|
Open Letter to the Minister of Science and Innovation
(slightly edited)
Dear Mr. Joyce,
I am writing to you again in your capacity as the highest ranking
Minister who has had the benefit of a scientific education. I am concerned
that Domestic Violence (“DV”) policy in New Zealand has
not been based on scientific research, and I suggest that responsibility
for this issue be moved from the Ministry of Justice to the Chief
Science Adviser or the Ministry of Science and Innovation.
Although a few individual lawyers may have some science background,
the legal profession as a whole does not. In fact, the mindset of
the legal profession is profoundly unscientific, being based on the
authority of lawmakers and on precedent. For example, the Law Commission’s
initial publicity about its project on “Victims
of family violence who commit homicide” concentrates on
the history of policy initiatives in this area, and is entirely void
of any reference to scientific research.
What has been happening is that Feminist psychologists have been
developing so-called “theories” of DV, which presume that
DV is mainly or wholly a matter of what men do to women. They do not
test this hypothesis scientifically against objective data, but engage
in studies which assume this model at the outset, and so appear to
the uninitiated to prove that the model is correct. In this respect,
the legal profession is worse than merely uninitiated, since it is
actually brainwashed by Feminist propaganda on this subject at law
school, through the Law Society and through the Institute of Judicial
Studies.
This Law Commission exercise is based on the Fourth
Annual Report of the Family Violence Death Review Committee, which
is made up almost entirely of women and is headed by a woman, Julia
Tolmie, whose career has been centered on attacking
men and fathers . This report is completely devoid of any reference
to objective, empirical or scientific research, but makes dogmatic
statements and issues commands, as if it were some sort of religious
priesthood in a man-hating cult. This approach fits in well with the
authoritarian, legal approach.
This report also does not survey the vast amount of research that
has been carried out on DV. It carries on the very common, ingrained
Feminist tradition of totally ignoring all the research listed in
Professor
Martin Fiebert’s annotated bibliography of DV research .
I refer you to Chapter 3 “Reconceptualising family violence,”
which states, for example, that “This chapter is broken into
three sections outlining the key areas where the family violence workforce
needs to think differently about family violence to practice more
effectively” (p.71).
This report starts off with a blatant lie, when Julia Tolmie refers
in her introduction to “a culture of transparency and learning”.
In fact, this report is based on qualitative, rather than quantitative
research, involving various groups of man-haters interpreting cases
in a maximally anti-male manner and avoiding any semblance of transparency
as regards this process.
It is a huge indictment of the Justice Ministry
and of the Law Commission that they have treated this report at all
seriously.
|
This was the Minister's reply:
|
 |
I replied as follows:
Dear Mr. Joyce,
Thank you for your letter dated 12 January 2016, which was a reply
to my letter of 8 November 2015. I am pleased to learn of the existence
of Superu. Under the Official
Information Act, could you please send me the documents which inform
me:
1. how a whole-of-government approach can avoid being biased against
men, given that your government has a Ministry of Women’s Affairs,
but no Ministry of Men’s Affairs. I myself had to publicise the
fact that the 1996 New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims contained
biased, anti-male questions (see 4dvlies.html
-- bottom half of the page), and this was corrected in later versions
of that Survey. However, unpaid activists such as myself cannot effectively
or perpetually monitor all the anti-male activities of the Ministry
of Women’s Affairs and other feminists in government;
2. why you did not mention the vast amount of academic quantitative
research on family violence (https://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm),
some of which has been carried out in New Zealand (nzdvrsch.html);
3. why you did mention collecting quantitative data from the Police
and Ministry of Justice, when this data has passed though various biasing
filters, including the vagaries of who bothers to make a complaint to
the Police in the first place, who the Police choose to believe if they
turn up, how the lawyers choose to handle the case and who the judges
choose to believe. The Police, lawyers and judges are largely anti-male,
both because of chivalry and because of Feminist sexism – see,
for example, the effect of gender on sentencing at http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/1999/sentencing-in-new-zealand-a-statistical-analysis/documents/sentencing_1999.pdf
; and
4. what information leads you to state that “Family violence
is a complex issue”. Everything is complex, but what is most complex
about family violence is the politics of it. The idea of having the
State interfere in families was initiated by Feminists, on the false
assumption (carefully nurtured by vicious censorship and propaganda)
that men assaulted women more than vice-versa. Therefore, you will possibly
have been told that the issue is “complex”, as a way of
derailing you from any logical journey from evidence to conclusions.
I am not arguing for a hands-off approach by the State – just
pointing out the history of the issue. Many people in the “domestic
violence industry” may well want to solve this problem –
but some only want a solution if men are identified as the perpetrators
and women as the victims. You can see this quite clearly if you compare
the academic quantitative research with the police and court statistics.
If your whole-of-government approach continues to find that most perpetrators
are male, whereas the academic research (https://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm)
does not, then you are perpetuating, or even intensifying, the problem,
rather than solving it.
Yours sincerely,
Peter D. Zohrab
|
And I sent the following letter, as an afterthought:
21 January 2016
Dear Mr. Joyce,
I trust you have received my letter dated yesterday.Further to your
letter dated 12 January 2016, which was in reply to my letter of 8 November
2015, I am writing to add some further comments, because your short
letter actually raises a lot of important issues.
-
Reducing Rates of Family Violence.
It is all very well having virtuous goals such as this, but the
Government should make sure:-
(a) that it understands the issue scientifically – as opposed
to ideologically – and
(b) that the Government’s own agencies are not so anti-male
that they alienate males and lead males to resort to violence, for
the reason that the Government’s own agencies only exist to
help females;
-
Victims. The Government needs to
be sure that its agencies are capable of identifying the actual
“victims”, rather than gender-profiling women as the
default victims in all situations involving males;
-
Evidence-Based Approach. Since the
initial policy decision to pass laws which got the state involved
in such household matters was initiated by Feminists who wanted
to target male perpetrators, an evidence-based approach would look
for evidence that such interventions have actually improved the
situation. Since the Government’s agencies are anti-male,
these interventions could easily have made matters worse.
-
Qualitative Sources. I have studied
the topic of Psychological Research at Massey University both at
second-year level and third-year level.The second-year level course
was what you might expect, but the third-year level course, which
I did not complete, introduced students to qualitative research
and also to the notion that subjective qualitative research was
perfectly acceptable, since “all research was subjective”.
The lecturer was a Feminist. For my part, I would have thought that
it was possible to reduce subjectivity to a minimum, and that academics
who believed that all research was subjective should be not be taken
seriously, for the purposes of public policy development. Please
be aware, if you are not already aware, that some activities that
you are told is “qualitative research” may be knowingly
and unapologetically subjective!
-
International Practice. This phrase
usually means that Feminists in New Zealand seek out fellow Feminists
in the UK, US, Australia, etc. and report their activities as being
the best thing since sliced bread. Please be aware that the approaches
to Domestic Violence have the same failings in all countries where
they are dominated by Feminists.
Yours sincerely,
Peter D. Zohrab
|
Minister's Further Reply
|
 |
|
See also:
|
