Open Letter to Human Rights Commission
Peter Zohrab
10.1.1997
R. Hamed,
Research Officer,
Human Rights Commission,
PO Box 6751,
Wellesley Street 1036,
Auckland.
Dear Mr. Hamed,
I am writing in response to your letter of 13 March 1996,
which was a reply to my complaint about the Law
Commission's research into Women's Access to Justice.
That was a long time ago, admittedly, but I am a busy
man, and rational people inevitably accord low priority
to banging their heads against the brick wall of
simplistic totalitarian ideologues (who accord demerit
points to people for coming under "oppressor" categories
such as "male") that your organisation appears to embody.
Having said that, I am encouraged by the fact that your
guidelines on Sexual Harassment are sexually equitable,
and do point out that it is NOT more OK for women to
touch men in the office than it is for men to touch
women. So maybe there is still hope that you can be
dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century.
Turning to the matter at hand, your letter rejected my
complaint about the "Women's Access to Justice" research
project, on the grounds that "research" was not covered
by the Human Rights Act 1993. However, as you yourself
state, the Act does cover "provision of goods and
services".
The activities of the publicly-funded Law Commission
clearly come under the description "provision of a
service". The research they carry out is not pure
research for its own sake -- it is quite clearly research
aimed at uncovering areas of the Law which, in their
estimation, need to be changed. Their findings on this
topic will inevitably be picked up by the Feminist
section of the mass media (i.e.virtually all of the mass
media), and will, in the natural course of events,
normally result in biased legislation which will
disadvantage men even further. So this research is quite
clearly providing a service to women. What I am saying
is that this sexist, anti-male, discriminatory bias in
the Law Commission's service should be eliminated.
You suggest that there is nothing to stop the New Zealand
Men's Rights Association from carrying out its own
research into men's access to justice. I consider that
statement to be callously anti-male, sexist and
discriminatory in itself. The Law Commission is a
publicly funded body, and for you to suggest that it is
equitable for men to have to fund privately the
equivalent research to what our taxes provide for women
shows that you are totally unfit for a position in the
Human Rights field.
The vicious misandry which your position represents can
only be combatted by persistent efforts. In these
efforts, I draw inspiration from the words of the
Feminist, Maud Basham, MBE (as quoted on a Telecom
phonecard -- 1993 Women's Suffrage Series):
"You had to be pushing, pushing, pushing all the
time. You'd never get anywhere if you didn't."
Feminists are just a pressure-group, but they have
pushed, and pushed, and pushed, until their ideology is
now the State Ideology of most western countries.
Totalitarian establishment ideologues, such as yourself,
now enforce this ideology, confident that the Men's
Movement does not have the money to challenge your
decisions in court. But we will not go away. We will be
pushing, pushing, pushing all the time.
Sincerely,
Peter D. Zohrab,
Secretary, New Zealand Men's Rights Association.
Editor, NZMRA Newsletter.
LIBERATOR Newsletter New Zealand Correspondent.
--
(http://www.menmedia.org) GEOCITIES.COM DUMPED MY WEBPAGE WITHOUT
WARNING OR EXPLANATION. Ask me to email free Men's & Fathers'
Resource-List and/or Manifesto. GENUINE sexual equality needs input
from Masculists, to balance Feminists.
David Farrar
Peter Zohrab wrote:
<whining snipped>
Peter, do you have to crosspost your letter to three nz groups. I think
just nz.politics would be more than enough.
Also you forgot to cc your letter to Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton
(mailto:pres...@whitehouse.gov) and City Voice
(mailto:ci...@voice.co.nz)
David
Followups trimmed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Farrar <d...@ihug.co.nz> <david....@mx.parliament.govt.nz>
All comments in this message are the opinion of David Farrar only,
not the New Zealand National Party or Ministerial Services
Robyn Gallagher
Here we go again...
>Feminists are just a pressure-group, but they have
>pushed, and pushed, and pushed, until their ideology is
>now the State Ideology of most western countries.
I like to think of myself as a feminist, but I don't belong to any
feminsit organisation, let alone one that is a pressure group.
I like how things are now. I like it how my parents can't make me
marry someone. I like how if I were to marry that I wouldn't have to
take my husbands name, that my posessions would be my own. I like how
I can get a job that's not nursing or teaching. I just like it how
women get the same stuff that men have had for hundreds of years.
Robyn Gallagher
r...@wave.co.nz
http://www.wave.co.nz/pages/rhg
"So I'll climb on"
David McLoughlin
Peter Zohrab wrote:
[a whole lot of sad stuff I snipped]
> Ask me to email free Men's & Fathers'
> Resource-List and/or Manifesto. GENUINE sexual equality needs input
> from Masculists, to balance Feminists.
Are Masculists the extremist male version of the Feminists you decry,
Peter? Mascinazis perhaps?
8-)
David McLoughlin
Auckland
Steve Bell
Peter Zohrab <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>GENUINE sexual equality needs input
>from Masculists, to balance Feminists.
Masculinists, perhaps?
Is a "masculist" on the Internet an Emasculist?
Mark Laslett
> pushed, and pushed, and pushed, until their ideology is
> now the State Ideology of most western countries.
> now enforce this ideology, confident that the Men's
> Movement does not have the money to challenge your
> decisions in court. But we will not go away. We will be
> pushing, pushing, pushing all the time.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter D. Zohrab,
> Secretary, New Zealand Men's Rights Association.
> Editor, NZMRA Newsletter.
> LIBERATOR Newsletter New Zealand Correspondent.
>
> --
> (http://www.menmedia.org) GEOCITIES.COM DUMPED MY WEBPAGE WITHOUT
> Resource-List and/or Manifesto. GENUINE sexual equality needs input
> from Masculists, to balance Feminists.
to fight for individualism. An individual may me male, female
black, white, brown, yellow, green, christian, jew, atheist etc.
All have the same inalienable basic rights to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. There are no women's, men's, Maori,
worker's, employer's etc rights. Only the rights of the individual.
Individualism is concerned with the smallest minority - the individual.
All legislation should be aimed at recognising these rights and
protecting them from groups, including government, feminists,
masculinists etc etc.
To object to the excesses of feminists (there are many) by demanding
equal right to excesses for masculinists, is to try and cure the
disease with more of the same pathology. The answer lies in attacking
the disease at root - collectivism. Masculinism is the same basic
disease as feminism - collectivism based on gender - and just as bad.
Peter Zohrab
Mark,
In a way, I agree with you. Ideally, what you suggest would be great.
However, we are in a treadmill. The feminist PR agents have sold us the
slogan "women = victims", and this means that women automatically need
sympathetic treatment by the mass media, the bureaucracy, and the
politicians. This results in a continuing stream of anti-male
propaganda and legislation.
You may be prepared to take all this lying down and to merely dream of a
better world, but many of us have got the guts to resist !
Peter Zohrab
Mark Laslett wrote:
>
> Perhaps the solution to the problem of gender issues is
> to fight for individualism. An individual may me male, female
> black, white, brown, yellow, green, christian, jew, atheist etc.
> All have the same inalienable basic rights to life, liberty and
> the pursuit of happiness. There are no women's, men's, Maori,
> worker's, employer's etc rights. Only the rights of the individual.
> Individualism is concerned with the smallest minority - the individual.
> All legislation should be aimed at recognising these rights and
> protecting them from groups, including government, feminists,
> masculinists etc etc.
>
> To object to the excesses of feminists (there are many) by demanding
> equal right to excesses for masculinists, is to try and cure the
> disease with more of the same pathology. The answer lies in attacking
> the disease at root - collectivism. Masculinism is the same basic
> disease as feminism - collectivism based on gender - and just as bad.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6708 GENUINE sexual equality means
input from Masculists, balancing the Feminist agenda. Ask me to email
my free Men's & Fathers' Resource-List and/or specimen Manifesto.
http://www.menmedia.org
Bruce Hamilton
In article <5b8moi$8k...@wolfman.xtra.co.nz>
ah...@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Bell) writes:
>Peter Zohrab <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>GENUINE sexual equality needs input
>>from Masculists, to balance Feminists.
>Masculinists, perhaps?
For some strange reason, "masochists" seems
appropropriate.
Bruce Hamilton
ti...@world.std.com
Mark Laslett <las...@nznet.gen.nz> writes:
> To object to the excesses of feminists (there are many) by demanding
> equal right to excesses for masculinists, is to try and cure the
> disease with more of the same pathology.
But to object to Feminism ("Feminist excesses" is redundant) without
trying to restore balance whatever way you can is a recipe for failure.
Picture another sort of war: One country (FemiNaziGermany) invades
another (Dickoslovakia) And what does Dickoslovakia do? Not shoot back,
not raise an army, the Dickoslovakians just keep chanting to each other
"Don't stoop to their level. Don't stoop to their level."
Guess what? If Dickoslovakia proceeds in that manner, there is NO WAY
the war will end until there is not a Dickoslovakian left alive.
FemiNaziGermany has no reason to stop! But if Dickoslovakia tells its
Neville Chamberlaines to stick it where the sun never shines, and fights
for all it's worth, it's got a chance of ending the conflict, and
infinitely more important, a chance of survival.
*Tim*
--
Against all forms of sexism -- and feminism is the most prevalent form.
Feminists lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie...
Robyn Gallagher
>Against all forms of sexism -- and feminism is the most prevalent form.
>Feminists lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie...
Not only is that a gross generalisation, but it is itself a lie.
Do you know what life would be like if feminists hadn't been allowed
to do happen? I'd probably be married to some asshole who got me
pregnant. I'd be a 22 year old house wife, probably pregnant. I'd be
told by my husband that I was a good little wifey. Blah blah blah.
Life used to be like that for women. But somewhere along the line,
women stood up and said "We don't want to live like this" and they did
something about it.
It makes me angry to think about women during WWII who were employed
in factories, but when the war was over they were told to get their
pretty little asses back in the house and make their husbands feel
like real men.
I am so glad that life is not like that now for me, and I thank
feminism for some of it.
Robyn Gallagher
>However, we are in a treadmill. The feminist PR agents have sold us the
>slogan "women = victims", and this means that women automatically need
>sympathetic treatment by the mass media, the bureaucracy, and the
>politicians. This results in a continuing stream of anti-male
>propaganda and legislation.
Look, you're obviously suffering from testeria. Why don't you lie
down, put your feet up, and have a nice hot cup of tea. Honestly,
such opinions from such a nice gentleman. Don't worry, you can't help
it that you're a male, so until your testeria has subsided, just don't
say anything, ok dear?
David Farrar
Robyn Gallagher wrote:
>
> >Against all forms of sexism -- and feminism is the most prevalent form.
> >Feminists lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie...
>
> Not only is that a gross generalisation, but it is itself a lie.
>
> Do you know what life would be like if feminists hadn't been allowed
> to do happen? I'd probably be married to some asshole who got me
> pregnant. I'd be a 22 year old house wife, probably pregnant. I'd be
> told by my husband that I was a good little wifey. Blah blah blah.
>
Well only if the asshole likes you too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Farrar <d...@ihug.co.nz> <david....@mx.parliament.govt.nz>
I don't speak for the Government and it doesn't speak for me!
Cabinet : http://www.executive.govt.nz
Ministerial FAQ : http://www.ministers.govt.nz/faqhome.nsf
Cliff Pratt
In article <32D8ED...@xtra.co.nz>, Peter Zohrab wrote:
>
>You may be prepared to take all this lying down and to merely dream of a
>better world, but many of us have got the guts to resist !
>
revoked, with some exception of course...
Peter Zohrab
David McLoughlin wrote:
>
> Peter Zohrab wrote:
>
> [a whole lot of sad stuff I snipped]
>
> > Resource-List and/or Manifesto. GENUINE sexual equality needs input
> > from Masculists, to balance Feminists.
>
> Peter? Mascinazis perhaps?
Good question. Glad you asked. But the answer is no.
We don't have the control over the news media, politicians, teachers,
lecuturers, and bureaucrats that the Feminazis have, so we don't even
come into contention as totalitarians-- even if we wanted to !
Peter Zohrab.
>
> 8-)
>
> David McLoughlin
> Auckland
--
Go to http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6708 for free Men's &
Fathers' Resource-Lists, etc.. GENUINE sexual equality involves input
from Masculists, balancing the Feminist agenda. http://www.menmedia.org
Peter Zohrab
Steve Bell wrote:
>
> Peter Zohrab <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >GENUINE sexual equality needs input
> >from Masculists, to balance Feminists.
>
Nope ! "feminine" does not lead to "femininist",
and "masculine" also does not lead to "masculinist".
But this is a new field, so who knows what the terminology will end up
being ?
>
> Is a "masculist" on the Internet an Emasculist?
Nope again. Nice try !
Peter Zohrab.
Peter Zohrab
Robyn Gallagher wrote:
>
<snip>
> It makes me angry to think about women during WWII who were employed
> in factories, but when the war was over they were told to get their
> pretty little asses back in the house and make their husbands feel
> like real men.
It makes me *really* angry that men during WWI were pressured into going
off to fight (and it will be exactly the same next time, as events in
Bosnia have shown recently), to die, to see their friends die, to be
crippled, to see their friends crippled, to kill other men that they had
absolutely nothing against -- and then, when the war was over, it was
touch-and-go whether the bitches who had sat safely back at home and
taken their jobs, and who had formed the majority of the electorate that
had voted in the government that had declared war on Germany would let
those who were still alive and able-bodied get their jobs back.
We need affirmative action in wartime mortality. We need to make sure
that one vicious, selfish, callous feminist bitch dies for every
self-sacrificiing man who is forced or pressured into getting killed in
a war that the female-majority electorate voted a government in to
declare !
Peter Zohrab.
>
> I am so glad that life is not like that now for me, and I thank
> feminism for some of it.
>
>
> Robyn Gallagher
>
> r...@wave.co.nz
> http://www.wave.co.nz/pages/rhg
> "So I'll climb on"
--
Alex Heatley
In article <32DD85...@xtra.co.nz>, Peter Zohrab <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>Robyn Gallagher wrote:
>It makes me *really* angry that men during WWI were pressured into going
>off to fight (and it will be exactly the same next time, as events in
>Bosnia have shown recently), to die, to see their friends die, to be
>crippled, to see their friends crippled, to kill other men that they had
>absolutely nothing against -- and then, when the war was over, it was
>touch-and-go whether the bitches who had sat safely back at home and
>taken their jobs, and who had formed the majority of the electorate that
>had voted in the government that had declared war on Germany would let
>those who were still alive and able-bodied get their jobs back.
It appears that Mr Zohrab is a very sloppy researcher. Thirty minutes work
with the 1996 NZ Year book at the local library revealed that the
population of NZ in the 1911 cenus was 558,385 males and 499,927
females. Checking the limited research books revealed that women did not
get the vote in Britain until 1928 and in the USA until 1920.
So the first argument that it was a NZ government elected by a female
majority is seen to be false. Secondly as NZ followed Britain into WWI and
NZ troops were under the comand of the British high command, and the
British government *COULD NOT* have been elected by a female majority as
women didn't get the vote until 1928 the argument falls entirely to
pieces and is simply a paranoid delusion.
I might add that the 1996 yearbook states that women did not outnumber men
in NZ until 1968, which therefore leaves out WWII, Korea and probably
Vietnam as well.
In WWI 70% of NZ men serving volunteered, and the death toll was
16,697. In WWII 60,000 of the 194,000 men serving volunteered and the
death toll was 11,625. So in a WWI a war started by a male elected
government more NZ men died than in WWII. Oh btw the 1936 cenus reveals
that there were 799,094 men in NZ and 774,721 women. It therefore seems
impossible that the government of the time was elected as Mr Zohrab claims
by a female majority.
Given that to find this out, all I needed was access to a small library
and about an hour of time, it seems fairly resonable to conclude that
Zohrab's allegations and claims rest on very shaky ground.
Alex.