Peter Zohrab, refused a Law Society certificate
for admission to the bar, argues feminists have used political pressure
to prevent him becoming a pro-male lawyer dealing with family law.
Outgoing Wellington District Law Society president Pam Davidson (Law
Society does not choose lawyers, Feb 23) concentrated on two relatively
trivial issues, and managed to create the impression of deceptive behaviour.
Her organisation has been virtually accused of denying me a certificate
for political reasons, and all she can say in response is to spell out
some legal technicalities of the admission process ! In a free society,
there is no legal basis for denying someone entry to the legal profession
on the basis of their political views
She correctly points out that the Wellington District Law Society does
not admit candidates -- the High Court does -- and that it cannot just
drop the "fit and proper" criterion for admission -- Parliament
enshrined that in (the previous) legislation.
However, it seems deceptive of her not to have also mentioned that
in 2002 the Court in Singh v Auckland District Law Society
held that "the legislature has appointed district law societies
as the court's surrogates for the purpose of conducting inquiries into
an applicant's character." District Law Societies are also usually
legally represented at the High Court when a candidate attempts to gain
admission without a certificate from the society.
This obviously places a heavy responsibility on the law societies to
behave in a lawful and ethical manner. Just as a barrister is an officer
of the court, and has a duty to the court that even overrides his/her
duty to the client -- so the Wellington District Law Society has an
obvious duty to the court and to Parliament (i.e. to us all) to carry
out its responsibility in this matter in a way that does not infringe
democratic rights.
Ms* Davidson dodged the issue of why it is that her
council can lawfully and ethically make the decision that they have
made about my character and fitness to be a lawyer.
I am the only candidate not to have been given a certificate by the
Wellington District Law Society since (and including) 2002 -- involving
an estimated 1,200 candidates. That statistic would seem to imply that
the Wellington District Law Society Council should have followed a sound
procedure and come to a sound conclusion about some very severe deficiency
in my candidature.
The fact alone that a female Council member laughed when I told the
Council about being assaulted by feminist law students casts doubt on
the judgment of the Council.
If my character is at issue, then -- by the same token -- the character
of the people who judged me is also at issue.
Violence is a key issue in family law, in which area I wish to practise,
because feminists have used political pressure to make mainstream a
sexist fantasy about male violence which is called the Power and Control
(Duluth) Model.
According to that model, it is only men who are violent -- but this
model is only given credibility because feminists are violent towards
men and then do not view violence perpetrated by their "sisters"
as anything more than a laughing matter.
Women's violence is as frequent as men's, as can be seen from Professor
Martin Fiebert's annotated domestic violence bibliography on the Web.
It is relevant to raise the issue of the broader context, which is
the apparent inability of many men and fathers to find lawyers who take
a sufficiently pro-men stance.
If the district law society is successful in
its attempt to prevent me from becoming a pro-men lawyer, this will
cast a shadow on, and be a deterrent to anyone else who may want to
follow in my footsteps. Our democracy will suffer.
*I tend to avoid using the title "Ms",
which was inserted here by the Dominion Post, although I was once complimented
by a girlfriend for being an "early adopter" of that title,
when writing to her. My reason for now wanting to avoid using it is
that it is a symbol of the totally fake "equality" which Feminists
often claim that Feminism is about. See The
Equality Lie.