Justice
Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias wouldn't
know justice if it came up and slapped her in the face. In order
to dispense justice, you have to be free of prejudice and discrimination,
which she is certainly not!
She states in paragraph 15 of her recent speech "Blameless
Babes" that:
"... more than half of male prison inmates, and a staggering
60 per cent of female prison inmates are Maori, a calamitous state
of affairs for the health of our society."
Not many people would disagree with that, but, according to the Corrections
Department, a staggering 93.5% of prison inmates on 30 June 2007 were
male, whereas males comprise less than 50% of the population.
Why didn't that rate a mention by the country's first female Chief Justice?
The answer to that is she doesn't give a damn about men. After
all, she only became Chief Justice because some man-haters in the previous
Labour Government wanted to have a female Chief Justice. She probably
wouldn't have got the job on merit if she had been a man. One
problem with the corrupt mentality that believes in affirmative action,
is that it produces women in jobs who have the guilty knowledge that
they don't deserve to be there on merit, and who therefore have a vested
interest in furthering the favouritism towards women that got them where
they are, in order to make this favouritism seem normal and just.
I have also heard a highly pejorative epithet applied to her by a conservative
male lawyer, but I will not repeat it, even though it is arguably relevant.
Separation of Powers
Sian Elias had no business interfering in Government policy by opposing
the high rate of imprisonment, as she did in that speech. Law
Society President John Marshall has been reported as saying that
her speech did not criticise any specific Government policy, but that
is a lie. The Bail
Amendment Act 2008 was one of Justice Minister Simon Power's first
creations after the election, and it makes bail harder to obtain, thereby
increasing the prison population. Remands in custody (the opposite
of bail) was one of the causes mentioned by Elias of the high numbers
of prison inmates which her speech criticised -- e.g. in paragraph 43.
When studying at Victoria University of Wellington Law School, I was
taught by Professor Brian Brooks and Lecturer Tony Shaw that lawyers
tell lies, and John Marshall has certainly proved them right!
I am not a liar, so the Wellington District Law Society decided that
my character was not good enough for me to become a lawyer!
Judges' Fear
One important point made by Sian Elias, however, has not featured prominently
in media coverage of her speech -- what she calls the sometimes angry
atmosphere in courtrooms, because of the new emphasis on victims' rights.
Judges have a vested interest in their own personal safety and working
conditions, and, if they think that a particular government policy impacts
on them personally in that sort of a way, then they should have the
right to mention it in public. I was surprised, one day in Law
School, when we were told during a lecture that Sian Elias would be
giving a lecture in another lecture hall straight after that class.
That was all the notice we received. I didn't go to hear her speak,
because I had made other plans, and saw her as a symbol of Feminazi
triumphalism -- irrespective of the detail that we are both of part-Armenian
ancestry.
Coup d'état
The existence of the Institute
of Judicial Studies constitutes a coup d'état
by the judiciary, at least some of whom should be tried for treason.
The judiciary has no business running courses and empire-building.
Its job is to judge court cases. It is a gross abuse of power
that the Institute has been teaching man-hating courses under the heading
of "Gender Equity", and refusing to let me view the content
of the propaganda that was being taught, or to teach Gender Equity from
a male point of view. Any lawyer who wants to present a pro-male
point of view in court before a judge who has been taught the opposite
by the Institute has had his client's right to a fair trial stolen from
under him by a bunch of harpies.
With the help of the Official Information Act and a former, decent
Chief Ombudsman, I was able, however, to find out the names of some
of the presenters of "Gender Equity" seminars, which is why
I know that it was man-hating propaganda. In addition, I was able
to read the papers presented at the precursor to the creation of the
Institute -- the "Judicial Seminar
on Gender Equity" held at Rotorua in May 1997.
Sian Elias, or her nominee, is a member of the Institute's Governing
Board, and five of the other nine non-coopted members are judges, so
she is deeply involved. After I had publicised the total mindlessness
evidenced by that Seminar, one member of the Men's Movement passed a
message on to me, to the effect that Sian Elias did not agree with the
teaching of "Gender Equity" at the Institute. I am unwilling
to believe that. Sian Elias contributed to the Rotorua Seminar
by speaking on her experience as a woman in the workplace. It
is to be expected (given the content of the other speeches) that she
complained about male behaviour --otherwise she would not have been
asked to speak. Granted, she may have had relevant experiences
to share with the audience, but her active participation in a seminar
that gave males no opportunity to complain about women in the workplace
hints at a Feminist mentality very much in tune with "Gender Equity"
propaganda.
The then Governor-General and former Appeal Court judge, the Rt. Honourable
Sir Michael Hardie Boys (to whom I am related), gave an address, in
which he showed both how confused he was about Gender Equity" and
what "Gender Equity" is really all about. Having mentioned
that women constitute 50.9% of the population, he went on to say:
"To digress a moment, that figure: because the birth ration
favours the male: there are 106 live male births to 100 female.
But women are tougher and live
longer, hence the 7% swing which gives women that slight margin in
the total population."
In my reading of the literature on life
expectancy, I have seen no evidence that women are tougher. On
the contrary, they are extremely self-indulgent and pay enormous attention
to their own health and well-being, whereas men do not. The taxpayer
pays for women to be assisted in avoiding breast cancer and cervical
cancer. Men take risks, and are encouraged by women to do so,
because women see risk-takers as sexy. Men are conscripted into
warfare, whereas women only fight if they happen to feel like doing
so. Women love men in uniform -- in fact, they love any sucker
who will lay down his life for her. Men predominate in the dangerous
and dirty occupations.
Michael was talking through his hat, but he revealed what all this
"Gender Equity" nonsense was all about: men being chivalrous
towards women and deferring to them in whatever they wanted.
