Sexist Aspects of the Deportation of Australian Convicts
Absent from media consideration of this issue is any recognition of the sexism that will be inherent in the process of deportation. Firstly, we can safely assume that it will be all or at least disproportionately males who are subject to the process of deportation. Given that women commit about 50% of the most serious family violence towards children, about 25% of the most violent intimate partner violence, and a smaller but still significant proportion of other serious crime, we might expect some significant proportion (perhaps between 10% and 30%) of the deportees to be women but there is no indication that any of them are. This will be due largely to the lower tendency for women to be prosecuted or convicted in the first place including the higher rate with which their criminal behaviour is excused for mental health reasons, and much greater lenience in the sentences given to convicted females.
Secondly, the fact that it is all or overwhelmingly men who are being targeted for the deportation process will also contribute to the draconian, uncompassionate and unjust extent of that process. For example, the following aspects of the deportation process involve a callous inhumanity that would not be contemplated or tolerated if it were all or significantly females who were being subjected to it:
– Locking people up for significant duration after they have already served entire sentences for their crimes;
– Locking people up in isolated regions that seriously compromises their access to legal and social support;
– Locking people up under great secrecy and refusal to provide information to the prisoners, their families, their home government and media;
– Commencing the process without regard to individual circumstances such as the fact that the person has lived in Australia since being a young child, did not choose to move there and now has his entire life settled there.
Thirdly, the deportation process assumes an unjustified faith in the integrity of convictions. Even for general crimes there will be a significant proportion of wrongful convictions based on such practices as plea bargaining (where an accused is manipulated to plead guilty to an offence in order to avoid being prosecuted for a more serious offence – how can this ever be seen as justice?) and corrupt evidence from police and/or prosecution. Innocent convicts may be unable financially to mount appeals and legal aid for appeals is often refused based on some cursory assessment of the case. Many innocent convicts choose simply to endure their sentence rather than keep trying to deal with the hostile system that has imprisoned them, rationalizing the experience as bad luck and focusing on rebuilding their lives afterward.
When it comes to those convicted for domestic violence or sexual offences, we know full well that the proportion of wrongful convictions will be even greater than for most other convictions. Evidential requirements and standards of proof have been steadily eroded for these specific crimes due to feminist pressure, meaning that a man can be convicted on the basis of nothing but a woman’s allegation. Sexist consideration of evidence by Courts means that women are much more likely to be believed than men, even though there is no scientific evidence that women fib any less than men do. Juries will show much higher levels of compassion towards females than males as is shown in society generally. Further, a proportion of the convictions will be for breaching spurious, unjust domestic protection orders that were never based on any proper trial or sound proof. These offences may not have involved any shred of violence and may have reflected only the man’s love and concern for his children. Among those deportees whose convctions were for domestic violence or sexual offences, a high proportion will have been wrongfully convicted. But they’re only men so who cares?
Then Amy Adams under the Key government joins the mob to put the boot in to these deportees a bit more. Yet another Act is passed under urgency, without any opportunity for public consultation, that extends government powers and reduces citizens’ rights and freedoms. In this case the state’s right to impose supervision orders on people is extended for deportees who have already been convicted and served their sentences overseas, as is the state’s right to force citizens into providing bodily samples for the DNA register. It’s complicated to compare the new ‘Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015’ with existing laws such as the ‘Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995’ but it seems clear that the provisions of the existing laws have been extended to apply to the deportees and across a greater range of circumstances than the existing legislation allowed for. While the 1995 bodily samples Act entitled the state to take samples from those under investigation for certain crimes, the new Act entitles the state to take such samples from those who are not under any such investigation. Sure, the changes might not be major and may be seen as justified for protection of the community, but civil rights would not be so readily eroded if those concerned were mainly or significantly females. When it comes to males, anything goes in a never-ending spiral.
Apparently the ‘detainees’ when they arrived in NZ were ‘not in custody’ yet were transported together in a police van to their various places of accommodation that had to be approved in each case. If that’s not being in custody, what the hell is? I hope some or all of these guys sue the government for wrongful detention.
The sexist aspects of this saga will not be acknowledged in the foreseeable future but may be referred to as historical evidence when this sad anti-male era is one day investigated. This particular aspect of anti-male sexism has now been explored here on MENZ Issues, another first on this site.