I attended the select committee on the repeal of the provocation defence on Thursday morning, and heard some compelling arguments for the repeal. The first submission was from 'Rainbow Wellington' (http://www.rainbowwellington.org.nz/), and suggested that the current law promotes "gay bashing" and "condones extreme violence". In my view this has definitely been the case, in light of the defence being used in cases such as Ferdinand Ambach's ramming a banjo down Ronald Brown's throat in response to a homosexual advance. The second submission was from Alana Bulmer of the NZ roundtable on violence against women (http://roundtablevaw.org.nz), also supporting the Bill. Ms Bulmer claimed that the defence of provocation was unnecessary to protect women who had killed their partners in abusive relationships, as the battered women's defence was covered under self defence. The third submission was that of Catherine Ketty of the Womens refuge and collective organizations, who questioned the effectiveness of self defence in the absence of provocation, based on the premise that battered women often "defend" themselves at a different time to when they are being abused. She likened them to being in a situation not unlike prisoners of war, and Kennedy Graham questioned whether battered women should be given such a status under law.
It would appear that this defence should be repealed, in light of it's unanimous support on its first reading, and the fact that it has been criticized for decades for it's facilitating the slander of deceased victims in court. Perhaps it is also important to recognize that it did serve a certain purpose, and self defence may have to be redefined before the repeal to ensure that victims of domestic abuse be adequately protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment