- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
Previously I posted the open letter to the Human Rights Commission asking them to do more for men, but they have not responded even though I did send them a reminder. So I have started a video series highlighting their human rights violations. Here is part one.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
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.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
Brilliant.
Comment by golfa — Sun 19th September 2021 @ 3:21 pm
I know how much effort and patience is required to put something like this together.
Big ups, mate … that’s a fantastic effort and a formidable result.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 19th September 2021 @ 5:29 pm
Well done Iain, I’m impressed. It seems pretty damming.
Comment by JohnPotter — Sun 19th September 2021 @ 8:01 pm
Cheers, guys.
For this to be effective it needs people to know about it, so plea
se share it if you are able.
Comment by Iain Fergusson — Sun 19th September 2021 @ 8:06 pm
Will say one thing to your face.
Then do the opposite.
No wonder he got hired for the job.
How is not replying legal.
Can you now prosecute the Crown.
Via prosecuting the Attorney General.
Is not replying.
Perverting the Course of Justice.
Obstructing Justice.
Even a rejection letter is making an effort.
They make no effort.
A Human Rights violation.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 20th September 2021 @ 9:12 am
The link is not hard to copy.
I put it into another forum and it received a very positive response.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 20th September 2021 @ 9:57 am
Good morning. The question of human rights has been addressed and worked for a long way back by women. When this was happening the men sat on their backsides and did nothing, they still do nothing apart from the single individual. Men’s liberation has not even started yet.
As to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights are all good laws and applies to men and women. So the important things are that men do use these laws in the courts and appeal with these for better solutions. That men are not specifically named in those laws does not mean that they are exempted from those laws. Don’t blame the laws, blame the men that do nothing.
Comment by Gerald Moonen — Thu 23rd September 2021 @ 8:17 am
Thanks Downunder!
Comment by Iain Fergusson — Thu 23rd September 2021 @ 12:45 pm
@7 There is no question women have had a developed agenda for the last two centuries.
It was men that won the vote for their families though prior to one-person one-vote.
But I didn’t see men sitting on their arses in two world wars defending human rights and a free world.
No, I can’t agree. Women might be the heroes in your imagination but not in mine.
Comment by Evan Myers — Thu 23rd September 2021 @ 5:10 pm
Maybe the lockdown has disrupted work at the HRC.
Having to work from home.
#7 Sometimes you can blame laws.
Some laws are clearly discriminatory.
Was it the men, or the morals of the men.
Old morals, punishing the absent father.
The broken marriage.
The adulterer.
The teenage father.
Hence laws, to punish them.
To disadvantage them.
And to profit, from them.
Today it is male politicians scared to speak.
Just in case, they say the wrong thing.
The media to scared to ask questions.
In case they get the wrong answer.
So doing nothing is safe.
If everyone agrees to do nothing.
It’s an equal playing field.
Only women’s things, can be argued.
Iain Fergusson’s letter covers, the legal stuff.
The Bill of Rights, Human Rights Act, International law.
So he is using the law.
So far they have done nothing, in reply.
But they cannot, do nothing.
Someone must have read it, as homework.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 23rd September 2021 @ 6:00 pm
This is what Stalin said during World War Two.
I’m quoting Wendell L Wilkie on this:
A War of Liberation.
“It is to liberate some nations from the Nazi or the Japanese Army, and to liberate others from the threat of those armies. On this much we are all agreed. Are we yet agreed that liberation means more than this? Specifically are the 31 United Nations now fighting together agreed that one common job of liberation includes giving to all peoples freedom to govern themselves as soon as they are able and the economic freedom on which all lasting self-government rests.”
You can’t have as much women’s bullshit and survive. If we can’t respect the value of men and their economic value and put that ahead of the consumption of women, you can have neither prosperity nor good government.
Now, for God’s sake make your damned mind up as to which side you’re on.
Comment by Evan Myers — Fri 24th September 2021 @ 11:08 am
Fate has intervened, with my letter.
I don’t need to send it now.
I was arrested today, and charged.
For some tagging, I did in April.
I was treated well by the police.
So there will be court for me.
Luckily writing the letter helped me prepare.
People are trying to convince me to give in.
To plead guilty, and get a light sentence.
I could, but then there was no point, to my actions.
I have a good defence, prepared.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 24th September 2021 @ 7:00 pm
I am ashamed and embarrassed of New Zealand turning a blind eye to the way in which men and particularly fathers have had their human rights dismissed, ignored.
It got me thinking why would Paul Hunt sidestep and the ignore the submissions.
The only answer was I wonder if Paul Hunt is afraid.
Let’s for a moment imagine Paul Hunt sending out a media release men and fathers have less human rights than woman, agreeing to Iain’s comprehensive submissions.
What will the feminists do to Paul?
What will his employers, the NZ Government do to him?
Could he lose his job?
Will he ever find employment again?
Could he be stripped of his qualifications?
Would he be an outcast?
Could the feminist protest outside his home or office? Harass him?
It’s OK to be afraid Paul, you have a really good reason.
Comment by Lukenz — Sat 25th September 2021 @ 1:14 am
There’s probably too much midwitery to realise fear of any alternative.
Comment by Evan Myer — Sat 25th September 2021 @ 7:42 am
I was asked if there was alternatives to my actions.
Cleary, petitions, complaints, protests, don’t work.
Being systematically ignored.
Men have tried everything.
Yet men’s issues are ignored.
The HRC not addressing his complaint, is good evidence.
I agree with your analysis.
Mr Hunt is unable to respond.
The bigotry Iain talks about, is blatant.
Undeniable.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 25th September 2021 @ 10:17 am
Luke,
One of the main reasons the Paul won’t respond is he is a lawyer who understands that what he says creates a liability for the HRC. Lawyers don’t want to commit to anything they don’t have to.
Another reason is the Commission is waist deep in identity politics. They see their job to be, as one commissioner put it, “dismantling power’. That’s contradictory to human rights because it creates groups who deserve rights and those who don’t.
Comment by Iain Fergusson — Sun 26th September 2021 @ 12:08 am
Your quite right, Paul and what you’ve said is very important.
This will conflict though with the minds of many other readers as it’s often the case an issue is approached through different personal situations, with individual perspectivism, and through different tunnels of argument.
For example, even someone who is impressed and finds this quite damning may still approach the situation on the basis of gender-equality. (Triasic, and I haven’t seen him here for some time) might as he did in one of his last posts approach the issue on the basis of authority. I’ve thrown in on occasions the question of a social model – it must exist as a position and as a destination.
For many (and AUDI was a good example, of both victim and the antagonist of his own story. Farrell a much bigger example) if there is not a resolution for them … it doesn’t solve the problem .. they will either, look somewhere else or dig deeper into their singular battleground.
Not many do, as you have done, Paul, rise above the situation to an omniscient point to describe the issue within a perspective, in this case, human rights.
Hunt won’t respond, of course. I am aware of another applicant who has asked only one very basic question and the HRC will not respond to that either. No demands, just a request for a very simple explanation of an uncomplicated issue.
Put those two together and you can see the snubb is deliberate – even Ben Easton got through the door.
Do we all agree, at least, that the rights of all human beings is to fair treatment? Surely, if a woman deserves an explanation so does a man.
If the basic needs of the human are food, shelter and education – surely neither our bodies nor our minds are served well by this man’s discrimination.
I said 20 years ago that men in this country will end up helpless and hopeless dying in the streets and Hunt continues to contribute to that social degradation.
As a signatory to the UN Charter we have pledged to respect basic human rights – there may be occasions when the individual cannot be respected – but when the ordinary decent citizen can get neither acknowledgment nor explanation, but a gang member can we are as you say creating groups – where power is not dismantled but becomes a transfer of purpose – as I persistently make the point to no avail in the case of the alienation of the father, it is the same principle with the alienation of these groups – not the administration of human rights but a transfer of purpose.
As a member of the United Nations no government can claim the mistreatment of its citizens is its own business whether that is simplistic ignorance in the case of Hunt or blind denial of the menace behind the teeth – one way to our face and another out of sight – as you have so ably shown, Paul.
Once again, not just well done, exceptionally well done.
[Ardern’s latest Zoom to the UN?]
Comment by Downunder — Sun 26th September 2021 @ 9:39 am
This?
Make sure you have a bucket handy before you hit play.
https://youtu.be/3Fwi3e1KyAI
Comment by Evan Myers — Sun 26th September 2021 @ 1:07 pm
I see on the video #18.
Comments are turned off.
It is her showing support, for democracy.
Or like a decree from the throne.
No criticism, analysis allowed.
For a second, it felt like living in China.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 26th September 2021 @ 3:24 pm
@16
Iain,
Creating liability for the HRC? I’m thinking it creates liability for the Government.
That Hunt thinks he can avoid your correspondence by not acknowledging it?
Why don’t you give what you have sent Hunt to the media, ask them to ask Hunt why you have not had a response.
It seems Hunt’s only responsibilities is to himself and his employer.
Woke seems to apply to every single group from the colour of their skin, religion, traits, sexuality, women, but not men and fathers.
Comment by Lukenz — Tue 28th September 2021 @ 5:18 am
@20
The HRC is not looking after human rights, it is enforcing government policy in a discriminatory fashion under the guise that it is dismantling historical power.
When David Seymour from ACT was asked about the HRC recently he adopted a position of “scrap the whole thing” which is essentially a way to avoid the argument.
It’s not as there was no attempt by any media to discuss the position and of course you won’t get Collins calling for Hunt to be sacked for being a skinny little hypocrite.
Sometimes it’s not always clear how National and Act work together to avoid issues like this.
Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 28th September 2021 @ 9:15 am
@16 my apologies Iain, I must of been having a senior-moment in 17.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 28th September 2021 @ 3:18 pm