Home > Issues
> Human Rights > Saving Money and
Reducing Predetermination |
|
Empowering Men:
|
Saving Money and Reducing Predetermination
(five times updated and slightly edited)
Peter Zohrab 2023 |
|
|
|
(Open Letter to the Prime
Minister)
Dear Mr. Hipkins,
Since your Government aims
to save money, I suggest that a very good way of doing this would
be to abolish some or all of the following ministries:
-
the Ministry for Women,
-
the Ministry for Seniors,
-
the Ministry for Children,
-
the Ministry for Child Poverty Reduction,
-
the Ministry for Maori Development,
-
the Ministry for the Community and Voluntary Sector,
-
the Ministry for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities,
-
the Ministry for Pacific Peoples,
-
the Ministry for Youth and
-
the Ministry for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence.
As you can see, this is a long list, which must certainly cost a lot
of taxpayer money or the level of Government debt. This list also amounts
to the Government picking favourites -- it amounts to the Government
discriminating against certain sectors of the population and in favour
of other sectors.
Official Information Act Requests
a) Why does your Government hate the following groups so much that
you feel that you have to discriminate against them in this way?
-
Men (by having a Ministry for Women and a Ministry the Prevention
of Family and Sexual Violence, when it is clearly predetermined
that the main perpetrators are men);
-
Working-aged people (by having a Ministry for Seniors);
-
Adults (by having a Ministry for Youth, a Ministry for Children
and a Ministry for Child Poverty Reduction);
-
Non-Maoris (by having a Ministry for Maori Development);
-
Able people who are not in any sort of politicised minority (by
having a Ministry for Diversity);
-
Those people who are not ethnocentric (by having a Ministry for
Ethnic Communities) and;
-
Non-Pacific peoples (by having a Ministry for Pacific People);
b) Is your Government aware that all groups trend to have prejudices
against other groups and that giving certain groups a special focus
promotes their self-interest at the expense of those groups that they
are prejudiced against and/or have intrinsic conflicts of interest with?
My Experience With One Employee of the Ministry
for Women
One day, I was attending a tutorial, as part of a course in the School
of Government at Victoria University of Wellington. It was probably
my first tutorial for that course. I was sitting opposite a tall
and strongly-built Maori or Polynesian woman, who was working for the
Ministry of Women's Affairs (as it was called at that time, I think).
At one point, she blurted out something like, "Men have never done
anything for women!" I replied that men gave women the vote.
She had no reply to that, so she said, "Change the subject!"
The male lecturer in charge of the tutorial looked as if he was about
to obey her command -- she was a woman, after all, and this was a New
Zealand university, so she had to be obeyed, I suppose!
However, I said that she had no right to change the subject.
The lecturer did not seem to understand why, so I had to explain to
him that she was not in charge of the tutorial -- HE was the person
in charge. He took my point, but he changed the subject anyway.
After the class, I saw that woman go up to the lecturer and ask to change
her tutorial and I never saw her again. She was obviously too
stupid and too totalitarian to cope with rational discussion, which
she had obviously never come across in the Public Service!
One of my uncles was killed fighting for New Zealand in World War
II and my father and at least one other uncle managed not to get killed,
while fighting in the same war. Meanwhile, New Zealand women stayed
at home, stole men's jobs and complained about not having equal rights!
I will not list all the many ways in which the New Zealand Government
discriminates against men.
My taxes have been paying for moronic, sexist, abusive women to sit
in what is now called the "Ministry for Women," give orders
to cretinous university lecturers and tell lies about men. Your
Government is helping the sexist, discriminatory Ukrainian Government
murder Ukrainian men and Russian men, while allowing all women to leave
Ukraine who felt like doing that. I think the entire staff of
the Ministry for Women should be shipped off to the Ukraine, and marched
to the trenches, so that they can experience the "equality"
that such people often talk about and do something for men, for a change!
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
I soon received the following reply from
a different Minister:
|
Tena koe,
I acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 16/04/2023.
We received your request on 16/04/2023. We will endeavour to respond
to your request as soon as possible and in any event no later than 15/05/2023,
being 20 working days after the day your request was received. If we
are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of
an extension of that timeframe.
If you have any queries, please feel free to contact our office. If
any additional factors come to light which are relevant to your request,
please do not hesitate to contact us so that these can be taken into
account.
Nga mihi
Office of Hon Nanaia Mahuta
|
Since I did not receive a reply within the required 20 working days,
I emailed the Ombudsman as follows:
|
Dear sir/Madam,
Could you please investigate the non-reply of the Minister to my OIA
requests (below)?
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
In due course, I reveived the following reply:
|
Dear Mr Zohrab
Your complaint about a Minister
I refer to your correspondence of 29 May 2023 in which you raise
concerns about Hon Nanaia Mahuta’s lack of response to correspondence.
The Ombudsman does not have authority to investigate this lack of
response under the Ombudsman Act 1975 (OA) or the Official Information
Act 1982 (OIA).
Under the OA, an Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints
about the administrative conduct of the central and local government
agencies which are listed in the OA. Ministers of the Crown are not
subject to the OA and therefore, an Ombudsman is unable to investigate
their administrative acts and decisions generally.
Ministers of the Crown are subject to the OIA, and the Ombudsman
could consider a complaint about a Minister’s lack of response
to an OIA request. It is important to note that under the OIA an agency
is not obliged to form an opinion or create new information in response
to a request. Your email does not request held information, but instead
asks that the Prime Minister forms an opinion in response to your questions.
As this does not constitute an OIA request, the Ombudsman is unable
to consider your complaint.
While the Ombudsman will take no further action in relation to your
concerns, I hope you have found my comments helpful.
Yours sincerely
Sarah Ramsay
Manager – Intake and Early Assistance
Our ref 610026 (Complaint ground: 610031)
Contact Ciaran Maddever
26 July 2023
Mr Peter Douglas Zohrab
By email: peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz
|
I do not agree with the Ombudsman's statement that, "(My) email
does not request held information, but instead asks that the Prime Minister
forms an opinion in response to (my) questions". In fact,
the Ombudsman's statement is clearly false.
Governments do not take actions for absolutely no reasons, so, when
I asked "Why does your Government hate the following groups so
much that you feel that you have to discriminate against them in this
way?" the appropriate response from the Government would have been
to provide the information that it held which it considered to constitute
a justification for its decisions to fund those ministries, but not
others. It is ludicrous for the Ombudsman to imply that the Government
made these decisions based on no information, such that my request would
force them to form an opinion on the issues involved!
Likewise, when I asked, "Is your Government aware that all groups
trend to have prejudices against other groups and that giving certain
groups a special focus promotes their self-interest at the expense of
those groups that they are prejudiced against and/or have intrinsic
conflicts of interest with?" the appropriate response from the
Government would have been to provide the information that it held which
it considered to constitute support for, or a contradiction of, my assertion
that all groups trend to have prejudices against other groups and that
giving certain groups a special focus promotes their self-interest at
the expense of those groups that they are prejudiced against and/or
have intrinsic conflicts of interest with. If the Government had
never considered these issues, then the appropriate answer would have
been to respond that it held no information on these topics -- which
is a response which I have often had when making Official Information
requests.
However, rather than arguing with the Ombudsman, who holds the power
over me, I will rephrase my Official Information requests in a way that
makes it obvious that I am indeed requesting information, and send them
again to the Government.
|
So I wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
|
Dear Mr. Hipkins,
I had not had a reply to my Official Information Act requests of 16
April 2023 (which you had passed on to another minister), so I complained
to the Ombudsmen. However, the Ombudsmen thinks that your government
makes decisions based on absolutely no information -- meaning that,
if I ask you for the rationale for a decision which you have already
taken, I am asking you to form an opinion in response to my request!
Now, you have a government which is female-dominated and deeply-rooted
in an anti-male ideology, which has a psycho-sexual (Lesbian) basis
(a.k.a. Feminism), so it may well be true that you take decisions and
then dream up reasons for those decisions subsequently!
However, I will proceed on the basis that yours might possibly be
a somewhat rational government and rephrase my requests as follows.
Under the Official Information Act, could you please tell me:
a) What precise information causes your Government hate the following
groups so much that you feel that you have to discriminate against them
in this way?
1. Men (by having a Ministry for Women and a Ministry the Prevention
of Family and Sexual Violence, when it is clearly predetermined that
the main perpetrators are men);
2. Working-aged people (by having a Ministry for Seniors);
3. Adults (by having a Ministry for Youth, a Ministry for Children
and a Ministry for Child Poverty Reduction);
4. Non-Maoris (by having a Ministry for Maori Development);
5. Able people who are not in any sort of politicised minority (by
having a Ministry for Diversity);
6. Those people who are not ethnocentric (by having a Ministry for
Ethnic Communities) and;
7. Non-Pacific peoples (by having a Ministry for Pacific People);
b) What precise information does your government hold which supports
or refutes the contention that all groups trend to have prejudices against
other groups and that giving certain groups a special focus promotes
their self-interest at the expense of those groups that they are prejudiced
against and/or have intrinsic conflicts of interest with?
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
I soon received the following reply:
|
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Chris Hipkins,
to acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act request.
Your request will be responded to under the provisions of the Official
Information Act 1982.
Yours sincerely
Dinah Okeby
Office of the Prime Minister
Authorised by Rt Hon Chris Hipkins MP, Parliament Buildings Wellington
6160
|
In due course, I received the following substantive reply:
|
|
|
|
Someone has let women out of the kitchen -- and they
have been telling lies ever since!
|
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
2 August 2024 |
|
|
|
