New Zealand Equality Education
Foundation Submission to the Law Commission on the Court System
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 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: 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
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.
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 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
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.
There should be an automatic right of appeal from decisions of the Disputes
Tribunal, and appeals to the Privy Council should be retained.