Home > Issues > Humanities, & the Natural & Social Sciences > Fake News Meets Fake Education

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Fake News Meets Fake Education:

The Gross Incompetence of Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Associate Professor Ian Lambie and TV3's Lisa Owen; also the Gross Corruption of the Ministry of Justice

Peter Zohrab 2018

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

 

1. Predetermination

The Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, has published a short report, entitled Using evidence to build a better justice system: The challenge of rising prison costs. It was written by the Science Advisor to the Justice Sector, Associate Professor Ian Lambie, assisted by Sir Peter Gluckman. Later, on April 7th 2018, Lisa Owen's "Newshub Nation" programme hosted a panel discussion about that report. Both the report and the panelists exhibited the same predetermination, ignorance and stupidity. It is selective in its use of evidence and its main purpose is obviously to stabilise or reduce the costs of prisons. It does not question the Feminist ideology of New Zealand to see if that ideology is partly responsible for the perceived problems it is dealing with.

The predetermination concerned what issues to take account of, whose views to take account of and what sections of society to show concern for. The report contains a section entitled "Maori considerations" and the panel had one participant from a Maori organisation. So both the report and the make-up of the panel took special account of the views of Maoris and showed special concern for the Maori section of society, but both the report and the make-up of the panel ignored the views of men's organisations and the male section of society. In other words, both the report and the panel were primarily political in nature -- as, indeed, are the universities.

It is all very well having people called "Science Advisors" and writing reports which claim to be based on evidence, but if you restrict your evidence-gathering to domains which you have predetermined to be relevant, then your conclusions are only going to be as valid as your original assumptions.

The report ignores entirely the highly relevant report, Sentencing in New Zealand: a statistical analysis, by Sue Triggs (Ministry of Justice, 1999), which states:

  1. ... the results of the multivariate modelling show that females are more likely than males to receive community service, community programme or no sentence and less likely to receive a prison sentence, periodic detention or a monetary penalty. Thus, gender differences in sentencing persist even after taking account of differences in the type and seriousness of the offence committed (e.g. the average seriousness of offences committed by women is lower than for men) and in the extent of previous offending (e.g. women have fewer previous convictions on average; section 3.1). Indeed, gender is the amongst the most significant variables influencing the probability of receiving a community service sentence or a monetary penalty. (Triggs p. 123)

  2. The use of imprisonment did not differ between ethnic groups, once other factors had been taken into account (such as the differences between ethnic groups in the type and seriousness of offences committed and in the extent of previous offending; section 3.1). (Triggs p. 124)

 

2. Concealed Evidence

The Ministry of Justice contains many people who we taxpayers pay and allow to pervert as much policy as possible to fit the Feminist Agenda. Consequently, the above research, which I originally found on the Ministry's website many years ago, has been effectively removed from that website and not replaced by any update!

See the correspondence below:

 

 

 

3. Specifics

 

As can be seen from Triggs' research report cited above, there are grounds to think that:-

  1. high prison costs might be caused, in part, by discrimination against men in sentencing; and that

  2. the widespread feeling that discrimination against Maoris is one of the causes is a product of the dominant Left-Wing ideology, rather than a fact based on evidence.

 

Sir Peter Gluckman's study claims that crime rates are decreasing (p. 4 and p. 14), yet it also contradicts itself by stating (p. 14) that "Most victimisations (around two-thirds) are not reported to authorities." The latter statement implies that the Government cannot possibly know whether crime rates are decreasing, increasing or remaining the same! The reference to "two-thirds" must be only an estimate, which could be completely wrong. My personal experience is that the Police sometimes do not follow up reports of crimes -- sometimes they say they are too busy and sometimes they just do nothing, without explanation. I also have the experience that the Police, lawyers and judges (like Sir Peter Gluckman, Associate Professor Ian Lambie and Lisa Owen) are biased against men. Therefore many people (expecially men) may not bother reporting crimes to the Police.

Sir Peter Gluckman's study also wilfully ignores the effect of family structure on the Maori crime rate. The Statistics Department reports at http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Children/nzs-children.aspx that:

Maori children and to a lesser extent Pacific Islands children are more likely than children from other ethnic groups to live with only one parent. Some 41 percent of Maori children lived in sole-parent families in 1996. This compares with 29 percent of Pacific Islands children, 17 percent of European children and 12 percent of Asian children.

The Feminist Auckland University and the Feminist Government are ignoring family structure, because it was the Feminists who sold the line that women needed to be liberated from the so-called patriarchal institution of marriage (i.e. from men), and it was Feminists who facilitated this epidemic of family breakdown by:

  1. legitimising de facto relationships – thus undermining the mutual commitment of marriage;

  2. making divorce and separation easier to get;

  3. making sure that the mother is more likely to end up with the custody of the children; and

  4. making sure that the wife or female partner ends up with at least half of the assets.

 

Sir Peter Gluckman's study favours (p. 5) "early intervention and prevention of crime." However, I happen to know that one Police Officer who was appointed to Police National Headquarters to work on crime prevention was the then Senior Sergeant Alasdair Macmillan. He was a supporter of the White Ribbon campaign, which claims to combat violence against women, but is silent about violence against men. The Kapiti Observer, on November 27, 2008, reported the following:

"Senior Sergeant Alasdair Macmillan said the New Zealand Police were committed to ensuring women's and children's safety."

Obviously, anyone like that, or anyone trained by him, would be likely to intervene early in any situation on the side of women and children and would be no help to potential male victims whatsoever! They would also send strong signals to women and children that they could do whatever they liked to men, because the Police were simply not interested in violence against men (and, indeed, that has been my experience on more than one occasion). I would think that this would tend to dissuade men from reporting crime to the Police and encourage them to resort to retaliation, because they could not rely on the Police to help them.

Sir Peter Gluckman's study refers snidely to "penal populism" -- i.e. a Right-Wing preference for more severe sentences -- and argues for a greater emphasis on rehabilitation, pointing to prison's role as a school for professional criminals. However, he fails even to consider capital punishment and "life-means-life" sentences, which would certainly prevent recidivism and also prevent inmates treating prison as a crime school -- at least for those particular prisoners! I am not arguing myself for any particular penal policy, but it is completely ludicrous for a study to claim to be "scientific" (I have studied the Philosophy of Science, by the way!), while not considering all the options!!

It is vital to understand that New Zealand is by no means a sane society, but an indoctrinated, totalitarian Feminist Matriarchy -- and it is getting worse!

 

 

Summary Haiku:

Men have no rights,
but aren't less human.
We blame sexism.

 

 

See also

 

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

17 June 2018

Top