How very Soviet of these Indian lawyers

Lawyers at an Indian court hearing the case of a fatal gang-rape say they will refuse to defend the men accused of taking part in the brutal attack.

The 23-year-old victim died in hospital at the weekend after 13-day struggle to survive injuries so grievous that part of her intestines had to be removed.

The medical student was allegedly raped and assaulted with an iron rod before being thrown from a speeding bus, along with her male companion.

Six men arrested over the attack have been charged with murder.

Hearings are expected to begin on Thursday at the Saket district court in south New Delhi, where police will formally present a 1,000-page charge sheet against the men.

\”We have decided that no lawyer will stand up to defend the rape accused as it would be immoral to defend the case,\” said Sanjay Kumar, a lawyer and a member of the Saket District Bar Council.

Sorry matey, that\’s not the way it works.

Once you\’ve signed up as a defense lawyer then you must be prepared to defend the very devil himself.

For absolutely everyone deserves the very best defense against accusations that it is possible for a system run by mere mortals to provide.

77 comments on “How very Soviet of these Indian lawyers

  1. “Defense”? Was ist das?
    Is 2013 to be the year you go over to U.S. spelling, or are you still a bit tipsy from New Year’s?

    Tim adds: I am being trained by the Forbes spell checker I’m afraid…..

  2. Tim, you are spot on. A barrister should always take any case that is offered to him (subject to avaliability and of course having the right expertise).

    Every accused has a right to a fair trial before an impartial judge. If the lawyers become judges by refusing to take a case on “moral” grounds then the justice system itself becomes useless.

    I think this lawyer is behaving unethically by making such statements. He may also be guilty of contempt of court.

  3. And that’s why I could never be a lawyer. My road to hell will at least be paved with good intentions.

  4. The Tribune in Pakistan adds:

    In 2008, Indian lawyers also refused to defend a gunman who took part in attacks on Mumbai which killed 166 people, leaving him with a government-appointed lawyer. He was executed in November last year.

    So it’s not unprecedented. Downright cowardly, in my opinion.

  5. Maybe they’re simply adopting the American system, in which your Public Defender is the person appointed to tell you to plead guilty.

  6. Law is definately something I need to read up on but presumably, if these are just blokes who own their own law firms, it would be more Soviet to force them to defend them.

    A bit like forcing a private contractor to build a road through some cherished local monument. Obviously not worth the money.

  7. An American was arrested in Japan for some minor currency offense. When he asked to be able to call the U.S. Embassy and a lawyer, the police told him, “In Japan, you don’t need a lawyer. Our police only arrest guilty people.”

  8. It’s funny how some crimes become so famous and cause celebres, and so on, and others don’t. Everyone remembers the brutal gang murder of Kriss Donald, right? Picked up randomly off the street, driven around for four hours, stabbed 37 times, set alight while probably still alive. That one. Yes?

  9. “Downright cowardly, in my opinion.”

    Quite possibly. OTOH India being the place it is, not necessarily unreasonably so. Perhaps a more frank statement would be better: “I decline to take this case on the grounds that some nutcase may decide to put me squarely in the crosshairs”.

  10. Ian B>

    What is this, some kind of calculus of callousness? Why is a racially-motivated attack by insane thugs relevant to a non-racially-motivated brutal rape? What on earth led you to draw a connection between the two?

  11. We don’t know who did this crime. If the police caught the busload of them before they reached the end of the street after dumping the poor girl then even a good defence won’t get them off. If the accused were rounded up later then a good defence is all the more needed. If they are guilty they need their balls burning off with a blow-lamp. But what if they are a bunch of patsys dragged in by coppers who can’t catch the real scum but must have a result because of public outrage (Birmingham Six etc).

  12. What on earth led you to draw a connection between the two?

    Possibly some kind of brutal murder of somebody picked up off the street by a gang, that kind of thing. Then one notes that some murders, such as this one, are worldwide news whereas others, like Donald’s are barely noted- to the extent that the trial verdict wasn’t even reported by the BBC (but the opening of a leisure centre was, on the same day).

    As Matthew L points out, there is a stark example of this kind of imbalance depending on how Aryan a missing woman is.

  13. To spell it out in black and white – the Indian rape case supports the female agenda as espoused by the left, and the racist murder of a white guy by Muslims doesn’t. Also compare to the coverage afforded to Stephen Lawrence…

  14. I don’t think that the women protesting in India have the advancement of feminist political theory as a prime motivator. They seem to be mostly concerned with not being raped, oddly enough. The media coverage comes mostly from the local reaction, not the crime itself. Plenty of brutal gang rapes in this one weren’t covered (or prosecuted, which is part of the reason for the protests).

  15. The indictment is 1,000 pages long and it’s going to trial tomorrow-ish.
    That defence lawyer is going to have a long night.

  16. I would assume that this is simply the free market in operation – local lawyers have decided that the reputational risk isn’t justified by the fees on offer. And who could argue with that?

  17. Worth any lawyers time–because if you got them off your name would be made for the rest of your career. More likely the fix is in and this lot are for the chop.

  18. Churm Rincewind // Jan 2, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    I would assume that this is simply the free market in operation – local lawyers have decided that the reputational risk isn’t justified by the fees on offer. And who could argue with that?

    You’ve got the wrong end of the stick, laddie. Every time (not that it happens that often) I think I’m about to be sent down to the cells, I feel in my ticket pocket to make sure I have plenty of business cards. In England, being sent down tot he cells is the defence advocate’s best publicity.

  19. The UK has a “cab rank” rule, under which barristers (not solicitors) are obliged to take any case for which they are qualified, and able (for time reasons) to take. Also some qualifications about the vulgar matter of payment.

    Does the Indian bar (or relevant local section) have an equivalent rule? If not, they’re free to reject the case (for better or worse), just as English barristers (for better or worse) couldn’t reject the case. My preliminary google research suggests some exemption for “exceptional cases.” That’s the problem with this “rule of law” thing. Sometimes you like the rule, sometimes you don’t. My gut instinct is with Mr W, but I fear he may be assuming a rule that may not exist. Any Indian lawyers out there?

  20. They risk the death penalty? Britain must intervene and bring them here as asylum seekers immediately. Elementary human decency requires it.

  21. Matt Wardman – “Won’t this make a prosecution impossible?”

    Maybe that is the plan? The only defence is a non-defence. Then they can argue for a mis-trial on appeal. By which time the hysteria may have died down.

    I am waiting for the Guardian’s CiF tendency to make their views known. Is this what they want or not? They don’t like the “indifference” to rape prosecutions in the West. Nor do they like the legal protections suspects have. Is this what they would prefer?

    16 Ian B – “As Matthew L points out, there is a stark example of this kind of imbalance depending on how Aryan a missing woman is.”

    That is not true either. If a Black gang kidnapped a woman and brutally tortured and raped her, it probably wouldn’t get a lot of media coverage. A White couple was murdered in this way recently in Kentucky I think. Bet you have never heard of it. A White Army NCO and his Black wife were raped, tortured and murdered by a group of Black soldiers, and it seems it was because they objected to the inter-racial marriage. Bet you never heard of that either.

    I would suggest it is crime-fatigue. We care more about the murder of young White girls because they are rare. And they are easy. The murder of young Black girls is not rare and they are hard to spin correctly. You can’t point out the obvious and widespread dysfunction of Black communities. It makes people even here uncomfortable. Too much honesty about race is not acceptable in polite company much less in the PC world of the media. So best to ignore it.

    18 Matthew L – “I don’t think that the women protesting in India have the advancement of feminist political theory as a prime motivator. They seem to be mostly concerned with not being raped, oddly enough.”

    I am sure that most people protesting the Vietnam War weren’t Useful Idiots in the pay of the North Vietnam and the Soviet Union either. But some of them were. Many of the organisers for instance. Most women may be protesting because they are concerned about rape, but there appears to be a hard core of activists running these protests who have a long standing feminist agenda.

    “The media coverage comes mostly from the local reaction, not the crime itself. Plenty of brutal gang rapes in this one weren’t covered (or prosecuted, which is part of the reason for the protests).”

    True. The media, especially TV, needs pictures. The protests provide that. There is another factor no one is mentioning – she was a medical student. Middle class in other words. If lower caste poor women were gang raped I doubt anyone would give much of a damn. But this is a case where the poor lower castes have reached into the comfortable suburbs. That makes all the comfortable middle class people in the media uncomfortable. I wonder if anyone is trying to spin this as a class or caste issue – revenge from below?

  22. Not all bars operate a cab rank principal. When Klaus Barbie finally got caught, the Lyon bar had great difficulty finding someone to defend him, the usual Parisian publicity-seekers being somehow unavailable.

    Given the endemic corruption of the Indian Police (see here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Behind-Beautiful-Forevers-Death-Mumbai/dp/1846274494/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357165860&sr=1-1) I wonder if all 6 defendants were actually there, what happened to the other people on the bus, why people in Delhi routinely, it seems, carry iron bars onto buses, etc. By all means hang them, but it might be wise to check that they are hanging the real criminals.
    Alibi evidence might be a bit hard to come by as well. Everyone in India is breaking some piffling law or bye-law so few are likely to testify in defence.

  23. Ian B – “As Matthew L points out, there is a stark example of this kind of imbalance depending on how Aryan a missing woman is.”

    Further to my point this is not race per se but compassion fatigue, the Tellie has an article today about how adverts for starving Africans don’t work any more if they are full of pictures of starving Africans. They used to, but now they don’t. We are too used to it. Which is a pretty disgusting concept if you ask me, but it seems to be true.

    In the same way, there are simply too many African-American crimes for people to get all that worked up about it. And even though there are many such rapes in India, they do not usually get reported to the police much. Which is not a surprise given the last victim was forced by the police to marry one of the rapists. This one did so it is new and fresh. So we care. It is also simplistic which helps.

  24. but there appears to be a hard core of activists running these protests who have a long standing feminist agenda.

    I hardly think “Stop raping women” is a feminist agenda, it sounds more like a “decent human being” agenda to me. India is one of those places where feminism is still needed, the way women are treated there is appalling.

  25. Matthew L – “I hardly think “Stop raping women” is a feminist agenda, it sounds more like a “decent human being” agenda to me. India is one of those places where feminism is still needed, the way women are treated there is appalling.”

    “Give Peace a Chance” is a decent human being agenda too. But of course it was for show as the people who were behind it really mean “Give Pol Pot a chance to murder a third of the population of Cambodia”. Same here. You can’t look at a front for radicals – as this appears to be – and take them at face value. Let’s wait until they make it clear what they really want. Rape is, after all, already a crime. Even in India.

    Nor do I think that feminism is the solution that India needs. If anything it is likely to make it worse. What they need is the gentrification of Late Victorian Christianity. But they won’t get that.

  26. And what vicious genocidal agenda is behind these protests, SMFS? Be specific about their evil intentions, it’s not enough to call them radical feminists. I want to know what these radical feminists are actually aiming for.

  27. Matthew L – “And what vicious genocidal agenda is behind these protests, SMFS? Be specific about their evil intentions, it’s not enough to call them radical feminists. I want to know what these radical feminists are actually aiming for.”

    Vicious and genocidal are your words, not mine. Grow up. As to what their agenda is, who knows? As I said, we will have to wait and see. Probably it is simply derivative of Western feminism.

  28. And of course the mad bigots appear, talking shit about the Kris Donald case.

    It was extremely well reported at the time.

    It was covered in great detail by the BBC, including Zahid’s conviction, Zahid’s sentencing, and Mushtaq, Shahid and Shahid’s sentencing.

    The box on the right hand side of that last page is a dedicated microsite devoted to the Donald murder, including full reporting of everything from the attack to the second sentencing.

    Claiming that the BBC did anything other than cover the Donald murder in the dedicated, painstaking and horrible detail that it deserved is an outrageous lie, of a sort that could only be made by somebody who was dishonest or insane.

  29. (I seem to remember from blogland at the time that some English commentators were too stupid to work out that being a Scottish case, it wasn’t covered in the same detail by the English BBC TV 6pm news that an English case would have been. But it’s hardly fair to blame the BBC for their stupidity.)

  30. Actually you’re the one who brought up Pol Pot, which is where I got vicious and genocidal from. What do you think the objectives of Western feminism are, at least the ones that you disagree with?

  31. Matthew L – “Actually you’re the one who brought up Pol Pot, which is where I got vicious and genocidal from. What do you think the objectives of Western feminism are, at least the ones that you disagree with?”

    So I did. But I did not compare these feminists with Pol Pot so it is irrelevant. I pointed out that when you have a bunch of easily manipulated idiots being guided by a hard core of extremists, it makes sense to look at what the extremists want, not the naive slogans the majority chant. Your comment was asinine.

    I am not sure what the goals of Western feminists are. I assume they are just the usual grab for power and money. But I don’t think that, going on their record in the West, their goals will help India at all.

  32. john b, those are all local / regional news pages, not national – which I think was the point.

    Didn’t the BBC admit that it should have had national coverage, but argued over whether it was down-played because it was a Muslim-on-white crime or because Scottish crimes were considered less serious?

  33. John B-

    Well, I may be a mad bigot, but the question I actually asked was, why do some cases become a cause celebre, while others don’t? The Donald case is a good example as it is usually compared to the Stephen Lawrence case. One might for a start notice that the Donald case was actually a worse murder- in terms of degree of grotesquerie- than Lawrence. Lawrence was the victim of a rather typical street killing- brief altercation, stabbing. Donald was premeditatedly abducted, tortured for several hours, and murdered in the most gruesome manner. And yet, Lawrence got orders of magnitude more attention. Why?

    Well we know why, don’t we? Lawrence was useful to activists. Donald wasn’t. This girl is useful to activists. They pick up the ball and run with it. The same is true of the Trayvon Martin case in the USA. If your death is useful to somebody powerful, you will be famous.

    Matthew L says tht people are simply upset about the rape. This is no doubt true, but insufficient explanation. When we see the bandying about of a word whose overuse has driven it to meaninglessness- “patriarchy”- we know we are facing a political agenda, since this is one of the commonplace ideological constructions of the bearers of that agenda. This isn’t, in terms of the activists and their media storm, about the girl or her rapists at all. It is about pushing the agenda that men, as a class, oppress women, as a class. Just as the Lawrence murder was about whites, as a class, oppressing ethnic minorities, as a class.

    When something doesn’t fit that Gramscian model- as with the Donald murder- it tends to be relatively ignored. Because the Gramscian hegemonic theory requires fixed oppressor and oppressed classes- the oppressors are men, are white, are heterosexuals, etc, the “liberal” minded types who run the actvism business, media etc simply cannot comprehend behaviours that do not fit that model, and ignore them. Not consciously, it’s a subconscious thing. I think Progressives are rather like my cat. She is fascinated by scurrying things, and as soon as something scurries past- a mouse, a cat- she can think of nothing else. Things that don’t scurry become simply invisible to her. Put a dead mouse in front of her, and it’s like she cannot even see it. Her senses don’t register it.

    A Progressive similarly faced with a dead white boy, or a white girl raped by ethnic minorities, likewise simply doesn’t react. But give her a black boy murdered by a white, or- in this case- a woman raped by co-ethnics- and it can be fitted to a Grascian perception, and then our Proggie can see it and react accordingly. If a crime can be seen as the articulation of hegemonic oppression, it will get a reaction. If it isn’t, it won’t.

    If an ethnic minority teenager, even in Scotland (this excuse about the English BBC is particularly assinine), had been murdered by a white gang in such a grotesque manner as Donald, you’d never have heard the end of it. But a white boy, murdered by an ethnic minority, that doesn’t fit the model. Thus, it is ignored.

  34. It’s quite true that some crimes get disproportionate publicity. So do some books, some music, some films, some good news stories. That’s the way mass media work.

    This is an item about a vile rape and murder in India, and the reaction to it of Indian lawyers. I’m disgusted that some commentators think the appropriate response is to attack feminists, or to seek to change the subject to a murder in the USA in 2008, on the grounds that some black people have been charged with the crime. Shame on you.

  35. I pointed out that when you have a bunch of easily manipulated idiots being guided by a hard core of extremists, it makes sense to look at what the extremists want, not the naive slogans the majority chant. Your comment was asinine.

    And yours was pointless. You haven’t identified a hard core of extremists. You’ve vaguely waved your hand at unidentified parties who may or may not exist and mentioned various other groups whose goals you seem not to know about. All that adds up to a big fat nothing, except as an excuse to trot out your prejudices. Even Arnald contributes more to a discussion (sometimes…) than you have to this one.

  36. You haven’t identified a hard core of extremists.

    You’re not seriously expecting commenters to waste time proving the existence of the feminist movement, are you? Does anyone deny its existence? Anybody at all?

    I mean, if this were a discussion about racism, would you expect anyone to waste time proving that, say, white supremacists exist, or wouldn’t your just accept that they do, and move on to more fruitful areas of discussion?

  37. I’d have to agree with Paul. In all fairness most societies outside of Western Europe and North America need a fuck of alot more feminism.

    Just about to get on a plane to the rape capital of the world. My next door neighbours are a lesbian commune and regularly they get assaulted. Outside the OECD countries we’re really not talking Germaine Greer, we’re talking about women being treated like chatel and in such circumstances I’m definately a feminist

  38. Ian: I was referring to the apparent hard core of extremists at the heart of the Indian anti-rape protest movement, who apparently have some secret cloak and dagger goals beyond “stop raping us and start prosecuting those who do”.

  39. “Outside the OECD countries we’re really not talking Germaine Greer, we’re talking about women being treated like chatel and in such circumstances I’m definately a feminist”

    Treating all human beings decently is one thing–using that ideal, which 99.999 of people would agree with, as a smokescreen to enable the hard-core activities of man-hating leftist female scumbags (whose aim is openly the demonisation and ultimately the destruction of men) is quite another.

  40. Mr Ecks: I used to think that too, but I realised that there’s not actually any evidence that those people have any power within the feminist movement. I don’t think there’s even very many of them – I suspect there’s more woman-hating misogynists than man-hating misandrists out there. Have you got any evidence for these hard-core activities aimed at the destruction of men, apart from Valerie Solanas?

  41. Matthew L

    “Ian: I was referring to the apparent hard core of extremists at the heart of the Indian anti-rape protest movement, who apparently have some secret cloak and dagger goals beyond “stop raping us and start prosecuting those who do”.

    If the women (in the photos with the original article) were holding placards saying “Hang these raping fucks” or “Cut their bollocks off”etc then that might be taken as genuine outrage (the issue of the defendants guilt, lack of defence counsel being left on one side). Posters expressing leftist buzzword shite “gender sensitivity” etc strongly suggest that the Indian branch of the poisoned sisterhood is on the job and looking to blacken men in general.

    Also, India is vast with 800 million+ people. This is unlikely to be the only horrible sex crime ongoing there. Why was this one singled out for attention in western media? The ABC feed is Austrailian. That is a country in which, for the moment, femmi-hatred is reaching a peak of venom-spitting, orgasmic jubilation with a whole host of obnoxious, man-hating laws being excreted onto their law books. What a co-incedence.

  42. That is a country in which, for the moment, femmi-hatred is reaching a peak of venom-spitting, orgasmic jubilation with a whole host of obnoxious, man-hating laws being excreted onto their law books. What a co-incedence.

    It’s a wire article from AFP. It was reprinted almost word for word in many newspapers around the world.

    Can you give me an example of this host of man-hating laws? I live in Australia and haven’t noticed any legislative hatred directed at me recently, even though I would vote for Tony Abbott given the chance.

  43. Can you give me an example of this host of man-hating laws? I live in Australia and haven’t noticed any legislative hatred directed at me recently, even though I would vote for Tony Abbott given the chance.

    Debating Strategies #43: “I See No Ships”.

  44. Just tell me where to point the binoculars, Ian. I don’t think that asking for evidence of a claim like that is too unreasonable.

  45. You’re not asking for evidence, Matthew. You’re asking for an example, which you will then declare is not in your opinion misandrist, and around and around the mulberry bush we will all go.

  46. Give me more credit than that, I’m willing to believe that Gillard and Roxon could pass a blatantly misandrist law or seven. I can’t stand either of them. Where are these man-hating laws?

  47. This thread has indeed gone somewhat o/t…

    Back on topic, the best point I’ve so far seen raised is the query as to whether it is fact more Stalinist to require lawyers to defend these men (MakajazMakako,@7).

  48. “A planned campaign by the Australian government (The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021)is about to be implemented. It involves, but is by no means limited to,the following:
    -The systemic enabling and promotion of child abuse by mothers and other women.
    -The Australian government suppression of research that implicates women as child abusers.
    -The legal redefinition of domestic violence to include acts such as making purchases without consulting your wife, not listening to your wife or even disciplining your dog.
    -The legal redefinition of domestic violence to exclude male victims from that legal definition.
    -Arresting and holding men in prison, without bail, on the accusation alone of domestic violence.
    -Summarily evicting men from their homes while forcing them to maintain financial responsibility for those homes on nothing more than an accusation from their wives or girlfriends.
    -Shifting the burden of proof on domestic violence from the state to the defendant. The accused will be forced to prove he did not commit an act of violence.
    -The legal redefinition of rape, and subsequent shift of the burden of proof onto a defendant to prove the he obtained specific kinds of verbal consent for sex.

    These actions are not individual initiatives to change isolated and different laws. They are all part of a package deal referred to as “The Plan.” It is a far reaching, invasive effort of monumental scope designed to eliminate the civil rights of men and children across the Australian continent

    After 1997, the Australian government ceased requesting and recording information on the sex of offenders against children in the home, and all the subsequent proposals in “The Plan” run on the assumption that the male is the primary perpetrator.

    All of the proposed legislation is specifically gender targeted. The suggested laws will be written with the protection of women and the punishment of men in mind, and will leave scores of abuse victims even more vulnerable than they were before implementation of “The Plan.” This will be particularly true for children who will frequently have the father, their only protector from an abusive mother, removed from the home and incarcerated without bail as the “identified problem.”

    Also the suppression and distortion of scientific research so that it appears to support “The Plan,” has reached pervasive levels in Australia. Such a level of corruption is occurring with complicity and enabling from within the Australian government.

    Australia, you will learn, is about to be thrust into the legal Dark Ages, beginning in 2012.”

    That will do to be going on with.

  49. Meanwhile, under the Indian Patriarchy-

    Bishnu Basak, the injured passenger, said that after boarding the train at Samudragarh station, he was accosted by the constable who asked him why he had boarded the ladies compartment.

    “I apologised to him saying I did not realise it was a ladies compartment as the train was leaving when I reached the platform and I was in a hurry. He then asked for my ticket. When I showed it to him, he snatched it and kicked me out of the moving train,” Basak said.

    Locals rushed him to a nearby hospital from where he was moved to the SSKM Hospital here late in the night. He was then shifted to the Sambhunath Pandit Hospital where he is now admitted.

    http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-15/kolkata/28244162_1_constable-ladies-compartment-train

    And-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPFz_wzu4k

  50. UK Liberty:

    Google it Troll–you will find the “Plans” own Australian govt website with a lovely PDF detailing it all–not in the same manner as the MRA stuff I quoted above–oh the femmis try to put a lovely little gloss on it but you don’t have to read far between the lines to see it will, in practice, work out to exactly what is stated at 57 above.

  51. Struggling to find a mention of “dog” in the PDF, I suspect one has to read quite far between the lines to see, for example, “The legal redefinition of domestic violence to include acts such as making purchases without consulting your wife, not listening to your wife or even disciplining your dog.

  52. I’m just reading through it on and off while working. Since it’s a general strategy document, I’m presuming the dog etc is culled from one of the Feminist Hate lists that inform implementation, from one DV group or another. I’ve got a strong feeling I remember reading just such a list, but I’ll be damned if I remember where and I haven’t got time to go through all the references.

    We have to remember that the Feminist Hate Mill is extremely large, with activists imbedded in academia, NGOs etc, pumping out literature which they all reference back and forth, so it’s hard to keep track unless you are yourself a full time researcher with an organised system.

    The other problem as Ecks has indicated is that these people are good at what they do, and hide their viciousness in anodyne language. So, for instance, what we once would have called Maoist reeducation turns up as things like-

    “The success of Outcome 1 will be measured by an increase in the community’s intolerance of violence against women.” and “The strategy includes supporting men to take a leading role in discouraging violent behaviour and challenging discrimination and gender stereotyping.”

    Forcing men into a situation in which they can only gain approval if they actively thought police their fellows becomes “supporting”.

    I think this is one of the most hateful aspects of it, the deliberate banality, soothing words, the artificial reasonableness. If they were literal Nazis, it would all be “enabling strategies to encourage community denormalisation of Jewish businesses -this outcome will be measured in kilogrammes of broken glass”.

  53. I’m sure you are struggling–the dog is page 13– “Psychological” Abuse–”Abuse” of pets in front of family members –So if you shout at your dog (prob not yours after she’s got the house, the kids and all your money as well) for dropping a turd on the carpet her lawyer will be happy to include that in the details of what a monster you are. After all, since they define silence as abuse, then raising your voice must be abuse as well (rather a mild response if you return home unexpectedly and find her shagging the milk man –but still women never shout so there you go).

  54. Mr Ecks, OK, I found pets, but not on page 13. Yes, if you completely ignore the surrounding paragraphs / context and are paranoid about women taking over the world and destroying all men, you might have the impression that shouting at your dog for crapping on the carpet will be defined as domestic violence.

    In the real world, the alleged victim will have to persuade the authorities that it formed an “ongoing pattern of behaviour aimed at controlling one’s partner through fear”.

  55. Ecks seems to have copied and pasted his screed from here. The quality of the site can be gauged from its claim that “Australian research up to 1997 demonstrated empirically that women, overwhelmingly, are the perpetrators of physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse of children – compared with men” which links to not a single piece of research. It does include a screenshot of a data table, source unattributed, which shows nothing of the sort.

  56. Uk”Liberty”–if you read that PDF and don’t find it oozing with hatred for men (not least in its redefinition of just about every form of marital/relationship discord that has existed since the dawn of time as “abuse”–and none of them ever done by women of course) then it is you that need psychological classification. As for convincing the Authorites of the wickedness of men–well read the PDF again–they won’t need much fucking convincing if this shite is their credo.

    AS FOR SHOUTING–WELL IN FAIRNESS THEY DON’T HAVE SHOUTING ON THEIR LIST OF EVIL–MUST BE AN OVERSIGHT–but since they have silence up there, it is highly likely that shouting will be added at some point. Also, in sunny California, another paradise of feminist equality, raising your voice IS counted as domestic violence/abuse and is cited in court, along with other goodies such as diploma-mill “restraining orders” used in divorces to confirm what a bad guy hubbie is .Where California leads…

    PaulB–I don’t know what sources the guy used but I will look into it.

    As for the quality of the site–well its doing better than you are since you can’t even read the chart in front of you. It concludes that the total number of abuse cases done by men is 6570 and the total by women is 6968. Unless your arithmatic is as dodgy as your beliefs that puts the women well ahead. I might quibble myself with the word “overwhelmingly” but the women have committed the most crimes of abuse not the men. Very likely as women, by and large, spend much more time in company with children than men do. Certainly does not support the femmi-tripe about men being kings of wickedness.

  57. reading between the lines:

    The legal redefinition of domestic violence to include acts such as making purchases without consulting your wife, not listening to your wife or even disciplining your dog.

    “making purchases”: presumably, Economic abuse – complete control of all money, including: forbidding access to bank accounts; providing only an inadequate ‘allowance’; not allowing the victim to seek or hold employment; and using all wages earned by the victim for household expenses.

    “not listening to your wife”: presumably, Emotional abuse – blaming the victim for all problems in the relationship, constantly comparing the victim with others to undermine self-esteem and self-worth, sporadic sulking, withdrawing all interest and engagement (for example weeks of silence), emotional blackmail.

    “disciplining your dog”: presumably, Psychological abuse – includes: driving dangerously; destruction of property; abuse of pets in front of family members; making threats regarding custody of any children; asserting that the police and justice system will not assist, support or believe the victim; and denying an individual’s reality.

    Their reasonable language is so very very insidious!

  58. Mr Ecks, AFAICS the document doesn’t claim women don’t abuse; this seems to be something you read into it.

    You seem to be ignoring the “pattern of behaviour” element, which is key to the whole thing. Example: no-one will be prosecuted for shouting once at their partner (or dog), while someone may be prosecuted who shouts hour after hour, day after day for months. If you think that is “oozing with hatred for men”, maybe you are a man who thinks it is reasonable and/or necessary to shout at one’s partner hour after hour, day after day for months, particularly if the bloody kids aren’t in bed and the bloody dinner isn’t ready by the time you get in from bloody work.

  59. There’s a neat little set of questions and answers about “The Plan” here:

    http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/women/programs-services/reducing-violence/the-national-plan-to-reduce-violence-against-women-and-their-children/the-national-plan-to-reduce-violence-against-women-questions-and-answers

    I particularly like:

    Why do we need a National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children (the National Plan)?

    One in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15, and almost one in five have experienced sexual violence (ABS Personal Safety Survey, 2006). Women constitute the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic and family violence and sexual assault.. Women are far more likely to be killed by their male intimate partners.

    and

    Men are also victims of violence. Why does the National Plan focus on women?

    No form of violence in our community is acceptable. The National Plan recognises that men and boys can be victims of domestic and family violence and sexual assault and has committed $0.75 million to expand counselling services for male victims of violence through Mensline.

    While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence from strangers and in public, so different strategies are required to address these different types of violence (ABS Personal Safety Survey, 2006).

    Is it misandrist? In a narrow sense of the definition, sure. Is it anti-men? Only ones who abuse their partners. Does it redefine abuse too widely? Possibly, I can see problems with some of the provisions being interpreted too widely. But I know two women who have been abused, and shouting was one of the worst things.

    Have you ever cowered beside an unmade bed with your significant other (who has eight inches in height, 20 kilos in muscle and a significant reach advantage on you) leaning over you holding a free weight, yelling that he’ll fucking smash your skull in the next time you don’t make it? That’s pretty intimidating. But he can put his hand over his heart and say he didn’t touch her, your honour.

    I have a lot of sympathy for men and women who’ve been abused by female partners. It’s a lot harder to get help because of society’s biases – “man up and deal with it”. “What kind of pussy are you if you let a woman hit you”. That kind of thing. But if you try to do something about those biases, suddenly you’re feminising men and trying to eradicate manliness. Sound familiar?

  60. Regarding that table (a screenshot of a phone reading a PDF? Really?), I’d like to see that normalised for the number of families. Nobody sensible says that only men abuse.

    There’s two data points that are salient for me.

    1) Women are far more likely to die at the hands of their male partners than any other combination.

    2) Intimidation by shouting and threatening is often (Often! Not always!) an early step in a pattern of escalating abuse that ends in physical violence.

  61. “Is it misandrist? In a narrow sense of the definition, sure. Is it anti-men? Only ones who abuse their partners. Does it redefine abuse too widely? Possibly, I can see problems with some of the provisions being interpreted too widely. But I know two women who have been abused, and shouting was one of the worst things.

    Have you ever cowered beside an unmade bed with your significant other (who has eight inches in height, 20 kilos in muscle and a significant reach advantage on you) leaning over you holding a free weight, yelling that he’ll fucking smash your skull in the next time you don’t make it? That’s pretty intimidating. But he can put his hand over his heart and say he didn’t touch her, your honour.

    I have a lot of sympathy for men and women who’ve been abused by female partners. It’s a lot harder to get help because of society’s biases – “man up and deal with it”. “What kind of pussy are you if you let a woman hit you”. That kind of thing. But if you try to do something about those biases, suddenly you’re feminising men and trying to eradicate manliness. Sound familiar?”

    Already said they put a gloss on it–what kind of rhetoric do you think the femmis would use “OK girls, now lets cut their dicks off?”. Of course they have to pay lip service to males being victimised –Aus is not yet a supreme Soviet. The fact is that, wherever this kind of shit is written into law–the US being a prime example– it is used constantly against men who are not “abusers” at all but themselves being made victims of the states thugs who do the wife/girlfriends dirty work for them. The classic example is the bloke who comes home to find the wife shagging her new beau. Next thing he’s out of the house cause she tells the judge he is DV (and shouting counts for that), joint bank account/credit cards cleaned out, sees the kids once a week under supervision from SS dross and that will be stopped if he gives the wife any trouble(esp love the case of the bloke arrested for violating his restraining order by stepping out of his kerbside car to pet the family dog while dropping his kids off back at his house). Meanwhile he lives in a shitty bedshit but pays so she and the new BF can stay in his house. If she didn’t want to work so he paid all the bills, she can tell the Judge that he was “economically controlling” her and wouldn’t let her work. Sound familiar?.

    Is the “Plan” only anti abusing men?. All men are abusers! Heterosexual relationships are rape and abuse in the poisoned minds of radical femminism. The “Plan”does not say that of course but the test is to look at places where this kind of shit (and the lovely family courts) have been on the job.

    As for your shouted at friends?.I have known lots of women who were shouted at and had no trouble shouting back and lots of women who were not shouted at and had no trouble shouting back. Don’t marry a loudmouth and if you have divorce him/her. You don’t need an extra and expensive task force of femmi-liars for that. If your friend was fearful of violence she does indeed need to leave–I never said there were no genuine abused women–but the problem can be dealt with without the femminazi “solution” of obnoxious official action to demonise and make second class citizens out of men.

    PaulB–your point may be correct but I am going back to source for more info. If I am wrong I will apologise for not checking closely enough. Does not alter the other points made in the article though.

  62. As for your shouted at friends?.I have known lots of women who were shouted at and had no trouble shouting back and lots of women who were not shouted at and had no trouble shouting back. Don’t marry a loudmouth and if you have divorce him/her.

    Just walk away he says. Right through the Gordian Knot!

    Idiot.

  63. “If your friend was fearful of violence she does indeed need to leave–I never said there were no genuine abused women–but the problem can be dealt with without the femminazi “solution” of obnoxious official action to demonise and make second class citizens out of men.”

    So a shouting man, who shouts rather than hits.. (for what reason?–you prob supply it–he doesn’t want the police/court action) is an insoluble problem without men becoming 2nd class citizens?.

    You do stuggle don’t you.

  64. In what way does making domestic violence a criminal offence entail men becoming second class citizens? Clue: it doesn’t.

    Telling men (and women) they aren’t allowed to shout at their partners to such an extent it constitutes a criminal pattern of behaviour is not emasculating.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>