Home > Issues
> Domestic Violence > Rights Breached
on Visit to Palmerston North Hospital on 3rd December 2018
Rights Breached on Visit to Palmerston
North Hospital on 3rd December 2018 (three times updated and slightly
Peter Zohrab 2018-9
(Open letter to Mid-Central District Health
I am writing to complain that my rights under the HDC
Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights Regulation
1996 were breached when I went to Palmerston North Hospital on
3rd December 2018 to ask the Eye Clinic something. However, my complaint
does not relate to the Eye Clinic itself.
(A) Right to Freedom from Discrimination
I was subjected to discrimination (Right 2) when I saw six posters
of the White Ribbon Campaign prominently displayed on a notice-board
in the lobby -- totally dominating the notice-board.
One single poster would already have constituted an instance of
discrimination, but six posters made this into super-discrimination.
The White Ribbon Campaign is purely about male violence towards
females, which is discriminatory in itself and incites discrimination
against male victims of female violence.
It conveys the message to the ignorant public (including ignorant
hospital staff) that male violence towards females must be either
more prevalent or more serious than female violence towards males
-- neither of which is true -- otherwise why would there be all
this impressive propaganda which ignores female violence towards
males (not to mention Lesbian violence).
I refer you to Professor
Martin Fiebert's Annotated Bibliography of Domestic Violence Research
which "examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical
studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women
are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their
relationships with their spouses or male partners."
Some of those studies are about New Zealand, so I refer you specifically
I also refer you to studies of Domestic
Violence Injuries which disprove any myth that women are more
seriously injured than men in Domestic Violence .
These posters discriminate against men who are injured by females
in instances of Family Violence, because the posters clearly signpost
the fact that the Hospital is a female-dominated organisation which
is likely to despise or laugh at any man who presents there with
injuries inflicted by his female parner.
Because of this sort of anti-male sexism by females, the numbers
of males who present at hospitals with Family Violence injuries
are likely to under-represent the real numbers of injured men.
Then the Feminists will -- without the slightest shadow of a doubt
-- use these relatively low numbers of men presenting with such
injuries at hospitals to claim that the real numbers of injured
men are lower than the numbers of injured women.
I also refer you to studies of Lesbian
Domestic Violence. If you can find some way of blaming men for
Lesbian Domestic Violence, I would be very interested in seeing
(B) Right to be Treated with Respect,
(C) Right to Freedom from Coercion
(D) Right to Complain
After going to the Eye Clinic, I went back and had another look
at the posters and headed to the Reception/Information desk to complain
about them. There was a White male leaning on the left-hand side
of the customer side of the desk (looking from the interior of the
Hospital), who appeared to be a security guard, When he saw me approaching,
he moved sideways along the desk in my direction, as if to block
my access to the desk. That was an instance of coercion and bullying
and an attempt to obstruct my right to complain.
I then altered my course so as to head straight towards him --
whereupon he saw that his bluff had been called and moved back to
his original position.
I then resumed my original course and spoke with a young female
who was behind the desk. She was perfectly friendly and helpful,
but she was laughing at me with her eyes. There was clearly some
joke going on which was about me and that I didn't know about. That
breached my right to be treated with respect and obstructed my right
If the Hospital discriminates against men and someone wants to
complain about that, those are both extremely serious matters. It
is completely unacceptable that the above behaviour should take
In due course, I received the following reply from Palmerston
I am writing to complain about the response which I have received
from MidCentral District Health Board to my complaint to them about
White Ribbon Campaign posters being in their lobby.
I had stated as follows:
" These posters discriminate against men who are injured
by females in instances of Family Violence, because the posters
clearly signpost the fact that the Hospital is a female-dominated
organisation which is likely to despise or laugh at any man who
presents there with injuries inflicted by his female parner. "
On this point, MidCentral District Health Board replied as follows:
"Disclosures by both men and women are given the same empathy,
support and the opportunity for further follow-up if needed or requested.
Our family violence programme supports all in our population."
My complaint was not about what they do or do not do in practice.
They are free to claim that they treat male and female victims (once
identified) in the same way. I do not have any evidence to the contrary.
However, my complaint was about the image that having one-sided posters
about violence towards females (presumably by men) creates in the minds
of everyone who sees them. It is bound to have a chilling effect on
male victims of female domestic violence. The MidCentral District Health
Board have not responded to this point.
The response by the MidCentral District Health Board is hypocritical,
deceptive and tantamount to a blatant lie. However equal their treatment
of disclosures by men and women may or may not be, they have concealed
the fact (well-known to me for a long time) that
Ministry of Health guidelines (https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/family-violence-assessment-intervention-guideline-jun16_0.docx)
clearly state on page 53 that routine enquiry about intimate partner
violence should be conducted with all females aged 16 years and
older, whereas only men aged 16 years and older who present with
signs and symptoms indicative of IPV (interpersonal Violence) should
This is a double standard -- as in the case of the posters -- and
we can suspect that "signs and symptoms" could be interpreted
in more than one way and that an interpretation that they have another
cause might be preferred to interpreting them as having been inflicted
by a woman on a man. The clinician might prefer to think that they might
be the result of an accident or a bar brawl, etc..
I am also complaining that the MidCentral District Health Board
rely on irrelevant considerations (cf. Administrative Law) to justify
their support of the White Ribbon Campaign. They state as follows:
"The White Ribbon Campaign is supported in over 60 countries
including New Zealand and seeks to promote healthy relationships,
gender equality and a compassionate vision of masculinity."
That is all irrelevant to the issue of the posters and a lot of it
is blatantly untrue. It is irrelevant how many countries this campaign
happens to be supported in. According
to the webpage https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-Catholic-Church-in-every-country-in-the-world
there are Catholic Churches in almost every country in the World, so
maybe the MidCentral District Health Board should ditch its support
of the White Ribbon Campaign in favour of supporting the Catholic Church?
The Catholic Church fights against violence towards unborn children.
There is no objective definition of a "healthy" relationship
and it is intellectually sub-normal of the MidCentral District Health
Board to pretend otherwise. If I could examine the relationships of
the people in the White Ribbon Campaign, I would probably have to diagnose
them as being unhealthily female-dominated and sexist.
It is the exact opposite of "gender equality" to focuss
on violence against women and ignore violence against men.
It is the opposite of "compassionate" to ignore violence
against men. It is brutal, sexist, vicious and evil!
In due course, I received the following reply:
23 January 2019