Rising Violence?
The Dominion Post's article Alarm at rising
family violence http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/3944456a6000.html
is just one of a series of frequent news reports that appear to be compatible
with -- or even inspired by -- a desire by organisations such as Women's
Refuge and the National Network of Stopping Violence Services that the
government should give them more money.
If Domestic Violence is indeed increasing (I have no opinion on whether
it is in fact increasing or not), then that is an indictment of the
regime that has been in place since the feminist, anti-male Domestic
Violence Act 1995 came into force. That regime, as a key feature, involves
close cooperation between the Police and such organisations as Women's
Refuge and the National Network of Stopping Violence Services. That
regime is not working because it is based on the sexist fantasy that
domestic violence is something that men do to women. Period.
As the scores of research studies listed on the webpage http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
makes clear, women around the world (including New Zealand) are at least
as violent towards men as men are violent towards women. Male lawyers
are, on the whole, concentrating on making money and appearing to be
simple and "normal", so as to be able to get on with their
mainly simple and "normal" clients. They are generally unwilling
or psychologically unable to criticise women, which might make them
appear unmanly. In many case, lawyers do not have to pretend to be simple.
All the Lesbians in the Domestic Violence industry, of course, think
that it's Christmas! They can carry on with their hate campaigns against
men, women can attack men and then get men arrested if they retaliate,
and men get more and more alienated from Society.
The Wellington District Law Society
|
The above advertisement for a "Domestic Violence Seminar"
appeared on page 5 of the October 2006 issue of Council Brief,
the newsletter of the Wellington District Law Society. In response to
it, I wrote to the Society (in part) as follows:
"I write to request that the Wellington District Law Society
Family Law Committee invite me to run a Domestic Violence seminar
along the same lines, and to request that Council Brief advertise
it in the same format and with the same prominence as the above-mentioned
advertisement.
The reason for my request is that –- given that the two
speakers represented only the Wellington Community Law Centre and
the National Network of Stopping Violence Services (so-called) –
the seminar is almost certain to have been discriminatory against
men and negligent with respect to the relevant facts of domestic violence."
I based my opinion of the Wellington Community Law Centre on an article
about Domestic Violence written by them which was published in Council
Brief (September 2005, p. 6). That article was one-sided, and biased
in favour of the Women's Refuge view of Domestic Violence. A report
by Women's Refuge was cited, and the views of Men's and Fathers' groups
ignored entirely.
That the Women's Refuge is not interested in reducing Domesitc Violence
per se can be seen clearly from their websites. The Women's
Refuge homepage http://www.womensrefuge.org.nz/index.asp
(accessed 5 February 2007) states:
"We work to end violence against
all women and children."
In other words, they do not work to end all domestic violence -- just
violence against women and children. They also imply, by their dishonest
phrasing of the issues, that there is no violence against men by women,
or that it is somehow unimportant. They carefully avoid stating that
women are not violent towards men (because that could be easily disproved),
while implying it very strongly.
Likewise, the main page of the National Network of Stopping Violence
Services http://www.nnsvs.org.nz/
(accessed 5 February 2007) states:
"The safety of women and children
is paramount."
The National Network of Stopping Violence Services website does state
(but not on the main page) that wives are not allowed to commit assault.
However, by giving priority to the safety of women and children, it
makes it clear that men are second-class citizens, as far as it is concerned.
Violence against men will clearly not be treated as seriously as violence
against women or children. In fact, it is likely that they treat violence
by men towards children much more seriously than it treats violence
by women towards children.
The Wellington District Law Society did not
even reply to my letter. Who do these arrogant oppressors think they
are? If they do not recognise that they have a duty not to discriminate,
then they do not even understand their crucial role in the Rule of Law.
The Rule of Law cannot operate with a biased and discriminatory legal
profession. That is merely inviting revolution. If that revolution arrives,
then it will be grossly hypocritical to blame the revolutionaries, when
the real criminals are the discriminatory activists who run organisations
like the Wellington District Law Society.
Someone might legalistically reply that there
is no legislation or case law which imposes a greater or special duty
not to discriminate on the legal profession (compared to anyone else),
but that would overlook the role of common sense in the law. It is merely
common sense that the Rule of Law depends on a non-discriminatory legal
profession. Another example would be the duty of judges to pay attention
to submissions of counsel and evidence presented in Court. I doubt that
there would be anything in New Zealand case law or legislation which
stated that judges had to pay attention to submissions and evidence,
because that is just plain common sense. (I have not researched that,
so I am prepared to be proved wrong!). I would also have thought that
it was common sense that judges should not be brainwashed by proponents
of a particular ideology, but that is another
story!
The Facts about Domestic Violence
As mentioned above, scores of studies reported on the webpage http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
makes it clear that women around the world (including New Zealand) are
at least as violent towards men as men are violent towards women. The
only research in which a different result is found is research where
the survey questions are doctored to produce an apparently different
result -- for example, the corrupt 1996 New Zealand National Survey
of Crime Victims, instead of asking straightforward questions such
as whether:
Any partner ever deliberately destroyed or threatened to destroy
your belongings,
asked questions such as whether:
Any partner ever deliberately destroyed or threatened to destroy
your belongings in a way that frightened you.
The reason for this wording was that (as the Survey itself found)
women are much more likely than men to be frightened by such events
(i.e. many men might feel angered or hurt, instead of feeling frightened).
So this guaranteed a result which appeared to show that men were more
violent than women.
.
The Wellington District Law Society Causes Family
Violence.
The result of the Wellington District Law Society
holding such one-sided seminars as the one above is probably that a
lot of lawyers and judges will be even more likely than before to be
biased against men in Domestic Violence cases of a criminal or family
court nature. Men will therefore become even more certain that
there is no point calling upon the Law to assist them when they are
assaulted by their partners -- in many cases, they will just retaliate
(perhaps even with fatal effects). I can hear someone say that the men
could just walk away -- but why should it be only the man who has to
walk away? Why is the Wellington District Law Society constructively
conspiring to allow women to hit men and get away with it? That retaliation
by men could be avoided, if only organisations such as the Wellington
District Law Society were not dominated by irrational, man-hating people,
as they are.
.
The Dominance of the Irrational and the Man-Haters over the Wellington
District Law Society
There is a common scenario in Family Court cases,
whereby one parent (usually the mother) has temporary care of a child,
and manages to prevent permanent care arrangements being decided until
such a long time has passed, that the Court is almost certain to decide
that changing the current arrangements would be against the best interests
of the child.
The New Zealand Law Journal editorial of August 2006, referring to
this scenario, states:
"To suggest, as Judith Surgenor did, that someone driven
to protest by years of this sort of thing probably wouldn't be a good
parent anyway tells us more about the person speaking than
anything else. (my emphasis -- PZ)"
The use of the phrase "tells us more about the person speaking
than anything else" is a very restrained use of language,
but anyone can see that it amounts to a severe condemnation of the character
of Judith Surgenor. The insistence of the Wellington District Law Society
on constructively conspiring to allow women to get away with Domestic
Violence, and thereby increasing the level of Domestic Violence, also
tells us a lot about the character of certain dominant members of the
Wellington District Law Society. Here are some other facts that speak
volumes about the character of certain members of the Wellington District
Law Society:
-
In December 2005, I met with the Council of the Wellington District
Law Society because they required me to persuade them to support
my application to become a barrister and solicitor -- something
they do routinely without such a meeting for the vast majority of
applicants. Throughout that meeting, the then President, Pam Davidson,
appeared angry (i.e. irrational).
-
During the meeting, a male sitting next to her passed her a note.
The expression on his face was angry and malevolent (i.e. irrational).
-
At that meeting, when I mentioned that strong language on the
Internet was sometimes essential to attract attention, given that
the media were biased against men, one unknown male person laughed
(Although I was briefly introduced to everyone, I could not take
in all their names and faces). It was at a meeting of lawyers to
decide a serious issue, not at a circus, and this laughter was another
indication of irrationality. What did this laugh mean? I consider
that it meant that this person considered that the idea that the
media were biased against men was ridiculous. I have written a book
chapter and several articles on anti-male
bias by the media, so I do not take kindly to some lawyer laughing
at the notion, when the chances are that he has never read anything
on the topic at all.
-
Most tellingly, when I mentioned that I had been assaulted and
shouted down by female students at Law School, one female Council
member laughed. Again, this is an indication of irrationality in
some Council members. In addition, this laughter is the moral equivalent
of her being an accessory after the fact of assault. Assuming that
this woman later became a judge, what chance is there that she would
treat mutual allegations of violence by a man and a woman in a fair
and just manner?
The behaviour of this woman tells us a lot about her. We already know
a lot about Judith Surgenor, thanks to the Editor of the New Zealand
Law Journal. The World has now also had the benefit of seeing on video
an experiment run by ABC Television, which proved
how people (including police officers) ignore violence by women against
men. Most tellingly, one of the women in this video was delighted
at seeing female violence against a man, and reacted with a grin, by
punching the air, and with thoughts of "Woman Power" (as revealed
in a subsequent interview).
Judith Surgenor, the above-mentioned woman on the Wellington District
Law Society Council, and all the feminist law students who assaulted
me and shouted me down are in the same general ball park as this woman
on video who thought that assaulting men was an expression of "Woman
Power". It is impossible to know if they think exactly
the same way, but it is certainly possible.
In my experience, the legal profession is full of irrationality. The
most significant irrationality, from my point of view, is the feeling
among male lawyers that there is no need for them to band together into
an interest group in the way that female lawyers have done. This irrational
apathy is closely linked to a feeling that men can never be victims
of women, or -- if they are -- that it would be unmanly to protect men
against women. The link between these two irrational attitudes is the
feminist propaganda to which lawyers are subjected via the media, law
faculties, law societies, and from the unthinking stereotypes of the
society that we live in. There may be more male lawyers than female
lawyers, but if most male lawyers think
like women, then they might as well be women, for practical
purposes.
|
