I’ve seen women’s advocates in the Waitakere Court. They wander around the court like they own it and make the judge look like a clingon to the proceedings. When I saw a news article showing their direct influence in sentencing, I put up the post Women’s Refuge Justice System

I had been waiting for another such case to surface – which it has – and is posted under NZ Judge – Women’s domestic violence and anger ok

We have a tendency to classify such cases, especially within the justice system, simply as a pussy-pass which I have a problem with; not because I am sensitive about the comparison with female genitalia, but because we need to look more closely at the mechanics of what is happening and the likely outcome.

This needs closer analysis.

Pussy Pass may not always suit the social situation we’re in, but we still need to get the message across that our Justice system is segregating its decisions based on gender.

We need to be aware of the judicial activism from the likes of Judge Jane Farish in such cases – which might also be described as Judicial Violence Against Men.

We have become accustomed to seeing the disparity in sentencing; seldom do women receive anywhere near the same punishment as men for similar offending, but as the numbers of women appearing before the court are increasing, as is the seriousness of the crimes and the nature of their violence, what we are seeing is increasing duplicity in the approach of the courts to men and women defendants.

This could not have been more clearly illustrated when Farish applied a different standard than usual, to the trauma of domestic violence.

No consideration is given to the emotional damage caused to a man and baby who had been the victims of stab wounds in a domestic assault – Farish was looking for a way out and she found it in the form of report writers who excused the offender’s behaviour because of uncontrollable anger.

What happens if we make this the norm: The disparity ends up with men sentenced to imprisonment and women sentenced to home detention, at the scene of the crime – the family home. A feminist dream come true with Family Court applications for ownership of the detention centre, for the mother and the child, and guess who’s paying for that.

Ok, if we want to reform the Justice system that’s fine, so long as the same rules apply. Men get home detention too and no consideration is given to the emotional trauma of victims in sentencing. Let’s have a level playing field, although I doubt that would ever be possible in a warped feminist state, like New Zealand.

There are other issues surrounding the child. In the case referred to above Farish excused the women’s violence toward the child, and here’s the big question, would she have been able to do that had it not been for the fact that the child was in the man’s arms at the time.

Had the genders been reversed with a mother and child being stabbed we would have seen a very different outcome in sentencing.

We are seeing the same feminist philosophy that has existed in the Family Court for decades enter the criminal justice system and that will become more pronounced as women learn that the court excuses their behaviour.

Applying different standards, excuse one gender’s behaviour – the more we excuse women’s violence, the more we will encourage it.

That’s not good for men, children, or our society, and we need to protest loud and long against this, or we will see a two tiered Justice system that treats men and women by increasingly different standards and processes.

Not that this is not already happening, but if allowed to continue and develop men will exist in a very different society.