Illegality

This Review is illegal. It is in breach of section 27 of the Bill of Rights Act, which guarantees the observance of the principles of Natural Justice. It is also illegal because of breaches of the Administrative Law prohibition of procedural impropriety and irrationality. Therefore, this Review should be abandoned immediately.

The legal case that the Review is illegal will not be argued fully here. However, the following points should be noted:

• In the References section, out of a total of 21 references, four are solely about women's experiences or perspectives as victims of domestic violence, and none are about men's experiences or perspectives as victims of domestic violence. This is despite the fact that Professor Martin Fiebert's annotated bibliography of domestic violence research (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm -- last accessed 21 January 2008) "examines 209 scholarly investigations: 161 empirical studies and 48 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 201,500." This bibliography includes several pieces of New Zealand research.
• The Review contains one out-and-out lie. The statement (on page 5) that "women and children are far more likely to be victims (i.e. of domestic violence) than men" It is, of course, true that most accusations and arrests involve female complainants and male respondents, but there is no rational reason to pretend that this represents what is actually happening in homes. There has never been the slightest effort by New Zealand's man-hating government to encourage male victims to complain about domestic violence, whereas posters in man-hating ministries such as the Ministry of Social Development routinely depict domestic violence as something that men do to women, purely and simply. In addition, the Ministry of Justice's own Domestic Violence Act 1995: Process Evaluation (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/domestic_eval/index.html -- last accessed 21 January 2008) points out that "Social taboos, stigma and shame can make it difficult for men to apply for an order. Court staff commented that some men choose to leave the relationship and the district rather than apply for an order. Court staff thought that some men believe that the court system is biased towards women, meaning that their experiences of violence are not taken seriously. Twenty-three out of 88 lawyers thought that men were inhibited by their own and others' perceptions that men should not need orders. A further 10 thought that shame and fear of ridicule limited men's willingness to apply, while seven saw cost as a barrier for men."
• The Ministry of Justice's own Domestic Violence Act 1995: Process Evaluation (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/domestic_eval/index.html -- last accessed 21 January 2008) gives no indication of which community groups it cousulted, but I am unaware of any men's group that was consulted.
• Of the eight previous reviews of the Act which are listed on page 7 of the Review, two are solely about women's experiences or perspectives as victims of domestic violence, and none are solely about men's experiences or perspectives as victims of domestic violence.
• The Review refers to the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families, which has 21 members, two of which (the representatives of the Ministry of Women's Affairs and Women's Refuge) represent a purely Feminist (anti-male) perspective, and none of which represent a pro-male perspective.

 

Scope and Stakeholders

Political bias, and therefore illegality, are evident in the limitation of the scope of this Review. The Review states on page 8 that it is not a first principles review. This limitation is based on the statement that "Most stakeholders support the current objectives and framework of the Act" (page 8). However, the authors of the report do not give any indication as to how they define the term "stakeholders", in this context. The suspicion is that they have defined it in a way that guarantees the outcome that they have predetermined.

 

Under the Official Information Act, I have asked the Ministry of Justice to

• give me a list of all the so-called "key stakeholders" that they initially targeted on their own initiative;
• list the stakeholders who were added later after they applied to be included;
• explain why I and my organisation were initially excluded;
• explain what methods they used to make sure that representativeness, diversity of viewpoint and natural justice (non-predetermination) prevailed in their selection of these so-called "key stakeholders";
• list the criteria that they used to select these so-called "key stakeholders";
• explain what methods they used to make sure that representativeness, diversity of viewpoint and natural justice (non-predetermination) prevailed in their selection of relevant "research" (i.e. the research referred to on page 8 of their current Discussion Document).
• explain what methods they believe were used to make sure that representativeness, diversity of viewpoint and natural justice (non-predetermination) prevailed in the selection of sources of information used by the parties carrying out the "research" referred to on page 8 of their current Discussion Document in the sentence "Nothing in the research suggested a need for a major overhaul."

This Submission, unfortunately, is having to be written in advance of having received any response to the above challenges.

The Review also states (page 8) that the Act is being copied overseas. Of course, no mention is made of how many countries are copying it, as compared with how many countries are not copying it. In any event such copying merely reflects the fact that the same kind of predermination and bias that we have uncovered in this Review is also present in the work of many university departments, government departments, media outlets and conventional thinking in many (especially Western) countries.

 

General

The Domestic Violence Act 1995 was passed on a wave of anti-male hysteria, and, since then, as this Review itself states (on page 5) "we continue to have high rates of domestic violence." This is clearly prima facie evidence that the Act is not doing what some people claim it was intended to do -- reduce domestic violence.

In fact, the Feminists who were behind this legislation were never primarily interested in reducing domestic violence -- their prime aim was to give women the whip-hand in relationships and exploit the propaganda potential of the hysteria that pseudo-scholarship had whipped up around the undefined notion of "battering".

Therefore, the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation calls for a first principles, from-the-ground-up review of the Domestic Violence Act 1995.

 

Questions and Answers

1. Do you think police-issued orders should be introduced or do you believe that current police powers are sufficient for enforcement purposes? Please give reasons for your view. Answer: Anyone who even contemplates asking this question or answering it in the affirmative does not understand the Rule of Law, and should be immediately dismissed from any public sector position, as being guilty of an anti-male hate-crime.
2. What do you see as the benefits of police-issued orders? Answer: Police-issued orders are suitable only for a police-state.
3. What disadvantages would there be in introducing police-issued orders? How could those disadvantages be addressed? Answer: The Rule of Law would be abolished. This issue could be addressed by immediately firing all Feminazis from the Ministry of Justice.
4. Do you have any views on the length of the short-term protection order? Answer: See answer to question 1.
5. What conditions do you think should be attached to police orders? Answer: See answer to question 1.
6. Should the Court be required to give written reasons when a section 13 application for a temporary protection order is either declined or put on notice? Answer: Given that the Domestic Violence Act 1995 is an act of insanity, the Court should not be required to give reasons when a section 13 application for a temporary protection order is either declined or put on notice.
7. Do you think an applicant, who has had his or her application for a temporary protection (order) declined, should be eligible for a hearing to address the issues that led to the decline? Answer: No.
8. Do you think that rather than a without notice application being placed on notice that it should instead be referred to the applicant and the following queries made: whether the applicant wants the application to proceed on notice, or make a new application, or withdraw application completely. Answer: Yes.
9. Do you think the Act should be amended to emphasize that the Judge can discharge a protection order (including a temporary order) only if he or she is satisfied that the order is no longer necessary for the protection of the apphcant, or child of the applicant's family, or both? Answer: No.
10. Do you believe that over-ruling the applicant's wishes is desirable? Answer:The person who wrote this question is criminally insane.
11. Do you think it would be more appropriate for the Act to specify criteria that have to be met before the Court discharges a protection order? What criteria do you think would be appropriate? Answer: No.
12. If the wishes of the applicant to discharge appear to diverge from the interests or safety of the children, how should the Court give status to the children in the Court? Answer: This is a loaded question and should be deleted. The Act is based on man-hating fictions about the so-called "dynamics" of domestic violence, and therefore does not allow the safety of family members to be understood or discussed rationally.
13. Do you have any experiences or views on the use of undertakings in domestic violence proceedings? Do you believe they are a useful tool for resolving cases, or do you think their use puts victims at risk. Answer: No comment.
14. What is your view on the current criteria in section 50(1) for arrest without a warrant for breach of a protection order -- how are the criteria working in practice? Answer: The power to arrest without warrant under the Act should be abolished, especially in view of the provisions of sections 51(a), which restrict the right to bail.
15. Should the statutory criteria for arrest without a warrant for breach of a protection order be kept, or should the criteria be amended or repealed? Answer: See answer to question 14.
16. If you believe the cnteria should be amended, what criteria do you believe should be included? Answer: See answer to question 14.
17. Is there any reason why the law should treat arrest without a warrant for breaches of protection orders differently from arrest without a warrant for other offences? Answer: Yes. Arrest without a warrant in relation to domestic violence in general should occur under more restrictive conditions than apply to other offences, because of the way that an extreme political group (Feminists) have captured the issue (domestic violence), which should properly be a scientific issue dealt with by rational scientists. The atmosphere of totalitarian hysteria and propaganda which surrounds this issue creates huge civil liberties problems for the hated out-group (men).
18. How should the Court enforce programme attendance Answer: All references in current legislation relating to (domestic violence) programmes should be repealed, and Parliament should pass an Act abolishing such programmes, the organisations which provide them, and the organisations (such as the National Collective of Women's Refuges and the National Network of Stopping Violence Services) which promote the discriminatory and unscientific myth that domestic violence is primarily something that men do to women.
19. Should the two-tier system, with a lower penalty for first offences, be kept? If so. what are your reasons? If not, why not? Answer: As a matter of general legal principle, a first offence should always carry a lesser penalty than a repeated offence, but that can normally left to the discretion of the judge on sentencing.
20. Should failure to attend a programme be a separate offence? Why? Answer: See answer to question 18.
21. What advantages would there be if affidavits from protection order proceedings were made available to Judges hearing bail applications, where the offence is either a breach of the protection order, or a charge of assault aganst the protected person? What would the disadvantages be? Answer: In principle, the Rule of Law would require that bail decisions, like all judicial decisions, should be made on the basis of the best relevant evidence available. Consequently, the affidavits should be made available. There are no significant disadvantages.
22. Have you a view as to how the disadvantages could be addressed? Answer: Not applicable.
23. Should affidavits be available only in cases where the bail hearing relates to the same incident that led to the protection order being issued? Answer: No.
24. What other information about the victim’s situation should a Judge consider when deciding bail? Answer: The judge should be legally required to investigate the so-called "victim's" own culpability in terms of contributory psychological and physical violence.
25. What advantages would there be if a Judge when sentencing an offender for a crime involving domestic violence was able to make a protection order? What would the disadvantages be? Answer: Protection orders should only be made in a fully open court. Therefore, if the Family Court remains anything other than a fully open court, it should be stripped of the power to make protection orders. It is perfectly appropriate for judges in criminal cases to have the power to make protection orders.
26. Have you a view as to how the disadvantages could be addressed? Answer: Not applicable.
27. Do you think a Judge should be able to make a protection order in these circumstances? Answer: See answer to question 25.
28. Do you think the victim's consent should be necessary before an order was made? Answer: No. However, the so-called "victim" should be permitted to withdraw his/her complaint, thus bringing the criminal proceedings to an end.
29. Does the proposal raise any special concerns for the children of the offender/respondent? Answer: No. The provisions relating to children in the Act are simple-minded and unbalanced, in that they show no evidence of any consideration of the various ways that various factors (including the absence of a parent) can affect children. All references to children and young people in the Act should be deleted.
30. Should the Court be required to provide parties the opportunity to review contact issues after a defined period after a temporary order is made? Answer: See answer to question 29.
31. Do you think it would be helpful to have counsel for the child appointed for any domestic violence cases where children are affected? Answer: See answer to question 29
32. Should the protection order continue to cover the children when the protected person dies? If so, for how long? Answer: See answer to question 29.
33. Do you know of any cases where the protected person died and contact between the children and the respondent was an issue? Answer: See answer to question 29.
34. Should a child, who is covered by a protection order obtained by their parent or caregiver, continue to be covered by the order when they turn 17 and they remain living with the applicant (parent or caregiver)? Please give reasons for your opinion. Answer: See answer to question 29.
35. If you think a protection order should continue to cover children 17 years and over in the circumstances outlined above, do you think the order should permanently cease to apply to the young person once they move out of home, or should it be reactivated upon their return to their home up to a certain age? Answer: See answer to question 29.
36. When the young person continues to live with the protected person should the protection order cease to cover them at a particular age? Answer; See answer to question 29.
37. Do you think attendance at programmes by respondents of temporary orders should be delayed until a final order is made? Answer: See answer to question 18.
38. Should there be compulsory summons to a Family Court of respondents if they fail to attend a programme? Answer: See answer to question 18.
39. Should respondents be eligible for more than one course? If so, what eligibility criteria, if any, do you think should be applied? Answer: See answer to question 18.
40. Should there be a specific power under the Act to direct a respondent to undergo a drug and alcohol assessment and attend a drug and alcohol programme or receive mental health treatment if necessary, in addition to stopping violence programmes ? Answer: Yes, but not in addition to stopping violence programmes. See answer to question 18.
41. Do you have any suggestions as to how to encourage respondents to attend the programmes? Answer: See answer to question 18.
42. Should programmes be available to protected persons for longer than the current three-year period? If so, for how long, for example, for the duration of the order, or for some other length of time? Answer: See answer to question 18.
43. Should protected persons be able to attend more than one programmme? If so, in what circumstances or situations would further programmes be helpful? Answer: See answer to question 18.
44. What are your views about applicants being required to attend an initial session for assessment of their need to attend a programme? If you think it is a good idea do you think failure to attend should attract a penalty or would it be better if attendance was voluntary? Answer: See answer to question 18.
45. Do you think the Family Court should provide victims with a point of access to a wider range of social services? If so, what social services do victims need most that are not already available to them? Who would be the best placed to provide this service? And how would it be delivered? Answer: No. See answer to question 18.
46. Can you suggest other ways to encourage more protected persons to attend programmes? Answer: See answer to question 18.
47. Should programmes be extended to children who used to be protected persons? Answer: See answer to questions 18 and 29.
48. Should the Act allow programme providers of respondent programmes to receive the contact details of the protected person, if the protected person wishes to be informed of the respondent’s progress on the programme? If you believe they. should -- what do you think are the advantages of this proposal? Answer: See answer to question 18.
49. Do you think the information provided should be limited to the respondent's attendance? Answer: See answer to question 18.
50. Do you believe it would be appropriate to include a definition of psychological violence in the Care of Children Act 2004 that is consistent with the definition in the Domestic Violence Act 1995? Answer: Yes, but the definition in both Acts should give more examples, and include an equal number of what are considered to be typical female behaviours constituting psychological violence and typical male behaviours constituting psychological violence. For example, I am informed that the London Metropolitan Police regard denial by one parent of contact by the other parent with that parent's children to be a form of psychological violence. Other examples of female psychological domestic violence are given by the New Zealand Police Managers' Guild Trust (http://equality.netfirms.com/polguild.html -- last accessed 21 January 2007).
51. Do you have any comment to make, where allegations of domestic violence have been made in proceedings for a parenting order, on whether there is a need for the Court to obtain a report from a specialist in domestic violence before making the order? Answer: So-called specialists in domestic violence should be banned from performing a witness or reporting role in court, given the grossly politicised, feminist, and totalitarian nature of the Psychology departments where such people have probably been trained.
52. Should section 4 of the Care of Children Act make specific reference to relocation as a result of domestic violence? Answer: No.
53. Should a report from a psychologist always be obtained before a party who has used violence against the other party is granted unsupervised contact? Answer: The answer to question 51 also applies to Psychologists in relation to cases involving domestic violence.
54. Should the age of a child in the Domestic Violence Act be raised to 18 so as to be consistent with the definition in the Care of Children Act and UNCROC? Answer: See answer to question 29.
55. Do you agree with maintaining the status quo on the provisions relating to mediation and awaiting the outcome of the Family Courts Matters BiIl? Answer:Yes.

Peter Zohrab
Acting President
New Zealand Equality Education Foundation

Last Update: 5 December 2008