New Zealand Equality Education Foundation
(incorporating the International Ex-Fetus Association)
Privatise Television New Zealand ! (edited)
© Peter Zohrab 2005
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
(Open Letter to the National Party's Broadcasting Spokeswoman)
Dear Mrs Te Heuheu,
I urge you to reconsider your apparent decision not to privatise TVNZ. I
suggest that it would be morally defensible and politically imperative to
privatise it after the election, even if you promise not to do so before the
election.The reason for my saying this is that there seems to be a pattern
surrounding the National Party and the issue of privatising Television New
Zealand: In every election cycle, National talks about privatising it, but
when it comes to the crunch (i.e. Election Year), it backs down and promises
not to do so.I am sure that the reason for that pattern is that National really wants to
privatise it (partly because it is a left-wing propaganda outlet, though
less so than in the past), but it can't afford to, politically, because TVNZ
has its ways of bending you to their will. In other words, it will give
National even more unfavourable coverage than normal if it feels that
National will privatise it if it wins. So, every election year, National
goes weak at the knees and caves in to the demon TVNZ.This is the Death of Democracy !
As I have found, TVNZ has subtle ways of giving unfavourable coverage. For
example, it can use non-verbal ( e.g. camera) techniques, which it can claim
were accidental or imaginary. For example, the interviewer's head can move
from side to side, causing the interviewee's eyes to shift from side to
side -- creating a shifty-eyed appearance in the interviewee. As another
example, I was interviewed by them for an "Assignment" programme on boys'
education, and I appeared on-screen with my eyes closed for most of the part
of my interview that was screened -- because the female interviewer kept
staring at me with a very intense and semi-hostile expression on her face,
while she asked questions which I was bound to answer in a way that I would
expect her (as a probably feminist) to be hostile to. I had to close my
eyes to shut off her stare and concentrate on my answer.In addition, the provisions of the Broadcasting Act with regard to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) are a farce. The BSA is a quasi-judicial body which rules on issues such as anti-male sex discrimination. It has without exception ruled against all the complaints of anti-male sex discrimination that I have made against TVNZ over the years, and I am not aware of any single case where it has ruled against any broadcaster on the issue of anti-male discrimination.
The BSA consists of short-term (3-year) political appointees, and their decisions can only be reversed by the High Court on the basis that the BSA was exercising a discretion (rather than complying with particular legal standards). Any High Court decision can not be appealed further. It is a well-established legal principle that judges
- need security of tenure to ensure their independence, and
- should not be appointed for political purposes*.
The current Chair of the BSA is Joanne Morris, who is -- in my opinion --
the most hypocritical, vicious, and politically corrupt man-hater in New
Zealand today (She faces fierce competition for that title, I might add !).
She was the author of the 1999 Law Commission's Study Paper 1 on "Women's
Access to Legal Services", which totally ignored the submissions from men
such as Massey University's Stuart Birks and myself, and was consequently
not publised by the Law Commission under its own name, but under her name
personally -- a totally unprecedented event, as far as I am aware. So it seems clear that she was appointed by the Sisterhood for the political purpose of making Broadcasting a safe zone for the oppression of men.Going to her (as Mr Edwin Stranaghan did in 2004, for example) to complain
about TVNZ's anti-male bias is like a Jew complaining to Hitler about
anti-semitism by a concentration-camp guard !Mr Stranaghan complained that TVNZ screened two Coronation Street episodes
which showed violence by women against men, while violence by men agianst
women was never shown. His complaint was thrown out by both TVNZ and the
BSA, of course. However, this was not an isolated event: TVNZ has been
systematically showing programmes, advertisements and public service
"fillers" which show violence and sexual abuse by women against men -- while
carefully avoiding scenes where men do this to women.What is worse is that TVNZ routinely gives Women's Refuge free propaganda
time to spin their half-lies about men being violent towards women. See
dvsumary.html and fiebertb.html for the truth. So TVNZ is
carrying out a deliberate campaign of making us feel that women abusing men
is OK, while broadcasting man-hating propaganda about how evil men batter
women !I have collected some examples of this, and, if you can find me the money, I
will spend a commensurate amount of time watching TVNZ and noting and taping
all the examples that I come across.TVNZ has been systematically and maternalistically (not "paternistically")
changing New Zealand's mores and attitudes to social issues (e.g. by giving
lots of positive image-boosting for homosexuals and women, and negative
depiction of men and others) for many decades. The point is not whether one
agrees with TVNZ's attitudes -- the point is that it is dictatorial and
Goebbels-like for it to have the undemocratic power to make these changes to
society. At least we can be grateful that there are now several free-to-air
and subscriber channels, plus the Internet, so that TVNZ does not brainwash
us as completely as it once did.Either New Zealand is a democracy or it is not. On these facts (and on
others relating to the legal and educaiton systems) it is not. This must
change, or a revolution is just a matter of time. How stupid do you/they
think we are ?
*N.B. The issue of "political appointments" (i.e. appointments by politicians) in the judicial area is an interesting one. New Zealand has been moving from a system of supposedly non-political appointments by the Executive towards the appointment of judges by an independent body, on the one hand, whereas the United States, on the other hand, has long had an explicitly political system whereby the Executive appoints Supreme Court judges (subject to Senate confirmation). The US system at least makes it explicit that the judicial system makes a lot of political decisions, and this may underlie the US's refusal to accept the authority of the International Criminal Court. Countries whose systems pay lip-service (as it were) to the notion that judges are apolitical might be more willing than the US to subject their citizens to the decisions of judges from other countries.