People with $10m can buy their way into New Zealand. That policy was always going to involve a proportion of crooks. In his recent visit to New Zealand the Chinese President Xi Jinping asked NZ to send back a number of wealthy Chinese immigrants who he claimed had fled China with the proceeds of corruption. Mr Key responded publicly that because NZ has no extradition treaty with China (because China tortures accused to gain confessions, uses the death penalty and harvests the organs of those killed) we won’t be sending the allegedly corrupt millionaires back. However, there is one case involving allegations of ‘sexually inappropriate behaviour’ and Mr Key said NZ probably will be sending ‘that person’ back. For some reason, sending back a ‘person’ accused of sexually inappropriate behaviour doesn’t require any extradition treaty but sending back crooks and fraudsters does.
Does anyone understand the legal basis for Mr Key’s claim?
If this ‘person’ is sent back to face Chinese justice for what China defines as sexually inappropriate behaviour, would the same apply to, for example, a lesbian wanted by any of the 79 countries that illegalize homosexuality as sexually inappropriate behaviour and demand she is returned for trial and punishment for her crimes?
The main concern for the men’s movement is that our government is treating ‘sexually inappropriate behaviour’ as more deserving of rough Chinese justice than corruption, fraud and/or theft involving millions. Our justice system’s constantly harsher treatment of sexual crime has long been a vanguard in feminists’ war against men, while false or exaggerated sexual allegations have long been a weapon used by individuals to damage men in both criminal and family Courts. Sexual allegations are generally based on poorer evidence than are allegations of massive fraud, often nothing other than one female’s account. Allegations of sexual offending deserve to be investigated, put through due process and if properly proven to be punished and the offenders rehabilitated as much as possible. However, the treatment of sexual crimes, their investigation, Court procedures, a lower standard of proof required and the higher level of punishment have all step-wise become increasingly disproportionate and special when compared to other serious crimes including maiming and homicide. A great deal of irrational belief and misinformation surrounds the issue. This special, harsher treatment of sexual allegations and crimes appears to exist mainly because men commit most such crimes and women demand ever increasing levels of vengeance. It’s time to question the justification for this.
Mr Key’s announcement of special treatment towards a ‘person’ (read ‘man’) accused of ‘sexually inappropriate behaviour’ is almost certainly a form of white knight parading. For any semblance of gender equality in law, it’s time the state treated sexual crimes as it treats other crimes and in proportion to the seriousness of other crimes.