When is it self defence?

July 21st, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Moves to push for a law change allowing battered wives who kill their husbands in cold blood to plead self-defence are being considered by a government committee.

The Family Violence Deaths Review Committee says New Zealand is out of step with other countries in not offering at least a partial defence for women who kill their husbands after years of abuse.

If there is to be such a defence recommended, surely it should be available to all spouses/partners – not just wives?

The defence can be used when the killing is an immedite retaliation but not when the killing is premeditated.

The committee initially planned to recommend a law change, but has stepped back from that while it continues discussing the proposal.

I’m against it being lawful to do a premeditated killing. Apart from the fact that when someone is dead, it is very easy to claim they were an abuser (as they can’t contradict any claims), the preferred response to domestic abuse is to leave them, not kill them. I know it is not as simple as that for some people, but killing is never the answer unless you are in immediate harm.

Tags:

72 Responses to “When is it self defence?”

  1. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    So if I get this right, battered women should be able to stand their ground rather than having a duty to retreat?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    I wonder what Sir Owen Glenn thinks?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wiseowl (928 comments) says:

    This exposes the silly kneejerk move of Powers to do away with provocation as a defence.
    There are just as many males that are being abused but oh no we pretend that does not happen.

    The other law change that was wrong is the no fault divorce.A huge majority of divorces are now initiated by the female in the relationship.
    I wonder why?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Harriet (5,105 comments) says:

    But the entire artical is about wifes, wifes, wifes, killing their husbands, husbands, husbands.

    Nearly all women in refuges are partners.

    Nearly all women who get beaten are partners.

    Nearly all women who get killed are killed by their partners [compared to marriage – not car crashes]

    Marriage as we are constantly reminded, is becoming less popular. Other arrangements are just as popular and increasing in numbers.

    Seems to me that the Review Committee is way behind the times – unless of course they are going to introduce more and more Muslims into the country!

    Xenophobes who profile – who woulda thought! :cool:

    Seek help at the first opportunity, and if that doesn’t work – leave them.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    In the case of homosexual marriages would that defence apply for the one who is considered the wife?

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. jcuk (712 comments) says:

    “Seek help at the first opportunity, and if that doesn’t work – leave them”

    Wishful thinking Harriet … it is not in the human make-up it seems.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    I have always thought it curious to have specifically sexist offences written into the crimes act.

    The other one that stands out is “Male Assaults Female.” How is this different than a guy smashing another guy, or a gal smashing a gal? If its a matter of physical size/strength then surely shouldn’t this be a crime of “Biggy Assaults Littly” rather than a specific gender type. After all in this day & age of gender equality it shouldn’t differentiate. Should it be based on BMI? Or how much the assaulter can bench-press relative to the assaultee.

    As Wiseowl points out should this also apply to men in abusive relationships, and while Chuck I assume you were being tongue in cheek what about other same-sex relationships?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Another half-assed MoJ inspired move, that should be killed, stone dead. NOW.

    What happened to the “battered wife syndrome”? I do not recall that being abolished, but may be I missed it when silly Simon did his claytons’ job on self defence.

    In NZ self defence is so rarely (to my knowledge, and without research) used, that any changes should be aimed at reducing Police prosecutions on the specious grounds that the Court should decide. If that prosecution policy is to remain, it should be accompanied by the mandatory award of 100% costs, plus 100% punitive damages, to any acquitted defendant.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    Legalised murder, charming.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Harriet (5,105 comments) says:

    “……Wishful thinking Harriet … it is not in the human make-up it seems…..”

    Nearly all people who get Married knowdays have already been living with their current spouse.

    I call bullshit on the ‘wife beating’ that goes on in NZ – most young women today would not get Married if they have been pre- disposed to violence. As most young women are reasonbly minded.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    The volition is simple. Bring back provocation that could reduce murder to manslaughter with it made clear than actions in court like Weatherston’s come at a cost in sentencing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    I thought after Clayton Weatherston the law was changed to prevent provocation as a defense ? I said at the time this would prevent the “battered wife defense” and questioned if the anti male hate groups demanding law change had considered that ?

    What is being proposed here is women being allowed to kill their husbands by claiming they are “abused”. Violence does not just include physical violence. Go to the Womens Refugee website and see what they claim is violence and abuse.

    Here is something to get you started cut n’ pasted from the Womens Refuge website:

    Spiritual violence

    Abuse in any form robs women and children of their mauri-ora or wellbeing. Spiritual abuse is about attacks to your wairua or spirit, when abuse leaves you feeling soulless, empty of passion or joy, distant, and purposeless.

    https://womensrefuge.org.nz/WR/Domestic-violence/Types-of-abuse.htm

    Some of you have been critical of my confronting comments on this topic, but how much more evidence do you need of the marginalization of men in NZ society ? Recently you have seen a proposal to distort the democratic process in order to give women more power and now we have tax payer funded male hate groups seriously advancing the notion women should be allowed to murder their husbands with impunity. And they have done this after specifically passing special legislation to prevent a man using provocation as a defense for murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    An absolutely terrible idea. Killing in cold blood as “defense”? These people need their heads read.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Well said , Kea.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    So if I get this right, battered women should be able to stand their ground rather than having a duty to retreat?

    No, this is specifically about killing in cold blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    Crimes Act 1961

    Defence against assault

    Self-defence and defence of another
    48. Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

    Under existing law all persons have a right to self defense. There is no need to make new law unless what is being proposed is a special law allowing women to kill men. What other possible explanation can there be given the clear words of the Crimes Act that allow self defense and defense of another ?

    Wake the fuck up NZ !

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Harriet (5,105 comments) says:

    Kea#

    “…Some of you have been critical of my confronting comments on this topic…’

    Don’t worry about it. I never do. :cool: It is quite well known in legal circles that laws based upon exceptions make bad laws. We all know that nearly all ‘woman bashing’ happens within minorities. It is a matter of educating them, as we already have laws about beating women – that these people don’t abide by. They won’t abide by this one. Infact, as you allude too – they may well bash women more – for feeling even more ‘inadeguate’ because of this law to ‘support’ women.

    ‘No Smacking’ is a good examlpe of a bad law. Cheers brother. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    You can thank the Owen Glenns & Pete Georges of the world for this. Under existing law I could interview the partner of any NZ male and find evidence of “abuse” and “violence” based on accepted criteria. You may question some of my claims, but to tell the truth, I have to tone it down because the reality is far worse and you would not believe if I told you all I know.

    The people behind this are not trying to stop domestic violence. They are using this as a method to marginalize men and destroy traditional family and gender roles. The founders of the radical anti male hate group Womens Refuge stated this openly as their goal. There are no winners in this. NZ women are among the most conflicted and unhappy I have ever met and the men are dreary confused men lacking in passion. Solid decent family values are in decline and society is suffering as a result of this institutional misandry.

    I am famously critical of the religious, but in this area they have got it together and have many solid ideas proven to work. A christian mate gave me a pile of books to read about marriage and relationships. It was, by far, the best advice I have ever read on the topic and surprisingly earthy and realistic. If your partner is abusing you then the abuse needs to stop. You do not need to kill him, leave the marriage, or put up with it. There are other options, but you won’t hear that at the Womins Refuge.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    If only women would obey and submit to their husbands the problem would largely disappear.

    Once again the Bible shows the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Paulus (2,657 comments) says:

    wat

    The Koran is even more specific as to the role of woman. They are a nobody.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. kowtow (8,730 comments) says:

    Cultural Marxism actively undermining our once proud judicial system.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    wat dabney, well I am not about to defend the bible ;) but having read christian books on relationships and marriage it is actually pretty practical stuff with not a lot of god mentioned. Men have duties and expectations same as the women do. It is not a case of submission of either party. I have to give credit where it is due on this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. kowtow (8,730 comments) says:

    wart dumbney in his rush to attack Christianity (again) conveniently ignores the long established concept of the separation of Church and state.

    Proof ,if needed of his wilfully blind bigotry.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I think rather than it be a defence, we need degrees of murder.

    A person that has been abused for years and finally breaks and shoots the old man, surely cannot be considered in the same way as a person that stalks a young child, waits for an opportunity to abduct them, use them for sexual purposes (before or after killing them).

    I don’t agree with much about the US Justice System, but I do think ‘murder’ needs more classification here, like it has in the states

    Gender should make not difference other than physical strength factor.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. wiseowl (928 comments) says:

    Kea@12.11
    Right with you on this and religion doesn’t matter.
    I am seeing a host of breakups at present all around the same stage of life and the guys I am talking too are totally bewildered and in a daze.They are asking ‘what have I done wrong’ .
    The answer is nothing but its easy for the female to bail and be a teenager again.Take half of everything and off.No commitment, no loyalty and helped along by other sympathisers.
    Men are horridible.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    Well wat if you had quoted from both sides of that chapter it would make sense:

    In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

    So from a Christian point of view the plan is for husbands to love their wives, wives to respect their husbands, and children to obey their parents. And if they both fear God then they know if one of them steps out of line they have God to answer to.

    Makes for a very safe and secure family unit – if committed to by both parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. radvad (772 comments) says:

    So some people believe in capital punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Harriet (5,105 comments) says:

    Wat#

    As Red said last night:

    “If you think that the Christians are more of a threat to you than the socialists, then you are either being paid by the marxists or completely mental.”

    It was the Christians who wanted the seperation of Church and State so that they would not have to completely submit to government. We don’t want a theocracy. It’s the secular liberal socialists who want full submission, by doing away with religion in peoples lives.

    It also says in the Bible to respect government and act towards government by following the Christian creed. We have to give Ceasar his dues – and God his.

    When did you last see John Key or David Shearer or anyone else in government wash anyone’s feet?

    So why on earth would you hold their collective views as being the ultimate end in reasoning, morality and ethics? No reasonable person would.

    Well I’ll give Ceasar his due when I see fit:

    If it is good enough for John Key to PROMOTE the idea that Marriage is good for gays – then it is of paramount importance for him to PROMOTE that Marriage is good enough for little children – AND women. The evidence supports that.

    I’m not saying we have to get rid of no-faults divorce, but what I am saying is that Marriage has to be placed back upon it’s pedestal as something to aspire to if wanting to live together and procreate, as evidence shows that children AND women are the more healthier and wealthier for it. Therefor the next generation is. Cheers Wat.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. iMP (2,418 comments) says:

    Some incongruity David.

    “I’m against it being lawful to do a pre-meditated killing.”

    Pro-euthanasia.

    ??

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    this is very close to home for me – in a related way. I was married for 2.5 years, in my late 20s (now in 30s), and my wife had an affair with someone at her work (one of my best mates worked with her and told me what was going on, as did one of my wife’s friends). She ended the marriage, after about a month of the affair – even though I pleaded to try counselling, go on a long holiday overseas etc and was willing to forgive her.

    We had all the same friends, so unbeknownst to me, my wife concocted stories of me raping her, beating her, strangling her, taking all her money, locking her in the house etc and spread them around our friends and all of her family members. I suddenly lost most of our wider group of mutual friends, and some of her family members threatened me, both with lawyers and physical violence. I then had to take out a second mortgage on our property to give her 50% of the equity in it, even though during our marriage she was earning minimum wage and I was contributing 6 times the amount that she was to everything. This also included paying her out 50% of my retirement superannuation that I had been saving since I was at university. Her family had a company worth several million dollars that she had shares in, and I chose to leave that alone during the divorce proceedings because it was nothing to do with me.

    I ended up having to quite my job and get a new job to cover the mortgages I was dumped with, and i ended up having to move away from the city I had lived in all my life to get away from the trouble that it caused me, leaving all my family and friends behind.

    Thanks to this stupid law, my wife or similar women, can make up lies, and then kill someone, and keep all of his net worth, and get away with it.

    The worst part of it all was finding out that people I had known for 15+ years instantly believed all the lies about me and washed their hands of me, without me even having a chance to defend myself.

    The best part of it was that I am now, only 5 years later, married to an amazing, strong woman, and have two amazing children , and life is better than I could imagine. My ex-wife is miserable and alone and still in a dead-end job.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    This law is an absolute piece of shit. Kea’s story is basically dime a dozen now, happened to me, happened to almost everyone I know, and now the fems want to give women the power to subjectively decide they are being abused, and be able to murder their husbands?! Un fucking believable. What are they going to call this? Manticide? I can almost guarantee it won’t be ‘years’ of abuse, and abuse will be broad as hell. Just add this to no-fault divorce, and the presumption of guilt whenever a woman or child under the influence of a woman makes up lies about a man being abusive etc to the pile. Never getting married. Too risky. Can’t ever be alone with a child. Too risky. Can’t be in a de facto with any women poorer then me. Too risky. Can’t ever raise your voice or stop a woman from punching you in the face or smashing your things. Too risky. And so many women wonder why they aren’t happy and men don’t want to commit. It’s too risky.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    wart dumbney in his rush to attack Christianity (again)

    How did I attack Christianity?

    Is advocating adherence to Scripture an “attack”?

    A very revealing response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    National is prepared to fund this sort of sexist advocacy but prepared to take away tax exempt status from a pro family group like Family First.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    I recently found the transcripts that I had misplaced of the trial of Gaye Oakes for the murder of Doug Gardner. She was no battered woman. No one forced her to come back from Oz to be with him. He was thinking seriously of reconciling with his former wife. That is when she murdered him with the help of some man hating lesbians at a Christchurch wimmin’s shelter.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    I am seeing a host of breakups at present all around the same stage of life and the guys I am talking too are totally bewildered and in a daze.They are asking ‘what have I done wrong’ .

    This is very common and tends to happen as women approach their 40’s. They often consider that they have given enough of themselves to kids and husband and it is time for them.

    The reason the guys can not understand what they did wrong is because they quiet possibly did nothing wrong. It is simply a stage of life women go through. What women do, as seanmaitland has experienced, is portray themselves as “victims” and concoct stories to marginalise their husbands. A women caught having an affair will save face by trotting out the victim card and portraying herself as a long suffering loyal wife. The incredible thing is how many people believe this shit and buy into it. You seldom meet a women who walked out on her husband who has the integrity to take responsibility for her actions. They blame their husband, never themselves.

    This sorry state of affairs is assisted by the “women are victims” narrative and the “me” culture. It really breaks my heart to see this happening all around me. My break up was very simple and tidy, though I was deeply heart broken and took years to come right. Some others are not so lucky.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    Harriet , forget about what the gays are doing and focus on what matters. Traditional marriage is not under attack by gays, but by feminists. They are not taking it away, it is being given away. We can all stop that by sticking to our own beliefs and leading by example. Gay marriage is not the issue, traditional marriage is.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wiseowl (928 comments) says:

    Had a friend ring on Friday.Knocked me over with the same old story.
    Had a big turnover business , kids all gone and she said she enjoyed the money but wanted to do her own thing.He is paying out big time.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Traditional marriage is not under attack by gays”

    Not quite correct. How about man hating lesbians?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. kowtow (8,730 comments) says:

    Harriet is quite within his rights to point out the gays and indeed any other gender/identity/racial whatever category one wishes to point to in respect of this matter.

    It’s all part of the same thing ,divide and rule in the name ,perversely ,of “equality”.

    The left have attacked private property rights relentlessly and this is an extension of their “struggle”. It is now extended into the field of criminal justice ,where victim groups are to have more rights and priveliges over others.In Canada the legal code requires judges at sentencing to consider the fact that a defendant is ” First Nations” for example.

    Lady Justice is not peeking from under her blindfold to see who is on trial she is being told to positively discriminate.That’s not justice,that’s Cultural Marxism.

    The progressive agenda,she just keeps rolling along.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    wiseowl, Typically she will be off banging like a shit house door in a hurricane.”You go girl” As the years go on a bit, and her looks start to fade, she will try and have a real relationship, confident she can get a man any time she wants. But she will be emotionally damaged by her own behaviour, bitter and cynical towards men, with fading beauty, and will find that Mr Right is very elusive indeed. She will become desperate and lonely, and if she is lucky, she will get to settle for some bloke who she would not give the time of day to now. The whole time she will repeat like a mantra that she is happy, independent and has found herself in the vain hope she might one day feel whole if she keeps pretending hard enough.

    Sure it does not always work that way, but very often it does.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Harriet (5,105 comments) says:

    Kea I never said that.

    “… If it is good enough for John Key to PROMOTE the idea that Marriage is good for gays – then it is of paramount importance for him to PROMOTE that Marriage is good enough for little children – AND women. The evidence supports that.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    I always reckoned that chicks are given a certain amount of attractiveness.

    This can be in the form of either physical or personality attractiveness.

    Unfortunately the more physical beauty they have tends to be counterbalanced by an ugly personality.

    Then after a few years their beauty tends to fade but their ugly personality gets worse and worse.

    I’ve been lucky to be with a woman who is kind and caring and has good looks – they can be hard to find though.

    Means though that guys need to think with their big head and not their little head when it comes to finding a woman to be with.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird , yes man hating lesbians are a threat, but not because they are lesbians, because they hate men. Feminists are behind almost every single bad idea the left advances, be they gay or straight. The fact the topic of this thread is even being considered, along with the man ban, is all the proof I need that NZ is run by radical feminists.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Kea, When my marriage broke up many year ago I got involved in a couple of father’s groups. At the time some of us thought Labour was the best to lobby. I was much more liberal at the time but Chris Carter helped change all that. Carter may be a unique arsehole but most of the Labour homosexuals and the militant homosexuals piss in each other’s pockets along with other so called victims groups. See letter below.

    Parliament House Telephone (04) 471 9999

    WELLINGTON 1.

    23 November, 1995

    Chuck Bird
    5/1O5 Victoria Street
    Onehunga
    AUCKLAND

    Dear Chuck,

    Thank you for your recent letter outlining your concerns about the way violence statistics are reported. I read your letter with interest.

    Clearly you have a view that women are just as responsible for domestic violence as men. This is not borne out by the vast bulk of scientific research and is something I cannot accept. Women may feature as perpetrators sometimes but in the vast majority of cases this is not so.

    I will pass on your letter to our Social Welfare Spokesperson Annette King for her comment.

    Kind regards,

    Chris Carter
    MP for Te Atatu

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Be interested to see what FE Smith’s opinion is on this.

    And I wonder if some of the people cheering for women on this thread were the same people who cheered when a key defense in our criminal justice system was dismantled in for solely poll-driven politics after the Weatherston killing?

    There would be a certain irony in that, after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Souvlaki (45 comments) says:

    Can we somehow access the names of those on this committee?Anyone promulgating such a steaming pile of excrement ( especially on the PUBLIC purse) should be named and shamed ! If they genuinely believe this to be the ‘answer’…..they should be made to defend it publicly. FFS ….have we become completely emasculated by the Feminazi ??
    What are the chances the “members” were appointed by the administration prior to 2008 ??

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    It was not just the feminazis who lobbied for a law change but some homosexual groups after a couple of older homosexual predators got killed as a result of targeting teenage boys.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    It is instructive to contemplate what such a law would accomplish. Are they suggesting that providing a legal means for women to murder men will reduce domestic violence/deaths ? This is an absurd suggestion coming from The Family Violence Deaths Review Committee !

    Maybe they think men will be less violent out of fear of being legally murdered by women ? What other benefit could you reasonably expect from such legislation in the context of reducing deaths ?

    Remember that all people have an existing right to self defense, so they can only be looking for a lower standard to allow women to kill men. There is no other explanation that stands up to scrutiny or common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    have we become completely emasculated by the Feminazi ??

    Yes, totally !

    If this is not evidence enough what would convince you ? :(

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It was the Christians who wanted the seperation of Church and State so that they would not have to completely submit to government.

    Absolute bollocks. Christianity was/is the official state religion.

    Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

    Romans 13.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The Koran is even more specific as to the role of woman. They are a nobody.

    “O you who believe, it is not lawful for you to take women as heritage against (their) will. Nor should you straiten them by taking part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency. And treat them kindly. Then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.”
    The Qur’an, Surah 4:19

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Yoza (1,906 comments) says:

    Kea (6,158) Says:
    July 21st, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    have we become completely emasculated by the Feminazi ??

    Yes, totally !

    If this is not evidence enough what would convince you ?

    Reminds me of the slogan: Feminism: The radical notion that women are people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Yoza (1,906 comments) says:

    Crikey, that was a decent shake

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Harriet (5,105 comments) says:

    “….Absolute bollocks. Christianity was/is the official state religion….”

    You know I was referring to Biblical times. But anyway, this may clear it up for you:

    One very well known passage comes to mind here, Matthew 22:21 (=Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25): “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render unto God the things that are God’s.”
    In this important passage we see two realms of authority which are separate but overlapping. But one realm (God’s) is meant to take priority over the other (man’s).

    We are at one and the same time citizens of some earthly state and citizens of heaven; the obligations of neither may be neglected. And as we reflect on what Jesus said, we are made to realize that there are limitations to the things that are Caesar’s. People must never allow their obligations to the civil state to encroach on their payment of the things that are God’s.

    Two other key New Testament passages are Rom 13:1-4 and 1 Pet 2:13-17.
    Both speak about the role of the state, and the responsibility of believers to submit to governing authorities.
    These passages tell us several things:
    The state is ordained by God; rulers have delegated authority from God; states exist to keep evil in check; believers are obliged to submit to the state, generally speaking; and we are to pay our taxes.

    So the general principle is that God has appointed the state as his servant to administer justice, punish evildoers, and maintain order in a fallen world.
    All people are meant to obey the powers that be. Yet as we shall see, there may be times when the state must be disobeyed.

    This can be for two main sorts of reasons: when the state commands us to do that which the Bible forbids; or when the state prohibits us from doing that which the Bible commands.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    Feminism: The radical notion that women are people. can murder their [male] partners with impunity

    Yoza, fixed it for you.

    Does anyone need more evidence of the level of anti male sentiment normalised in our society ? Pretty low even for Yoza.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘Moves to push for a law change allowing battered wives who kill their husbands in cold blood to plead self-defence are being considered by a government committee.’

    Surely the words in ‘cold blood’ haven’t been reported accurately, seems like a reporter’s imagination getting ahead of them.

    And this, ‘The defence can be used when the killing is an immedite retaliation but not when the killing is premeditated.’ Which in fact says the exact opposite as to in ‘cold blood.’

    I hope this committee are being more constructive about ‘family’ deaths involving children than what they appear to be on ‘spousal’ matters. For the later, a recommendation on repealing the removal of the defence of provocation would help as the Law previously worked very well in that area, including in the Weatherston case where the Jury rightly rejected that defence for Weatherston anyway. As time has passed the actual objection seems to have been in the publication of what Weatherston was saying, not that many would having taken it seriously – because certainly the Jury nor the sentencing Judge did. On reflection, and I don’t know if it was sought to be suppressed, but it appears that it should have been, it was of no public interest merely the delusions of a psychotic.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Surely not looking for a defence to replace provocation? Nice one Simon Power

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. nasska (11,779 comments) says:

    From the website of The Health Quality & Safety Commission. Ref: http://www.hqsc.govt.nz/our-programmes/mrc/fvdrc/news-and-events/news/136/

    The Chair of the Family Violence Death Review Committee is Associate Professor of Law Julia Tolmie. The committee comprises Dr Dawn Elder, Judge Paul Von Dadelszen, Miranda Ritchie, Professor Barry Taylor, Denise Wilson, Ngaroma Grant, Fia Turner Tupou.

    Is there anyone who is not a leftist academic or at least sane amongst that roll call?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Longknives (4,853 comments) says:

    Did those women who helped bury Gay Oakes’ victim ever face any kind of charges? (I was just a kid at the time)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Harriet (5,105 comments) says:

    I can’t actually recall Longknives. They may have faced minor charges. There was definately talk of that. One of the refuge feminist supporters -although she didn’t do anything – but probably new about it – I knew as a kid through her younger sister. Her uncle was won of the longest serving people in jail. Major drug and robbery offences in the ’70’s & 80’s. But she wouldn’t be an ardent feminist because of her parents – they were very good family and community people. Wealthyish but ordinary.

    The other person I saw from time to time in 2 pubs that I drank at was Doug himself. He used to wear a black bennie – the type that fishermen wear. One of the pubs was on Moorhouse ave in Ch-CH, I think it was called the Crown Tavern from memory and was not far from the old railway station. One of my best mates knew him reasonbly well, and I think that it was because Doug was from the West Coast or spent time there. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. peterwn (3,298 comments) says:

    The former partial defence of ‘provocation’ arose in the ‘common law’ and was codified in the NZ (and other colonial) Crimes Act. It came about as judges thought it unfair that a guy should swing from the gallows for a crime of passion, so if there was ‘provocation’ they would downgrade it to manslaughter. Typically it was males who benefited since they would ‘flip the lid’ on the spot if they cought another man in bed with the missus, whereas things could smoulder in a woman’s mind for a period before she flipped the lid. Feminist researchers caught up with this and advocated that ‘provocation’ be extended to cover such circumstances, but this was effectively ‘cut off’ when Simon Power moved to abolish the ‘provocation’ defence.

    So such feminists are suggesting that the ‘self defence’ law (s48 Crimes Act) be extended to cover such cases. There was a case where a woman in such a situation pleaded ‘self defence’ after killing her sleeping partner fearing he would kill her when he woke up. This failed on the basis she could have dialled 111 or left the house.

    A person convicted of murder can avoid life imprisonment together with a lengthy minimum period by convincing the judge that this could be ‘manifestly unjust’. If the judge agrees the judge has to give reasons in writing (this would be part of the sentencing notes). This provides a let-out for crimes of passion, although arguably the ‘gate’ is far too narrow. There could perhaps be a case to widen the gate slightly for ‘provocation’ cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    peterwn, was that post a wordy way of suggesting women should be able to claim self defense when they murder their [male] partners because they “smoulder” before flipping their lid…according to Feminist researchers ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. nasska (11,779 comments) says:

    I reckon that a little more work will be needed to convince the average NZ layman that there is a difference between “smouldering” & “premeditated murder”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    nasska, I note “Feminist researchers” are happy to attribute certain characteristics on the basis of gender when it suits their purposes (like defending the murder of men), but have fought long and hard to remove gender stereotypes in other areas.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. nasska (11,779 comments) says:

    The irony doesn’t escape me Kea.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. wreck1080 (3,956 comments) says:

    i don’t know why they removed provocation — now, they are having to remove distortions when the best option is simply to bring back the provocation defense.

    I am also sceptical of introducing laws which describe reasonable methods to kill other people in fairly good detail. Are jurors really that stupid not to determine provocation?

    And, are we writing a guide in law about the best way to get away with murder?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You know I was referring to Biblical times.

    No, I didn’t.

    One very well known passage comes to mind here, Matthew 22:21 (=Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25): “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render unto God the things that are God’s.”

    The tribute passage. Tribute was a name for payment for protection, and was the historical precursor of taxation.

    We are at one and the same time citizens of some earthly state and citizens of heaven;

    No, the two are mutually exclusive. Citizenship in the Roman sense is about protection, this is a substitute for the first commandment, as protection from harm (salvation if you like) is the central to the role between man and deity.

    Two other key New Testament passages are Rom 13:1-4 and 1 Pet 2:13-17.
    Both speak about the role of the state, and the responsibility of believers to submit to governing authorities.
    These passages tell us several things:
    The state is ordained by God; rulers have delegated authority from God; states exist to keep evil in check; believers are obliged to submit to the state, generally speaking; and we are to pay our taxes.

    Yes, that is more or less what the passages say. But the Roman state wasn’t ordained, it was a development of the city-state called Babylon. Rome itself was called Babylon by Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and by the writer of the book of Revelation. Paul, as well as being a Pharisee, was a Roman citizen, and it was to Rome that he pleaded for a remedy for the charges against him.

    Christianity is inherently biased towards citizenship because of the Pauline writings and because Christianity was the official Roman religion. If Paul is rejected then the book of Revelation is especially relevant because the intended audience was groups of people of Asia, who according to Paul, had rejected him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    i don’t know why they removed provocation — now, they are having to remove distortions when the best option is simply to bring back the provocation defense.

    They removed provocation because “The prick made me angry so I killed him” is one sorry, lame, sad-ass motherfucker of an excuse for murder. Provocation is something to take into account at sentencing, it’s not a defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    “The prick made me angry so I killed him”

    You couldn’t pick a more stupid proposition could you Milt?
    To make it easier for you, what in particular was it about the Weatherston case, where a defence of provocation didn’t work, that was reason to change the law?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. optimists (1 comment) says:

    Allowing battered women ( but not men) to claim self defence when killing their husbands is only good for the lawyers, judges, social workers, various Man Alive , Women refugee, Shine and other women protection agencies . The number of people who are involved in this woman protection business in Auckland is about 2000 . If they want to expand their business there is no better way then to ” protect ” women more than men as according the Statistics women are 5 times more likely to ask for protection against men then men who suffered the same .

    This is written by a man who was given protection order against a Russian woman ( emotional abuse) who on that base got NZ residence permit and before that she was on a visitors visa. Surprise , surprise after she got the NZ RP her husband came in NZ as resident as well .

    In my 53 years never been in courts , but what happened to me in the hands of the Family court , I wouldn’t wish to my worst enemy .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kea (13,323 comments) says:

    Women in this place have more equality under the law than men in NZ. I note the article does not mention the severe treatment of any male convicted of a sex crime.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/8947515/Woman-jailed-after-reporting-her-rape

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Longknives..re CHCH murder..I am fairly sure they didn’t face charges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote