| |
(For latest exchange of letters on this topic, click HERE.)
We all know that the Women's Movement
has made massive gains on the back of claims that Feminism has
something to do with Equality. For example, the webpage http://www.angelfire.com/fl/EeirensFaerieTales/FeminismEquality.html
states:
"Feminism or the women's rights
movement was originally started to help women attain equality
...."
In fact, as I argue in my book, Sex,
Lies & Feminism, this was always only cherry-picking
-- i.e. selective equality. No attempt
has ever been made by Feminists to investigate or remove the discrimination
suffered by men. This has been allowed to continue, and has been
intensified by the increased privileges which Feminism has won
for women -- at men's expense.
Women now have so many privileges in most Western societies that
the velvet glove of "Equality-Seeking" has been thrown
away, and the iron fist of Power and Privilege-Seeking has been
revealed nakedly beneath. This shows itself in employment policies
in the police and armed forces, for example. Below is a letter
I received after enquiring about employment policies in the New
Zealand Police.
|
 |
In 2006. I wrote again to try to clear up clear up some matters
that were still unclear to me. As you can see, I asked a lot of
detailed questions, and the answers I received raise a lot of
issues.
Note that, in his answer to Question 16,
the Advisory Officer in Police Legal Services, in effect calls
the General Manager of Police Human Resources a liar! The
latter (Wayne Annan) stated (see above) that a test that had different
standards for men and women was not an entry standard, but an
"indicator standard" (whatever that means!). However,
the Legal Advisory Officer (Samuel Jennings) states, in answer
to Question 16 (see below), that that test
IS an entry standard test.
As far as I am concerned, Wayne Annan is
a bare-faced liar. I have seen him on television relatively
recently, in connection with the announcement of new, even more
relaxed entry standards, claiming that the new, intensified double-standards
in favour of women amount to "equality" for women. He
will obviously say absolutely anything at all. I know something
about the culture of Police National Headquarters, where he works,
because I used to work in the same building, and was frequently
glared at on the stairs by hostile police administrators.
In my letter reproduced below,
click on the questions to see the answers that were given to them
in a scanned letter (below).
|
22 July 2006
The Minister of Police
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Dear Mrs. King,
I received a reply dated 28 April 2004 from Wayne Annan, then
-- and probably still -- General Manager of Human Resources
for the New Zealand Police. It was in response to a letter from
me about physical standards for entrants to the Royal New Zealand
Police College and the physical standards that must be met after
completion of training.
I was not satisfied with his reply, because it was clear that
there was something relevant that was not being revealed by
him. In addition, I understand that new policies in this area
have been, or are soon to be introduced.
I understand that there are some people who think that increasing
the number of women in the police is a desirable goal in itself,
because I have heard a radio commentator say as much, and one
could understand the recent prosecutions of past or present
police officers for rape as either the result of a plan to create
a myth about "police culture", or as the result of
such a culture -- or both.
Could you therefore please answer the following questions
(under the Official Information Act 1982):
- Do you see increasing the number of women in
the police as a desirable goal in itself, and -- if so -- why
?
- Do you see increasing the number of men in any
employment area (e.g. teaching) as a desirable goal in itself,
and -- if so -- why ?
- Do you see the culture of the Police as something
that you wish to change by increasing the number of women there,
and -- if so -- why ?
- Is there any female-dominated employment area
whose culture needs to be changed by increasing the number of
men in it, and -- if so -- why ?
- Do you see yourself as bound by relevant provisions
of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Human Rights Act 1993 ?
- Is it a function of the Police to provide employment
for women, as an end in itself ?
- Is it the function of any government agency
to provide employment for men, as an end in itself ?
- Is it the function of any government agency
to provide employment for specific ethnic groups, disabled people,
or people with particular sexual orientations, as ends in themselves
?
- Does the Police have, or plan to have different
standards for entry for blind people, deaf people, paraplegics,
various ethnic groups (e.g. Samoans and East Asians), or transvestites.
If not, why not ?
- Is the overriding goal of the Police to carry
out specific functions for the benefit of the people of New
Zealand and others present in New Zealand at any particular
time ? If so, how do you reconcile this goal with the current
double standards, which necessarily results in some policewomen
being physically incompetent ?
- What is the impact on a male frontline police
officer of having to work with colleagues (i.e. females) who
are not physically competent to the same standard as himself
? Does that place him in more danger than would otherwise be
the case ?
- Would you support having lower entry standards
for male applicants for entry into Colleges of Education or
into the teaching profession, as compared with standards for
females ? If so, why? If not, why not ?
- On the basis of Mr. Annan's letter, I understand
that men and women have to meet different standards for entry
to Police College, when they have to pass the Physical Appraisal
Test. Is this correct ?
- On the basis of his letter, I also understand
that men and women have to meet different standards as Police
Officers, when they undergo a Physical Competency Test every
year or every two years (depending on their jobs). Is this correct
?
- On the basis of the same letter, I understand
that the Required Fitness Standard Test is what determines whether
trainees, who are otherwise suitable, may actually become Police
Officers, that this test has the same standards for men and
women, and that the test only differs from person to person
according to the particular job that it relates to. Is this
all correct ?
- On the basis of the same letter, I understand
that the Physical Appraisal Test is "only an indicator
standard, not the entry standard." Is that the case ?
- If the Physical Appraisal Test is only an indicator
standard, what is the precise function of this indicator standard
?
- If entry to the Police is governed by a test
which has the same standards for men and women, what is the
reason for an indicator standard which differs as between men
and women ?
- Once women have entered the Police and started
working in a particular job, for which they have passed the
relevant Required Fitness Standard Test, can they later move
to a different job without passing the relevant Required Fitness
Standard Test which they would have had to pass if they had
gone straight to that job on first entering the Police ?
- If the Required Fitness Standard Test, which
governs entry into the Police, does not have different standards
for men and women, but is job-related, why are there different
standards for men and women in the Physical Competency Tests
for serving police officers? This would seem to be redundant.
- What do you have to say to male applicants
or serving male police officers who fail the male standards
in the Physical Appraisal Test or Physical Competency Test,
but would have passed the female standard, on the basis of their
results ?
Yours sincerely,
Peter D. Zohrab
|
The police are saying that they see increasing
the number of women in the police as a desirable goal in itself.
Their only reason for this is that they want the police to be
reflective of New Zealand society as a whole. I am not aware that
any other body is required to be "reflective of society as
a whole", or that Parliament has laid this down as a goal.
This appears to have been dreamed up by Police Headquarters and
the Labour Party.
Why don't the Police say that they need
to be reflective of the criminal population, for example? Then
the Police would have to be mostly male and have many more Maoris
and other Polynesians officers than they have at present. To say
that the Police need to be reflective of society as a whole is
arbitrary. It is just a way of giving jobs to the girls.
This is a breach of the Human Rights of
those male applicants who miss out on selection because they can
only meet the female standards, but not the male standards. It
is also a breach of the Government's duty of care towards its
citizenry. If the standards are there to ensure that the police
are physically competent, then female police officers are likely
to be physically incompetent. This means that the citizenry is
not being protected by a competent police force. If the standards
are not there so as to ensure a competent police force, what is
the purpose of the standards?
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Here the Police have avoided answering the
question as to why they do not have, or plan to have different standards
for entry for blind people, deaf people, paraplegics, various ethnic
groups (e.g. Samoans and East Asians), or transvestites. Not only
are men been discriminated against, in comparison with women, but
all these groups are being discriminated against as well. |
Here the Police have avoided answering the
question as to the overriding goal of the Police, and also the question
about how they reconcile this goal with the current double standards.
They could have answered these questions without using the term
"physically incompetent". They are being dishonest by
referring to "subjective elements" (plural), while listing
only one such element ("physically incompetent"). |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
It is clear that the Police are discriminating
in favour of women and against men, blind people, deaf people,
paraplegics, various ethnic groups (e.g. Samoans and East Asians),
and transvestites.
The Police is also failing to provide
the New Zealand citizenry (and residents and visitors) with the
level of competent security to which they are entitled.
I wrote to the Police again
(see below) to clarify their answers and get them to answer the
questions which they have evaded.
In my letter reproduced below,
click on the questions to see the answers that were given to them
in a scanned letter (below).
|
23 August 2007
Samuel Jennings
Advisory Officer
Legal Services
New Zealand Police
PO Box 3017
Wellington
Dear Samuel Jennings,
I acknowledge your letter dated 21 December 2006.
In order to obtain clarification of some of the content of the
above letter, including places where you did not answer my questions,
I am writing to request that you answer some additional questions,
under the Official Information Act 1982:
- Given that I am unaware of any other institution
-- especially of any female-dominated institution -- that has
double standards for entry based on a desire to "be reflective
of New Zealand society in general," as you put it, who precisely
decided that the police should be reflective of New Zealand society
in general, and exactly when was this decided?
- Does the police consider that women have
particular qualities that men do not have, which make women more
suitable than men for the police, in any respect? If so, which
qualities, specifically?
- In my letter of 22 July 2006, I asked you
whether the police have, or plan to have different standards for
entry for blind people, deaf people, paraplegics, various ethnic
groups (e.g. Samoans and East Asians), or transvestites, and,
if not, why not. You answered "No" to the first part
of that question, but you did not answer why the police do not
have, or do not plan to have different standards for entry for
blind people, deaf people, paraplegics, various ethnic groups
(e.g. Samoans and East Asians), or transvestites. Could you please
now answer that question which you did not answer previously?
- You also did not answer my question: "Is
the overriding goal of the Police to carry out specific functions
for the benefit of the people of New Zealand and others present
in New Zealand at any particular time ?" Could you please
answer that now?
- I then went on to ask the question, "If
so, how do you reconcile this goal with the current double standards,
which necessarily results in some policewomen being physically
incompetent ?" You refused to answer this question, on the
grounds that it was "subjective" to consider that some
female police were physically incompetent. In view of your position
on that, could you please tell me what the function of entry standard
tests is, if it is not to prevent incompetent candidates from
entering the police?
- What measures do the police have in place
to ensure that physically incompetent people do not become members
of the police?
- If a male candidate fails to enter the
police, because he only achieves a standard that would enable
a female, but not a male, candidate to enter the police, is that
male candidate incompetent to be a police officer?
- What is the impact on a male frontline police
officer of having to work with colleagues (i.e. females) who are,
in some cases, not physically able to meet the same standards
as himself ? Does that place him in more danger than would otherwise
be the case ? Does that make the police less able to carry out
its duties on the front line?
|
This is the reply that I received:
|
For a government official to say that the
only reason for a policy is that it is "common sense"
is by far the most Mickey Mouse thing I have heard of any government
anywhere stating at any time in history. (Since the minister is
ex-dental nurse Annette King, I should perhaps call it "Minnie
Mouse".) If this policy is "common sense", why
has it only been introduced just recently? Why have generations
of past police administrators been unable to see "common
sense"?
This policy is clearly discriminatory,
and they are just begging to be taken to court over it. They do
not have separate standards for people of different cultures,
faiths, or sexualities -- just for women.
|
This, at least, is a reasonable
answer, although TV Wom tends to interview people saying that women
are better "communicators", or some such sexist rubbish.
If being a good "communicator" is important, then they
can select people (men or women) who excell at that. If that happens
to increase the number of females hired, then that would be reasonable
-- provided they passed the same physical standards as men. |
 |
 |
Again, the police are evading the question.
Nevertheless, it is clear that they discriminate against men,
compared to women, but do not have double standards for the benefit
of any group in society apart from women.
|
 |
 |
The Legal Adviser is now getting so desparate
that he stoops to unprofessional language -- calling me "disingenuous".
In fat, it is the Police administrators who are full of bad faith
and hypocrisy.
In ordinary language, if someone does not
meet standards to do a job, then they are incompetent -- whether
they may be competent at an other time or not is irrelevant. The
Legal Adviser is just being evasive, as usual.
|
 |
 |
 |
It is grossly hypocritical of Samuel Jennings
to pretend that the Police do not know what the effect on a police
officer of having a physically incompetent sidekick would be.
(See also: Men
Die Because Female Police are Physically Incompetent.)
(For the situation in Brazil, see Equality
for Men in Brazil's Bahia State Military Police.)
|
|
