Home > Issues > the Law > Open Letter to the Tyrant of Injustice

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


Open Letter to the Tyrant of Injustice (edited)

by the late Alan Sutherland

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


6 December 2000

Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Justice, New Zealand.


Dear Mr. Goff,


Re: Domestic Violence Act and Human Rights abuses.


In previous correspondence I have mentioned that NZ is signatory to international conventions on Human Rights. Accordingly I have forwarded to you a copy of the UN Declaration Of Human Rights (1971), and a summary of the UN Universal Declaration Of The Rights Of the Child. It would appear that the New Zealand Government is in breach of these Declarations.

(1) UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1971).

(1 and 2). New Zealand males are accorded lesser rights than females. New Zealand’s Human Rights Act makes it an offence to discriminate on the grounds of sex, yet the NZ Government routinely discriminates against males and is exempt from the provisions of this Act. The NZ Government is New Zealand’s biggest violator of this Act. New Zealand males are also denied the rights contained in the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act.

(3) New Zealand males are subject to arrest, and are arrested on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations where there is no evidence that any offence under NZ legislation has taken place that would render an offender liable to arrest. In effect every NZ male is a target for abuse and discrimination and has little recourse in NZ law.

(5) New Zealand males are arbitrarily arrested on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and imprisoned in substandard conditions, denied exercise, and abused both physically and psychologically by the NZ Police.

NZ males are arbitrarily removed from their homes on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and prohibited from returning upon pain of imprisonment. Under NZ’s Domestic Violence Act, this process of eviction occurs ex parte and the victim has no right of defence before the fact. He is in fact considered to be guilty.

NZ males are denied access to their children on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. This process is also ex parte.

(7) NZ males have less legal protection than females. The NZ Police will arbitrarily arrest and imprison males on an unsubstantiated allegation of assault made by a female, yet should a male make a complaint of assault by a female the NZ Police are most reluctant to act, even if there is evidence of an assault and the assault was witnessed. The Judiciary will not convict a female of assaulting a male, unless the assault is serious; yet will convict a male of assault against a female on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation and despite a lack of any evidence whatsoever.

S 194 Crimes Act 1961 - Male Assaults Female - contains penalties that are more severe than those contained in S196 - Common Assault - the offence a female would be charged with in the unlikely event she is arrested and charged by the NZ Police after assaulting a male. S194 Crimes Act - Male Assaults Female - should be immediately revoked. Bias in the enforcement and application of the law notwithstanding, S194 Crimes Act 1961 is in violation of the Human Rights Act.

(8) The NZ Police, Department for Courts, and Judiciary are biased against males.

(9) NZ males are subject to arbitrary arrest and detention under NZ’s Domestic Violence Act and Crimes Act.

(10) NZ’s Family Court, Criminal Court, Judiciary, and NZ Police are biased against males in both domestic violence and matrimonial matters, in addition to matters of assault. In general the enforcement and application of NZ law is heavily biased against males.

(11) In matters of domestic violence, males are arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned even on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation. They are in fact considered to be guilty and have to prove themselves innocent of the criminal charges made against them. Not only do they have to prove innocence, but many males are also denied a fair hearing because they are unable to afford the considerable costs involved in proving innocence. Many males are convicted of an offence because they are unable to afford competent defence counsel, and are even convicted of an offence despite the existence of legal precedents in favour of the defendant.

UN - Declaration Of The Rights Of The Child.

Many thousands of New Zealand’s children are denied access to their father on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation made against their father and the enforcement of an ex parte Protection Order and Interim Custody Order made under the biased and discriminatory Domestic Violence Act. Children have a right to be with their family, yet are excluded from this process. Custody of children is almost without exception given to females even if it is the female who is violent, has a history of mental instability, or who has a criminal record and is unable to adequately care for any children.

The standard of living of many children is compromised by the biased enforcement of the Domestic Violence Act and the discrimination inherent in this Act. Fathers/males are arbitrarily removed from the scene and children placed under undue stress and anxiety on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation.

The New Zealand Government allows children to be used as weapons against the other party in domestic violence and matrimonial matters and will disregard any input made by males other than financial. The rights of males and children are disregarded with the focus being placed almost entirely on the mother/female.

In domestic violence matters the opinion of any children of a relationship is not asked for. Protection Orders and Custody Orders are made on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation by a female and made by the Court on an ex parte basis. Children are only included in the process after the fact of removal of the father/male, and the counsel appointed by the Court, and indeed the Court itself, is frequently biased and therefore does not act in the best interests of the child, with the interests of the child being made subservient to the need to be seen to acting in a politically correct manner in accordance with biased and misandrist legislation.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.


Alan Sutherland

Victim of domestic violence and bias in the enforcement and application of the law.




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

27 July 2015