MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

My open letter to the Human Rights Commission

Filed under: General — Iain Fergusson @ 3:38 pm Sun 1st August 2021

I’ve written an open letter to the Human Rights Commission asking for them to explicitly protect men’s human rights. It’s rather long. You can read it here:

No response so far.


22 Responses to “My open letter to the Human Rights Commission”

  1. Downunder says:

    I went through the Human Rights process with Ben Easton which would be about 20 years ago now but you should still be able to obtain those notes through an OIA application.

  2. DJ Ward says:

    Well done Iain.
    It is a very good look at the HRC.
    I have considered writing a similar letter.
    Pointing out there own Human Rights violation.
    In regard to the services they provide.

    Yours is far better researched.
    As you have aptly shown.
    Men’s rights, are ignored.
    Treated with contempt.
    Your letter, a test of there corruption.

    I can imagine now.
    Discussions, of how to respond.
    To your letter.
    After decades of bigotry.
    It must be a difficult task.

  3. Evan Myers says:

    What’s been done is effectively gender apartheid.

    The human race is no longer a species.

    Regardless of what has been written or said;

    The process has created a herd of women with a head cow and men as a individuals and not any one species.

    The process treats women as human and men as a subspecies.

  4. Lukenz says:


    What is your expected response timeframe? Is there any chance of media or political involvement from opposition parties to progress things faster?

  5. Evan Myers says:

    There is no doubt this will be a long drawn out process.

    From the HRC website

    “ All women have a right to be free from discrimination. As the Human Rights Commission, we undertake a number of projects to reduce discrimination based on sex.

    This includes work on equal pay, gender-based violence, sexual harassment, breastfeeding and more. Women’s right are set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and more explicitly referred to in the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Platform for Action.”

    The Beijing Platform was previously linked to another page but is now a broken link.

  6. Evan Myers says:

    Given the known outcomes for NZ where we lead the world in negative statistics the complaint should go to World Health,

    The World Health Organisation has stated that “research and literature findings indicate when communities are well-informed, have access to information, resources and support, and are engaged in identifying their own health needs and solutions, then the wellbeing / health outcomes in those communities are greatly improved.”

  7. Downunder says:

    This is interesting:

    NewZealand generally meets the international standards for protection of the right to freedom from discrimination through the HRA and the BoRA. The prohibited grounds of discrimination are reasonably comprehensive by international standards, and discriminatory legislation can be challenged by obtaining a declaration of inconsistency from the Human Rights Review Tribunal. There have also been some significant developments in the area of discrimination law, including a number of cases which have clarified the interpretation of aspects of the HRA. However, the body of jurisprudence is still not large. The Commission has therefore adopted a more proactive approach to this area of work since 2004. It has developed a litigation strategy, and identifies cases where it can intervene or initiate proceedings to contribute to a more substantial body of local jurisprudence, so as to better inform the understanding of human rights. Despite this (as can be seen throughout this review), discrimination persists and inequalities remain.

  8. Iain Fergusson says:

    Thanks everyone.

    This letter is part of a process that started at the beginning of 2020. I like to give people the opportunity to do the right thing, so I started out by asking for some co-operation/collaboration with the HRC. This was rudely dismissed. Then I asked them what their priorities for men’s human rights were, which I got no response to. Then I made a formal complaint. There was some back and forth, but ultimately they dismissed it by saying they were obeying the law. They did not address the substance of the complaint.

    This lead to some more back and forth, and 2 month ago I sent this open letter to the Chief Commissioner. One month ago I asked when I would receive a response. I didn’t get a response so I am starting to publicise the letter more.

    So hopefully you can see that I am slowly escalating things. I think it is important not to rush, because the best situation is for the HRC to retain it’s credibility and be proactive in supporting men’s human rights. Undermining the HRC doesn’t do men any good. Secondly, I like to give people the opportunity to do the right thing. If you give them that opportunity over and over and they don’t, then that means you have accumulated a significant amount of evidence of wrongdoing.

    I’m not sure what the next steps are from here. At some point the media may have to be recruited, but before then I am thinking about:

    1) Complaining to the Ombudsman about the handling of my complaint. The HRC does not follow the Ombudsman’s guidelines for handling complaints, so that could be effective.

    2) Asking the Minister of Justice to direct the HRC to observe human rights, including “ensuring equal enjoyment of rights between men and women”, which is a requirement under international human rights law.

    Regarding the WHO and other international bodies. I think petitioning them will be ineffective. They can ignore a complaint with little recourse.

    If you have any ideas/strategies that might help let me know.


  9. Downunder says:

    If you don’t get what you consider a satisfactory response there is a review process run separately by the Justice Department or that’s what I understand from the information on their website.

    Wouldn’t that be the next obvious step before the media would touch it?

  10. Downunder says:

    This is what I was looking at, Iain;

    “If a complaint isn’t resolved through our processes, you can take your complaint to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. This is an independent judicial body (court) that makes decisions on claims brought before it.It is administered by the Ministry of Justice and is completely separate from the Human Rights Commission.”

  11. Evan Myers says:

    Preparing for a hearing on the entire letter would be a rather large task.

    It would probably be better to take one easy to win case to the tribunal and celebrate the win to start the ball rolling.

  12. Iain Fergusson says:

    I have considered legal action. Even thinking about crowdfunding for a lawyer.

    I’m think taking a case of a human rights violation against the human rights commission would be of interest to the media. I imagine it’d make for some nice clickbait headlines.

    The problem is New Zealand lawmakers never considered a human rights complaint against the HRC, so it could be complicated and difficult to demonstrate the HRC is violating the human rights act.

  13. Downunder says:

    The HRC hasn’t considered anything yet, they just haven’t responded.

    You might in that case end up wasting time and money preparing for something they would respond to in time if you persist.

  14. DJ Ward says:

    I am going to bypass them.
    I have read some of there decisions on men’s issues.
    And watched there silence, on crimes against men.
    The bias is blatant.
    No, abhorrent.

    But the letter is important.
    As it has parts of an important argument.
    That they are human rights violators.
    They are the offenders.
    And someone has complained.

    So again thank you.
    For taking time to write the letter.


    Another strategy is better for the HRC.
    My intentions for them.
    If required.
    We have your letter.
    And I have heard of 100s of others.
    So they will make themselves, easy prey.
    As others have done.
    Complain about everything.
    Dozens of valid arguments.
    Along with complaints to the offenders.
    Like the police commissioner, or Minister of Statistics.
    That’s a lot of effort.
    For what seems like no return.

    As I have stated, the thing they can’t stop.
    The vexatious defendant.
    Then all those things.
    Will arrive as evidence.
    For a jury to decide.

    So I hope they listen to your letter.
    There is no consequence.
    To doing the correct thing.
    But time.

  15. Lukenz says:

    It is quite interesting how Governments, particularly this one thinks. It’s the tools they employ and strategies to dampen down the problems facing humanity.

    Unlike a business or company who can’t print money, has to act quickly, be nimble, stop the haemorrhage quickly whereas Governments have all the time in the world.

    I hope I am wrong, however I suspect the following will play-out.

    Their initial strategy is to be unaware, delay, non-urgent, put it on the list of things to do.

    In time when a demand for response becomes louder the answer will be “it is quite a comprehensive submission, we are verifying it, working our way through it.” Engaging, following up with queries on unimportant or insignificant facts. Picking a small hole in it, making that a centre a focus.

    Ordering a public enquiry with limited parameters that does not cut to the heart of the matter is a great tool when cornered. Those that set the timeframe can place at least a year for the report writers to submit their findings. Several months to read it and absorb its content. To consider it.

    Time to run a campaign on voter opinion.

    Anyone who has seen the series “Yes Minister” and works in Government knows there are a range of tools to delay a response.

    There are just so many things to consider here. The supply and redistribution of money that was earned and invested by men into property for one. i.e. inviting a woman with only pennies to her name to have a romance for just 24 months could see you give away your home and all its content. The Government does not want to foot that bill.

    The truth is they read your submission in the same length of time we all did. Any Governments currency is votes. That and with the long incumbent anti-male association of feminist thuggery tearing down boys and men’s rights, who wants to take that on a little more than a year out from an election.

    Unless you can think of a reason, I think media involvement is necessary to open the submission up to main stream public debate and make Government ministers silence accountable.

  16. Evan Myers says:

    Faafoi is both Minister of Justice and Minister for the HRC.

    He is the only Minister involved in that respect.

    The executive accepts “expert advice” from its commissions, whether that’s the Law Commission, Human Rights Commission, the Climate Change Commission or any other commission.

    It allows the Executive to be comfortably numb in its understanding of what it delivers.

    These processes have been running since last century and it’s taken a while for the population to get a realistic understanding of how they operate let alone the ideological path they follow.

  17. DJ Ward says:

    The Bill of Rights prevents them ruling on your letter.
    One cannot investigate oneself.
    That investigation must be independent.

    So they must find someone.
    Who can judge your letter.
    For its merits, and claims.

  18. Evan Myers says:

    I’d like to know which bit of the Bill of Rights supports the assumption that the Human Rights Commission can’t investigate itself? I’m sure they have made admissions of a lack of action on certain issues in the past.

    It’s possibly more the case that the HRC would be weary of The Court of Appeal decision around a public law action being available against the Crown for a breach of the Bill of Rights.

  19. DJ Ward says:

    It comes from the police investigating themselves.
    Hence what we have now.
    It came from cases where police, may have acted badly.
    But the police investigation, of themselves.
    Did not result in prosecution.
    Where if a normal person, did the act.
    They would be prosecuted.

    That also means.
    The police officer, is not guilty.
    Just as normal people, are found not guilty.
    Prosecution guidelines, stoping bad cases.

    They could be guilty.

    Just as human rights is self contained.
    Using a mechanism, like the HRC.
    The police, do similar.
    The IPCA.

    The HRC can certainly reply.
    Human rights, is about the effort that’s made.
    Any accused has the right of reply.
    Judging the act is different.
    The IPCA a cheap method, for complaints.
    So is the HRC.
    So they are needed things.
    That work well.
    Except, for one slightly large group.

    In a history perspective.
    They are important, innovations for society.

    The IPCA will always be required.
    If the HRC allowed bigotry to stop.
    Inherently it would become less useful.

    How then can the Commissioner, reply.
    To things that are clearly wrong.


    A similar argument exists for the IPCA.
    For the supported rate by the IPCA.
    From male complaints, on PSO decisions.
    Or even other domestic violence arrests.
    Where they are the victim.

    The counter argument to that is the police themselves.
    That they can’t live in fear that every little thing gets examined.
    Imagine the bureaucracy.

    Police cameras, is a game changing event.
    Body cameras, taser, and gun cameras.
    As well as people’s devices.

    It would be interesting to see statistics on IPCA decisions.
    Made by complaints by certain groups.
    Considering what’s happening, statistically as events.
    Police make, mistakes.

    Is there any other group.
    Essentially 100% wrong.
    When they complain.

  20. Downunder says:

    If anyone can make the slightest bit of sense out of previous comment I’d be seriously interested otherwise I shall think the obvious – the lunacy has driven him insane.

  21. Evan Myers says:

    In her lengthy decision issued on Monday Justice Rebecca Ellis decided that the police investigation of the death did not comply with a Bill of Rights obligation to be sufficiently independent, being an investigation of one of its own.

    I would suggest you’ve read that the wrong way, and that while the obligation exists it’s not an exclusion.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar