A Deep Question
By ATWadmin On July 31st, 2008Over at House of Dumb, Jon asks the pertinent question about Harriet Harman’s latest pronouncements on partner/spousal abuse.
How exactly does this mesh with the libs’ last great assault on
marriage? Will gays have to register which of them is the wife and
which is in the wrong ?
He certainly has a point. I remember on a previous occasion where the police had to be called to remove my ranting ex-wife from the premises, the incident triggered the wheels of bureaucracy to send me leaflets on domestic abuse. However things then became slightly surreal as whomever sent them noted the fact that they were being sent to a male, and accordingly sent me leaflets which made the assumption that the antagonist in my situation must therefore also be male and I gay, as the idea of female-on-male abuse obviously did not exist in their worldview.
A very good friend of mine is a social worker with over a decade of experience. In his native US, he specialised in domestic abuse cases. When he started working in this area due to that specialisation he was assigned such work, and in that capacity visited each of the local Women’s Refuges within a large radius. At each when he asked what provision was made locally for female-on-male abuse, he was greeted with total incomprehension and shock that such a possibility would even be raised. One official informed him outright that ‘we do not accept that such a thing exists’ and made a complaint against him for raising the issue.
How long before the first unhappy woman decides that she can invent a history of spousal abuse and just get rid of the problem? Murder is murder, ladies and gents, no matter the provocation. There exists in this country a superb network of support and infrastructure for women who wish to escape relationships that are controlling and/or abusive (as long as they aren’t Asian, at least. But the tendency of Asian police officers to utterly fail to do their jobs in DV cases involving other Asians is a whole other story). And if any woman was that trapped, that utterly frustrated, then I am damn sure that any judge and jury would take this into account under those specific circumstances in our current climate.
Creating legislation to deliberately move the goalposts in favour of women, or any other group, is nothing more than another perversion of what is left of our laughable ‘justice system’.
How deeply embarrassing for you to require local busybodies to be called in to resolve domestic disputes neither of you could put right between you.
Speaking of moving the ‘goalposts’, perhaps it would be a more rounded debate to note what else the legislation will redress.
The reforms will also end the use of a centuries-old defence of provocation, which enables mostly male defendants to escape murder convictions and be found guilty instead of manslaughter. It would result in life sentences for about 100 killers a year who currently escape murder convictions by claiming that they were provoked by unfaithful or nagging spouses.
Quite a useful one sided perversion, goalposts, laughable justice system in situ already yada yada yada.
Murder is murder, ladies and gents, no matter the provocation
Steven
Would you suggest embarassment as a response to a woman who was a victim of domestic violence. I was also the victim of a violent female partner in my time and it is no joke. And calling the police wasn’t even an option.
"At each when he asked what provision was made locally for female-on-male abuse, he was greeted with total incomprehension and shock that such a possibility would even be raised. One official informed him outright that ‘we do not accept that such a thing exists’ and made a complaint against him for raising the issue."
In that case,
I guess Lorena Bobbitt really didn’t BOB IT!
To Henry94
Would you suggest a battered wife (physically weaker) in an abusive relationship is "frustrated". As did the writer of the post.
Steven
Feel free to take issue with anything I say. But if you have an issue with what someone else said then I suggest you ask them about it. I have enough trouble defending my own comments.
Henry94
My comment was in response to the post rather than yourself. "embarrassing" vs "frustrated". I think the balance is fair re my tone in response to that employed in the post. And the point should be clear.
By all means do take issue with the substance of my comment.
Wow, first day back and already there’s some Leftie trying to play the man and not the ball…
How you can imagine that these proposals are removing provocation as a defence rather than enshrining it? And I would just *love* for you to provide us with one or two examples of men getting away with murder on grounds of provocation in, say, the last decade.
I’m curious. What acceptable word should I in your opinion have used instead of ‘frustrated’? I’d say it is the perfect word to describe someone who feels they are simply unable to deal with a situation except through the most extreme means.
And as for embarassment, well. I’m sure, pillar of wisdom that you are, a situation where my daughter is crying her eyes out as her screaming biological mother tries to kick the front door in to get at her is perfectly within your capabilities to sort out in some ‘non-embarrassing’ way. Me, I thought it would be rather more sensible not to step outside and get me some of that centuries-old provocation defence.
There’s only one person on this thread with a reason to feel embarrassed, and it isn’t me…
Steven
By all means do take issue with the substance of my comment.
I assume you mean this
The reforms will also end the use of a centuries-old defence of provocation, which enables mostly male defendants to escape murder convictions and be found guilty instead of manslaughter. It would result in life sentences for about 100 killers a year who currently escape murder convictions by claiming that they were provoked by unfaithful or nagging spouses.
I don’t know of any objection to that part of the proposal As you are aware the controversial aspect of the plan is the the part which makes a legal justification for murder not the part which removes one.
I agree completely that infidelity or nagging should never be considered justification for murder. Only immediate self-defence should be a legal defence for murder.
One is not concerned for the lives of the long term abusers of women by the way. One is concerned for the possibility, indeed the likelihood, of innocent men being murdered and then being deemed abusers by the courts without a right to speak up for themselves.
This is simply a piece of ideological vindictiveness. It is neither an answer to the problem of abuse nor an answer to the question of evidence.
DSD,
You obviously didn’t notice my allusion to Harriet Harman’s work here. How else to explain your evident ignorance of her stance on equality?
You might do well to read the entire framework document, available as a PDF. It’s quite educational.
BTW, if you’re a Muslim man I understand your position.
By introducing this defence, gender inequalities will be balanced; far more men currently evade life sentences by pleading provocation than women.
I consider the law as it stands "ideological vindictiveness" Henry.
The fact is in the general hubris on this issue in the post it has barely had a mention. On average women suffer 70 beatings before they take matters to the police. The majority of complaints are dropped before they get to court. Those in court are often terrified rather than, um, "frustrated". Try that word out for size Mr DSD.
Domestic violence has only been addressed by police in recent years not eons – as the current centuries old biased law highlights with the very factual numbers put down for manslaughter. Not murder. Wasn’t that the general statement in the post?
Mr DSD still fails to grasp that, other than his own personal situation that he could not resolve and where he allowed an argument to get out of all control witha child in the house, might also be terrifying. Not merely "frustrating".
Yes, "DSD" should be embarrassed by his casual concern for others whilst plying for sympathy for himself and backpeddling the men are all victims line.
This defense can only be used in extreme cases where there is a proven cycle of abuse. Furthermore this legislation isn’t ‘man bashing’ because it isn’t gender specific.
Steven
By introducing this defence, gender inequalities will be balanced; far more men currently evade life sentences by pleading provocation than women.
That in a nutshell is what is wrong it. The job of the law is not to make sure that an equal number of men and women get away with murder.
If the law is allowing one group to escape the consequences of their actions then deal with that. You don’t balance it out by making it easier for another group to do something similar.
This defense can only be used in extreme cases where there is a proven cycle of abuse.
Proven? The person against whom the accusation of abuse is being made is dead. No right to a fair trial, no jury of their peers, no presumption of evidence. What we will have is a claim of abuse and the standard of evidence will be what? That is not yet clear but you can be sure it will be a lot less than "beyond a reasonable doubt"
Because the right to reasonable doubt will belong to the accused not the victim. Once the defence is allowed then all that will be required is a possibility of abuse to create the reasonable doubt. It’s a legal disaster and effectively a charter for murder.
Steven do you not see the glaring contradiction between writing:
"gender inequalities will be balanced; far more men currently evade life sentences by pleading provocation than women."
Which implies that the fact that a law which affect the sexes in different numbers is an inequality that needs to be dealt with, and then this sentence in the same post that:
"Furthermore this legislation isn’t ‘man bashing’ because it isn’t gender specific."
Which suggest that laws that effect the sexes in different numbers are perfectly fair as long as they apply equally to all offenders.
Ross –
Like gay men in abusive relationships you mean. Joking about that aside also.
No, since the change in the law is not gender specific but the current law does allow people to get away with murder so….??
Do you not see the glaring contradiction between the use of an in situ centuries-old defence of provocation, which enables mostly male defendants to escape murder convictions and be found guilty instead of manslaughter (100 per year) and the crux of the post:
Murder is murder, ladies and gents, no matter the provocation.
Same point to Henry
Steven, It appears that you’ve never been wrapped up with a woman in a great big ball of crazy. Comsider yourself lucky old boy.
Yes I have Charles. People get mixed up in bad relationships. Some manage their arguments. For others tempers explode and a man or a woman can be on the receiving end momentarily – or over a sustained period of time.
I am addressing the post which is a bit of a mess factually. For your benefit I will repeat it.
One – aside from the silly ignorant joke at the expense of gay people in abusive relationships both men and women… The law is not gender specific so it won’t be making any role distinction. Absurd.
Two: Re the issue of murder is murder – the thrust of the post. At present provocation can be cited only in cases where there is a loss of self-control or sudden loss of temper, for example in the face of an ‘insult’. It is wrong that a man who loses self-control on finding out his wife has committed adultery can claim provocation as has occured (see above comments) and which occurs most often but NOT exclsively with males, but the victim of sustained domestic violence in fear of further serious assault cannot. The latter could be a man or a woman and the non gender biased law will address this.
"By introducing this defence, gender inequalities will be balanced; far more men currently evade life sentences by pleading provocation than women."
And still, the utter lack of a single example.
"Yes, "DSD" should be embarrassed by his casual concern for others whilst plying for sympathy for himself and backpeddling the men are all victims line."
Oh my, so now anyone who isnt alongside the program is now promoting the idea that men are all victims.
And Dawkins,
You used to be able to do better than that old boy. Lost your touch? The list of supposed virtues you gave are all further examples of deliberate discrimination, pure and simple. We’ve been getting fed the same old lines about discrimination against black people, gay people, women, etc for decades now. There are already racial quotas, gender quotas, and when you consider that members of the BNP are barred from certain public service professions as of right, political quotas as well. No one believes this discrimination BS anymore except those who will believe that if McCain is elected it will be because of nasty white people not voting for a black guy. Which let’s face it is where you come right in
Quite simply The govt should not be removing one form of ‘provocation’ defence and replacing it with another. provocation should not be an excuse for anyone. Instead. they should be working only in the direction of protecting victims of domestic abuse and helping them ecape it and prosecuting those who inflict it. Trying to excuse and minimise acts of murder are not the right way of addressing this problem.
http://www.angryharry.com/es_Harriet_Harman.htm
Hey DSD! Nice to see you back.
Well, I’m in complete agreement with your point of view on this one. Society tends to discount women when it comes to abusive tendencies. Since men will rarely acknowledge spousal abuse due to personal humiliation, many would like to assume it doesn’t exist. Those of us dealing with the real world know that woman can be fiercely combative if they’re so inclined – weaker sex my ass.
I was researching a post on chid abuse last week and it turns out that most physical, emotional and neglectful abuse of our babies falls to women by a large margin. You guys win the sex perverted stuff, but we ladies abuse (beat, starve and emotionally screw up) our children by a much wider margin. It was quite sobering, since we are all brainwashed and conditioned to blame men for most family problems and view women as victims when it comes to family violence.
It should be interesting to see how Gay couples deal with the abuse laws. Hell, it will be real interesting to see how the government copes (we all know the cops have been handling this stuff forever) with their new status.
Glad you’re back DSD.
The clear example of the present law DSD, already on the statutes. It’s bias is on plain record in the courts. You want all 100 cases? Women are terrified emotionally and physically in abusive relationships and men can be just as terrified to react physically in abusive relationships. Heterosexual or gay. Both sexes can suffer emotionally. Bullying is not sexually exclusive nor does it belong just to relationship issues.
However the law allows a man to be given a manslaughter charge if he was provoked. But not a woman if she lives in abject physical fear and kills before she is killed.
Weaker sex my ass? Try stopping a fully grown male stabbing you, raping you and stuffing you dead into a suitcase for size. In the absence of any police help you will wind up most assuredly DEAD. Because this is in reference to religious brown people does not make it ANY seperate an issue.
Perhaps if you were not so angry you would see the reason in the issues and look at it with more balance ("frustrated" from your post – now there is a statement meriting "my ass").
Concern yourself as much with the current injustice, all people’s fears, men, women, gay – as with what you view through your own angry little prism.
Your preponderance to casually dismiss gay couples in abusive relationships and jokingly allude to you needing a male female figure in each shows up your transparent chauvinism, totally undermines your own argument and shows your view as nothing but trite.
One official informed him outright that ‘we do not accept that such a thing exists’ and made a complaint against him for raising the issue.
I think your very good friend has been pulling your leg DSD. While its true that men and women can be gender specific in the type of abuse they meet out to each other which in a homosexual relationship could make things harder to profile as the lines are not so clear cut, the police social services etc are definitely aware of it.
But it does raise a pertinent issue, the male who plays the ‘female’ role in any homosexual relationship should he then have access to womens’ shelters or refuge?
Moving on to murder, surely if a woman wanted a man dead her best bet and long established route is poison. Feed it to him. While a mans would be more physical in nature. Stereotypical abuse is now in question due to homosexual relationships. But I hardly think it ranks as ‘humour’.
������ ������ ������ �� ������������ ������ ����������, ��������� ����, ����������� �� ����������, ���������������� ����? ����������� �������� ��� ������ . �� ����� �������� �� ������� ��������� ������ ����������� ���� �������� ������������� ������������ �� ����������. ����� ����������
������������. ��� ���� avtodinamika.ru ��������� ��� ��� �� ���������������� ��������� ����������. ����� �� ������� ����������, ��������, ���������� ���������� �� �����: ����������, ������������� � ���������������� �����, ������������ �������� ������� �����, �������� �����������, ����������� �������� ������������. ��� �� ��� ���� ������� ���������� ������ �������� ����������. ����� ����������