Home > Issues
> Gender Equity for Men > Ministry
of Social Development's Report on WINZ Murderer |
|
Empowering Men:
|
The Ministry of Social Development's
Report on the WINZ Murderer (slightly edited and seven times updated)
Peter Zohrab 2016 |
|
|
| |
I have had enough dealings with the Ministry of Social Development
to form the view that it is to a large extent a bunch of moronic, man-hating
women. See, for example, Minister, Stop Assaulting
Me! , Why I
admire Winston Peters and Incompetence of
the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development. On 29
May 2016, I sent the following email to the Minister of Social Development,
because I was suspicious of the ability of that organisation to review
its own treatment of a mere male:
|
Dear Anne Tolley,
Under the Official Information Act, could you please send me a copy
of the Work and Income report on its dealings with
Work and Income killer Russell John Tully?
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
In due course, I received the following reply:
|
 |
I received nothing further, so on 14th August 2016 I sent the following
email to the Ombudsman:
|
Dear sir/Madam,
In May 2016 I requested from the Minister of Social Development a
copy of her ministry's report on its dealings with Russell John Tully.
I received the email below on 27 June 2016 from the Ministry, but nothing
further.
Could you please investigate and review the Ministry's failure to
be more speedy and cooperative?
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
Although I did not receive the usual automatic email acknowledgement
from the Ombudsman, I rang up and was told that this email had received
a case number of 435732, and this was later confirmed by email, upon
my request for written confirmation.
In due course, I received the following letter from the Ombudsman:
|
 |
And I received the following letter from the Ministry of Social Development
on the same day:
|
 |
 |
| censoredreport |
 |
 |
 |
I responded by emailing the Ombudsman as follows:
|
Dear Mr. Donnelly,
Thank you for your letter of 8 September 2016.
I do have concerns about the substantive response by the Ministry
of Social Development to my Official Information Act request. Since
there is no Ministry of Men's Affairs and no other Government agency
which even purports to look after men's interests, men's rights and
a men's point of view, I am basically all that men have in New Zealand
to keep the Government even slightly honest on relevant matters. The
point of my Official Information Act request was to obtain information
which would bear on whether the Ministry had been treating Mr. Tully
fairly, but its response has omitted so much information that it is
impossible to come to a conclusion on that point.
Please investigate and review the following matters:
1. The Ministry's withholding of the entire report dated 1 September
2014. The issue in question is the anti-male bias which I feel is widespread
within the Ministry, and this would come out in the way that it described
Mr. Tully in this report. Mr. Tully has been sentenced to a long gaol
term, so he has little or nothing to lose by disclosure. His interest
would have to be that full disclosure be made, so that his actions are
judged by the court of public opinion in their full context. There is
also a huge public interest in avoiding such events in future and in
preventing men from being ill-treated by female-dominated bureaucracies.
All that the Government seems to be interested in doing is in beefing
up security
at WINZ offices!
2. All the instances where information has been withheld in the report
dated 2 September 2014 under section 9(2)(a) of the Act (privacy of
natural persons). Again, the issue in question is the anti-male bias
which I feel is widespread within the Ministry, and this would come
out in the way that it described Mr. Tully. Bias is already evident
in the way it describes Mr. Tully as having supposedly negative emotions
or behaviour. For example, the report states in paragraph 5 that "Mr.
Tully was aggressive and threatening to staff," without treating
Mr. Tully as a human being who had concerns about particular issues
or saying what those issues were or how staff had handled them. With
all the deletions, it is impossible to say whether Mr. Tully was justified
in being angry (which staff would have interpreted as "aggressive").
This is a situation of obvious power-imbalance, where women have all
the power and (typically) psychologise any adverse reactions by men,
instead of looking at the issues from their point of view. Similarly,
there is an incident described as follows: "The case manager notes
the interview did not go well and each time they spoke Mr. Tully would
ask her to be quiet and let him speak. Mr. Tully chose to leave the
interview." Reading between the lines, it is obvious that the case
manager was constantly interrupting Mr. Tully and not letting him finish
what he wanted to say. Whether the case manager's behaviour was appropriate
is impossible to judge, given all the deletions.
3. The Ministry's withholding of information under section 9(2)(g)(i)
(free and frank expression of opinions). Since Mr. Tully committed murder
in retaliation for what he thought was unfair treatment by these people,
it is absolutely crucial that any such expressions of opinion be made
public, so that the public can judge whether they betray bias against
Mr. Tully or even against men in general. The fact that the Ministry
is withholding this information indicates that it may agree with the
sentiments expressed and that there may be systemic bias of this sort.
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
In due course, I received the following letter from the Ombudsman
by email:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I replied as follows:
|
6 September 2017
Ombudsman
by email: info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Your ref: 435732
Dear Mr. Donnelly,
My comments on your provisional opinion
-
You correctly state, “As a first step, it is necessary to
identify the privacy interest in the information at issue.”
You then find two privacy interests to be involved: that of Mr.
Tully and those of staff members from the Ashburton Service Centre.
-
As far as Mr. Tully’s privacy is concerned, you state “I
accept that disclosure of information about an individual’s
financial position, medical history and/or benefit status to others
would infringe their privacy unless that person consented to release.”
In that context, could you please inform me how I could contact
Mr. Tully to ask him for his consent, please?
-
As far as the privacy interests of staff members from the Ashburton
Service Centre are concerned, you state: “I also consider
that public debate of the type you propose would be extremely distressing
to those individuals and their families, to the extent that disclosure
of the information would detrimentally impact on their privacy interests.”
I have downloaded the PDF versions of the Official Information
Act (1982), the Ombudsmen Act (1975) and the Privacy Act (1993).
I have searched these three Acts for the word “distress”
but have not been able to find it. No doubt the next Labour-led
government will enact a Feelings of Women Act (2018), and you will
be able to use it to oppress men to your heart’s content,
but it does not appear to be on the statute books at present.
Under section 25 of the Ombudsmen Act (1975), the Ombudsman’s
decisions cannot be appealed or reviewed, except on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction. Otherwise, your provisional opinion (were
it to become final) would be reviewable on the grounds of irrationality/unreasonableness
and irrelevant considerations.
You may not be aware that men are humans and have rights and feelings,
even though Feminists do their best to ignore those facts. Mr. Tully
was clearly extremely distressed by his powerless situation at the hands
of one or more female staff members from the Ashburton Service Centre
– to the extent that he committed murder. What I am trying to
do is find out the facts of the situation which he found himself in,
but I find that you are treating me in the same sort of way that Mr.
Tully felt that he was being treated.
Neither High Court Justice Whata nor Worksafe New Zealand can conceivably
have examined the issues from a Men’s Rights perspective, since
the notion of men having rights vis-à-vis women is totally foreign
to the New Zealand (in-)justice system, the New Zeland media and the
New Zealand education system. Therefore there is a strong public interest
in someone with my qualifications, experience and ability examining
the issues from a Men’s Rights perspective – unless you
deny that there is such a thing as a Men’s Rights perspective.
If there is an Ombudsman who does realize that men are humans and
have rights and feelings, could you please hand my file over to that
person?
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
In due course, I received the following reply:
|
 |
A couple of weeks later, I sent the following email to info@corrections.govt.nz
.
|
Dear sir/Madam,
I have been informed by the Ombudsman that I can write to Work and
Income killer, Mr. Russell John Tully, care of you at this email address.
I would like to request his permission for me to be provided with
the personal information relating to him which is contained in the Work
and Income report on its dealings with Russell John Tully. I have received
a copy of the report from which the personal information relating to
him has been deleted.
I am a Men's Rights Activist and I feel that I need to assess the
report to see how the Ministry treated Mr. Tully and to determine to
what extent -- if at all -- Mr. Tully was entitled to be disappointed
in how Work and Income, being a female-dominated organisation, treated
him, as a male.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Zohrab |
The Corrections Department promptly replied
that Mr. Tully had given them permission to give me his prison address,
so I wrote to him as follows:
|
Dear Mr. Tully,
Thank you for providing your written consent for Corrections to advise
me of your address.
I am writing to request your written permission for me to be provided
with the personal information relating to you which is contained in
the two Work and Income reports (a) on you and (b) on its interactions
with you. I have received a copy of the latter report from which the
personal information relating to you has been deleted, but I have been
refused access to the former report altogether.
I am a Men's Rights Activist and I feel that I need to assess the
reports to see how the Ministry treated you and to determine to what
extent -- if at all – you were entitled to be disappointed in
how Work and Income, being a female-dominated organisation, treated
you, as a male.
The Ombudsman has upheld the right of Work and Income to suppress
private information in those reports if it relates to individuals other
than yourself, but he has said that I can write to you to request permission
to see the private information that relates to you.
I enclose a copy of the letter which I received from the Ministry
of Social Development and of the censored report that Work and Income
did release to me.
I look forward to your response to my request. It is all very well
punishing people who commit crimes, but state institutions need to make
sure that they treat people fairly, as well. |
As at 7th November 2017, I have received no reply.
|
