Home > Issues
> Feminism > Racist Feminist Leapfrogging |
|
Empowering Men:
|
Racist Feminist Leapfrogging
(nine times updated and slightly edited)
Peter Zohrab 2021-4 |
|
|
|
|
(Open Letter to the New
Zealand Prime Minister)
Dear Jacinda Ardern,
According
to a Canberra Times article dated April 17 2021, 'Hard-right US
House Republicans are discussing forming an America First Caucus, which
one document described as championing "Anglo-Saxon
political traditions...".'
Does your Government also regard New Zealand as being an exclusively
Anglo-Saxon country, or an exclusively White country? I ask that, because
Feminist law degraders (self-styled "law reformers") have
repeatedly pushed the line that New Zealand has to have gender-related
laws which ape those of countries such as Australia, Canada and the
United Kingdom -- sometimes including all the (mainly White) OECD countries.
The latest example is the lying man-hater,
Jan Logie, who, in her
interview about sexual violence with TV One's Q+A, said that she
wanted to amend the laws in order to "bring us into line with the
UK, Australia and Canada" (see line 89 of
my transcript). She did not explain why we had to be in line with
those countries.
Similarly, in her
interview on TV3's Newshub Nation, she stated (3 minutes and 34
seconds into the discussion) that she wanted the pre-recording of evidence
to take place here to the same extent as it does in Australia, Canada
and the UK.. Later (10 minutes and 22 seconds into the discussion) she
said that the UK, Canada and Australia are "the jurisdictions that
we compare ourselves to." She does not say what right she has to
stipulate who we compare ourselves to, or why we should compare ourselves
to these countries on these sorts of issues.
I have a Law degree and I can see no relevance to sexual violence
case procedures of the fact that these countries are Common Law countries,
like us. India is also a Common Law country, but Logie doesn't like
Indians, apparently. These details of courtroom procedure are not specific
to Common Law countries, but must be dealt with in every jurisdiction
on the surface of the Globe.
What we have is a continual process of racist
Feminist leapfrogging in law reform. Feminists in the UK, Australia
Canada and New Zealand are constantly pushing the Law in an anti-male
direction and, as soon as the Feminists in one of these countries manages
to tighten the legal screws a bit more on the men that they hate, the
Feminists in the other countries say, "Oh look! We have to keep
up with the Joneses -- as long as they are White or English-speaking."
|
Since I received no reply, on 30th May 2021 I forwarded the above
email to the Ombudsmen and prefaced it with the following email: |
Dear sir/Madam,
Could you please review and investigate the failure of the Prime
Minister to comply with the Official Information Act request below?
The request, which was "Does your Government also regard New
Zealand as being an exclusively Anglo-Saxon country, or an exclusively
White country?", did not explicitly refer to the Official Information
Act, but section (1AA)(b) states that requests do not need to refer
to the Act.
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
I soon received the following reply from the Ombudsman: |
Dear Mr Zohrab
I am writing about your complaint about the way that Minister
Hon Marama Davidson and Prime Minister Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern have
handled your requests for information. The Chief Ombudsman cannot consider
your complaint because your information requests are not considered
‘official information’, as per the Official Information
Act 1982 (OIA).
Official information Act requests
‘Official information’ is defined1
as ‘any information held’ by an agency or Minister that
is subject to the OIA. The OIA does not oblige an agency or Minister
to comment, explain or venture an opinion on a matter in response to
a request. Such requests would require the agency to create new information
rather than consider whether or not to release documents or information
already held.
Requests posed as questions can be problematic
Requests which are phrased as questions are often interpreted by
an agency or Minister as a request for information that they do not
‘hold’, and would therefore not be an OIA request. This
can result in an agency or Minister not providing the information sought
by the requester. You may find it helpful to refer to our ‘guide
for requesters’ before making future requests.
Minister conduct
This Office cannot investigate your complaint about the way that
the Minister or Prime Minister have handled your correspondence. This
is because the Chief Ombudsman has no authority under the Ombudsmen
Act 1975 to investigate the acts and decisions of Ministers.
Whilst no further action will be taken at this time, I hope this
letter has clarified matters.
Yours sincerely
Scott Martin
Manager – Intake and Early Assistance Team
1
Section (2)(1) of the OIA.
Our ref 551858 (Complaint ground: 551865, 551866, 553184)
Contact Rosie Walsh
31 May 2021
Mr Peter Douglas Zohrab
By email: peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz |
Accordingly, I modified my previous letter and wrote to the Minister
as follows: |
5 June 2021
The Prime Minister
Parliament House
Wellington
(Open Letter)
Dear Jacinda Ardern,
Racist Feminist Leapfrogging
On the advice of the Ombudsman, I am writing to rephrase my Official
Information Act request of 18th April 2021.
According to a Canberra
Times article dated April 17 2021, 'Hard-right US House Republicans
are discussing forming an America First Caucus, which one document described
as championing "Anglo-Saxon political traditions...".'
Under the Official Information Act, please provide me with any information
that your Government holds which might cause it to regard New Zealand
as being an exclusively Anglo-Saxon country, or an exclusively White
country. The background is that Feminist law degraders (self-styled
"law reformers") have repeatedly pushed the line that New
Zealand has to have gender-related laws which ape those of countries
such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom -- sometimes including
all the (mainly White) OECD countries.
The latest example is the
lying man-hater,
Jan Logie, who, in her
interview about sexual violence with TV One's Q+A, said that she
wanted to amend the laws in order to "bring us into line with the
UK, Australia and Canada" (see
line 89 of my transcript). She did not explain why we had to be
in line with those countries.
Similarly, in her
interview on TV3's Newshub Nation, she stated (3 minutes and 34
seconds into the discussion) that she wanted the pre-recording of evidence
to take place here to the same extent as it does in Australia, Canada
and the UK.. Later (10 minutes and 22 seconds into the discussion) she
said that the UK, Canada and Australia are "the jurisdictions that
we compare ourselves to." She does not say what right she has to
stipulate who we compare ourselves to, or why we should compare ourselves
to these countries on these sorts of issues.
I have a Law degree and I can see no relevance to sexual violence
case procedures of the fact that these countries are Common Law countries,
like us. India is also a Common Law country, but Logie doesn't like
Indians, apparently. These details of courtroom procedure are not specific
to Common Law countries, but must be dealt with in every jurisdiction
on the surface of the Globe.
What we have is a continual process of racist Feminist leapfrogging
in law reform. Feminists in the UK, Australia Canada and New Zealand
are constantly pushing the Law in an anti-male direction and, as soon
as the Feminists in one of these countries manages to tighten the legal
screws a bit more on the men that it hates, the Feminists in the other
countries say, "Oh look! We have to keep up with the Joneses --
as long as they are White or English-speaking."
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
Eventually, I received the following reply:
|
|
|
I then wrote to the Ombudsman as follows: |
Dear sir/Madam,
Could you please investigate and review the Prime Minister's refusal
to comply with my OIA request (see two attached documents)?
The Prime Minister's office states that my request is frivolous OR
vexatious OR that the information requested is trivial. For a start,
her office does not seem to have a definite feeling as to whether my
request is frivolous or vexatious, but merely lists those two descriptions
as possible options. Secondly, it does not even seem to know whether
one of those two options is the case, or whether the problem is that
the information requested is trivial. In other words, it is just copying
the words from the statute as a convenient way of avoiding having to
address the actual request which I made.
However, as I stated in my letter to her,
"The background is that Feminist law degraders (self-styled "law
reformers") have repeatedly pushed the line that New Zealand has
to have gender-related laws which ape those of countries such as Australia,
Canada and the United Kingdom -- sometimes including all the (mainly
White) OECD countries."
This raises important Human Rights and constitutional issues and I
would like to know where the Government stands on this issue. It is
not a case of asking them to create new information, as I assume that
they already have information on this fundamental issue.
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
The following year, having received no substantive response from the
Ombudsman, I asked his office for an update and received the following
reply on 14/03/2022:
|
Dear Mr Zohrab
At this stage, your complaint is still waiting to be allocated to
an investigator. I’m not able to provide a definitive estimate
as to when your complaint will be allocated, but as soon as it is, you
will be advised.
Kind regards
Leanne Stewart
Acting Manager, Investigation and Resolution
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
DDI 04 460 9725 | Phone 04 473 9533 | Fax 04 471 2254
Email leanne.stewart@ombudsman.parliament.nz | www.ombudsman.parliament.nz
PO Box 10152, Level 7, SolNet House, 70 The Terrace, Wellington
NB: I am not available on Wednesdays.
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email may be confidential
or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient or recipients
named in this message. Please note that if you are not the intended
recipient you are not authorised to use, copy or distribute the email
or any information contained in it. If you have received this email
in error, please advise the sender immediately and destroy the original
message and any attachments.
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email may be confidential
or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient or recipients
named in this message. Please note that if you are not the intended
recipient you are not authorised to use, copy or distribute the email
or any information contained in it. If you have received this email
in error, please advise the sender immediately and destroy the original
message and any attachments.
|
On 2 September 2022, I received an emailed letter from the Chief Ombudsman
himself, in which he gave his provisional opinion and invited me to
comment. He requested confidentiality, until he formed his final
opinion. I am respecting this confidentiality.
Here is the response which I sent to him,
which does not refer to the substantive contents of his letter:
|
7 September 2022
Peter Boshier
Chief Ombudsman
info@ombudsman.parliament.nz
Dear Mr. Boshier,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 2 September 2022.
The only comment I would like to make on it is that it is illegal,
in terms of Natural Justice, as you have a clear bias in relation to
the issues involved and you should have recused yourself. As a former
judge, you should have been aware of that fact.
Your bias derives from the fact that you are associated with the anti-male
(and irrational) White Ribbon campaign and
have been a Family Court judge, which has
long been the object of criticism for being anti-male and "corrupt".
All my substantive criticisms of your letter follow from your bias,
so I will not waste my time detailing them.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
I soon received the following reply from the Chief Ombudsman:
|
|
I am not including his provisional opinion (referred to above), because
then I would have to give my opinion on that opinion, which I do not
intend to do, because his bias makes it inappropriate to take his opinion
seriously.
|
Please note that, when I said (above) that it was illegal in terms
of Natural Justice for the Chief Ombudsman not to recuse himself in
this matter, I did not mean that it was illegal in terms of New Zealand
law. The law is supposed to be based on morality and Natural Justice
-- but only as they are interpreted by politicians and judges.
|
See also:
|
Someone has let women out of the kitchen -- and they have been telling
lies ever since! |
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
25 February 2024 |
|
|
|
