Womens Refuge defends violent murderer
From the Dompost :
A woman who fatally stabbed her partner in the chest with a kitchen knife has been sentenced to just eight years in jail.
Jacqueline Elaine Wihongi, 33, “self-medicated” with alcohol after a tragic “history of victimhood”, a court was told yesterday. She is believed to be just the second person to receive less than a life sentence for murder.
Wihongi was found guilty in June of murdering her partner of 17 years, Vivian Hirini. But in the High Court at Napier yesterday, Justice John Wild said it would be manifestly unjust to sentence the mother-of-six to life imprisonment.
Women’s Refuge has hailed the decision as “brave and right”, and the justice minister says there are no plans to review the law that allowed the sentence……
Police were often called to attend to their altercations, which were often physical. Mr Hirini had been stabbed by her previously and had lost an eye when she hit him with a bottle….
Crown lawyer Steve Manning said this was not a case of “battered woman syndrome” and Wihongi had directed significant violence toward Mr Hirini in the years leading up to the murder….
Women’s Refuge spokeswoman Kiri Hannifin praised the judge for considering the “appalling violence” Wihongi had suffered.
“Given the horrendous life she has led, we believe that it was valid to weigh up whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose the presumption of life and come to the conclusion it was not.
“It was brave and right to impose a finite sentence…
We keep on being bombarded with the “its not OK’ campaign that shows men beating women and children.
I say again – its not OK for a woman to be repeatedley violent to a man and get off in the justice system with a slap with a wet bus ticket!
Women’s Refuge clearly supports the position that domestic violence against men is OK and that it can be mitigated by women perpetrator playing the victim card.
This is a shocking sentence and this violent woman has been treated very differently than a man is in the same circumstances.
Either its not OK to be violent to your partner and justice is meted out equally or it is OK if you can play the victim.
Women’s Refuge -all I can say to you is Shame on you!
The truth is Womens’ Refuge and the Family Court utterly failed this woman and her family.
They are busy fishing for violence where it is not and thus destroying innocent families, and letting it, where it is rough, to prosper.
Because their intent is on punishing and not educating.
I am sure this woman has probably refused the kiss of death of woman’ refuge.
Women’s refuge is a gender lobby. Its current incarnation has nothing to do with womens emancipation. They play a big role in putting young male Maori in jail or death as is this case.
I changed radically my views about them when I got first hand experience about how they go about destroying families.
Poor man, poor woman and poor kids. It is sad.
This man gave her the best gift she could ever receive: 6 children.
“Mr Hirini had been stabbed by her previously and had lost an eye when she hit him with a bottle….”
Just in case anyone missed it, Mr Hirini was the one who got murdered.
His wife had already half-blinded him and stabbed him before (and he obviously didn’t take her eye out, or murder her).
And Women’s Refuge are trying to tell us the murderess is the real victim here? There’s only one way to put this.
Damn them. Damn them all straight to hell.
The same goes for all the idiotic men who go along with this rubbish.
Oh my God!
Thanks for the posting Scrap.
I know men in NZ who’s upbringing was even more brutal than that described by Wihongi’s lawyer, who committed LESSER crimes than murder AND got longer sentences than her.
The ‘judge’ gave her the standard pussy pass I see.
Incidentally in femiNZt Hawkes Bay Wihongi was unlike men there spoilt for choice with government funded agencies she could have gone to for assistance with her ‘self medicating’.
Women’s Refuge spokeswoman Kiri Hannifin said…
As distinct from the life her victim no longer leads?
If Women’s Refuge had anything to do with this family prior to the murder then that event stands as an indictment of their service.
If – as is more likely – they have become involved since that event they have clearly “chosen sides” on the basis of only the killer’s version.
At the very least they stand exposed before us as excusers of abuse extending to murder and possibly even as enablers of such.
I’ve frequently seen the ad hominem “rape apologist” thrown at those who are sceptical about anything to do do with rape. I find myself wondering what would constitute a well deserved, analogous portrayal for Ms Hannifin and Women’s Refuge and this callous performance. I’ll leave that to more competent wordsmiths.
Meanwhile I’ve perused the odd document on the Women’s Refuge website. Much like the material from many other similar organisations I’m afraid. Almost like it’s franchised. They don’t seem to have any view of men that doesn’t automatically equate to monster.
Their “Code of Ethics” was what perplexed me. I have lengthy involvement with a rape crisis and counselling service that serves a huge region. Women’s Refuge’s “code” contains a great deal of language about commitment and respect and tolerance toward those who are amongst the de jeur darlings of the politically correct. BUT nowhere does it mention victims of abuse. NOT ONCE. There’s an early, fleeting reference to “a policy of creating a violence-free environment and community” but other than that it really stands as a statement of political solidarity. Silly me. I was expecting an organisation serving a similar demographic to my own ie all victims of abuse. Seems they have a different agenda entirely.
** Endquote due to increasing nausea.
This story appeared after Wihongi was convicted back in June:
Womens refuge are responsible for many murders this country has seen. Keep counting those shoes. And have innocent boys from schools do the fund raising for them. Blood money that is.
Great comments by Dr Viv Roberts in the Dominion Post today:
Judges ‘treat violent women differently’
By MARTY SHARPE – The Dominion Post
The problem is, the lawmakers are increasingly female. In all the time women have had political power, not once has any law been passed to restrict whatever freedom women believe they have a right to – and I doubt you could find a single lawmaker who would publicly support equal penalties for men and women in practice.
Unlike men, women tend to see themselves as their gender first, and whatever other identity they assume (including impartial compassionate human being) comes second. This couldn’t have been more obviously on show than in the U.K. recently, where a government proposal to allow anonymity for rape suspects prior to being charged was so opposed by women M.P.s that they deserted their posts, flung party loyalties to the wind and defeated the proposal as sisters, Conservative and Labour alike. It is hard to imagine a clearer flaw in the parliamentary system than this – a network of individuals prioritising their own private sympathies over the interests of those they were elected to represent.
If women will corrupt the parliamentary process over such a relatively minor issue as this, we can be fairly certain that they will resist any measure that denies them the Pussy Pass.
At least the Aussies have still got enough spine left to jail some serious female offenders. Today they put away a woman for 27 years after the murder of her two sons. Note the standard appeal for a Pussy Pass: Fitchett claimed she was not guilty by reason of mental impairment…
Well done Dr Roberts.
The Daily Mail in the U.K. is breaking rank and publishing the truth about domestic violence:
Full story here
Great find rc,
Men in the U.K. were also able to announce a (small) victory in respect that British Airways is now allowing men to sit next to children without being supervised by a woman!!!!
And it might have been an accomplishment of internet activism by MRA’s!
It wouldn’t do any harm to let Air New Zealand know of this particular development – their contact details are available on their web-site.
I did it myself a week or two back. A few but frequent reminders that their policy is both discriminatory and completely unfounded on fact keeps it fresh in their minds. Eventually they will fold. Don’t expect an intelligent response though – or one at all if emailing.
It would be interesting to find out who is influencing this decision, given that so few other airlines practice it. There is a feminist bogey in there somewhere, either within the company itself, on the board or in those other companies it gets advice from (eg lawyers). The large government share-holding is the most obvious candidate.
Thanks for the suggedtion rc.
Here’s the letter I just sent to Air New Zealand via their ‘contact us/feedback’ page
Feel free to copy and paste it to them to add your voice to the message.
I look forward to flying with Air New Zealand (instead of other airlines) without being discriminated against for being male – when I receive a response similar to that shown below which this man in the UK recently received from British Airways.
quote from :
More detail about the Parity report (which prompted the Daily Mail article) is available here, along with references to other related efforts to reveal the actual truth about D.V.
Thanks for posting here that reply from BA that was on Anti-Misandry Skeptic. I didn’t appreciate its significance until I saw it just now.
I would like to have included a copy of it in my own communication with Air New Zealand – it would have shown to them that their competitors are actually responding to concerns about this issue, and front-footing it in a way that can be respected.
I’ll be sure to include it next time I let them know this issue hasn’t gone away.
More on the apparent complete feminist takeover of the U.K. The comments, as usual, are far closer to common sense.
Full story here.