Family Violence Death Review
I wasn’t aware that New Zealand had a ‘Health Quality and Safety Commission’, but apparently so, and should I be surprised, they have a family violence death review committee.
Their Fourth Annual Report for the year 2013 is available through the link supplied.
History, despite its wrenching pain,
cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage,
need not be lived again.
What do they suggest we do differently?
A quick look behind the scenes at the people involved.
New chair for the Family Violence Death Review Committee (Dec 2011)
The Health Quality & Safety Commission is delighted to announce that Associate Professor of Law Julia Tolmie is to head the Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) from 1 December.
and the committee members
Professor Merry thanked other outgoing members of FVDRC for their dedication to addressing family violence.
He welcomed the new committee, effective from 1 December and comprising Dr Dawn Elder, Judge Paul Von Dadelszen, Miranda Ritchie, Professor Barry Taylor, Denise Wilson, Ngaroma Grant, Fia Turner Tupou.
Sorry this looks like a thesis but I couldn’t help it.
Suprise Corrupt Suprise.
I have to say thankyou.
To Judith Collins and her Ministry of Health friends.
Yes actualy, pertaining to the report and her comments on TV, Non Fatal Strangulation can be made by the Crown into an offence. She and her friends should persue this and make it law.
Because the act of the strangler imposes fear, involves physical assualt, threatens to kill, extorsion, etc etc. Includes children as witnesses and victims. International law says law can be defined like this. There is no human rights violation in imposing censure on a definable act, where the severity of the act warants it. The only exception can be where the severity of the censure is perversly more than the severity of the crime. IE If the censure on the offender was an act of Genocide vs ‘Presently not much’.
This proposed Non Lethal Strangulation law ticks all the box’s and is OK!
This is how lying by omission works. Propaganda
It’s not possible to say that ‘essentialy’ anything was wrong with my comments, or Judith Collins comments. We can sleep easy now.
Our problems are solved.
Women , children, men are safe now.
Nobody will be killed or suicided anymore.
The public can sleep easy tonight.
But I live with to many nightmares, silent, hiden in the dark shadows of the 4th estate.
Here’s a complex problem that plagues my mind.
Imagine you have a strangler (to keep it relevant to the FVDRC) and the strangler is prosecuted. The offending is a Power and Control event etc etc. Obviously the prosecution/conviction/inprisonment rates will be essentialy all men.
MMM, sounds OK, they deserve it apparently.
(an imaginary court case)
“So what year was that passed into law” the strangler asks. The judge replys “2014?”. “I say NO! to it being in here(court), I can prove my saying NO! is correct but I cannot find one witness, and the prosecution intends to obstruct access to the other witness. If I can ask them the same question I can prove my NO! is valid” says the strangler. “What is the question and who are the witness’s” asks the judge.
In what year was a law past into law that resulted in higher numbers of prosecution/conviction/imprisonment, of women compared to men? The witness is the Minister of Womens Affiars for the Crown, the other is the Minister af Mens Affiars for the strangler.
Was it 1984? or is this just the year when all law became sexualy bigoted, by examining laws for BIAS against Women but not providing a service that examines law for BIAS against men. This alows legislation to be BIAS. How else can one explain the number of men in prison compared to the number of women in prison. The strangler “It’s a sex crime, and I can say NO! to a sex crime”
The judges reply?. Can’t think of anybody who could get to this point (without being draged to the cells in/for contempt) in our legal system but reply we must.
“Obvously this is true, but is it actualy happening here in this case? I am obligated to decide the law as it stands, and protect it, I can not repeal law and I cannot see how( the WHY? statement) the victim should not recieve justice, as that would be a miscariage/perversion of justice to her” says the judge. “because your offending was abhorent! men just commit more crimes than women (realism?)and those arguments belong in another court!” correct?
But do they? are they not blatantly present? Provocation?(relevant to FVDRC report)
Maybe there is someone who strangled, but if that person was also strangled, and that strangling was absolutly missing fron the report that created the law. MMM
Or worse, vast sums of strangled victims, with stretched ropes, bursting at the seams, from the closets of the family court(not part of the FVDRC report? thought this was about killing people?)
So this (Mythpoetic?) is relevent (my Bigotry IS NOT OK posts, etc), and those of others.
Strangled by being sticthed up
Strangled by a shotgun wedding
Strangled by the burden of another mans child
Strangled by the loss of those you never had (sorry not posted on this yet)
Strangled by the burden of those you have never met
Strangled by the threat of being a 3rd class citizen in your childs life
Strangled by lawyers and others who will strip you bare
Strangled by a police officer who only shows the footpath to a man
Strangled by his Womens Refuge card and the voice and case it creates
Strangled by his Mens Refuge Card, its absense/silence that the law employs to hate
etc etc etc
Power and Control? Sex Crime? NO! says the defendant. Bigotry IS NOT OK!
Prison for who and only who?, self defence?, provocation?
Why do our Governor Generals allow these crimes to take place in the name of Her Majesty The Queen?. Is that not the function of Governor Generals, to protect and to be a backstop to the excesses and offending by the Crown, so that her name doesn,t end up (when history judges it), stained by the actions of evil, and self interest?
Wonder who puts them in power, The Electorate?
More of this please Judith, and her Ministry of Health friends.
MoMA comments on the biased data collection process and the biased values shown by FVDRC:
New Zealand Homicides of Male Intimate Partners Committed by Women 2009-2010