Our short submission refers only to the proposed amendment, whereby all sexual offences (with the
exception of rape, which is a male-against-female offence only and is retained in the new bill) are
expressed and applied in a sex-neutral manner.

We submit that there is no reason -- other than Feminist sexism and deliberate discrimination
against men -- to retain a separate male-against-female offence called "rape" (or, indeed, under any
other separate name). Either you understand the word "equality" (under which banner Feminists have
persuaded vast numbers of men almost all over the World to institute changes to legislation), or you
do not understand the word "equality". We submit that the above planned exception for rape
indicates that the Government does not, in fact, understand the word "equality", that it is
therefore incompetent to be politically active in a country that is purportedly "free and
democratic" (section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990), and should resign forthwith from Government
and from Parliament en masse.

Under section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Attorney-General has, we hope, received a report
from the Ministry of Justice or the Crown Law Office, stating that this exception breaches the Bill
of Rights Act 1990, and we hope that the Attorney-General has reported to Parliament with the same
conclusion -- but there is reason to doubt that either the Attorney-General, the Crown Law Office or
the Ministry of Justice understands the word "equality". Our best guess is that all the nearest
they come to understanding "equality' is "equality for women", or "gender equity (for women, stupid !)".

If this Bill is passed with the rape exception in it, we might hope that the courts would declare it
to be in breach of section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. However, that assumes that judges
understand the word "equality", which again is very doubtful. The Institute of Judicial Studies has
been teaching judges a Feminist version of "gender equity" -- i.e. "equality for women", or "gender
equity (for women, stupid !)" -- and has refused to teach gender equity from a Masculist
prespective.

I am not aware of one single case in New Zealand where the Bill of Rights Act 1990's prohibition
against sex discrimination (section 19) has been used -- successfully or otherwise -- to benefit a
male who has been the object of sex discrimination by statute or secondary or tertiary legislation.
This cannot be because no male has been the object of such discrimination -- this very Bill is an
(incomplete) attempt to cure the anti-male discrimination that is presently in the Crimes Act 1961,
after all ! I refer you also to the webpages: http://nzmera.orcon.net.nz/menorits.html and
http://nzmera.orcon.net.nz/rvmayes.html .

I put it to you that the male equivalent of a woman's being allowed to abort an unborn child without
reference to the wishes of the child or of its father is for a man to be able to place his penis
wherever he wants to and whenever he wants to. If Parliament and the Courts thinks it is
permissible for it to continue to discriminate so brazenly against men as it does at present, we may
end up with a situation where rape is in fact the only satisfactory avenue of protest left to men.
Rape will become an act of political protest against Feminist discrimination. For some men, this
may already be the case !

We would like to make an oral submission as well, please.

In the course of the oral submission, we would like to ask the MPs present if they know of any case
where any male in New Zealand has successfully made a complaint or pleaded an argument that he has
been discriminated against on the grounds of sex.

Last Update: 28 October 2007

Top