Provoking change

Written By: - Date published: 2:45 pm, July 23rd, 2009 - 13 comments
Categories: labour, law and "order" - Tags:

Good interview with Labour’s Justice spokesperson, Lianne Dalziel this morning on her private members Bill in the ballot that would remove the defence of provocation (audio on the rnz site, including an mp3 version).  It looks like there is a real momentum for change with ‘the Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Amendment Bill’ going into the member’s ballot

13 comments on “Provoking change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ianmac 1
    23 July 2009 at 3:26 pm

    I thought that I heard during question time that the Govt would not support the introduction of her Bill???

  2. lukas 2
    23 July 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Correct. Dalziel sought leave at the start of proceedings to introduce the bill in her name and was rejected.

    I believe the Nats have their own amendment regarding this going in soon?

  3. Chris G 3
    23 July 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Someone please correct me:

    If this bill succeeds and I kill someone whos stabbing a member of my family is that provocation or something else thats covered by a different law?

    • felix 3.1
      23 July 2009 at 5:47 pm

      Not a lawyer but I believe that’s covered by the same provision as for “self defense”.

      So no, not provocation.

    • Tigger 3.2
      23 July 2009 at 5:48 pm

      No Chris, that’s self defence – where you can use force to prevent harm to yourself or another.

      Provocation is saying that the victim actually caused you to kill them by their action – action being something other than physical harm.

      Typically it’s used by heterosexual men against women (‘she nagged me for 10 years and I just lost it’) or gay men (‘he came onto me and I just lost it’).

      • lukas 3.2.1
        24 July 2009 at 8:44 am

        Note to Tigger- engage brain before putting fingers to keyboard.

        Heterosexual men are not the scum of the earth. My understanding is that the defense is actually primarily used by women with battered wife syndrome (I am not defending the scum that beat their wives at all). Instead of going with oyur natural instincts to attack any straight guy, take a breath and think.

        • felix 3.2.1.1
          24 July 2009 at 9:08 am

          lukas, can you point to where Tigger attacks “any straight guy” please?

          All I can see is Tigger talking about straight guys who attack gay guys and straight guys who attack women.

          If you think that’s “any straight guy” then I take great offense. We don’t all behave like that you sick little freak.

          Or did you really mean that Tigger shouldn’t be allowed to speak ill of “any straight guy”, no matter what?

          It must be one of those, unless you completely misread what Tigger wrote in which case I’m sure you’ll say so.

          • lukas 3.2.1.1.1
            24 July 2009 at 9:54 am

            Felix, “typically it is used by heterosexual men” what do you take that to mean?

            Does Tigger have statistics to back his claim? that it is typically used by heterosexual men? probably not, I am assuming he is just shooting from the hip as per usual.

            “Or did you really mean that Tigger shouldn’t be allowed to speak ill of “any straight guy’, no matter what?”

            Not at all, if you read again what I said, I called those who do beat their wives scumbags- same applies to those who attack gay guys just because they are gay.

            • felix 3.2.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2009 at 1:06 pm

              Oh good lord.

              Felix, “typically it is used by heterosexual men’ what do you take that to mean?

              I take it to be the first half of a sentence. Try again and see if you can get all the way to the fullstop before you fly into a homophobic rage this time, then you might be able to figure out what it means.

              If you honestly try to read the whole sentence and you still can’t figure out how to parse it, just say so and I’ll help you. I mean that.

              Until we get this little comprehension issue out of the way there’s no way to address the rest of your comment. Let me know when you’ve got it.

  4. Rex Widerstrom 4
    23 July 2009 at 6:02 pm

    Riiiight… so while she’s been busy working on a way to remove a defence which, while a bit silly didn’t actually work for the nutter who tried to run it, she’s no doubt been too busy to come to the defence of the Chief Justice (not counting one obscure and wishy washy blog post), let alone join her in advocating decisive action over prison overcrowding by offering amnesties; or better yet, alternatives to imprisonment. In other words, grandstanding while people rot in cells.

    Not. Good. Enough.

  5. Ron 5
    23 July 2009 at 6:54 pm

    Rex in fact the provocation DOES work for some nutters.
    There’s a man dead in Auckland after being bludgeoned with a banjo because he came on to the murderer.—or so the murderer said. So the murderer was found guilty of manslaughter.

  6. RedLogix 6
    23 July 2009 at 7:17 pm

    The existing legal structure around homicide is outdated. Clearly the defense of provocation is no longer satisfactory, but I’m not happy seeing it simply removed without some balancing flexibility introduced into the rest of the system.

    This move by Power smacks too much of an opportunist spot of populism.

  7. North 7
    23 July 2009 at 9:02 pm

    The Boy Minister IS an opportunist SPOT of populism.

    Imagine the likes of him trying to be credible lashing the likes of the Chief Justice……..I laughed out loud !