Peter douglas 2012-04-22 03:11:51
To: Rt. Hon Helen Clark
Prime Minister of New Zealand
Re: Inquiry Term of Reference No.1 and Term of Reference No.2
Dear Ms Clark,
I must be dreaming! I went to the webpage:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.cfm?DocumentID=18980 and read the terms of reference of the
Commission of Inquiry into allegations against Police officers about their sexual conduct, and into
the Police investigations into their sexual conduct. What makes me think I’m dreaming is the second
term of reference.
The second term of reference is as follows:
“They will also investigate police standards and codes relating to police personal behaviour,
including sexual conduct.”
That proposal may seem fairly harmless to the uninitiated, but many of us are aware that this
particular term of reference exists purely because you happen to dislike male police officers having
group s** with a female. Presumably, you would think it perfectly moral for two female Police
officers to have s** with each other.
My questions to you are:
1.. What part of your job description has to do with providing moral leadership for the country ?
2.. What mandate do you have to usurp this role from religious leaders, etc. ?
3.. What moral — as opposed to political — authority do you dream that you have in the country ?
4.. What credibility do you or the Commissioners have to lay down moral guidelines, given that:
a.. You yourself know that you are widely believed to have got married purely in order to scotch
rumours about your sexuality ?
b.. You have obviously been a strong supporter of equal rights for homosexuals and lesbians in all
c.. You have recently made prostitution legal in this country; and
d.. You have long been in favour of killing unborn children if that suits the lifestyle of the
mother — and in total disregard for the rights of the father.
My point is not so much that you are wrong to have taken those actions or stances. My point is that
they are all very divisive, polarising moral issues, and many of your fellow-citizens believe that
your stance on each of these issues is highly immoral.
Not to put a fine point on it, the Lesbian Feminist movement, as apparently represented by your
policies, seems to have moved from a position of flying in the face of conservative, religious,
heterosexual morality to a position of daring to impose atheistic, Lesbian Feminist, anti-male moral
standards on the rest of Society ! Specifically, why is it acceptable for police officers — in your
view — to be practising Lesbians and homosexuals, but not acceptable for them to practice group s**
in their private lives ? You take my breath away with your arrogant presumption !
It is noticeable how the liberalisation of the marriage laws has been limited to including de facto
couples and same-s** couples, because that suits the monocultural Lesbian Feminist agenda. A
multicultural approach would have included polygamous (one man + several women) and polyandrous (one
woman + several men) relationships in the liberalisation process. I can see no reason why the line
should be drawn where you have drawn it, apart from racism or Feminist Supremacism.
What legal sexual activities go on between consenting adult police officers in their off-duty hours
is absolutely none of your business !
The first term of reference reads as follows:
“Commissioners Justice Bruce Robertson and Dame Margaret Bazley will inquire into police conduct,
standards and procedures when receiving and investigating allegations of sexual assault and abuse
made against the police.”
There are many issues to raise under this heading, but I will raise just one here:
Why is alleged rape special ? I myself, and lots of other men, have been mistreated by the Police.
Why do our experiences not merit inclusion in this Inquiry ? Is it because you are an anti-male
New Zealand Equality Educaiton Foundation
Camera catches out False Rape Complaint http://mens.human-rights.org/womliar.html P**** Envy,
Breast-Feeding, and Child Sexual Abuse http://mens.human-rights.org/pensenvy.html Bias in Mayes case
http://mens.human-rights.org/rvmayes.html Domestic Violence Centre
http://mens.human-rights.org/dvcorgnz.html The Next President is a Batterer
http://www.glennjsacks.com/is_there_a.htm The Opposite is Usually The Case
http://mens.human-rights.org/paradoxs.html The case R v A and B shows that Men have no Rights in New
Simon pleasant 2012-04-22 22:48:07
”Peter Douglas Zohrab”
terms of reference of the
sexual conduct, and into
I’m dreaming is the second
police personal behaviour,
are aware that this
male police officers having
for two female Police
Why? There’s nothing in the ToR that talks about that.
leadership for the country ?
PMs don’t have a job description.
See answer to (1). Also, could you provide evidence of the job descriptions
of religeous leaders that antitles them to provide moral leadership?
— (more nonsense in a similar vein snipped big time) —
Opinionated 2012-04-22 22:48:28
Just what we need to put the bigots in their place or exterminate them.
Rodents are exterminated aren’t they? 🙂 🙂
Cecil the ram 2012-04-22 22:48:39
Get over yourself – Clarkie the (ex) smug “I have a real marriage” [yeah
right] @#$#@@&**& is on the back foot now and back tracking quicker than
Michael Cullen can break another tax promise… who voted for them – own
Sue bilstein 2012-04-22 22:49:20
I believe that most New Zealanders would consider the group s** that these
cops confessed to, to be distasteful, immoral and corrupt – even if
consensual as they claim. That’s New Zealanders het or gay, atheist or
Personal sexual corruption, and corruption of public behaviour, often go
together in my experience.
Bobs 2012-04-22 22:49:23
It’s none of your business what people get up to, Sue. Personally I find
gay s** more perverted than male-female group s**. And yet if I said
that in public I would be called a howling bigot. Funny that.
Is male-male s** also sexual corruption, Sue? Should all gay cops be fired?
Seems to be yet another witch hunt to me. TVNZ, it seems, has already found them guilty.
Sue bilstein 2012-04-22 22:49:32
Well, I may have misjudged what males think about this subject, Bobs. Let’s
have a poll – I would be interested in everybody’s views on pile-ups.
Do you think it’s OK to go in for group s**?
Would you join in group s** if you were invited to?
If you found out that somebody you know goes in for it, would you think
better or worse of him/her?
In my view, if a man only gets turned on by men, and he conducts his sexual
life ethically, then no. By ethically, I mean with regard for the feelings
and well-being of his lover(s).
The thing about pile-ups (het or gay) is that it’s hard to see how you can
engage in them without treating other human beings as s** toys.
IF they raped, of course the act was vile. Even if they didn’t, IMO their
behaviour was gross enough to make me wonder whether we want cops like that.
Tarla 2012-04-22 22:49:43
I’m not male but I have an opinion, is that okay?
If you’re not committed to someone, sure.
Not at this age (50) but I did when I was younger (if threes and
foursomes count as a pileup)
Only if they’re in a committed relationship. And for me, it depends
upon the circumstances. .. ..
Depends upon how many are in the pileup.
There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than
a man in the depths of an ether binge.
–Hunter S. Thompson
Sue bilstein 2012-04-23 19:08:04
Three men in their late twenties onto an 18-year-old girl – would you think
better or worse of them?
Bob howard 2012-04-23 19:08:07
I don’t make judgements because there are so many different attitudes to
s**. As long as everyone consents and is old enough to know what they are
doing then it is up to them.
Me personally, no.
Neither. We often have friends or acquaintances we like for certain reasons
but don’t like some aspect of their behaviour. If you want to keep their
friendship you overlook it.
John cawston 2012-04-23 19:08:11
Yep. This aspect has been underreported. The thought that these fuckwits are
or were policemen makes me queasy. JC
Dave joll 2012-04-23 19:08:13
It would depend on many factors: most importantly, whether
it was with the 18 year old girl’s full and informed consent.
Tarla 2012-04-23 19:08:45
“Kerry is saying that Bush never showed up for his National Guard duty …
and now Bush is on the attack. He’s accusing John Kerry of ducking time
in the National Guard by hiding out in the jungles of Vietnam.”
Jd 2012-04-23 19:08:53
Yes. What consenting adults do is none of my business.
Depends on a variety of factors.
Jd 2012-04-23 19:08:55
If it is all consensual, I couldn’t care either way.
Morality is a costly and private luxury.
Tilly 2012-04-23 19:09:09
In a police station? Consensual s** in a police station is still a gross
violation of their profession, even if the s** is consensual.
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 – Release Date: 18/02/04
Eeyan 2012-04-24 14:40:39
NZ isn’t racist!! (Yeah Right!!!)
Bollocks! ……. I reckon most say ‘everyone to their own’. (with the
proviso that no harm occurs… ie legal etc….)
Kim shepherd 2012-04-24 14:40:56
Indeed. I don’t find either of them ‘perverted’, and while certain sexual
behaviour may make me feel a bit squeamish (as it does many of us), it
doesn’t make me want to persecute anyone for it. As long as it was all
consensual, who gives a toss?
Kim shepherd 2012-04-24 14:40:58
Good point. We can’t fault their employers for taking action. I imagine
they’d do the same even if they found [out about] one male and one female
making sweet sweet love in the missionary position to Chopin — s** in any
workplace is usually discouraged, excepting parlours of course.
I don’t think it makes the officers corrupt or evil, though… assuming it
Sue bilstein 2012-04-24 14:41:14
You need to distinguish between finding behaviour distasteful / immoral /
corrupt, and wanting to “persecute” someone for it.
If certain sexual behaviour makes you feel squeamish, your gut is telling
you it’s wrong behaviour.
Kim shepherd 2012-04-24 14:41:16
No, it’s telling me “I wouldn’t do that” — I don’t expect anyone else to
accept my squeamishness. It’s just there. They’re not having group s** with
*me*, so I’m apathetic abou t**.
You’re probably heterosexual, and hence haven’t had to suffer other people
deciding that what’s squeamish to them should be outlawed or immoral, even
if it’s not in their bedroom.
Enjoy your own s** life, and leave others to do the same.
I’m fully aware that the Police standing these officers down is part of what
any employer would do after having found out their employees had s** at the
That doesn’t mean they’re perverts, or immoral.
Mainlander 2012-04-24 14:41:59
In article <%R5_b.email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
P*** off misogynistic creep
Mainlander 2012-04-24 14:42:00
Yes, I agree, nothing of merit whatsoever.