Our thanks to Tony for pointing us towards a most interesting blog:
We’ve just added it to our list of 160+ recommended blogs and websites:
From the blog’s ‘About’ page:
Ex injuria jus non oritur – Law does not arise from injustice.
And yet it is from the injustice of family law that this occasional blog has arisen, in an attempt to inform, educate, provoke and occasionally amuse, and to express my philosophy that good can come even from a great wrong.
I am a researcher for a number of equal parenting organisations, a moderator of internet forums and a campaigner for openness, truth and justice. Most of all, I am a father, a son, and – in the fullness of time – a husband.
Tony drew our attention to one of the blog posts:
He particularly recommended the following extract, which takes up the remainder of this post:
Another familiar claim is that two women each week are murdered by a current or former male partner. The true number is about six women each month; nowhere is the corresponding statistic mentioned: that three men each month are murdered by current or former female partners (Povey, Coleman, Kaiza, & Roe, 2009). Or there’s the popular claim that domestic violence is the leading cause of ill health (or even death) in women, which is quoted by the Home Office, the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Justice and others, demonstrating the typical dispersal pattern of a rogue statistic. This figure also is false: homicide is not even in the top ten leading causes of death. The Home Office, an early source of the bogus figure, defends it as merely ‘illustrative’, while others maintain that while the figure isn’t true, it should not be challenged, because domestic violence is such an important issue.
In 2001 the Prime Minister’s wife, Cherie Blair, presented an award to Kiranjit Ahluwalia at the Asian Women Awards ceremony for the laudable achievement of pouring petrol – bought for the purpose – onto her husband Deepak while he slept and setting fire to him.
He took six days to die.
Her defence, that she had only intended to cause pain, failed: she had assaulted him several times previously and was convicted of murder. After re-education by the Southall Black Sisters she claimed on appeal that she had lived in fear of him, and had killed him because he was about to leave her. Deepak was not available to confirm either claim.
In the most disgusting display of politicised misandry Cherie Blair hailed Ahluwalia as a ‘true role model for the next generation’ (BBC, 2001); once again the Government incited violence against men merely accused of a gender crime – it is unlikely we’ll see many men similarly fêted for killing their wives: Ahluwalia was courted by the media, signed a book deal and was even the subject of a film. This madness became embodied in legislation in the form of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, launched by women’s minister Harriet Harman, which introduced the twin measures of allowing a woman accused of murdering her husband the defences that she was the victim of ‘serious wrong’ or feared she would be the victim of violence, and removed the defence – most often used by men – of provocation. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, declared, ‘I don’t think this is a sensible way for us to proceed’ (BBC, 2010b).
One effect of the law, by specifically excluding infidelity from the category of serious wrong and thereby trivialising it, was further to undermine marriage; as with ‘no-fault’ divorce, fault now lay with the betrayed party, and morality was turned on its head. It was far from gender-neutral: women could kill in cold blood and with calculation, but if they claimed they ‘feared’ violence the charge would be reduced to manslaughter. Thus cold-blooded killing was no longer murder, while killing in the heat of the moment during a temporary loss of control was. This separated intent from the grievousness of a crime; it was not just an attack on men, it was a neo-Marxist assault on the moral underpinnings of society and its laws. In 2012 Lord Judge defied the new law, allowing the appeal of a man who had killed his serially unfaithful wife: excluding infidelity from cases in which it was integral risked ‘injustice’ (R v Clinton, 2012).