ome > Issues > Rape > NZEEF Submission on the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


NZEEF Submission on the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill

by Peter Zohrab 2004

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map


This is the submission of the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation (NZEEF) on the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill, which is being considered by Parliament in conjunction with the Crimes Amendment Bill No.2.



This Bill

(1) creates a new offence of wilfully ... stupef(ying) ... any other person with the intent to commit sexual violation;


(2) adds one new way that a person is not deemed to be consenting, for the purposes of defining "sexual violation", i.e. the fact that they are prevented from physically resisting by an intoxicating, anaesthetic, controlled or illegal substance, or hypnotic drug means that they are not in fact consenting.

The NZEEF agrees with the general intent of the Bill to create the new offence in (1) (above), but is severely criticial of the proposed modification to the notion of consent in (2) (above). This criticism cannot limit itself to the actual proposal, but extends to the current Crimes Act approach to Sexual Violation as a whole -- and indeed to the whole ideology of Feminism, of which this Bill and relevant parts of the Crimes Act are logical extensions.

The word "rape" in the title of this Bill is sexist in itself, and is a die-hard Feminist attempt to keep men oppressed by propaganda-induced guilt. The terms "sexual violation" and "unlawful sexual connection" are appropriate sex-neutral alternatives. On this ground alone, the Attorney-General should have (but probably has not) reported to Parliament, under section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), that it was in breach of section 19 of that Act, by discriminating against males -- since rape is not something that women can physically easily commit.

More generally, the whole sexual violation scheme of the Crimes Act 1961 is in violation of section 19 of BORA, by discriminating against males. We will explain why below.



The word "intoxicating" in clause 4(1)(c) makes it clear that even alcohol (a mainstream party drug), consumed voluntarily by a person, may make him/her into a victim of a crime perpetrated by a person who has sexual connection with that person. No doubt, in some circles, anaesthetic, controlled or illegal substances, or hypnotic drugs are routinely taken voluntarily by people in the way that alcohol commonly is.

If this Bill becomes law, it is no great leap from those facts to state that (for example) a woman who voluntarily goes to a social event and voluntarily takes a substantial amount of alcohol is knowingly both putting herself in danger of having a legally "non-consensual" sexual connection -- and also knowingly putting some man (for example) in danger of a prison sentence (if one other condition is fulfilled -- see below). It is this pathological obsession with maximising the freedom of action of women, and this pathological ignoring of the danger it makes men run of ending up in jail, which are the most sexist and discriminatory aspects of this Bill, and of the Crimes Act that it amends.

Correct me if I am wrong, but sexual connection is generally a pleasurable activity, engaged in by both men and women voluntarily. It is grossly sexist and oppressive to make (overwhelmingly) men be the ones who pay a penalty if the blurry line between lawful and unlawful sexual connection is crossed.

The Dominion Post of 5 June 2004 ran an article by Colin Patterson, which reported on research which showed that women in the West (still) prefer to be chased by men, rather than to do the chasing. The Crimes Act only imposes penalties on the active partner. There is no threat of legal sanction hanging over the passive partner if he/she (usually it's she) is ambiguous, misleading, entrapping, or has intentionally, recklessly or negligently allowed herself to get intoxicated or drugged.

The fact that this Bill treats women as so stupid and irresponsible that it is legally acceptable for women to behave in this manner says a lot about the man-hating sexism that fuels proposals such as this Bill. Women in New Zealand today are truly irresponsible, because Feminism -- paid for by tapayer dollars -- has been constantly extending women's freedom to do whatever they want to do, leaving men, children, and unborn babies to pay the penalty imposed by women's ever-increasing "freedom".

If women, with their small brains and weak bodies, propped up by lying "Girls Can Do Anything" campaigns, are really so stupid that they can't avoid sexually risky behaviour, then they really should be kept at home in the kitchen with the kids, where their mental capacities won't be over-taxed !


Belief as to Consent

The other condition (referred to above) that, added to actual non-consent, creates the offence of rape or sexual violation is if the suspect does not believe on reasonable grounds that the complainant is consenting.

Under this Bill, then, if a woman voluntarily gets herself intoxicated or drugged at a social occasion, and sexual connection with a male takes place, she is deemed not to have consented. Then the questions become: a) did he believe that she had consented; and, b) if so, did he believe that on reasonable grounds ?

The man, in order to escape jail, has to convince the court that

1) there is at least a "reasonable" possibililty that he believed that she was consenting; and that 2) there is at least a "reasonable" possibililty that he had grounds for that belief which the Court considered were "reasonable" grounds.

We submit that it is grossly unfair on men to have to run the risk of having to convince a Court of these two matters whenever they have sex with a woman -- while a woman typically runs no legal risk at all. In addition, a man may not be sober enough himself to decide whether she is drunk or drugged, and even police officers have difficulty assessing whether people are under the influence of drugs.

A man may, in the contect of the situation and of the personalities involved, have good grounds for assuming that she had consented -- but why should he have to run the risk that a Court would not understand him or agree with him ? Such issues have been captured by the Feminists, who are imposing a theology of things which they call "myths", which we are not allowed to believe about women -- even if they are true.

The Institute of Judicial Studies, which teaches judges what to think, is currently undemocratically oppressing men by teaching judges Feminist propaganda as if it were fact. As a result, a man might have reasonable grounds for believing a woman consented, but these could be ruled out on Feminst theological grounds in a courtroom.



This pathological hostility to a male perspective on life is part and parcel of Feminism, the State Ideology of New Zealand. Only when we ditch Feminism and give men's groups equal status with the Ministry of Women's Affairs, and other forms of taxpayer-funded Feminism, will legal oppression of men have any prospect of ceasing.



This Bill, and relevant aspects of the Crimes Act itself, must be amended to put equal responsibility (and legal liability) onto both active and passive partners in sexual connection to avoid situations where a crime may appear to have been committed.




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

6 August 2015