The main reason why New Zealand and other Western countries are only
sham democracies is that Feminist ideologues and organised pressure-groups
dominate the media and education system and determine the questions
that Society focuses on and predetermine the answers that will be given
to those questions. The Report
of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct is
a classic example of this predetermination, and the diagram below outlines
the process in that particular case.
In the Simon
Wallace case, for example, a man was shot dead by police, and the
family had to go to the expense of a private prosecution, because no
Commission of Inquiry was established.
In its Submission to the Commission of Inquiry
into Police Conduct, the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation
made some initial comments, and in the article "Open
Letter to Helen Clark on Lesbian Feminist Morality," I criticised
some aspects of the mentality underlying this Commission
of Inquiry. However, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry itself
is also in need of severe criticism.
Terms of Reference
Margaret Bazley refers to "the exploitation of vulnerable people",
but the
terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry related only to
the specific offence of sexual assault and the moral issue of sexual
behaviour, although the wider issue of police conduct in general was
touched on as well. Therefore Bazley was not likely to have received
evidence about police exploitation of vulnerable people in general,
but only as it related to sexual matters -- principally involving female
complainants. This limitation meant that she was not really in a position
to refer to the exploitation of vulnerable people in general.
This limitation of the terms of inquiry is a result of the sexist hysteria
of the media which precipitated the inquiry, and the gross sexism of
Helen Clark, who set up the Commission of Inquiry. See my article: Dildomedia
Angry at Police Insubordination. Bazley states that "the
risk that misconduct, particularly sexual misconduct, poses to public
confidence in the police is a significant one." Again, the issue
here is that (from evidence that has come to my ears, and from my own
experience) a certain (perhaps large) proportion of the male population
already has a low level of confidence in the police, because of anecdotes
or personal experiences relating to non-sexual misconduct towards males.
Since Bazley's terms of reference (which are not her fault, but the
fault of the feminised media and of the Prime Minister) were focussed
on sexual misconduct, there is a huge risk that
the male population will see this inquiry as evidence that the media
and the Labour Party only care about women, which is fact the case.
Private Sexual Behaviour
Bazley also refers to "sexual activity of an inappropriate nature",
but neither she nor the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, have stated by
what right they can set moral standards for the police, or what method
they have used to decide what is or is not sexual activity of an inappropriate
nature. If New Zealand were a Democracy, rather than the Distributed
Feminazi Dictatorship that it actually is, then these two women would
have been forced to explain in a transparent manner what the legal basis
is for banning heterosexual group sex among the Police, while subtly
promoting Lesbianism, for example. See my Open
Letter to Helen Clark on Lesbian Feminist Morality
Sexist Incompetence
Bazley also refers to "negative, stereotyped views of complainants;
and a culture of scepticism in dealing with complaints of sexual assault."
However, the validity of this description depends on the nature of Bazley's
own biases and the state of her knowledge about sexual allegations.
After all, she is just a former public servant who was probably promoted
over the heads of more able male colleagues, in order to prove that
women were not being discriminated against. There is no evidence that
I have heard that she has qualifications in the sexual allegations area.
She almost certainly does not know that one study found that 40% of
complainants actually admitted having made complaints of rape that were
false (Kanin, Eugene (1994): "False Rape Allegations." Archives of Sexual
Behavior Vol 23,No.1: 81-92 ). Both Bazley's biases and competence are
at issue here. I see no reason to regard her as anything but a silly
old bint carrying out a political hatchet-job on male police officers.
Police Culture
Bazley criticises what she sees as the police's "strong bonding
amongst colleagues, a male-oriented culture, attitudes towards the use
of alcohol, and dual standards with respect to on-duty and off-duty
behaviours." Strong bonding, although it makes the investigation
of police misbehaviour diffcult, is obviously a positive feature in
other respects, as
the report itself points out. If this bonding is reduced, then the
positive effects of bonding will also be reduced, and the police will
become demoralised and less effective.
The implication is that female work culture is superior to male work
culture, which is a sexist and baseless assumption. The term "male-oriented
culture", as a term of abuse, is obviously a feature of the Wellington
Lesbian culture. One must assume that Bazley prefers
an office culture of mutual female bitchiness.
Similarly, men tend to have traditions around alcohol that one could
not expect a Wellington Lesbian to approve of (if that is the standard
being applied here), but that is not relevant. And "dual standards
with respect to on-duty and off-duty behaviours" are obviously
essential, because the police must maintain high standards at work,
but must be allowed to let their hair down when off-duty, or stress
will get on top of them and no one will want to be a police officer.
It is clear that Bazley's ideal police officer is a woman -- if not
a Lesbian. It seems that Bazley has not done any relevant reading, so
I recommend she read relevant sections of "Introduction to Forensic
Psychology", by Arrigo and Shipley (2nd ed., Elsevier 2005), even
though the book is grossly Feminist and sexist
in other respects.
So-Called "Experts"
Bazley hear evidence from what she was pleased to call "international
experts." It is facile to attach the label "expert"
to such people, because Western universities are grossly politicised,
and the Social Sciences, in particular, are little more than Socialist,
man-hating political parties. Jan Jordan, in particular, is grossly
anti-male and has long been, until recently, in denial about the reality
of fales sexual allegations, and her Criminology
colleagues at Victoria University seems to be much the same.
Getting Rid of the Man
While there was still a man on this Commission of Inquiry (the Hon
Justice Robertson), and I was not taking a detailed interest in it,
I went to see a lawyer about a totally unrelated consumer rights matter.
I had also (unsuccessfully) tried the get that lawyer to take a Men's
Rights case -- also in a totally unrelated matter. When I went to see
him, that lawyer, Michael Leggat, used the opportunity to suggest to
me that Margaret Bazley was level-headed and able to carry out the work
of the Commission by herself. Since he was asking for my opinion, I
repled that I didn't know anything about her, to speak of. Although
Michael Leggat was in other respects an exemplary lawyer, I object to
what seemed to be almost a corrupt way of sounding people out before
making political changes.
Since the Government appoints judges, and the Hon Justice Robertson
was
appointed to the Court of Appeal shortly after resigning from the
Commission of Inquiry, I think it is highly likely that he was offered
a promotion in order to allow Margaret Bazley to make unfettered, sexist
use of her powers as sole Commissioner.
The recommendation:
R50 New Zealand Police should continue its efforts to increase
the numbers of women and those from ethnic minority groups in the
police force in order to promote a diverse organisational culture
that reflects the community it serves and to enhance the effective
and impartial investigation of complaints alleging sexual assault
by members of the police or by associates of the police
is not based on an impartial consideration of all the evidence that
would be relevant. No submissions were called on this issue. It is grossly
incompetent and sexist of Margaret Bazley to claim that this conclusion
can fairly be drawn from the information submitted to the Commission.
This conclusion is a predetermined, a priori agenda long held
by Feminists, and the only way it can be put into practice is by discriminating
against men and certain ethnic groups, by enforcing doubl\e standards.
See my article: Police
Legal Adviser Calls Police Human Resources Manager a Liar,
in which you will see that a Police Legal Advisory Officer states (in
letter of 21 December 2006, paragraph 3) that a change in the number
of women may not necessarily change the culture of the organisation.
I am not siding with one against the other here -- my point is that
Margaret Bazley made Recommendation R50 on the
basis of a predetermined agenda, rather than on the evidence.
