MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Male Victim of Serious Violence Doesn’t Get Justice

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 8:32 am Fri 10th October 2014

Here is a good example of New Zealand’s attitude regarding violence towards males. A man had almost every bone in the right side of his face broken, underwent numerous facial reconstruction surgeries, has titanium plates in his skull and suffers permanent damage and ongoing complicaitons. The attacker was charged with the serious offence ‘injuring with intent to injure’. Court delays ensued for various reasons and because of this the case has now been thrown out by a judge. The victim claims he was ready to go on all of the previous hearing dates that were adjourned.

Imagine the outcry from every feminist supporting organisation in the country if a similarly injured woman had her case thrown out like this!

The alleged offender in this case is lucky he didn’t commit an action such as gently touching a woman in a way she finds offensive. No way would any NZ Court dare to throw out that prosecution. Apparently, and according to the severity of likely sentencing, gently touching a woman is a more serious crime than demolishing a man’s face and resigning him to years of surgery and a lifetime of suffering and disability. It’s only a male after all so who cares? From the lack of objection from all those feminist defenders of social ethics, hardly anyone cares about male victims.

This callous attitude toward male suffering is promoted by the White Fibbin’ campaign that deliberately excludes male victims (the most frequent victims of violence) from consideration. WHITE RIBBON equals misandry. Congratulations White Fibbers, this appalling case shows your campaign is achieving its intentions.


  1. doesn’t surprise me…Ive had my ex partner take me to the A & E to have a Gaff removed from my skull as the rusty barb penetrated Even after telling the staff present that she struck me with it,there was no follow up,in fact it started a succession of charges Im currently facing.

    Comment by Mike Holliday — Fri 10th October 2014 @ 9:22 am

  2. The NZ caught$ are seriously lost. However, in this case, it appears that the incompetence and malpractice was on the part of the police and prosecution service, more than the caught$.

    This opens the question that men need to work together to directly protect themselves from violence and lack of relevant police performance.

    The caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously.
    Police hurt who they want to…

    Only an idiot wouldn’t be able to see that the rule about time delays should be applied more rigidly on the trivial violence cases that the police favour for prosecution and relaxed for dangerous assaults, where both offender treatment and public protection issues clearly arise. But police and caught$ are doing the diametric opposite of common sense.

    It is very hard to perceive the prosecution service/police as competent, in failing to address such a serious charge of violence. This allows Dion Read free to carry out a further serious assault, before he is jailed properly.

    Surely the dodging of a caught hearing leaves a large dirty mark over Dion Read? He has denied himself the “opportunity” to clear his name. Maybe he can dodge that through name changes, to maintain his public hazard?

    Such judges could contribute more to NZ society from below a gravestone than above, put differently they are worth more to society dead than alive? This is never a good situation, to put yourself into.

    Luckily violence levels in NZ are trending down by themselves….. so these dangerous judges can be quietly let go under redundancy. I guess this is why the caught$ are working slower and dropping efficiency more than ever before, to stave off looming redundancies?

    We shouldn’t rely on this natural dropoff [in violence], we should still be pressuring police to perform their job satisfactorily.

    Is Les Mills, with Dion Read, considered a safe space?

    Pity WINZ workers, if he were to enter their office asking for social supports!

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 10th October 2014 @ 11:27 am

  3. Disgusting…yes if it was the female being the victim the out cry would of been off the rector scale …she should of been done for GBH !!!
    Are you able to obtain the court files regarding this ? under: The right to access information is covered by Part 6 “Access to Court
    Records” of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.

    Comment by Donna Tua-Bird — Fri 10th October 2014 @ 11:35 am

  4. When an where did this happen?
    are we allowed to know the name of the victim by any chance ?

    Comment by Donna Tua-Bird — Fri 10th October 2014 @ 11:41 am

  5. ok not a she…By reading the main Posting, to me it sounded like it was a she not a he …

    Comment by Donna Tua-Bird — Fri 10th October 2014 @ 11:45 am

  6. Donna Tua-Bird: Thanks for your comments. Given the frequency with which female violence towards men is discussed on MENZ Issues, it’s understandable that you assumed this was such a case. My apology for not making it clearer that the offender was a male.

    The issue here is that a male victim of serious violence was treated poorly by our system in ways that would not be tolerated for any female victim even when subjected to much less serious violence. Injuries or death from violence care little about whether they were caused by a male or female, and men hurt as much and die as fully as women from their injuries. Yet, as MurrayBacon points out, an unacceptable degree of disregard for male victims is commonly seen at all levels from the initial police response onward.

    Men commit more physical violence and more serious violence on average than do women in society generally. Other men are more often the victims of that violence than are women, yet our law enforcement, justice system and anti-violence groups act as though this is not so. Male victims are often considered to be equally responsible for their injuries that are attributed to a ‘fight’ between two aggressive men, but that formulation is sexist and often incorrect.

    For intimate partner violence the picture is slightly different. Male and female partners commit acts of physical violence towards each other at approximately equal rates but men’s physical violence is again significantly more serious on average than women’s; for example, men kill intimate female partners about four times as often as women do. However, men’s and women’s physical violence in families is still more often towards other male family members than towards females.

    As in society generally, male-on-male family violence is often minimized by authorities as a ‘fight’ for which both males were equally responsible but this is often inaccurate. One could equally say that female victims of domestic violence incidents were also responsible for their own injuries because each woman contributed to escalating a ‘fight’ with the male. However, that is not how violence toward women is viewed and it’s simply sexist to view most male victims in that way. It is true that most ‘domestics’ involve both parties using various forms of violence against each other over some conflict, and it’s often neither morally sound nor helpful to label one party ‘the victim’ and the other ‘the violent party’ as our protection order legislation requires. However, when one party in any conflict ends up being much more seriously injured than the other this will usually justify a ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ formulation. Unfortunately, when it’s a male who is the injured party he is often not treated as a victim in the same way that a woman would be.

    I believe it’s important to remain as factual and realistic as possible when considering the issue of violence. It’s important also to challenge constant, ongoing false propaganda from feminist groups that has contributed to widespread discrimination against male victims of violence.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 11th October 2014 @ 8:39 am

  7. I would add to reply 6 that, although males commit more serious violence on average, women still commit a significant amount of serious and the most serious physical violence against male partners yet our law enforcement, justice and anti-violence groups usually act as though female partner violence doesn’t matter, doesn’t exist or is justified when it does.

    This denial seems to result largely from a belief in the ‘patriarchal power and control’ model as a main cause of violence. When the facts are inconsistent with that feminist model, those facts are pushed aside or distorted to protect the model. Male victims don’t fit the model so they are treated as though they are not really victims.

    Feminists including the White Ribbon Fibbers claim that domestic violence is a whole different phenomenon for women than for men because of women’s special ‘experience’ of being dominated and fearful. That formulation acts as a justification for the blatant sexism those groups practise, but it’s little more than creative reasoning needed to support the ‘patriarchal power and control’ model that should instead be amended to reflect what we actually know from common sense and unbiased research alike. Many men live under female domination in our families and live in fear of the forms of violence they are subjected to. The ‘male power and control’ model fits only a tiny proportion of violence, domestic or otherwise. It is not a helpful model for understanding or reducing most partner or family violence, yet it remains a central ideology in our taxpayer-supported ‘stopping violence’ programmes. Those programmes even run different courses for males than for females, the male programmes focusing on how men can feel more ashamed and become less controlling and the female programmes all about empowerment and in fact increasing women’s ability to exercise power and control.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 11th October 2014 @ 9:32 am

  8. The delay in this case was partly due to the complainant not being available to give evidence in person. Bad decision by the judge but I’m not sure it’s the best case to choose to support the violence against me argument. Here’s a good one:
    I was listening to National radio the other day and somehow the topic of a certain Auckland uni engineering student’s haka came up. You may remember it but a bunch of white male engineering students involved in doing a comedy haka were attacked and beaten up by a group of maori with some suffering quite serious injuries. The female radio guest and another white male liberal guest had a good snigger about this and more or less said that it was perfectly ok for minorities to beat the tripe out of white folks if they felt offended. I believe no serious penalties were handed down to the attackers. You are right though, the attitude is widely entrenched that violence against men is somehow ok and the seriousness is reduced if the attacker is female or otherwise has special perceived priveleges.

    Comment by Daniel — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 8:40 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar