|
|
(Open Letter to the Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament)
Dear Dr. Lockwood Smith,
I am appalled by the way that many people
appear to get Law degrees -- and even end up in Parliament -- without
having any concept of Human Rights or the Rule of Law. I refer,
in particular, to the power being granted to Police to throw people
off their own property without due legal process. This is an excerpt
from the
December 2008 speech of the Justice Minister introducing the Domestic
Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — First Reading (I quote
from from Hansard online):
"Police will issue the orders in situations where
there is an insufficient basis to arrest—that is a very
important distinction to make—but where they believe there is
a likelihood of domestic violence occurring and an order is necessary
for the safety of the victim. The orders
will provide a period of safety in which victims can consider their
future options, including the possibility of a court protection order.
Significantly, it will not be the police’s
responsibility to find accommodation for alleged offenders
for the duration of the order. It is
important that these alleged violent offenders take responsibility
for their actions and realise that their actions have consequences.
Another serious consequence for the subject of the police order is
that while the order is in force the provisions
of a parenting order or an agreement allowing that person day-to-day
care of or contact with any children is (sic) suspended."
So Simon Power, who is not a hick from the Rangitikei,
but the actual Minister of Justice, has almost got passed an Act, in
our Banana Republic, whereby:
- Orders will be issued by our Police State where there is no evidence
fit to take to Court;
- One party is labelled "the victim" without any Court process;
- Without a chance to defend himself in Court, one person will possibly
have to sleep on the streets;
- Without a chance to defend himself in Court, one person will be deprived
of their own home and contact with their own children.
This Minister of Justice states:
"It is important that these
alleged violent offenders take responsibility for their actions and
realise that their actions have consequences."
These are only alleged offenders.
If they haven't done anything, why should they take responsibility for
their actions?
I do not need to tell you that it is absolutely
fundamental to Democracy that people should not have a penalty imposed
on them without having had the opportunity to defend themselves in Court.
I refer you to section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Crown Law Office
Of course, it is true that
the Crown Law Office advised the Attorney-General that these provisions
were permissible under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990, which allows a limit on a right which is "reasonable ...,
prescribed by law, and (able to) be demonstrably justified in a free
and democratic society." However, the Crown Law Office (like
the Ministry of Justice) is a bunch of Feminist clowns, who have never
found a Bill to be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
where the most likely victims of Police State action under the Bill
were mere men -- and they possibly never will.
The advice from Crown Law rightly emphasises the extent of the infringement
of human rights and personal liberties, as follows:
First, an order made under cl 7 is of very broad and intrusive
effect and limits the rights of the person against whom it is made
to expression (s 14 of the Bill of Rights
Act) and movement (s 18). Further and more significantly,
an order necessarily limits various significant legal rights of the
person against whom it is made – notably, in denying that person
access to land or buildings that he
or she may own or otherwise be entitled to enter or use
– by decision of a non-judicial
officer and without procedural safeguards either at the time or by
way of subsequent review or appeal, and so raises
an issue as to compliance with the right to
natural justice affirmed by s 27(1). Further, there is also
limited immunity for the Crown and Police, under which there is no
substantive redress for an order that is made or implemented
in an unjustified manner, albeit in good faith and with reasonable
care.
Then the advice from Crown Law goes on to state:
9. It is therefore necessary to consider whether these various
limitations are justifiable in terms of s 5 of the Bill of Rights
Act: that is, whether the restriction is rationally
connected to an important objective and is proportionate
to that objective.
10. It appears clear that the objective is important and rationally
connected to the making of an order: the explanatory note to the Bill
indicates (at 2) that the Police ("on the spot") order provisions
are intended to provide Police with a response where a
person is believed to be at risk but where there is not a sufficient
basis to arrest and to provide persons at risk with
an opportunity to consider their options. There are also indications
of practical difficulties faced by people at risk in making use of
the existing Family Court regime[2].
11. The issue is therefore whether the limitations are proportionate.
It is relevant to note that:
11.1 An order may be made only if "necessary
to ensure … immediate safety" (s 124B(1)(b))
and after consideration of relevant factors (s 124B(2));
This is where the advice from Crown Law fails completely. The
Bill is not rationally connected to an important objective. Where
"there is not a sufficient basis
to arrest," the Police are not in a position
rationally to predict
that a person is at risk. Even professional Forensic Psychologists
(not that they know much about anything) are often loath to make predictions
about violent behaviour (see Arrigo & Shipley, An Introduction
to Forensic Psychology, 2E, 2005, London:Elsevier).
They may "believe"
that a person is at risk, but belief is not a rational process, and
lots of people believe a lot of absurd things. The Bill provides
a Police State remedy which has no rational, evidence-based link to
a problem which that remedy will solve.
In addition, the "indications
of practical difficulties faced by people at risk in making use of the
existing Family Court regime" are also not rational. The
footnote [2] refers to the following Feminist propaganda item:
N Robertson et al, Living at the Cutting Edge: Women’s Experiences
of Protection Orders (2007). I have a copy of both volumes of that
propaganda item, which was commissioned by the Ministry of Women's Affairs
and written by the same group who inspired the Domestic Violence Act
1995, which has resulted in an increase in Domestic Violence in New
Zealand.
Not only is that propaganda item based only on the viewpoint of actual
and potential applicants for Protection Orders, but it is also based
only on the viewpoints of women. The viewpoints of people against
whom Protection Orders were (perhaps unfairly) applied, and the viewpoints
of men who were actual or potential applicants or respondents of Protection
Orders are ignored. It is not rational, nor is it in accord with
Natural Justice (section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990) for the views of only one half of the population and only one
half of the stakeholders in a particular issue to have their views considered
in relation to legislative change.
The Government is itself at fault here:
- It has a Ministry of Women's Affairs, but no Ministry of Men's Affairs,
thus biasing all policy-making against men;
- It allows relevant sections of departments such as Crown Law and the
Ministry of Justice to be dominated by Feminist, anti-male, irrational
activists, yet it treats the outputs from these departments as if they
were rational;
- It allows relevant parts of universities to be dominated by Feminist,
anti-male, irrational activists, yet it treats the outputs from these
universities as if they were rational;
- Its propaganda on Domestic Violence is aimed at encouraging women
to think of themselves only as victims and men to think of themselves
only as perpetrators, which deprives men of their right to encouragement
to report female violence to the Police or to apply for Protection Orders
themselves. This necessarily increases Domestic Violence, because
it reduces men's options.
Background
This is the background to the Labour Party's original desire to attack
men with this Bill: The Domestic Violence Act 1995 is completely
insane, in that a judge is forced to take into account someone
else's mental state, when deciding whether to grant
a Protection Order against a respondent. It is the most absurd
breach of Human Rights that I have ever heard of for someone to suffer
a legal penalty (partly) on the basis of what went on in someone else's
mind, over which the penalised person has no control. This is
in addition to the fact that most Protection Orders are granted ex
parte, i.e. behind the respondent's back, which means that he has
no chance to put his side of the story first.
I pointed this out in legal language in the paper: The
Influence of Non-Legal Research on Legal Approaches to Ex Parte Domestic
Violence Protection Orders. Maybe judges saw some sense
in what I said there. Anyway, for whatever reason, Feminists started
complaining that judges were not handing out Protection Orders like
confetti any more. So the Feminist thought, "Well, maybe
we don't control all the judges any more, but at least we control the
Labour Party and Simon Power!"
Wider Issues
This Bill was passed under urgency.
That is another undemocratic feature of the present government.
Because I knew that a lot of Bills were being passed under urgency at
the start of this government's term, I did not expect that this Bill
would go to Select Committee, so I (like many other people, I expect)
did not try to make a submission. In any case, the Justice Minister
made it clear in his speech that this was a Bill proposed by the previous
government which he had already intended to support prior to the election.
So any input from me would probably have been a waste of time, anyway.
I understand that you have a PhD in Animal Science, so I ask that you
reflect on the reputation of the New Zealand Parliament and on the qualities
that New Zealanders respect. Why is it that our most respected
"living" New Zealander (even after his death) is a bee-keeper
who climbed mountains, whereas the man who first split the atom, Ernest
Rutherford is someone whom I cannot recall ever having heard mentioned
by a public figure, apart from Melissa Lee, MP.
If we actually respected brains and education, maybe we would not have
been turned into an Alice-In-Wonderland-style Banana Republic.
I incline to the view that former National Party politician Dr.
Richard Worth, an intelligent man, was set
up, so that he could no longer play a role in government justice
policy. His statement in support of this Bill was very lukewarm.
The Feminist Propaganda Service (Television One) once screened
a shot of Dr. Worth having a private conversation with the anti-Feminist
Labour Party politician, John
Tamihere. I had been to see both of them in Parliament not
long before, which no doubt alerted the Feminist Propaganda Service
to the possibility that not one, but TWO male members of Parliament
had unapproved, anti-Feminist opinions.
The previous Labour government referred to Simon Power as a very "effective"
Justice spokesman, so they obviously like him. The only official
liar to be a Justice Spokesperson, the Labour Party's Lianne
Dalziel, will be very happy to have him to work with, instead of
Dr. Worth.
|
