Voices
From our perspective, the main problem with the Court System -- in
fact, with the Judicial System in general -- is that there is a pervasive
pre-judgement (i.e. a prejudice) as to which "Voices" need
to be sought out and listened to. This operates as a set of ideological
"givens" which bias the thoughts (and therefore the actions)
of everyone from the Institute of Judicial Studies (see http://equality.netfirms.com/judistud.html)
down to the judiciary, and on down to court administrators.
This bias, which is a feature of the media and of the education system
generally, is enforced in a totalitarian manner by some Law schools,
some Law lecturers and Law student peer-pressure (at the start of a
court employee's careers), by the Law Society (during their entire careers),
and by those who control the research purse-strings (the Law Foundation,
the Ministry of Justice, the Universities, and the Law Commission).
Whatever structural reform may or may not take place, it is not clear
to what extent it will have the side-effect of freeing-up this ideological
straight-jacket.
An insight into the anti-male prejudice of the judiciary of a country
similar to New Zealand is provided by the page: http://www.angelfire.com/pe/terzohrab/mclachli.html
.
The specific "Voices" which you list are: Maoris, Ethnic
Minorities, Victims of Crime, and Disabled people. It must be taken
as progress that women are not listed. It is the obligatory listing
of women in such contexts that has created the anti-male bias in the
Judicial System which has been brought to your attention, and which
has presumably caused you not to list women this time as one of your
Voices. I find it hard to fault the specific voices that you list --
provided you are (which I doubt) willing to seek out their opposites:
Non-Maoris, the Ethnic Majority, and the Able-Bodied. This is because
-- as in the case of women -- encouraging any group to produce its own
one-sided wish-list without hearing the other side of the story will
inevitably result -- and has already resulted -- in injustice to "the
other side". It is simple-minded, as well as encouraging a backlash,
to operate this sort of one-sided process. I could give examples here,
but I don't have the time now to write the book that it would take to
elucidate the issues.
Access to Courts
a) Information
Information in crucial areas is (as stated above) under the control
of generally anti-male organisations such as the media, the Law Foundation,
the Ministry of Justice, the Universities, and the Law Commission. For
example, the Domestic Violence Rules 1996 lay down the central role
to be played by people who "know about" domestic violence
issues. This seems perfectly harmless, until you realise that the above
institutions regard "knowing about domestic violence" as subscribing
to the psycho-sexually Lesbian, man-hating "Duluth Model"
which quite simply regards men as the perpetrators and women as the
victims. This is religion. It is not science. It involves a tortious
level of disregard for the massive amount of research evidence that
women are just as guilty of domestic violence as men are. No court system
that operates on the basis of this man-hating religion can possibly
have the slightest credibility.
b) Representation
It is a commonplace in the Men's/Fathers' Movement to state that it
is almost impossible to find a lawyer who is sympathetic towards male
clients when they are in dispute with a woman. That issue has to be
addressed, before men will be able to get adequate representation in
Court.
Court Processes: Open
Justice
In the context of the anti-male bias of almost all legal professionals,
the supposed need for privacy in the Family Court needs to give way
to the basic Rule of Law principle that justice must be open. Justice
must be seen to be done, or it will not be done. You can see from the
page http://equality.netfirms.com/famsecrt.html
that we have Family Court judges who are not only biased against men
-- they even delude themselves into thinking that they have the unique,
superhuman and unprecedented ability to monitor their own biases ! This
lunacy can only exist in an ideological climate where bias against men
is regarded as true objectivity !
We suggest that Family Court proceeding be open to the public and to
the media by default, but that the parties be entitled to contract out
of this opennesss if they both agree.
Court Structure
There should be an automatic right of appeal from decisions of the
Disputes Tribunal, and appeals to the Privy Council should be retained,
for reasons outlined on the page: http://equality.netfirms.com/suprcort.html
.
