Introduction
There now exists in New Zealand an Institute
of Judicial Studies, run jointly by the judges, who have a slight
majority on the Governing Board, and the Department of Courts. It came
into being as the result of Feminist complaints about judges who made
decisions, and expressed views, that Feminists disagreed with.
The Institute Director, Richard Moss, was adamant (when I spoke to
him on the telephone) that Women's Refuge and Rape Crisis won't have
input into educating judges, but there is plenty of scope for that to
happen -- directly or indirectly, e.g. in the course of their published
Strategy:
"2.6 Work with and assist co-operating groups in the development
of programmes to meet the needs of the Judiciary and the overall goals
of judicial education."
How
the Institute of Judicial Studies Teaches Judges about "Gender
Equity"
I
have had to use the Ombudsmen's Office and the Official Information
Act, in order to force the Institute to supply the information that
one of the people teaching the judges "gender equity", Maria Bradshaw,
has the same name as a Spokeswoman for the Women's Refuge movement,
according to the webpage: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/gender/viol/insight.htm
. She is described in the ring-binder "Judicial Seminar
on Gender Equity, Rotorua, 15-17 May, 1997" (published by
the Judicial Working Group on Gender Equity) as follows:
"Maria
Bradshaw was a primary school teacher before she became involved with
the Women's Refuge. Her work in a local refuge included designing
and delivering programmes for child victims of family violence, facilitating
groups for women victims, and delivering training for police, other
government agencies and community groups. She was employed by the
National Collective of Independent Women's Reuges from 1991 to the
end of 1996, firstly as National Training and Education Coordinator
and then as Policy Coordinator. She wrote the Women's Refuge submission
on the Domestic Violence Bill and worked with the Police on their
family violence policy. She now works in the Department for Courts
Policy and Legislative Unit."
Not only that, but (according to their annual reports
prior to 2002):
- Two of the three judge presenters are female;
- Three of the five non-judge presenters are female; and
- The male non-judge presenters are from the Police -- an organisation
which I can testify (having been frequently harassed by them when
working in the Police National Headquarters building, and having had
other experiences of Police anti-male bias) has a large degree of
anti-male bias. This, indeed, is built-in by their recruitment policies,
which reject male applicants who only achieve the physical standards
which suffice to allow entry to female applicants;
- Joy Liddicoat (a non-judge presenter) received a grant from the
NZ Law Foundation to publish the "Feminist Law Review", according
to: http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/grants/research-legal.htm
.
I realise that "gender equity" is a term that arose in
a Feminist context, and that Feminists never apply gender equity to
the process of defining that term (or, indeed, to anything else). Nevertheless,
the Institute of Judicial Studies should not just be teaching judges
to toe a Feminist party line, but should be interested in practising
gender equity itself, and -- more importantly -- teaching judges to
practise gender equity where this would benefit males, as well as where
this benefits females.
Who
the Institute of Judicial Studies does NOT want teaching Judges about
"Gender Equity"
The Institute of Judicial Studies rejected my two applications:
- to be appointed as a community representative on the Institute of
Judicial Studies' Governing Board;
- to present a session on gender equity at the Institute of Judicial
Studies.
Their brief rejection-letter of 14 October 2002 gave reasons, but
without stating which purported reason applied to which of my two applications:
- They referred to the material which I regularly email to the Institute,
which they said indicated that I have a narrow range of interests.
(I assume that that reference relates to my application to sit on
the Board, because it is not relevant to an application to present
on a specific topic how broad one's interests are, i.e. in respect
of other topics. To the contrary, the narrower one's interests, the
more likely one is to have a deep knowledge of one specific topic,
perhaps.) The Institute has absolutely no reason to assume that the
range of topics I happen to email them about is any guide at all to
my range of legal interests, and they have made absolutely no effort
to find out from me what my actual range of interests is.
- They also referred to the "well-publicised" nature of
my interests as limiting the contribution that I could make to the
Institute. Again, that assumes, counter-factually, that the range
of topics I happen to email them about is any guide at all to my range
of interests in the legal area, and it assumes that I email them about
the same topics on which I would like to instruct the Institute. In
addition, there are entire institutions (the Ministry of Womens' Affairs,
Women's Studies departments, Women's Refuge, etc.) devoted to publicising
the Feminist cause, so their determination in this respect is grossly
iniqitous. Specifically, I applied to present a session on gender
equity, and I have never emailed them my views on this topic,
as far as I am aware. The reason for my having suggested this topic
for a presentation was that a Feminist had already presented a session
on this, and I consider it vital -- in terms
of gender equity itself -- that a Men's Rights position on
this vital topic be presented to the Institute. Their refusal to hear
me on this topic testifies to their totalitarian mind-set and brainwashing
agenda.
- Once appeals to the House of Lords have been abolished, as the
current Government has proposed, the Institute of Judicial Studies
will, in effect, function as if it were New Zealand's highest court.
Of course, it is not actually a court, but the Institute is teaching
judges what it is politically acceptable for them to think -- with
the implied threat that new procedures which have recently been discussed,
in the context of a proposed "Judicial Commission" will
one day make it easier to remove judges, if they do not take the brainwashing
on board. Judges will see the writing on the wall and will become
more Feminist in their judgements, in consequence -- if only to reduce
the pressure for the creation of a Judicial Commission. Their invitation
to Feminists (Maria Bradshaw and Joy Liddicoat) to make presentations,
without giving me the opportunity to present a rebuttal, amounts to
putting the men of this country on trial in a courtroom with no Defence
Counsel.
Conclusion
The Institute of Judicial Studies is undemocratically putting into
place one-sided ideological beliefs as the supreme law of New Zealand,
and I consider them to be in breach of our democratic constitution --
specifically, of the Bill of Rights Act.
CONTACT DETAILS: Institute of Judicial Studies, Level
8, 70 The Terrace, PO Box 10-269, Wellington. Ph.:
471 1365 Fax: 471 1381 Email:
ijs@clear.net.nz DX SP23514
See
also: Submission to the Law Commission on Women's
Access to Justice
