NZ Judge – Women’s domestic violence and anger OK
This is a staggering article that brings to life the feminist philosophy that many people cannot accept exists in the Family Court.
Worse the article highlights the disparity between what would normally be considered intolerable domestic violence and what is increasingly being considered acceptable female violence.
A woman who caused knife wounds to a man and to the 14-month-old baby he was holding at the time has been granted a nine-month home detention term.
There is a clear indication that the female victimology that is afforded women that (requires that men be punished for the emotional harm caused by ‘their violence’) is not taken into consideration when the offender is a woman.
At the sentencing in the Christchurch District Court today, Judge Jane Farish noted Chandler could remember little of the incident because she had been so angry at the time.
The judge said she had now received reports covering psychological and physiological issues which meant significant credit could be allowed for Chandler, enabling a home detention sentence to be considered rather than a jail term.
She said that victim impact statements showed that the injuries to the two victims had not been lasting or serious.
You weren’t badly damaged, away you go, get on with life.
This is feminist bullshit on paper entering the justice system to excuse female aggression.
The sentence is not being determined by a judge – it is a feminist white-wash on domestic violence by a few report writers in the background.
This is what we pay judges for?
One day someone will still have to explain to the baby where those scars came from – perhaps it was a boy and it doesn’t matter.
Related Post Women’s Refuge Justice System
…thanks for yet another installment in the never ending soap opera of women being handed pussy passes. Interesting to see that the judge would even consider that “…Chandler could remember little of the incident because she had been so angry at the time”. Can you imagine what the outcome would have been had the gender of actors been reversed?
I’m over it; no point in bothering to go to a NZ court for justice anymore – well if you are a male anyway.
Comment by Bruce S — Wed 13th August 2014 @ 6:12 pm
Imagine a guy sleeps (consensually) with a woman who is reasonably drunk at the time.
Imagine the girl wakes up the next morning, looks at the guy, and instantly regrets it.
So she lodges a complaint of rape, citing she was intoxicated, and therefore could not consent.
Imagine the guy, in court, saying he
Will he be discharged?
Even the above aside, it’s interesting that a drunk woman (‘drunk’, could be considered say, 400, soon to be 250mg’s/litre of alcohol in the blood) is considered too drunk to consent, yet a drunk guy (say, similarly drunk) is considered sober enough not to engage a drunk woman in any sexual activity – but that’s another issue.
Comment by OMG! You're *(%*%(^ — Wed 13th August 2014 @ 8:10 pm
YET ANOTHER recent disgusting pussy pass in the NZ ‘justice’ system.
Sickening.
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 13th August 2014 @ 8:22 pm
It would be nice to know the extent of the pussy pass here, what was the argument about? Was he trying to take the kid from the abusive mother who already has a first strike for violence? If it was a man, there would be no way he would escape jail.
Can anyone find an article stating a man has recieved home detention for a clear jail sentence? Why is it that these stories make the news for women only?
Comment by Too Tired — Wed 13th August 2014 @ 10:30 pm
The issue of the pussy pass is concerning and sometimes disgusting, and the gender equality long demanded by women would see them treated similarly for similar offending. However, the other way of thinking about it may be more important. That is, men don’t receive anywhere near the understanding and sensible sentencing that women do. It may well be that in the case above the judge was wise to take into account the woman’s personal difficulties, the stability and best interests of the family, etc. Unfortunately, when it comes to a man the Courts mainly seek to appease feminist, male-blaming and male-punishing demands and don’t care about the impact of a sentence on the man or his children. Even when it’s clear that a sentence will further marginalize a male offender from society and almost certainly increase the risk of re-offending, the Courts usually don’t care much. Fathers are still considered so irrelevant to the welfare of their children that any transgression or minor display of anger is seen as outweighing a father’s significance in his children’s lives by Courts, CYFS, police and most others. The considered way women and mothers are treated in the Courts is probably much more sensible but men need to get the same compassion and respect for their roles.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 14th August 2014 @ 8:22 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11315977
The former principal of one of the country’s best schools who starts his new job at the helm of one of England’s most prestigious schools next week will have to come home to defend allegations of assaulting his ex-wife.
Ex-Kristin School executive principal Peter Clague, 48, moved to the UK in August after landing the job of headmaster at 500-year-old Bromsgrove School in Worcestershire.
He is due to start in the role on Monday but will do so under a cloud after Judge Pippa Sinclair declined to dismiss the charge of male assaults female at North Shore District Court yesterday.
Clague’s unsuccessful application to have the charge thrown out will mean if the case ends up before a jury, as appears to be likely, he will have to return to New Zealand.
It is alleged the assault took place in September, 2010 – only two months after Clague had married Jeanne Jackman.
In an affidavit Clague said the couple had argued in the driveway of their home and Ms Jackman became “hysterical”. They had fallen backwards when he stumbled after putting his hands on her shoulders, trying to calm her.
Ms Jackman said she was pushed.
The next day, Ms Jackman went to a doctor and said she had fallen down stairs but did not mention the confrontation with her husband.
Doctors found she had suffered severe bruising and an X-ray confirmed she had injured her tailbone.
The pair separated in April 2012 and four months later Ms Jackman filed a relationship property claim with the Family Court.
Clague responded with documents opposing that claim and days later his ex-wife made a police complaint about the 2010 incident.
Because the alleged assault had happened more than two months earlier, police could only issue him with an official warning and the case simmered until March 2014 when Ms Jackman filed a private prosecution.
Clague had quit his $385,000-a-year job as Kristin School executive principal a couple of months beforehand and moved overseas earlier this month.
His lawyer Mike Lloyd said the case was an abuse of process and “continuation would be unfair and unconscionable”.
In his submissions in support of the application, he said Jackman brought the charge “in bad faith” and the delays in the private prosecution making its way before the court were prejudicial to his client.
But Judge Sinclair said the points made did not meet the “very high threshold” to have the charge dismissed.
Despite a possible trial hanging over their new head teacher, Britain’s The Telegraph newspaper reported that the school’s governing body had vowed to stand by Clague.
The school’s chairman of governors, Stewart Towe, said: “Bromsgrove School governors are wholly satisfied with the integrity of Peter Clague and followed due diligence in the appointment process.
“The governors are very much looking forward to welcoming the new headmaster and working with him to further develop the school’s success.”
Bromsgrove boasts more than 1500 pupils aged 2 to 18. Fees per term range from $9400 for a day student to $17,700 for a boarder.
Clague’s case will be back before the court next month when a trial date will likely be set.
– APNZ
Comment by Kumar — Fri 29th August 2014 @ 1:45 pm
A Judge’s job is to rule according the laws.
Court Law for all means that Judges, cops, lawyers, polutitiions should also have to abide by the same laws as everyone else.
If a JUdges rules in a biased manner or does not rule according to the law then they are guilty of at least incompetance (but this is impossible for someone who can justify their rulings, logically or not), therefore they are guilty of corruption and narmally child abuse.
therefore when a Judge rules against the law they should be disbarred and if that ruloing leads to child abuse as in the Femily Court then the court should immediately initiate a criminal prosecution of that judge and possibly any lawyers involved in that ruling as well.
This is the only way we can have any faith in the ‘justice’ system.
P
Comment by Phil Watts — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 8:57 am