Open letter to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission

Nicely formatted and referenced PDF version here

Kia Ora Chief Commissioner

Thank you for your previous response. I have decided to respond with an open letter because the HRC wants feedback from the public¹ and the UN says the HRC should be accountable to the public.²

In the deep shadow of world war two, the people of the world asked “what can we do to avoid another holocaust?” The United Nations answered the question by developing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The declaration is a commitment to the basic moral principle of the Golden Rule: treat others as you want to be treated. It recognises that all human beings have equal moral value. If it is wrong for me to hurt you, it’s wrong for you to hurt me.

The declaration itself is not sufficient to protect our human rights. That requires people to take action against human rights violations. The HRC is an organisation that is taking action to protect our rights.

The narrow path travelled by the champions of human rights is filled with obstacles and distractions. There is always a risk of drifting from the path toward an unintended and unknown destination.

This letter is a signal to the Human Rights Commission. You are not on the path.

The map for the path

The Human rights Commission has a map. They developed a “human rights approach” with six items.³

• Linking decision-making at every level to human rights standards set out in the relevant human rights Covenants and Conventions
• Non-discrimination among individuals and groups through equal enjoyment of rights and obligations by all
• Identifying all relevant human rights involved, and balancing rights, where necessary, prioritising those of the most vulnerable people, to maximise respect for all rights and rights-holders
• Emphasis on the participation of individuals and groups in decision-making that affects them
• Empowerment of individuals and groups by their use of rights as leverage for action and to legitimise their voice in decision-making
• Accountability for actions and decisions enabling individuals and groups to complain about decisions adversely affecting them

Where the commission is off the path

“Women and girls have the same fundamental human rights as men and boys”.[HRC 2010]4 however the HRC treats women and men very differently. This amounts to discrimination. The HRC is not identifying and balancing rights. The HRC is not including everyone in the decision making that affects them.

Here are the differences:

Services provided specifically for women

The HRC has a commissioner for women but none for men. The commissioner provides these services to New Zealand women:

• Identifiable point of contact for issues of women’s rights
• Writes articles⁵, media⁶, social media posts⁷, etc. about women’s rights
• Represents women’s rights formal settings like before government committees and united nations⁸
• Networking and joint activities with women’s groups EG National Council of Women, Pacific Women’s Watch, Māori Women’s Welfare League.⁹

The HRC has regular specific consultations with women about their human rights.

For example:

• 8 meetings for reporting under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)¹⁰
• 6 meetings for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)¹¹

Other services the HRC provides to New Zealand women but not to men

• Develop priorities for women’s rights [HRC 2108]¹² They are, Gender based violence, Employment, Exploitation and trafficking, Health, Data collection and resource allocation
• Website and education material specifically about women’s rights Eg ‘Women, work, and Human Rights’ pamphlet¹³
• Specific projects for women’s rights eg, Track Equality at Work^14, equal pay, gender-based violence, sexual harassment, breastfeeding
• Make recommendations to the government and UN about specifically women’s rights

Services provided specifically for men

The HRC does not provide any specific services to men. It does provide its general services, like addressing complaints, to both men and women. However, the HRC:

​

• Does not have any person responsible for men’s human rights to provide a visible point of contact, expertise, experience, networking etc.
• Does not have specific consultations with men about their human rights
• Has not developed any priorities for men’s human rights.
• Does not have any explicit plans or polices for men’s human rights
• Does not specifically monitor and report on men’s human rights

The consequence of straying off the path

The lack explicit and active protection of the rights of men and boys has consequences. Human rights violations remain ‘out of sight and out of mind’.

Boys right to bodily autonomy and self-determination ignored

In New Zealand thousands of infant boys have part of their penis removed at their parents request. Medically unnecessary circumcision violates the boy’s right to bodily autonomy, self-determination, and to be free from cruel treatment.

If adults choose circumcision that is their choice. They can consent and understand the consequences.

The HRC should have a strong position against this violation of human rights. After all, the HRC clearly rejects unnecessary genital surgery on girls^{15 16} and intersex children¹⁷.

The HRC says circumcision a complex issue which requires the consideration of a number of legal and human rights principles.¹⁸

There is some contradiction in international human rights law regarding circumcision. However, there is a consistent and clear position for girls, and girls and boys have the same fundamental rights. The default position should be equality and non-discrimination. However, the status quo is to accept the differential treatment of boys and girls.

If the HRC was on the path then the HRC would:

• be aware of how relevant parts of international human rights law apply to boys; and
• be consistent in it’s position for girls, boys and intersex children; and
• be aware of the latest science and ethics regarding circumcision; and
• monitor and report on circumcision

Then perhaps fewer boys would lose part of their penis unnecessarily.

Men’s right to equality before the law, a fair trial, and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment

Equality before the law is a fundamental right. Laws should not discriminate. However, New Zealand has laws that explicitly discriminate against men. For example, section 194 of the Crimes Act makes a male assaulting a female a specific crime.

‘Male assaults female’ has twice the maximum sentence and more restrictive bail conditions compared to the gender-neutral equivalent, common assault. It’s likely there are men in prison at the moment who would have served their time and been released if they had been women. In other words, there are men are unjustly in prison simply because they are men.

The Law Commission recommend repealing ‘male assaults female’ in 2009.

The HRC recognises the law should not take gender into account in it’s submission to the government for the Family and Whānau Violence Bill.

s 194A – Assault on person in a family relationship

The Commission agrees with the introduction of this offence. It is gender neutral, unlike the offence of male assaults female that is commonly used in domestic violence situations. … The law should reflect the seriousness of the assault and not the gender of the victim and perpetrator. [HRC 2017]¹⁹

However the HRC has not taken any opportunity to highlight this discriminatory law. Leaving men unequal under the law, and men in prison when they shouldn’t be.

Bias against men in the justice system

In additional to discriminatory laws, the justice system treats men more harshly than women.

Women who enter the justice system are filtered out at every natural attrition point more than men. Men are more likely to be prosecuted rather than given an alternative like being warned or discharged without conviction. Men are more likely to be sent to prison once convicted. Men receive longer sentences on average and are less likely to be released on parole.²⁰

Dr Samantha Jeffries found “With other factors statistically controlled, women's imprisonment terms were found to be substantially shorter than men's.”²¹

For sexual offences, Paterson similarly found that “In terms of police decision-making processes, compared to males, a smaller proportion of females proceeded to “court action” for their offences. Furthermore, the severity of sentences handed down to males was greater than those handed down to females.”²²

Clearly their is lack of substantive equality for men in the justice system. This is something the HRC should be monitoring and reporting on so these injustices can be reduced.

Failure to report

Part of the HRCs role is reporting on our human rights situation to the UN. The HRC’s reports build a foundation for the UN’s human rights structure. If human rights issues are not reported to the UN then the UN’s human rights structure can do nothing about them.

In 2015 the men’s groups sought a meeting with then Chief Commissioner David Rutherford. During the meeting he assured them that men’s rights are as important as women’s rights and considered plans to include men’s human rights issue in reports to the UN.²³

However no plans were made or implemented resulting in no men’s issue being reported in the 2018 Universal Periodic Review. In contrast, the Commission held six consultations with women.

Men’s rights issues were raised in general consultations but not included in the final report with one exception. Sex disaggregated statistics for suicide was included.

The neglect of men’s human rights issues by the HRC was raised in three of the consultations.

Lost opportunity for Maori Men and other minorities

Maori have the poorer outcomes in health, education and the justice system compared Pakeha. Maori men have the poorer outcomes in health, education and the justice system compared to Maori women.

Men of other minorities face unique issues with discrimination and other human rights violations.

For example, Flage found “that both gender and ethnic discrimination occur in the rental housing market in OECD countries … minority men are the most disadvantaged.”²⁴

Identifying and highlighting the unique issues for Maori and minority men is an opportunity to improve outcomes for them which is currently being wasted.

Wider consequences

The consequences of ignoring men’s and boys’ human rights affects more than just those men and boys whose rights are violated.

A stark reminder of this is presented by the Family Violence Death Review Committee’s latest report. In the report the follow the live path of men who end up killing their partner. The report found those men were repeatedly failed by various social services and other organisations.²⁵ That’s a failure to protect those men’s human rights.

Continued in comments...