The Government announced last week (BBC , Ministry of Justice, Telegraph, Times , Guardian, Mail) that it was reviewing the murder laws to clarify the law on provocation where the partial defence of provocation would be scrapped and replaced with two new defences.
These would be if someone killed over fears about serious violence, or if they could show they were "seriously wronged" by the victim's actions. According to the Home Office, they said the existing law "is designed to cater for anger killing, but it is not significantly well tailored for killings that are a response to fear".
Justice Minister Maria Eagle said: "For men and women who kill their partners, these changes will mean that the letter of the law finally catches up with judges and juries, who in recent years have been less prone than people think to let men off lightly and punish women harshly."
The issue raises a number of issues but as ever with this anti-male Government it is the tone and interpretation that is so damaging to men. Harman has abolished fatherhood, wants to allow men to be discriminated in employment law and now wants it easier for women to justify killing a man.
Harriet Harman, Eagle and Vera Baird, all Government Ministers, kept, during their interviews, using the example of women suffering from years of domestic abuse and that their fear should be taken into account if they subsequently murdered their husband. A change based on constant abuse rather than a momentary loss of temper which has led to a tiny minority of men to kill their wife. It means that it will be harder for a man to claim a momentary loss of control but easier for a woman to say it was after years of abuse.
Neither type of murder is right and cases should be based on their individual merits, not used as another tool in the armoury of the gender war. Of course, they purposely overlook the 87,200 woemn arrested last year for violence (link)
A number of issues arise:-
Firstly, because society, the media, the politicians, the police/social services/NHS and the courts believe that only women are victims of domestic abuse and not men, and also if a women claims she is a victim, it is automatically believed to be true, the level of proof a women will need to claim provocation will be lower.
Secondly, because all the examples that were given were against men it means it has set a tone of interpretation which will bear heavily on the minds of the prosecuting authorities.
Lastly, what was gratifying was that the backlash against these proposals were led by women and that this was simply another excuse by Harman, Eagle and Baird to demonise men. They are right of course. Women defending men and castigating these three stooges as being anti-men resonates far more powerfully than if it was made by men.
Melanie McDonagh in The Times called it "An unjust, feminist view of murder" (link) which was coupled with a long debate.
Erin Pizzey in The Mail said "Harman ...which treats men as either second-class citizens or a menace to society." (link) . Erin also featured heavily on the TV and radio.
Jimmy Young in the Express heaps praise on Erin (link)
Comments