(Open Letter to the Ministry of Justice)
Dear sir/Madam,
I am not in favour of the proposed legislation, as per the contents
of the
discussion document provided by the Minister of Justice , although
I am in principle in favour of this kind of legislation.
My hatred/hostility towards this document arises for the following
reasons:
-
I can see no attempt in this document to distinguish between the
incitement of hostility for the purpose of producing political change
and the incitement of hostility for the purpose of producing violence
against particular groups. The incitement of hostility is often
necessary to motivate people to bring about change. That should
not be made illegal.
-
Parliament hates men, discriminates against men and incites discrimination
towards, hatred of, and violence against men. Section
194 of the Crimes Act imposes a maximum harsher penalty on a
man who assaults a woman than on a woman who assaults a man. In
a letter dated 20 September 2013 , the then Justice Minister,
Judith Collins (a discriminatory woman), stated that this section
was necessary because it indicates "society's abhorrence for
violence against women," which means that Parliament believes
that violence against men is not abhorrent, or not so abhorrent.
That incites violence against men -- especially by women -- because
Parliament has sent a clear message that violence against men is
not particularly abhorrent. There are many other examples of Parliament's
discrimination against men. Since Parliament is sovereign in New
Zealand, these examples amount to state incitement of discrimination
against men. Since Parliament itself incites violence against men,
it has no moral authority to outlaw the incitement of violence against
anyone else.
-
With Parliament's (and Society's) hatred of men as the background,
we can confidently expect any new Law to be interpreted in an anti-male
and pro-female way, which is how the Human Rights Commission and
the courts interpret the Human Rights Act (1993) and the New Zealand
Bill of Rights Act (1990).
-
Having an effective Human Rights regime would involve thinking
in abstract terms and applying the same rules to everybody. Unfortunately,
the present Minister, the present Government and the current legal
system (including -- especially -- the Ministry of Justice, the
Human Rights Commission and the Institute
of Judicial Studies) believe in a distinction between so-called
"good discrimination" and "bad discrimination".
They think that "good discrimination" is discrimination
in favour of groups that they like (e.g. females) and against groups
that they don't like (e.g. males), whereas "bad discrimination"
is the opposite.
-
The discussion document contains some downright insane attempts
to lay down the law as regards some non-legal matters, which are
totally outside the competence of Parliament, the Minister of Justice
and the Ministry of Justice. The Minister himself starts the discussion
document by saying:
"Our society is stronger because
of the many different people who call Aotearoa New Zealand home."
-
It is simply an insane lie to say that New Zealand is stronger
because of the many different people who call it home. The reason
that this legislation is being discussed is that New Zealand's unity
has been weakened by the violent hostility of some Non-Muslims towards
Muslims, which was probably caused (or increased) by the violent
hatred of Muslim groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS towards Non-Muslims!
-
The Maori Party, in a recent interview,
has talked of abolishing New Zealand's democracy, which is incredibly
destabilising -- irrespective of whether their arguments are valid
or not. If there was no difference between Maoris and Non-Maoris,
this would not have happened.
-
There is a vast difference between having a lot of ethnically
or racially different individuals in a country and having a lot
of different ethnic or racial groups.
The former is not destabilising, because individuals assimilate,
but the latter is obviously destabilising and has always been so
everywhere in the World. The reason for that is that people love
forming groups to oppose other groups -- even if the groups are
just sports team supporters! I would say that most of the Muslims
in this country -- if they haven't come here for financial or family
reasons -- have probably come here to escape the inter-ethnic, inter-racial
or inter-religious violence of their home countries! I have almost
certainly lived in more countries and speak more languages (to some
extent, anyway) than anyone in Parliament and my experience has
been that both expatriates and locals always tend to have some degree
of prejudice towards each other. Moreover, some of my ancestors
were allegedly forced to leave a Muslim country because they were
Christians! What would actually and truly strengthen New Zealand
would be a policy of assimilating immigrants, rather than encouraging
them to form in-bred communities, wallowing in their dislike of
outsiders.
-
Legally, there is no such country as "Aotearoa New Zealand",
and the Justice Minister should know this, if he was competent.
Unfortunately, he is incompetent, because he is an ex-journalist
from Television New Zealand, which specialises in making things
up and manipulating and discriminating against people. It is racist
and offensive and incites hatred of Non-Maoris for him to use the
word "Aotearoa" in English, as if it was part of the official
name of the country.
-
On page 12, some mentally confused person states:
"The current incitement provisions target speech which
would have others believe that a society made up of different ethnic
groups cannot function and seeks to turn people against each other.
The law prohibits the incitement of these attitudes because they
are incompatible with human rights and Aotearoa New Zealand’s
democratic values. These attitudes conflict with democratic principles
because they are based on the idea that because of a shared characteristic,
like ethnicity, religion or sexuality, some groups of people are
less than others. There could be a belief that these groups should
not have the same rights, be treated differently and excluded."
As should be clear from what I have said above, there is a huge
difference between saying that a society made up of different ethnic
groups cannot function and seeking to turn people against each other.
If you are pointing out the difficulties of having a society made
up of different ethnic groups, you are not saying that they should
turn against each other. What you are saying is that they probably
do and will turn against each other. You could look at a map of
Europe and see how it has split -- and is still in the process of
splitting -- into smaller and smaller bits, because the various
ethnic groups cannot live together. And you can look at a map of
Africa and see how the European colonial powers divided the continent
into countries which took no account of the ethnic groups living
there -- which has resulted in huge problems, with groups divided
between countries and groups forced to live unwillingly with other
groups, which has even resulted in genocide (in Rwanda). We could
also mention the Maori genocide of the Chatham Island Morioris in
this context.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
See also:
|
