The recent decision to let a violent activist go free and with name suppression after repeatedly attacking a 71 year old women in public, is appalling.
If you haven’t followed the news – last year at the ‘Posie Parker’ event in Albert Park, protests led by trans activists and encouraged by mainstream media, a young man repeatedly attacked a 71 year old woman. The 20 year old man was arrested and charged, but a judge yesterday decided to release him without conviction and – get this – to give him permanent name suppression. This latter part means the victim of this cowardly attack can no longer speak fully and freely about what happened. She has to now moderate what she says, notably around identifying who the attacker is.
This is not justice. It does however, reflect modern day New Zealand where courage is lacking to stand up for basic rights such as freedom of assembly and to draw a line under bad behaviour. You would think that violence against another person would be a straightforward case of being wrong. You might even think that violence against a woman would be clear cut, let alone an elderly woman. But no, not in New Zealand according to this judge. His judgement to release the man without conviction clearly says that violence is ok in certain circumstances.
His reasoning for letting the young man off scot-free? Well, that the man has chosen to do some community service; is regretful; and prepared to pay a measly $1000. This is not justice, it is a transaction. The judge has effectively said that violence against others is ok so long as you appear contrite afterwards. In this case, an act of repeated violence has been deemed acceptable because amongst other things, the man volunteered some of his time afterwards – a transaction. Furthermore, a transaction the accused has chosen and one not imposed by the court. The perpetrator decides the punishment, if any.
The judge failed for multiple reasons but one that stands out is a clear inability to understand the most basic difference between ‘reasons’ and ‘excuses’. Sure, there were reasons this young man violently attacked a woman. According to the man’s lawyers, he has ADHD, was hyped up, and the list of reasons go on. Sure, fine, we can all generate a list of reasons for our actions. But reasons are not excuses. These reasons may explain why he acted the way he did. They also may not. The reasons for his actions do not excuse them. In a tolerant society under the law, we don’t physically attack people. Period. A person’s cause doesn’t justify violence.
Justice has once again failed. Instead of providing a clear statement to this young man and to our wider society that violence is unacceptable, the judge has instead chosen to say that it is ok so long as you turn up with a list of reasons for your behaviour, are involved in an ‘in vogue’ social justice cause, and have a set of self-chosen consequences you have voluntarily imposed on yourself.
Pathetic.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . This article was first published HERE
This is not justice. It does however, reflect modern day New Zealand where courage is lacking to stand up for basic rights such as freedom of assembly and to draw a line under bad behaviour. You would think that violence against another person would be a straightforward case of being wrong. You might even think that violence against a woman would be clear cut, let alone an elderly woman. But no, not in New Zealand according to this judge. His judgement to release the man without conviction clearly says that violence is ok in certain circumstances.
His reasoning for letting the young man off scot-free? Well, that the man has chosen to do some community service; is regretful; and prepared to pay a measly $1000. This is not justice, it is a transaction. The judge has effectively said that violence against others is ok so long as you appear contrite afterwards. In this case, an act of repeated violence has been deemed acceptable because amongst other things, the man volunteered some of his time afterwards – a transaction. Furthermore, a transaction the accused has chosen and one not imposed by the court. The perpetrator decides the punishment, if any.
The judge failed for multiple reasons but one that stands out is a clear inability to understand the most basic difference between ‘reasons’ and ‘excuses’. Sure, there were reasons this young man violently attacked a woman. According to the man’s lawyers, he has ADHD, was hyped up, and the list of reasons go on. Sure, fine, we can all generate a list of reasons for our actions. But reasons are not excuses. These reasons may explain why he acted the way he did. They also may not. The reasons for his actions do not excuse them. In a tolerant society under the law, we don’t physically attack people. Period. A person’s cause doesn’t justify violence.
Justice has once again failed. Instead of providing a clear statement to this young man and to our wider society that violence is unacceptable, the judge has instead chosen to say that it is ok so long as you turn up with a list of reasons for your behaviour, are involved in an ‘in vogue’ social justice cause, and have a set of self-chosen consequences you have voluntarily imposed on yourself.
Pathetic.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . This article was first published HERE
11 comments:
great article.
All right Simon. I so appreciate the respect you accord to the victim.
This serious outbreak of judicial woke on our court benches is spreading like gonorrhoea in a mixed flatting arrangement. What an insult to the 71 year old female victim.
Simon O'Connor
Sir , Lets get straight to the point . CAN THE PUBLIC PUT IN AN APPEAL EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE ?
My annoyance is when considering your information , that name supperession is actually more against the elderly lady . She has to bottle it up and not allow her grievance and horror from the attack to work its way through naturally or through discussion .
Obviously an appeal has a defined time limit and frankly the Police probably will not appeal.
Any Grandmother deserves support .
Shameful.
Interesting to see the woke MSM who openly supported the violence at Albert Park are reporting on this from the perspective of ACT being upset about the sentencing. The MSM are not upset and are actually afraid to give any opinion as the one they would champion would get them roasted. Gutless turds of cowards who comment as journalists on everything but they have no comment whatsoever on this. And as for activist judges, their hour cometh hopefully. Is there no body of professional lawyers, judges or academics who will speak out? Or will it take further protest action to get results?
MC
Even worse, the victim Judith Hobson had her victim impact statement censored by the prosecution in consultation with the defence. A totally unfair and unbalanced outcome.
Interesting to see what would happen if it was the judges mum ????
From now on I must accept that all people with AHDH or professing to have same are excitable and dangerous. Accordingly, as I now know I am not protected from them and their inclinations, I shall avoid them at all cost and spread the word to that effect. Please help me with spreading this message.
Redeploy the woke judge at once.
Simon up on his little soapbox again. Lets be clear, politicians and their compliant media were to blame, not a mentally ill young man.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.