Women Should be Allowed to Murder
Or so many people believe. This case in which a mother murdered her autistic young adult daughter is another incredible display of justice favouritism towards women. While one can empathize with her difficulties, she deliberately murdered her daughter when she had other options. Who the hell gets 4 years imprisonment for murder? Oh right, a woman does.
Now supporters of this murderer are planning to protest that she was convicted and punished at all. We will endeavour to show up at their protests to voice another point of view. It’s not that we necessarily begrudge mercy being shown to this woman but it’s that such mercy is not shown to men, nowadays even regardless of the degree of provocation men are subjected to. Feminists claim to want equality so in that case we demand that female murderers are shown no more understanding and compassion than male murderers are.
Although mercy may be appropriate in this case, that needs to be balanced against the seriousness of taking a life and against the message provided to others who may be tempted to murder. The message now is clear: if you are a woman and your child (or male partner) feels annoying enough, it’s ok for you to kill them.
This case is another version of the redefined ‘provocation’ defence demanded by feminists, intended to be available only or almost only to women and that will entitle them to kill their partners. Real self-defence is necessary for an immediate threat, not as retribution for past misdeeds or some prediction of possible future misdeeds. And homicidal self-defence can only be justified when no other non-violent response is available, such as going to the police or one of the many women’s refuges we pay for. Similarly, provocation equals immediate circumstances or behaviour from another the emotional threat in which is likely temporarily to overwhelm the judgement and self-control of an average person. If time passes after those circumstances or that behaviour, our rational processes return and we have a duty to apply them to consider our options. Any decision following such consideration to murder someone when they are in a non-threatening and vulnerable position shouldn’t be acceptable, surely? ‘Slow burn’ provocation is just a convenient invention to provide women with a provocation defence after the much more reasonable and fair provocation defence was removed for men. The feminists and white knights will abide no restraint on the privileges of women, and the right to murder looks set to become yet another female privilege. This case shows how close we are already to that.
Note also that in none of the news coverage we have seen has there been any mention of the father of this child. Fathers are irrelevant it seems. And we know nothing about why this woman was raising the child by herself. Our government’s encouragement and reward of sole parenthood, paying mainly women for the irresponsibility of depriving their children of intact family units, will have contributed to this situation.
How unfair convicting her at all. And what a waste of police and the the courts time. Mrs Aubrey-Thompson of Feilding repeatedly attempted to kill her autistic daughter {Circa 1997}. Eventually successful, she dumped the body in a car outside Palmerston North police Station. Convicted to jail I think, but the feminists rallied and she was out before Xmas. not sure if she got an apology. But whatch this space too. The precedent was set- Will she be out for Easter?
Comment by Jerry — Sat 4th February 2017 @ 5:12 pm
Once in a generation isn’t really the issue.
The important issue is that after several such examples, Government cost cutting reigns supreme over taking care of many children.
1997
So 19 years later, the same is still happening. The cases in the news are the tip of a larger iceberg of relatively non-complaining parents.
19 years – only just a generation?
It is so easy for overpaid bench legal workers to criticise the parents(s). But they really are not even lending their weight to contributing to public understanding of these instances or recommending constructive solutions either. What are these people really worth?
I guess it all reflects a substantial lack of competence in many Government organisations. Accountability that actually works, is going to be necessary if we want to move our society forwards.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 5th February 2017 @ 2:04 pm
No, the issue here is not Govt cost cutting. The issue is “the same time for the same crime”. If a custodial father faced the same challenges, he would certainly not have any more support than a mother would get, and in fact I say he would receive much less support and less understanding. Indeed I know first hand of a case where the victim safe father was attacked by the authorities, falsely accused – certainly not helped or supported. Parenting organisations exist for mothers, but not much for Dads. Also having killed their child such a father would not get the protesters in support. So no, it isn’t about Govt cost cutting at all. More over in addition, solo fathers can have problems mothers don’t have to cope with. Problems that cause huge stress poverty despair and difficulty on top of the issues mothers face = for example being falsely accused. As males we are doubtful around women and children, just because we exist.
But its not just two cases in nineteen years either. A female friend asked me what I thought about this case. I responded about Aubrey-Thompson, and she responded citing other examples I had not noticed. So I understand there are more cases like this.
But there are other cases which can cause huge stress. Some women and politicians think that in cases where males who are violent, abusive or just falsely, it should be legal to kill them, but not kill women who behave exactly the same. Come on, lets have gender equality.
Comment by Jerry — Sun 5th February 2017 @ 5:24 pm
So she is proven to be a violent person.
But she was not violent in the events that took place?
How much of what she said was just a story.
Did he get drunk because she was nuts.
And was deciding to kick her out.
And she stabbed him to get revenge for that?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5431260/Woman-found-not-guilty-of-murder
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 8th February 2017 @ 10:48 am
In 1997 the BWS was used in the murder trial of Luciana Manuel. She stabbed her partner William Reti in the neck during an argument. Because he was violent to her before the defence argued that this damaged her judgement so she was unable to act reasonably. Not guilty of murder and manslaughter.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 8th February 2017 @ 11:40 am
How was this not murder.
The judge said she had exaggerated her claims.
If a women said I’m leaving you and the male then beat her to death with an axe, or hammer for a more recent example.
Would the male be guilty of murder.
Hell yes.
Notice the arbitrary, she has kids.
Lighter sentence please.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=201213
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 8th February 2017 @ 11:55 am
Interesting part to what is said in this case
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1792861
“But Sue Stephens said what was not mentioned in court was how her son was a baby brother who got on with everyone and dearly loved his two sons.”
Not allowed to say anything good about the male.
“Sue Stephens said she did not believe everything said about her son in court.”
Women wouldn’t embellish the truth for there own benifit would they.
Who counter argued against these false claims?
Nobody obviously.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 8th February 2017 @ 12:11 pm
“When some family members left that night, the couple fought and Mr Stephens punched her after she pushed him up against a window.”
She was the aggressor and he acted in self defence?
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 8th February 2017 @ 12:13 pm
This case should scare the shit out of every male
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11200832
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11201442
I had no intent to kill him.
I just wanted things to be better.
So I plunged a large knife into his chest where his heart is.
So if a female wants the relationship to be better.
She can kill the male and it won’t be murder.
Nope.
She was having an affair.
Wanted to leave.
And didn’t want him to have 50%
That’s far more likely.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 8th February 2017 @ 12:31 pm
DJ Ward @4. Thanks for this 2011 case. One wonders whether there was any real evidence that he was attacking her as she alleged? He of course was dead and unable to defend himself against her allegations. And was there good evidence of the injuries that she claimed he had caused her?
Regardless, the criterion for any man claiming the ‘self-defence’ legal defence is that reasonable force was used. Use of a type of force that was greater or more lethal than the force being used against you isn’t considered reasonable force and the self-defence argument is rejected, that is if you’re a male. When an unarmed person is attacking or threatening you, then using a knife is usually not accepted as reasonable self-defence. This can be unjust for a man with no fighting experience who was being attacked by a gang member, but if that man used a knife he would be found guilty at least of manslaughter because the force he used was unreasonable.
However, there is one law for men and another for women and this applies both to the gender-specific laws that are written to favour women and the interpretation and application of other laws that are not written in gender-specific terms (some of which however were written with only or mainly women’s interests in mind).
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 8th February 2017 @ 9:58 pm
DJ Ward @ 6: Of course it was murder, but the pussy pass was applied in this 2001 case. Interesting that the defence lawyer referred to the Law Commission’s call even way back then for women to be allowed to murder a partner with reduced punishment if he were alleged to have been ‘abusive’ to her. The Law Commission continues that white knighting line and has progressed it further to call for a full defence of ‘self-defence’ for women in such cases. Let’s rewrite the laws so there’s a whole separate lot for women huh? Gender apartheid.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 8th February 2017 @ 10:06 pm
DJ Ward @ 9: Yes, the Scollay case was just another of the many appalling examples of men’s lives being treated as worthless and women being excused to one degree or another for their horrible behaviour. These previous posts on MENZ Issues considered the Scollay case. It seems that her subsequent behaviour in prison gives more of an accurate idea of her self-centred and unreasonable attitudes that led her to commit what was certainly murder despite the jury’s granting of a pussy pass.
Yes, the man-hating femalists will be rubbing their hands in glee to see the extent to which women are being allowed to harm and kill men.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 8th February 2017 @ 10:33 pm
In the Scollay case.
Married for 20 years.
Child 20 years old.
His mental illness began shortly after the birth of the child.
Was this a case of
I’m pregnant.
You have to marry me.
And being trapped in a bad marriage.
Caused him to become depressed?
Then caught in the drug dependency nightmares of some doctor prescribed drugs.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 9th February 2017 @ 12:10 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9823503/Woman-who-killed-husband-jailed-for-six-years
SCOLLAY, Guy Christian – 20.2.1964 – 10.2.2013 Dearly loved husband of Lulu, and loving father and friend of his son, Louis.
She just wanted him to SEE the knife – and realise how desperate the situation had become.
So she rolled him over while he was asleep, got on top of him and plunged the knife into his back and through his heart.
We have a police database accessible to all women who might be concerned that their new partner might’ve been SUSPECTED of violence in the past.
Where is the list for her?
Comment by voices back from the bush — Thu 9th February 2017 @ 1:20 am
Ten cents worth! After reading all the arguments for and against I have come to the conclusion that if you are in a bad marriage, or relationship then bloody LEAVE! If drugs were an issue or domestic violence then WTF, LEAVE. So often somebody always has an excuse why they didn’t.
Excuses r like ass-holes, everybody has got one! I feel sad for the child that had to endure 20 years of shit because he had two incompetent parents. Neither of them thought how destructive an environment it was on him. Hopefully he has all the support to move on with a more productive life and personally they both should have been given the bullet.
Comment by brent — Fri 10th February 2017 @ 3:51 pm
Re #15 by Brent. So what do you recommend a father do if mum is harming the kids? To take the kids, he becomes a kidnapper, will be vilified in the media, hunted and prosecuted by police and probably convicted in the courts – and what is gained? – Safety for the kids? No! because they will go back to mum back to their abuser. These arguements which claim its such a simple no-brainer sound so reasonable to those who have not been in the situations and had to act for the best interests of their children. We do not live in a country which has a competent legislative and legal system. Its a prejudiced country where the law enforcers are a part of the problem, often applying laws which do not exist. Its a country which farts on about family and children but has no sincerity to back that up. Its a hypocritical country full of folks who opine about other’s affairs without looking in thteir own glasshouse first. Women need to do a lot to be jailed and yet many are. And they have, keep and raise kids in jail – Dads need not apply. Check out NZ Herald today http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11798163
Comment by Jerry — Sat 11th February 2017 @ 5:47 am
#16
How many of these involve.
I was arrested.
Quickly got pregnant. (Without consent of the male victim)
Don’t send me to prison, I’m pregnant.
Please, pretty please judge.
The likely to be the principle caregiver qualifier is a joke.
Just because that’s the case, doesn’t make it right.
If the father hasn’t been legally banned from having kids.
Or in prison himself.
He gets the kids.
Or the mums mum.
Or the dads mum. (Uncommon)
Or the mums dad. (Yeah right)
Or the dads dad. (Have to believe in unicorns)
Etc etc.
Why is females bonding with children important.
But they don’t give a shit about fathers bonding.
Oops forgot.
They are fantastic people.
Dad can’t have the child.
Mothers pretending she does not know who it is.
Like every government department.
In regard to men.
Something does not exist.
The Human Rights Act.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 11th February 2017 @ 8:45 am
@ 16 & 17: Yes, a heart-warming story about female prisoners who are allowed to have their babies with them until the age of 2 years, and for which Corrections provides them with houses that are
…
There is also a
Unlike any male prisoner, these female inmates ‘can access some benefits to help provide’ and this journalist sees that as being equivalent to the women paying ‘for everything they need for their babies out of their own pockets’.
This policy of course makes sense to some degree, but it is simply and utterly sexist that male inmates have no bonding room and there is absolutely no provision for father inmates to care for their children. Male inmates, if they have behaved themselves, get to see their babies and children in the same bleak areas where they and their co-prisoners see other visitors.
Note that the article made absolutely no mention of these babies’ fathers. Fathers are irrelevant to the welfare of children it seems under the philosophy that set up these units. There is no mention that fathers are able to come and visit or spend some ‘quality time’ with these children in the special houses or in the mothers’ feeding and bonding room. The women are probably prohibited from allowing their children any contact with their fathers during the outings they go on.
The system appears to promote and enforce solo motherhood. Its underlying message is that fathers don’t matter. Corrections National Commissioner Jeremy Lightfoot is quoted as saying
Mmm, so fathers just won’t do huh? And children don’t deserve a stable, supportive environment with fathers. No, let’s not get carried away; criminals’ children aren’t THAT deserving.
This system was based on a philosophy of harm reduction in our Corrections system towards babies and young infants and that is laudable, but the philosophy is confused and contradictory. Promoting a system of sole motherhood introduces a new harm for these children. Failing to have a program whereby fathers and/or key extended family members have an opportunity to bond with and look after those children means that when they reach 2 years old and the mothers aren’t yet allowed out of jail, those children will experience the trauma of sudden loss of their unusually exclusive primary attachment figure, causing them another form of harm. Exposure to the outside world for these infants and other things that would assist their development (and that will include any visits – in the prison’s normal visiting area – by the children’s fathers) are considered by Corrections ‘a privilege, not a right’. The philosophy seems to confuse goals of reducing harm to infants versus using the infants to help the mothers feel better and to assist in the mothers’ rehabilitation. One of the inmates quoted saw it being all about the mothers, saying
Yeah, so terrible for the poor offender mothers but no mention of the harm to the babies, and of course male inmates’ distress at being separated from their children isn’t even worth considering.
This article (by Anna Leask) promotes motherhood and by exclusion trivializes fatherhood. It’s another display of feminist propaganda, describing all the nice, cuddly aspects of this policy but making no mention of problems, disasters or risks that have arisen since this special treatment for women was introduced. The offences these women committed are not specified; we wouldn’t want people to start seeing women realistically now would we?
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 11th February 2017 @ 9:15 am
Apologies. I cannot put this anywhere else. If he was a woman then this would be “VIOLENCE”. Take a look – http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/baby/89318443/dad-labelled-disgusting-for-feeding-daughter-in-shopping-centre-parents-room
Comment by Jerry — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 8:02 pm
Jerry @ 19: Hate speech sure and simple. If it had been a man talking that way to a woman we would see him hunted down and charged with something.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 12th February 2017 @ 9:24 pm
I’ve had that guy’s experience myself.I can tell you that the atmosphere in the parenting room reeks with soiled nappies. And the females are far from arousing as they tend to their babies. I spent as little time in there as I could. But also where can a guy go to feed or change a baby? – if not there then where? The men’s loo? or out in the open? Yet the babies and toddlers need to be fed and to be relieved and cleaned. Such brainless people – their minds are so ill that they have can only think sex and deviant thoughts.
Comment by Jerry — Mon 13th February 2017 @ 5:07 am
Another example.
Guess what.
Caught out not telling the truth.
Never mind.
It was only a defenceless child.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11802253
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 17th February 2017 @ 8:55 am
DJ Ward @22: Mmm yes, females must be so fragile that they can never be held responsible for their behaviour. So put a child’s murder down to a ‘panicked reaction’, claim (against the evidence) that the killer didn’t plan it, and make some irrelevant comment that it ‘didn’t seem like anything you would label as an adult-specific act’ so this female murderer can avoid any state sanction.
Any same-aged male who did exactly the same thing to a baby he didn’t want would be subject to the normal law of that State, i.e. teenagers accused of murder are dealt with in the adult court and will be subject to adult consequences. That may not be a wise law but this lack of wisdom won’t be acknowledged if it isn’t applied equally to males and females. It seems only male teenagers will suffer from this harsh law, as indeed males are treated with less caring in most spheres. The feminists can then see the law as a thoroughly good idea to clamp down on violence by young males, relieved of the need to see young females treated with the same harshness.
Considering that female teenagers mature sooner than males, how is it that female teenagers are treated as less responsible for their behaviour than same-aged males are?
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 17th February 2017 @ 11:42 am
DJ @22, I looked up the article about the callous throwing away of the baby and the next article was about this woman who killed and dismembered her partner with a skilly. I notice a common theme with these kinds of (femsle killer) articles Is that the majority of the reporting is about the murderers situation often not even mentioning the name of the murder victim.
The defence that she was in an abusive relationship is becoming most common.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 17th February 2017 @ 3:11 pm
This is the link
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11800260
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 17th February 2017 @ 3:13 pm
White knight to the rescue.
Let’s have a hate men and ignor the bad things women do.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/former-army-chief-david-morrison-calls-for-national-day-for-domestic-violence-victims/news-story/cff99c17e0d2c23e134b75cdc786fbc1
He didn’t meen domestic violence victims.
Just women victims.
The guy killed with an axe and got 32 years.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/geraldton-doctor-chamari-liyange-freed-from-prison-after-manslaughter-of-husband/news-story/ed472bba874fef15c50863729e343c80
“During Liyanage’s murder trial, the jury was told Dr Athukorala engaged in unusual sexual practices, forced his wife to take part in threesomes and controlled her movements and finances.”
So be was a bit of a dork
But no battered women syndrome.
“After years of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, Liyanage bashed her husband over the head with a 1.79kg mallet as he lay in bed at their Geraldton home.”
She could have just walked out the door and said goodby.
While he was sleeping.
But no.
Served one year.
And there celebrating.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 28th February 2017 @ 3:51 pm
There’s obviously a lot left out of the article.
Like the extent of his disability.
But really?
She could have cut his internet off.
She could have engaged counselling or mental health services.
Did they search his PC etc to prove her claims?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/89903251/depressed-australian-mum-killed-son-who-was-obsessed-with-sadomasochism
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 28th February 2017 @ 8:52 pm
DJ Ward @27: Your piece have got me thinking. Bearing in mind that in our systems, children are regarded a property of the mother, interesting questions should be answered. Was Dad interested in his son?- if so why could the boy not have gone to his Dad? Should alienation have been the real cause of disorder, then such a move could have done much to alleviate the problem for all concerned. Further, children who are corruptly used and or manipulated “as in our system” can become upset and resentful – so might this have been a factor accounting for the boy’s “disorder?” Maybe it added to autism, or by my experience, it could have been the whole problem, mistaken for autism. I agree that a lot of thorough investigation is needed – and anyway. As for “Sexual violence” fettish, what is that? In today’s world sneezing can be so described, the defiition is that wide. But assuming its at the serious end of the scale, then its a parent’s job to get treatment – not kill. Nothing mitigates murder of youngsters.
Comment by Jerry — Wed 1st March 2017 @ 5:32 am
DJ Ward@27: Another incredible display of excusing female violence, in this case a positive affirmation of it that reframed it as ‘love’. At the same time, just in case anyone might recognise it for the murderous violence it was, reference is made to this poor long-suffering murderer’s mood disorder as if that also justified her violence. Diminished responsibility? Load of tripe. She clearly didn’t qualify as insane although the court bent over backward to try to arrange that defence. So instead the judge came up with diminished responsibility, actually just another special provocation excuse for females, in this case the provocation of being around a male whose interests didn’t conform to the feminist list of authorised interests. Victim-blaming, just another item in this confused gamut of excuses permitted for women but never for men.
This murder was a political assassination, the killing of a male for having beliefs and interests contrary to feminist dictate. We are here seeing feminist fascism supported by the judiciary.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 1st March 2017 @ 7:49 am
Breastfeeding Nazis kill baby.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/baby/89963587/grieving-mums-message-if-id-given-him-just-one-bottle-hed-still-be-alive
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 2nd March 2017 @ 10:05 am
How was this women still allowed to have her kids after running them over?
If a man did that it would be prison.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=11816905
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 4:13 pm
Well this isn’t murder.
Just meth driven stupid tragedy.
Good on the judge ignoring the I’m pregnant defence.
“An application to take photographs of the 21-year-old in court was granted, despite her lawyer, William Hawkins, arguing photographs in the media “may increase the stress” of the current pregnancy”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=11817273
No mention of the father/fathers.
“The result of the blood analysis confirmed there was no evidence of any alcohol, but her blood sample did contain the class A controlled drug, methamphetamine.”
Meth doesn’t stay in the system very long so she was high when she was driving.
It’s very addictive.
She’s pregnant.
Does she still use?
Will they let her have “her” baby in prison.
Or will the lawyer use that to get a stay at home sentence.
Quick maths.
She was 17 when she had the poor innocent child killed in accident.
Good indicator of her beliefs in being responsible.
Quick of the mark creating a replacement.
Was she on the DPB?
I will say that it was an accident, caused by her irresponsible behaviour. She will have to live with her actions and loss all her life. That’s a big punishment.
It will be interesting to see what her sentence is.
Is there examples of fathers doing the same thing?
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 10:10 pm
Terrible case.
The issue I have with this case is how things are perceived.
The tone of the report.
Also the things taking place.
Nothing confirmed but the article says it all.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/90442264/aussie-father-of-boy-found-dead-with-kiwi-mum-describes-traumatising-moment
“skateboarder Davis conceded that, while his former partner had anger issues, she was a “beautiful mum” who loved Seth dearly. ”
Conceded?
What? Was he bullied into saying that.
No man with anger issues is called a buitifull dad.
“She really did love Seth, she put him first before herself all the time,” he said on Tuesday at his eastern suburbs home.
The events that have taken place contradict that comment.
“Neighbours and police were also aware of Docherty’s volatile behaviour. Last year she smashed the windows of three of her neighbours’ cars after a dispute about parking.”
So was she charged?
“In a sign she was looking forward, Davis said Docherty agreed on the weekend to negotiate a custody agreement for their son.”
I knew that had to be part of events.
So predictable.
“NSW Family and Community Services was in contact with Docherty, Davis said, but she always promised she would never do anything to harm Seth.”
So CYF in effect was dealing with this women and people had already considered her to be a risk to the child.
This means the father was very likely to get custody.
Women with anger and violence issues.
Impossible.
Multiple relationships.
Domestic violence behaviours?
Impossible.
Mental health issues?
Medication?
I wonder if this case which has some similarities to cases involving male killers will be used like the domestic violence industry does with those cases.
The Livingstone case for example.
Stop violent women seeing there kids.
Lock them up and make the community safe.
Will the mental health industry run for cover like they did in the Livingstone case?
Was she prescribed the wrong drugs like the Clayton Weatherston case?
Livingston killed because he had anger issues, suffered a psychological injury and was badly treated, and was facing the fact he wasn’t allowed to see his kids, definately in the short term, probably forever.
This women killed because she had anger issues, undefined mental state and treatment, and was facing the fact she was no longer going to be the full custody parent.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 14th March 2017 @ 9:59 pm
DJ Ward @33: Yes quite. It’s just incredible that a woman murders her child and kills herself and the media coverage is all full of excuses and gushing affirmations of what a great mother she was. When a father does the same the media coverage is all about how his crime showed his selfishness and need to have power and control, and we get law changes to allow ever more discrimination against males, as in the Bristol clauses in the Care of Children Act that followed one particular father’s murder-suicide actions. The duplicity and failure to hold women accountable is simply incredible. The most recent article on the Sydney incident described the mother as ‘Kiwi Murder-Suicide Victim’. WTF? She was a murderer. No male who did that would ever be described as the victim! We scratch our heads in wonder.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 15th March 2017 @ 10:35 pm
I thought a perpetrator of a crime was a term used to describe the person proven to be the guilty person responsible for a crime.
I was wrong.
According to the DOJ website
an allegation is enough that the law can begin a punishment process without proof of wrongdoing or that a crime has occourred.
It says:
Perpetrator
A perpetrator is anyone who has acted, or is alleged to have acted, violently against someone with whom they have a domestic relationship. This includes a person with a protection order or PSO against them, and a person charged with or convicted of family violence offences.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Wed 15th March 2017 @ 11:06 pm
Re: voices back from the bush @35; Something real seems omitted. Only if the accused is male will he be labelled the “Perpetrator”. Females seem to still be victims. I’m sure that bias won’t be written in the books – but its never the less real and is practiced. While those so called extreme Womyn are easy to see in this, what about all those mums, sisters, daughters who seem to not be guilty of this injustice ,- but still are because they are quite okay that their male family are persecuted in this way. They give their silent endorsement to this shame. Are persons like that respectable or admirable? Without that silent support, the extreme womyn might not be so powerful.
Comment by Jerry — Thu 16th March 2017 @ 6:16 am
Voices @ 35. Good observations. This is a trend of circular reasoning that is spreading through our laws. In prosecuting and sentencing men, Protection Orders and Police Safety Orders are already treated as if they are proof of previous offending even though we all know they are almost always based only on unsubstantiated allegations or police decisions of convenience and gender discrimination. Currently before parliament is a bill to make employers give women special paid leave on the claim of domestic violence victimisation and any police call out will be considered sufficient proof of this regardless of who called them or who was the violent party. Feminist policy and law is largely based on irrationality and blatant dishonesty.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 16th March 2017 @ 8:33 am
Another attempt for the get out of jail free defence.
Infanticide.
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/accused-melbourne-baby-killer-in-court/news-story/1e4db307785afddba7a901e8afd2ad59
Attempt one.
A man did it.
Attempt two.
“A report from consultant psychiatrist Yvonne Skinner found Nikat was not of sound mind during the time her baby died, Mr Dane said, because she had “not fully recovered from giving birth”.”
WTF?
The child was 14 months old.
Oh.
It’s a female rent a psychiatrist.
Probably found her number on a family court short list.
“Magistrate Luisa Bazzani upheld the murder charge, citing that the psychiatrist’s evidence had not been tested.”
Clearly not a family court judge.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 16th March 2017 @ 3:14 pm
Section 315 of the Crimes Act = GOOD CAUSE to SUSPECT a CRIME has been COMMITTED – is the basis by which the Police can arrest someone and place them before the courts,
the problem is, we are seeing a selective application of this LAW to protect Corporate business ………and those working for it.
So one rule for us and on rule for them.
The Police when choosing NOT to arrest someone – are claiming NO CRIMINAL INTENT – which is effectively the POLICE acting as if they are the Courts = when this is NOT their FUNCTION at ALL. The courts determine Guilt of Innocence NOT the Police.
I have seen this twice with the Police refusing to arrest a LAWYER for CHILD who has committed Crimes – there was CERTAINLY – GOOD CAUSE TO SUSPECT that he had – witnesses and evidence was there..
And secondly of the mother who was harming the child and not adhering to parenting orders – which is a crime against the Care of Children Act – and again the Police claim – NO GUILTY INTENT, NOT a CRIME here – acting as if they are the courts when that is NOT their function.
And I agree – these protection orders and the like are created on the basis of ONE PERSONS unchallenged evidence – in my case DIRECT LIES which fortunately I proved were LIES and had the applications thrown out – but many unsuspecting dads never get the chance to challenge these Ex parte, under urgency filings that are sneaked into court and ruled on without any contest or evidence from the other party – there has been a surge in this occurring……..
WHY – Because it keeps lawyers in business creating CONFLICT.
Comment by hornet — Thu 16th March 2017 @ 4:39 pm
When the police don’t act then the only option left is.
Private prosecution.
Once they realise they will be embarrassed by refusing to prosecute.
They may majicaly decide to take over.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 16th March 2017 @ 6:47 pm
#34 I’m scratching my head in wonder too.
If a male had a drinking problem where they had anger issues with clear mental health issues as well.
No way would they be called a victim.
A cowardly self motivated murderer more likely.
Also in a longish term relationship.
Breaks up.
On off volatile relationship.
Gets pregnant.
Why?
Doubt that was consential.
Was it in attempt to make him stay.
To trap him.
Was it to get even with him?
Because of her mental illness.
Did she have the child.
For income purposes.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 16th March 2017 @ 7:53 pm
34, I think I’m getting the hang of the logic now.
She was a murderer but doesn’t qualify by gender as offender, dispite her bender.
You see, before she could be accused she killed herself.
Because she did that we can deduce she is a tragic victim of someone else’s horrific oppression.
Therefore she cannot be responsible for her actions.
And the child was after all, male.
Bound by design,desire,defiance and Destiny to eventually become an oppressor of women.
The child will have witnessed the oppression so this make him x (choose one) times more likely to emulate the behavior.
This combined with his primal patriarchal dominance upon puberty certainly will have met testosterone and the cycle of male violence continued relentlessly and cruel.
The woman’s a hero.
A martyr.
But it doesn’t end there.
Obviously there’s still a perpetrator of the oppression She suffered for years still loose on the streets responsible for woman and child-slaughter.
Probably more than one.
Because his/their crime remains unpunished all men must suffer predetermined guilt should they ever be accused of wrongdoing.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 17th March 2017 @ 12:27 am
DJ Ward @41; Regarding – quote -“Also in a longish term relationship.
Breaks up.
On off volatile relationship.
Gets pregnant.
Why?
Doubt that was consential.”
Certainly it may not have been consentual. I think we all understand what “consent” really is, and that is not what the Feminist” forces have asserted.
But this issue is similar to what happened with us. I guess it depends on what hopes each had at the time. I found it difficult to love someone who was harming the children. But I feared the co-habitation being broken, because this would certainly be achieved by exiling me, and that would leave the children totally unprotected and exposed. So what do you do? My choice at the time was to try to heal the family, while also trying to continue the marital relationship – I guess I hoped by living another day something might turn up. But then there was a very dangerous violence event which could not be ignored – and that was the end. Looking back from now, I still think I did my best given that there is no way I could have simply acted unilaterally for the kids safety like I could have if I had a uterus.
We can only guess what abstaining from sex might have done, but I feared it would add to and speed up the corrosion of the relationship and family unity, and require me to leave sooner. This while increasing the hazard the children experienced.
That said, I thought the issues through as best I could under the circumstances.
The post script of this is that by practicing the marital relationship during that time, we got a second daughter of whom I am most proud these days. So maybe we are not able to take stock of all the realities until decades later.
Comment by Jerry — Fri 17th March 2017 @ 4:56 am
40 DJ ward – exactly – which is WHY it took a Citizen to get Banks before the Courts = the Police refused to do so. We are seeing also now a change in what crimes a Citizen can lay an information for – in some cases now requiring the approval of the Attorney General – but if as we have seen in the USA – that office is also corrupted = then we have no way of getting these corrupted individuals before the courts……….
FOUR Methods used to SUBVERT a NATION……so it can be taken over for its resources…..by Ex KGB officer Yuri Bezmenov
Demoralize – how many here feel demoralised by this FC system ? Everyone here I bet – so that stage is complete.
Destablisation – Economically and in over other sense – how any here feel they have been Destabilised?
CRISIS – a created CRISIS to force change………this can be anything a Corrupted Insane Psychopath could dream up to harm humans……and cause them FEAR
Then FORCE you to accept a NEW NORMAL…………Normalisation …………
Now I hope you ALL understand this is not by accident – …..we are all being destroyed and systematically taken down……….fathers in particular who offer strength, wisdom, balance, guidance and stability to a child’s life………creating more victims is the current tactic……
Destablization – encourage divorce, encourage conflict, encourage crime and poverty…….
Plutocracy is Rule by the RICH at the expense of the Poor. To impoverish you and make you poor is part of the overall plan for NZ………
Comment by hornet — Fri 17th March 2017 @ 8:27 am
This was an interesting story that at first glance may not have seemed to have relevance for MRAs. This Pacific Island man Faraniko Pei (I couldn’t find anything that specified which country) went to the police to complain in desperation about his sister’s life-threatening illness and what he and the sister considered to be inadequate treatment in the health system. Yes, it may well have been a futile exercise because police wouldn’t be able to do anything unless the complaint was about a crime. (It’s possible that a crime was being committed if health authorities were allowing someone to die due to inadequate treatment, but we can’t expect the police to determine this.) However, the way the the police responded to Pei’s concerns appeared to be poor. According to the sister Pei felt rebuffed and humiliated by the response. He left, obtained a firearm and returned to the police station to shoot out some windows, seemingly both in anger at how police treated him and hoping the publicity would draw attention to his sister’s plight. It did, the care and options for the sister soon increasing after Pei’s stunt.
The issue is that men are so readily treated with disrespect and lack of caring. If it had been a woman who approached police with similar concerns, she could expect a sympathetic ear and some guidance and support concerning handling the concerns. Pei apparently did not experience the police response in that way.
Many men have posted on MENZ Issues their experiences of being dismissed, humiliated or worse when they approached the police for help. Especially when reporting violence by females, police either refuse to take the complaint or they charge the man with violence contrary to the evidence. Others have made police complaints about perjury in Family Court by either other litigants, Court-appointed lawyers or judges, and we hear that police consistently refuse to take the complaints or to investigate these crimes. In my experience I have been to police a few times over the years and in about half the cases they could not be bothered taking my complaint; too much hassle for a man who should be able to ‘man up’ to what happened. For example, one of those occasions was to complain about a roadside car window washer who swore and made a threatening gesture to me when I declined his uninvited attempt to wash my window in preparation for holding out his hand for money. I am prevented by law from dealing with the situation myself but I felt shaken and angry about what I believed were criminal offences of offensive language and threatening behaviour, so I drove straight to the police station. Not important enough to take a complaint about unfortunately, and nothing in the way of understanding or empathy but only the implication that I was somehow unreasonable and an inadequate male for bothering police about such trivia.
Men deserve equal treatment, equal protection under the law, equal understanding and compassion. They are not getting it. This will be related to men’s huge suicide rate and to their acting out against the society that seems to care so little about them or indeed to hate them so much.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 17th March 2017 @ 8:32 am