The female-dominated professions of Psychology, Law, and Journalism have generally very low standards of intelligence and non-existent standards of political objectivity. This no doubt results from being dominated by women who are more interested in people than in ideas, and who see a clitoro-centric universe as their Feminist birthright. The irrational frenzy over the Clayton Weatherston murder trial highlights this very clearly.
In the Sunday Star-Times of 26 July 2009, Associate Professor of Criminal Psychology at Victoria University of Wellington, Devon Polaschek (a woman, judging by her photograph), had a full-page article entitled "Inside the Mind of a Killer." No words are adequate to describe her utter sexism and professional incompetence.
In her article, she steps outside the extremely narrow bounds within which Psychologists actually know anything about anything. She criticises the Defence's case that Clayton was provoked and a victim of Sophie Elliott's Domestic Violence. She writes:
"Even if Elliot did come at him with a pair of scissors, it's hard to imagine why a 33-year-old man of normal size and physical capability wouldn't simply have stopped her."
It is so common to see and hear that sort of man-hating sexism in Femi-brainwashed New Zealand, that many people will probably see nothing wrong with that statement. If you stop to ask yourself exactly why or how Clayton would or could have been calm enough to react calmly to a violent attack when he was in the middle of an emotional argument with his girlfriend, then maybe you still have some rationality in you. Mz Polaschek herself had written that:
"... both he and Elliott honed their skills at making each other feel bad."
So much for Polaschek's sexism. Now we come to the incompetence. Any layperson -- let alone a Psychologist -- knows that it is normal human behaviour to respond to aggression by either fleeing or fighting back. Our sympathetic nervous system organises our body for fight or flight in such situations. It does not organise men's bodies to stay calm when women are abusing them both physically and psychologically. If Mz Polaschek has somehow forgotten her undergraduate studies, I recommend the textbook, "Biological Psychology", by James W. Kalat (9 ed., 2007, Thomson Wadsworth).
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Tenth Edition, Revised) defines "psychology" as:
"1 The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context."
Now, this Associate Professor of the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context finds it "hard to imagine" why a man would not act like a robot in an extremely stressful immediate context, which itself was the culmination of an extremely stressful ongoing context.
This just reinforces my impression (from long and varied experience of them) that Western universities are little more than instruments for the fulfilment of Lesbian Feminist fantasies. It is impossible for men to do well in universities, when competence in man-hating is a prerequiste for achievement and promotion. Universities should all be abolished, the staff sacked, and the education system rethought from square one.
Another man-hating Associate Professor was interviewed on TV One's Breakfast programme on 23 July 2009. Julia Tolmie teaches Law at Auckland University. She used the Weatherston case to argue against the partial Provocation defence for murder, referring to the need to be analytical. She complained that the Provocation defence allowed the accused to blacken the character of the victim after his or her death. Then the interviewer (Alison Mau) intelligently asked her whether that also didn't apply to the Battered Woman defence. All that Julia Tolmie could respond to that was, "Oh, that's different!"
Gee, that's really analytical! I wish I could be as analytical as that!! Of course, I'm not an intellectually incompetent Feminist Law lecturer. As a graduate of the Faculty of Law of Victoria University of Wellington, I can testify to the generally low intellectual level of such establishments. Possibly the problem is that, if you've got any legal brains and are interested in commercial law or taxation, you're out there in the real world earning masses of money.
Julia Tolmie, according to her university webpage, has published on the topic of the so-called "Battered Woman Syndrome." The Law Commission in August 2000 published a discussion paper called "Battered Defendants: Victims of Domestic Violence Who Offend." In that discussion paper, the Law Commission argued for a Battered Defendants defence, partly on the grounds that the Provocation defence did not fit the circumstances of such defendants. The Law Commission has also, like Julia Tolmie, argued for the abolition of the Provocation defence. So, both Julia Tolmie and the Law Commission argue for a defence which is principally useful to women and against a defence that is principally useful to men.
Michael Laws is an honorary girl. Of course, he is -- otherwise the female-dominated media wouldn't allow him to have a newspaper column. In the Sunday Star-Times of 26 July 2009, he says that it was an "absolute travesty that Weatherston was allowed to defame and denigrate the character of the young woman who rejected him." Well,
In the Sunday Star-Times of 26 July 2009, columnist Rosemary McLeod also whines about how Weatherston's defence lawyer had been "dissecting the character of a dead young woman to make things look better for her killer." Again, she doesn't mention the battered woman defence. Moreover, she criticises the female defence lawyer, saying that it was wrong to do justice, "one woman to another", in this manner.
We need to look carefully at the implications of what McLeod says. What she is saying (and I believe her) is that there are a lot of unprofessional female lawyers and journalists (like McLeod herself) who view themselves as part of a Sisterhood, and who see their job as being to help out other sisters, and give them a different (i.e. better) form of "justice" than they give to men. This is particularly important, now that we have a female Chief Justice, now that women make up the majority of the legal, psychology and journalism professions, and now that men going through custody battles often find that all the people they come across in the system are female.
McLeod demonstrates her stupidity by saying that juries have been made fools of, when they have let a man off a charge of rape, only to find out later that he had previous convictions for rape -- which they were not allowed to know during the trial. Hello? That is precisely the reason for withholding knowledge of previous convictions from juries -- because juries will contain people just as stupid as McLeod, who would allow the fact of a previous conviction to affect their decision as to the facts of the case that is before them! The jury was not made a fool of -- McLeod is a fool. The fact that a person has been previously convicted of rape (which might have been a miscarriage of justice in the first place) is not evidence that they were guilty of a subsequent alleged rape.
David Farrar is a blogger whose remarkable achievement is to have become so famous as a blogger that he is actually asked for his views about politics on television. I saw him interviewed on Television One's Breakfast programme, because he was facing possible contempt of court charges for blogging about the Weatherston case while it was still happening. I hope he is convicted and sentenced. Why should he pervert the course of justice and get away with it, when the rest of us have to control ourselves? How could Weatherston get a fair trial, when all these hysterical chatterers were polluting the atmosphere around his trial?
Farrar said on that programme that Weatherston's Provocation defence was untenable, because he had repeatedly stabbed and mutilated his girlfriend after killing her. Of course, that is completely illogical. If anything, the repeated stabbing and mutilation makes provocation seem more likely. The more intense the motive for the killing, the more likely it is that the killer would not have been satisfied with just the death of the victim, but would have felt the need to attack her even after her death. One reason for someone to have such an intense motive might be that they had been provoked.
There are three reasons why Weatherston might not have had a fair trial:
The Government is grossly defamatory of, and negligent and discriminatory towards men, as regards Domestic Violence. It offers no encouragement or support to men who are victims of Domestic Violence. Domestic Violence policy in New Zealand has been (to the extent that it could ignore my campaigning on the issue) mostly about women as victims and men as perpetrators. This is despite the overwhelming evidence that women are just as violent towards men as the converse. See Overview of Fiebert's Annotated Domestic Violence Bibliography , Research on Domestic Violence in New Zealand , References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: an Annotated Bibliography , Gender Differences in Domestic Violence: an Open Letter to Professor Fergusson , and The Influence of Non-Legal Research on Legal Approaches to Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protection Orders .
Therefore, the Government itself has partially brought about much of the Domestic Violence -- including spousal murders -- that occur in this country. This is because it takes the Lesbian Feminist line that men have no rights and no feelings, and can be left to sort out their violent female partners without Government assistance. This naturally leads some men to meet violence with violence, and the Weatherston case may well be a case in point.
Therefore, the Government should immediately give Weatherston a full pardon and pay compensation both to the family of his victim and to Weatherston himself, since the situation which developed was in part the Government's own creation.