innovation

Minister of Science & Innovation's Reply

Justice Minister's Reply

Superu's Reply

Email to Justice Minister

Email to Superu

Justice Minister's Next Reply

Superu's substantive reply

Email to Ombudsman

 

Open Letter to the Minister of Science and Innovation

 

Dear Mr. Joyce,

I refer to your letter dated 12 Jan 2016, in which you stated:

The Government supports an evidence-based approach to developing policy on family violence…. This includes working closely with Superu, which has a role in increasing the use of evidence by people across the social sector so that they make better decisions.

Under the Official Information Act, could you please tell me:

  1. What has been the involvement of Superu in ensuring that the Family Violence Death Review Committee used scientific evidence in compiling its Fourth Annual Report?

  2. What has been the involvement of Superu in ensuring that The Law Commission used scientific evidence in compiling its Report R139 Understanding Family Violence: Reforming the Criminal Law relating to Homicide ?

  3. What will be the involvement of Superu in ensuring that the Ministry of Justice uses scientific evidence in considering its response to the Law Commission’s Report R139 Understanding Family Violence: Reforming the Criminal Law relating to Homicide ?

  4. What will be the involvement of Superu in ensuring that the Minister of Justice uses scientific evidence in considering her response to her Ministry’s response to the Law Commission’s Report R139 Understanding Family Violence: Reforming the Criminal Law relating to Homicide ?

I expect that there has been a total lack of scientific method on the part of the Family Violence Death Review Committee and the relevant personnel of the Law Commission, and that there is not much prospect of any scientific method being used by the Ministry of Justice or the Minister of Justice.

This is because of Feminist bias, incompetence and arrogance. The legal profession is used to having absolute power over a certain sphere of social life, and, as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The law is a procedural matter, rather than substantive matter, but the power of the legal profession gives it the arrogance to think that it has the right to determine substantive matters – such as the nature of domestic violence – in total ignorance of, and with reckless disregard for, scientific evidence.

In addition, vast swathes of the legal profession have been subjected to Feminist propaganda at Law School, from the Law Society and from the Institute of Judicial Studies.

 

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

 

I soon received the following reply:

 

Reply from Minister of Science and Innovation 27 May 2016

 

So the above letter led me to expect two further letters/emails -- one from Superu and one from the Minister of Justice. The latter is reproduced below:

 

Reply from Minister of Justice 13 June 2016
Reply from Minister of Justice 13 June 2016, page 2

 

There is no indication in the above letter that the Minister of Justice agrees with the Minister of Science and Innovation (Steven Joyce) as regards his statement (quoted above) that:

The Government supports an evidence-based approach to developing policy on family violence…. This includes working closely with Superu, which has a role in increasing the use of evidence by people across the social sector so that they make better decisions.

Therefore I emailed the Minister of Justice as follows:

 

Dear Amy Adams,

 

1. Under the Official Information Act, could you please inform me whether your Ministry's policies are in accord with, or contradict, the Minister of Science and Innovation, Steven Joyce, as regards his statement (see attached letter) that:

The Government supports an evidence-based approach to developing policy on family violence…. This includes working closely with Superu, which has a role in increasing the use of evidence by people across the social sector so that they make better decisions.

I ask that, because, in your letter of 13 June 2016, there is, in effect, an assertion that the Ministry is free to ignore Superu, as regards policy-formation on family violence.

2. Under the Official Information Act, could you please inform me what proportion of the staff of the Ministry of Justice hold either Science or Social Science degrees?

3. Under the Official Information Act, could you please inform me which courses in any New Zealand law school equip law students to assess scientific or Social Science research? I myself have a Law degree from Victoria University of Wellington, and I am not aware of any such course being taught in any law faculty anywhere in the world.

 

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

 

I have received the following reply from the Minister of Justice:

 

4 July 2016 letter from Minister of Justice

 

I have received the following reply from Superu:

 

Reply from Superu 24 June 2016
Reply from Superu 24 June 2016, page 2

 

I then emailed Superu as follows:

 

Hello Kerry,

 

Thank you for the letter dated 24 June 2016 and signed by Clare Ward, which you emailed to me.

Under the Official Information Act, please send me a copy of your peer review of a draft of the Family Violence Death Review Committee's Fourth Annual Report.

 

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

 

I received the following reply:

 

Reply from Superu 29 June 2016

 

I replied to the above email as follows:

 

Email to Superu 29 June 2016

 

In due course, I received the following substantive reply from Superu:

 

Letter from Superu 21 July 2016
Superu peer review 1 April 2014 page 1
Superu peer review 1 April 2014 page 2

 

Since I was not satisfied with this reply, I wrote to the Ombudsman as follows (slightly edited):

 

Dear sir/Madam,


Could you please investigate and review the attached response from Superu to my Official Information Act request, particularly with respect to the following points:

1. Superu has failed to include any comments on Chapter 2 of the report in its peer review. It seems unprofessional to proceed with a peer review of an incomplete document -- especially when the missing chapter discusses the data which the report is supposedly based on. Superu implies that its request for a copy of a draft of Chapter 2 was never complied with -- otherwise Superu would presumably have reviewed that chapter as well and sent me a copy of their review of it. That chapter about the data is particularly important, given that I have put up a webpage stating that the report was based on biased and unscientific data, and it would be a test of Superu's professionalism for me to see what it said about it. I would not put it past Superu to be suppressing the truth or even altering the historical record in this matter.

2. I do not agree that the people involved have any right to have their names suppressed, since they are employed by the taxpayer. Could you please ask Superu to send me a copy of their peer review which includes all the names which they have deleted. Julia Tolmie has made a career out of attacking fathers' groups in Australia, and it would certainly be relevant to know whether her name appears here, and to be able to research whatever other names appear.

3. I do not agree that Superu can delete anything as being "free and frank advice" in this instance. The area of Domestic Violence is extremely politicised, the Public Service is often biased, and I need to see the entire peer review in order to assess the extent of such bias in this case.

Thank you in advance.


Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

 

See also:

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

25 July 2016

Top