| |
(Open Letter to the Leader of the Labour Party)
Dear Mr. Goff,
On TV One's Sunday political programme
(Q+A, 12 April 2009), Paul Holmes suggested to you that Labour
might have lost the 2008 election because the party became a bit
too urban feminist liberal. You were
visibly startled that anyone in the mainstream media might dare
to suggest that there was any alternative to Feminism -- and
quite rightly so! The efforts of your allies to ban freedom of
speech from the media have been extremely successful.
Paul Holmes kept suggesting that you were part of the old, failed
Labour Party leadership, and therefore not destined to be party
leader for long. However, you did say that you had been listening
to what people had been saying to you, so there is at least a
chance that you will change the old, failed Labour Party policies
-- if not the faces of those who propose the policies. Maybe you
could ask former Leader Mike Moore for advice on pro-men policies.
Because of your apparent inability to look past Feminism, I was
reminded of a letter you wrote to the
late Alan Sutherland about the Femi-Fascist criminal charge
"male-assault-female" (section 194, Crimes Act 1961),
which imposes a harsher penalty on a male who assaults a female
than on a female who assaults a male. Despite the fact that the
letter was written in the year 2000, when you were Minister of
Justice, it is still highly relevant.
I reproduce it here, with my comments under each section:
|
| |
|
|
You apparently have a first-class degree in Political Science,
but you must have gained that without any logical reasoning or
backing up of arguments with facts -- probably all you had to
do was to agree with your left-wing lecturers!
- There is no evidence -- certainly none that you have produced
-- that the nature of assaults differs systematically as between
male and female perpetrators in a way that could be made out
to justify higher penalties for male perpetrators. I would have
to speculate that you have come under the influence of the Lesbian
Feminist man-hating dream called the Duluth (Power
and Control) model of domestic violence -- for
which there is absolutely no evidence;
- There is no logical relationship between the frequency of
an offence and the penalty that should be imposed for that offence
across a whole population group. If a particular person offends
frequently, then they should be punished frequently, with more
severe sentences once that person becomes a repeat offender.
One could even introduce a "three strikes and you're out"
policy -- imposing a life sentence on the third violent offence.
- It is fascistly discriminatory and insanely illogical to impose
a greater sanction on every male offender than on every female
offender just because it is thought that male violence against
females is, in general, different
from, and more frequent than female violence against males!
|
|
- It is grossly sexist and insane for you to make this generalisation,
when you are absolutely, definitely, and totally unaware of
any studies of the physical, emotional and psychological impact
of female domestic violence on males. You
are a liar, Phil Goff!
- In a Democracy governed by the Rule
of Law (i.e. in countries other than in New Zealand), the courts
look at the evidence on a case-by-case basis and produce a verdict
and a sentence that take into account the actual physical, emotional
and psychological harm done by a particular perpetrator on a
particular victim.
- When one man assaults another man, there
is no law that imposes a higher penalty if the man who committed
the assault is more powerful than the man whom he assaulted.
That would be completely illogical. The issue of the power of
the perpetrator is only relevant insofar as it relates to the
injuries suffered by the victim, which courts can assess on
a case-by-case basis. To penalise all men because men are generally
stronger than women is mad-dog insane.
- Apart from cases where the woman involved is stronger than
the man involved, there are also such things as weapons, which
you seem to have forgotten about, Mr. Goff.
|
1 |
That is the one true statement that you have made so far in
this letter, Mr. Goff. However, there has to be a complaint to
the police before there can be a prosecution and a sentence. The
Government has published vast amounts of man-hating propaganda
which depicts Domestic Violence as something that men do to women,
and encouraging women to go to the police. The Government has
never published anything that encourages men to report Domestic
Violence by women, so (for that and other reasons) men are unlikely
to report it.
Research into the actual incidence of Domestic Violence overwhelmingly
shows that women are as violent towards men as, or more violent
towards men than men are towards women. Have a look at Professor
Martin Fiebert's annotated bibliography of domestic violence research
at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
or my summary of it at dvsumary.html
-- incidentally, Fiebert's bibliography includes New Zealand research:
see Research on Domestic
Violence in New Zealand.
|
|
The same applies to males who seriously assault females. That
does not justify having a more serious penalty for every
man who assaults a woman. Take a course in reasoning, Mr. Goff!
Take a course in fairness! Take a course in justice! Take a course
in human rights!
|
1
|
(I have not included this table, because it is irrelevant,
as explained above).
|
|
There will be no change until the man-haters in politics and
in the bureaucracy are kicked out. They are just not interested
in logic or the Rule of Law.
|
|
Justice Ministry research: Sentencing
in New Zealand: a Statistical Analysis indicates
that men receive more severe penalties than women for the same
offences. This is not surprising, given the insane sexism of man-haters
such as yourself.
|
I understand that, unlike me, you do not have a law degree,
so maybe human rights, discrimination, the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990, and New Zealand's ratification of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are just insignificant
trivia to you. Of course, the matter I am raising only affects
men, so all the vicious man-haters in your caucus would shunt
you out of the leadership in a split second, if you did anything
that appeared to admit that men have any problems to be rectified,
in Feminazi New Zealand! |
|
