More Misandry from Simon Power
Simon Power yesterday announced further financial support for those referred to as “victims” in criminal cases. At first glance all seems warm and fuzzy; for example, few would quibble about additional financial support and trauma counselling for “families of victims of serious crimes leading to death”. But a closer look at Power’s support package raises serious concerns about its underlying ideology and likely contribution to rampant misandry.
Careless use of the word “victim” continues a dangerous precedent. For families of people killed by others’ criminal actions this term may seem unproblematic. After all, those who have suffered such a loss will usually deserve to be seen as victims. However, even for homicides this is not cut and dry. The victim may also be the perpetrator to some degree or another. For example, Mark Lundy (“The Great Pretender”, NZ Listener, August 28, 2010) would be eligible for an immediate $5000 grant for losing his wife and daughter to brutal murders that he was later charged with (and convicted of) committing, and if police had pinned the crime on someone else Mr Lundy would be eligible for $3000 to travel to the trial of that defendant as well as $124 per day for being at the trial. There is no provision in these “victim” grants to make someone repay the money if, for example, (s)he is later found to have committed the homicide. Mr Lundy may have attended a few of the trauma counselling sessions on offer, but probably would not have pushed his luck in exposing himself to all 30 sessions because that would have involved too much close scrutiny concerning his grief.
And what about the situation in which a family member, say a wife contributes to the homicide of her partner? I have previously referred to research showing this to be a significant problem. For example, she might simply need to tell violent associates that her husband offended against her honour or molested a child, encouraging those associates to take chivalrous revenge on her behalf. These grants provide an incentive for such crime especially for low-income people for whom a quick $5000 plus subsequent payments of almost as much again would make a big difference to relieving their financial stress.
Mr Power’s latest package panders to feminist aspirations with total disregard for further injustice the package may create. Grants of $500 per incident were already in place for “victims of sexual violence”. To receive this bounty, complainants only have to report a sexual crime to police; even if police find the complaint so unworthy that they don’t investigate further or charge the accused, the complainant can still get the dough. The package will now be extended to provide $100 per day to both a complainant and a support person to attend the trial of the person she accused, on top of payments already in place for her whilst testifying.
One problem here is that Mr Power is happy to assume that every complaint is genuine. In fact, a complainant may or may not be a genuine victim; this is often what the Court needs to establish especially for sexual allegations where, for example, the presence or absence of consent needs to be determined before it can be established that any crime occurred at all. Extending the grants will also extend the incentive provided to make false complaints. Mr Power’s failure to include any protections against false complaints or otherwise to reduce the incentive his bounty provides for false complaints highlights his disregard for men’s rights and welfare. It goes without saying that it will almost always be men who are falsely accused of sexual crimes. For a false complainant, the latest, extended package will pay her and her friend/relative/co-conspirator to gloat over the accused’s misery throughout the entirety of his trial rather than only when she is called to give evidence.
The misandrist nature of Mr Power’s package is even more evident when one compares what might be available to victims of crimes that men are as likely or more likely to be subjected to. Aside from homicide and sexual violence, no other crimes qualify for automatic payments ‘per incident’ as alleged. The only support provided for other offence categories will compensate for travel and incidental costs related to attending Court or Parole hearings and then only for “serious crime” defined as
“one of sexual violation or other serious assault, one that has resulted in serious injury, death or a person being incapable; or one that has led the victim to have ongoing fears on reasonable grounds for their safety or the safety of one or more of their immediate family”.
So we see that those who claim to be victims of any sexual crime, no matter how trivial, contentious or dishonest, will be financially rewarded simply for making the allegation, whereas for all other alleged crimes there is only some assistance to attend hearings and even that’s limited only to those crimes that meet strict criteria for seriousness. For good measure though, ‘sexual violation’ is specifically defined as meeting those criteria.
What the hell is going on here? For whatever reason, Simon Power is colluding with feminists in the war against men, and we’re not talking about freedom fighters. This is state-sponsorship of feminist terrorism, except that instead of providing women with guns and rocket launchers the government is providing women with unbridled legal rights, financial incentives and other support to falsely accuse men, to cause men to be separated from their children, rejected by their communities, placed on sex offenders registers (like having a Star of David painted on men’s doors inviting lynch mobs to persecute them in perpetuity), to be deprived of jobs and income and/or thrown into prison for long durations. That’s what’s going on here.
Some might argue that the bounty for sexual complainants is available equally to men and women. Well perhaps, but I suspect that if a man went to the police and complained, for example, that an unknown woman in a bar groped his genital area (“can I have my $500 per alleged incident now thanks?”), the police would refuse even to record the complaint whereas if a woman made the same allegation police wouldn’t dare turn her away (“no sir, that payment is intended for female complainants only”). Men tend to find similar disbelieving or discriminatory attitudes from police even when they identify an alleged female offender; in fact, it’s dangerous for men to approach police about women’s offending at all because those men are liable to find themselves charged with something instead.
Blatant state-sponsored misandry, that’s what’s going on here.