NZ GENERAL 1985 INCOMPETENCE SEXISM OF SENIOR JUSTICE MINISTRY OFFICIAL OPEN LETTER

NZ GENERAL 1985 INCOMPETENCE SEXISM OF SENIOR JUSTICE MINISTRY OFFICIAL OPEN LETTER

From: "Peter Douglas Zohrab" (zohrab@no-spam)

Subject: Incompetence & Sexism of senior Justice Ministry official (open letter)

Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 07:42:08 +1200

Mr. M. Wintringham State Services Commissioner New Zealand
Dear Mr. M. Wintringham,

I am writing to complain of serious breaches of the Public Service Code of Conduct (as published at
http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?NavID=135&DocID=2785 ). The breaches occurred in an
email sent to me by the Justice Ministry's Manager, Criminal and International Law Team, Criminal
Justice and Crime Prevention Group, Phil Divett.

The breaches involve the Second Principle, viz:

"Public servants should perform their official duties honestly, faithfully and efficiently,

respecting the rights of the public and their colleagues."

Specifically, I am writing to accuse him of:
1.incompetence;
2.gross anti-male sexism and discrimination against males; and/or 3.bad faith in his dealings with the public.

His email (actually, a letter attached to an email) was in reply to an email I had sent to the
Justice Ministry, inquiring about the authenticity of an email that someone had forwarded to me,

which purported to have been written by a Justice Ministry official. The main topic of that Justice
Ministry email was an attempted justification of the anti-male sexism involved in having an offence
"Male Assaults Female" (section 194(b) of the Crimes Act), carrying a higher maximum penalty than
"Common Assault". In my email, I had quoted from the email, and asked:

"Could you please:-
a) confirm that the above quotation is correctly ascribed to an official of the Ministry of Justice
(sic);
b) explain what 'the special vulnerability of children and females to male assault' is, and what
scientific evidence you know of for the existence of this phenomenon ?
c) explain why it is not discriminatory for your Section to have females in six or seven of its
eight most senior positions (see http://www.justice.govt.nz/cpu/contact-us.html )?
d) explain what you are doing to bring police arrests for domestic violence into line with the 50-50

male-female proportion indicated by academic research ?
e) explain what you are doing to bring male and female punishments (for the same crime) into line
with each other (I refer you to http://www.justice.govt.nz./pubs/reports/1999/sentence_in_nz/chapter_11.html#11.3.4)"

In answer to a), Phil Divett confirmed the authenticity of the earlier email.

In answer to b), Phil Divett replied as follows (I have broken his reply into sentences and added my
reply to each of his points):
1."The offence recognises that adult men are generally larger and have greater physical strength
when compared to the majority of children and women." This is an incompetent reply, for several
reasons. He fails to mention the fact that children are more vulnerable to female assault than to
male assault -- for the simple reason that children are much more often in the company of females
than of males. His attempted justification of differential sentencing based on sex is grossly
sexist and discriminatory, and is in breach of the Human Rights Act and of the Bill of Rights. If
Phil Divett is unaware of this, as a Justice Ministry official, he should resign immediately or be
sacked. Not all men are stronger than all women. It is illegal for an employer to advertise for
male workers in jobs where strength is an appropriate qualification. Each (male or female)

applicant has to be assessed on their merits, without reference to sexist stereotypes as to the
differing average strength of men and women. (The only exception to this, that I know of, is the
sexist Police, where women are set lower physical standards than men for entry.) So why is Phil
Divett justifying sexist stereotypes when they disadvantage men ? The offence in section 194(b)

does not refer to physical strength and has nothing to do with physical strength. The fact that one
person is stronger than another does not make the stronger person more culpable if they hit another
person - e.g. in retaliation. Everyone has an equal right to self-defence, and Phil Divett is
perpetrating a discriminatory policy of trying to force men to put up with female violence without
retaliating to it.
2."The overall effects of violence on children and women also has a greater negative impact. (You
may wish to refer to the Ministry's victimisation report on our website.)" Assuming that he is
referring to the New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims 1996, the Survey does find that only
31.4% of male victims of violent offences report experiencing fear -- as compared with 50.5% of
female victims. However, that is arguably because men have not been traditionally been brought up to
mollycoddle their emotions in the way that women have been. Nowadays, Feminist propagandists on the
media routinely demand that men "get in touch with their feelings", or "get in touch with their
female side," as well as extolling the virtues of "strong women". If men do this, why should they
be discriminated against by having their feelings discounted by the Law, as compared to those of
women ? And if a woman is a "strong woman", why should her attacker suffer greater legal penalties
than those suffered by the attacker of a New Age Man ? It is clear that not all women suffer
greater negative consequences than all men, so justifying a sexist law on that basis is illegally,

sexistly, and incompetently using a sexist stereotype to discriminate against men, in breach of the
Bill of Rights Act and Human Rights Act. In addition, there are other negative impacts apart from
fear. Men suffer more from assaults by women than vice versa, because they then experience
discrimination by the so-called Justice system, which ignores their feelings and doesn't allow or
encourage them to complain about female violence with any chance that they will be taken seriously.

Rather than attempting to discriminatorily customise the Law around women's emotions, Phil Divett
should be encouraging women to front up to the demands of sexual equality by "getting in touch with
their masculine side".
3."There is an element of greater culpability on the behalf of the offender in these situations."

That is an absurdly sexist statement, for which he incompetently provides no evidence. The are some
man-hating Feminists (such as Professor Lenore Walker) who reach this conclusion by interviewing
women only, and by taking everything these women unilaterally say about their relationships with men
to be true. However, this is such an absurdly incompetent research methodology that, if Phil Divett
takes their results seriously, he should consider committing suicide, to atone for the huge harm
that incompetent sexists like him are doing to the men of New Zealand -- many of whom commit suicide
because of persecution by the anti-male Legal System. I should add that he doesn't write English
competently -- he should have said "on the part of the offender," rather than "on behalf of the
offender".
4."I do not consider that we need to seek scientific evidence to verify that." This is an admission
of incompetence. Phil Divett is an adherent of a man-hating religion, called "Feminism", and he is
incapable of bringing scientific evidence to bear on his beliefs.

I will pass over his answers to c) and d), for present purposes. Issue c) is not a big issue, from
my point of view, and his answer to d) merely referred me to the Police.

In answer to e), Phil Divett states: "Of particular relevance to this query is the Ministry's review
of sex offences under the Crimes Act 1961. One of the purposes of the review is to ensure that all
the offences are gender neutral in regard to victims and offenders."

This answer is off-topic and therefore either incompetent or given in bad faith. The study I
referred to (http://www.justice.govt.nz./pubs/reports/1999/sentence_in_nz/chapter_11.html#11.3.4) is
about sentencing differences between men and women (to the detriment of men). Obviously, to be
sentenced, you have to have been convicted of an offence in the first place. If there is no offence
(when done by a woman), then there can be no conviction or sentence. And it is this latter topic of
the non-existence of certain offences if the perpetrator is female that Phil Divett refers to.

Of course, I welcome this review -- but I ask (rhetorically) why it has taken a male Minister of
Justice and a male Leader of the United Future party to get this review under way, when Feminists
have been saying for 200 years that Feminism is about equality.

Sincerely,
Peter Zohrab,
Acting President,
New Zealand Equality Education Foundation.
-- Warren Farrell for California Governor http://www.warrenfarrell.com/gov/ Bias in Mayes case
http://zohrab.0catch.com/rvmayes.html Domestic Violence Centre http://zohrab.0catch.com/dvcorgnz.html The Next President is a Batterer http://www.glennjsacks.com/is_there_a.htm The Case against the Chief Justice http://zohrab.0catch.com/mclachli.html The Opposite is Usually The Case http://zohrab.0catch.com/paradoxs.html Female Supremacism http://www.gynarchy.net/ Man-Haters
http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/shivers/rants/scum.html Discrimination is always negative
http://zohrab.0catch.com/afaction.html

From: "Simon Pleasants" (simonjp@no-spam)