DownUnderThink (Part 1)

Q: When is a person not a person?

A: When he is a man.

The legal minds in the State of Victoria here in Australia have set new standards for bigotry and doublethink. Their Feminist mindset has become so warped that they deny the existence of the most basic Feminist tenets in order to advance the Feminist cause.

This three part article examines the extraordinary thinking that is a direct result of the current moral panic to protect women from the scourges of Patriarchy. This thinking is not being shown in some obscure radical feminist website, but from the Victorian State Department of Justice in its bid to bring new laws in.

This doublethink is so tortuous that I decided to call it DownUnderThink.

This first part examines the latest changes to the laws that affect murder cases. The second part analyses some actual cases and how the theories keep misaligning with the real world. The final part discusses the overt misandry being used to propose changes for legislation concerning sexual offences.

In 2005, the social engineers got together to remove the common law partial defence for murder called provocation. The excuse was that men who were killing their wives were using it to get away with murder. Partly in its place, they created a new crime called Defensive Homicide, which was to cater for those battered wives who might kill their husbands in a bid for safety and freedom.

In 2013, the social engineers now want to abolish Defensive Homicide, because it was being applied to men. The legal loophole that gave men access to this was not in some obscure statute found deep in the archives. Section 9AD of the amended Crimes Act, which defines Defensive Homicide, begins “A person who, by his or her conduct, kills another person…”

This fact, by itself, should immediately disqualify the social engineers from employing their spanners in our works. But hang on to your sanity, because the stupidity is only beginning.

Let me explain some of the terms here for those, like me, who are not legally-minded.

Provocation is a partial defence to murder that has developed over the centuries of Common Law. Common Law is the basis for law in most, if not all, English speaking western democracies.

Provocation has always been an uneasy set of compromises. It tries to accept the humanity of the accused whilst condemning, in the strongest terms, the taking of the victim’s life. It is an acceptance that there are situations that enrage an individual to the point where reason, momentarily, is left behind. However, it also must not allow the accused to present the case such that the victim deserved death as a result of his or her transgressions. Rather it tries to acknowledge, for example, harassment or intimidation being felt by the accused, whilst still keeping as a priority the victim’s right to life.

It is also worth noting here that it is a partial defence. It does not condone “lashing out”. The killer still goes to jail for the serious crime of manslaughter and serves serious jail time in a very serious prison.

Perhaps its most significant aspect is that it recognises that a cold-blooded, premeditated murder is worse than a brief, but fatal, loss of control.

The problem with provocation for the Feminists was that it was a defence sometimes used by men who had killed their wives. They complained that this reduction in penalty sent a Patriarchal message that it was alright to beat your wife to death if you felt like it. The Age reported Women’s Domestic Violence Crisis Service Victoria director Rhonda Cumberland as complaining that violent men would use the Provocation ruling to terrorize their victims, “They will tell women that they can say she provoked the violence and all will be forgiven.” This, of course, is just nonsense.

Some arguments had a more valid point, for example in “Provocation Law and Facts: Dead Women Tell No Tales, Tales Are Told About Them” Jenny Morgan points out that, in many instances, the only two persons at the scene of the crime were the killer and the victim. Obviously, the killer has an incentive to produce a story of provocation, and the victim is not available to dispute the tale.

However, we have to wonder at all this attention on murder from the point of view of women. Although women are at the centre of the social engineers’ universe, they are not at the centre of the crime of murder.

First of all, let’s get some perspective on this moral panic. In Australia, a country of some 23 million, less than 300 people are murdered in a year. In the majority of these cases, both killer and victim will be male. In 2011 there were 158 murdered men, almost double the 86 women murdered in the same year.

In 2006/7 in Australia only 18% of the individuals murdered by men were “intimates”. The other 82% were, in order, friends and acquaintances (33%), strangers (23%), family (14%) and others (12%).

What about the vast majority of cases that impacted on men? How does provocation, or its removal, affect those? Did anyone ask? Does anyone care?

Not our social engineers, anyway. The priority, of course, is violence against women. Men, no matter if they are twice as likely to be murdered, simply don’t count.

And do women murder? If you read the social engineers documents, you would think that the only time a woman kills is to get out from under her oppressor.

In that same 2006/7 period 54 women took it upon themselves to murder. Only 38% of the victims were “intimates” with the other 62% being made up of Family (29%), Friends and acquaintances (22%), Strangers (5%) and Others (5%). And yes, mothers are still the biggest killers of their own children.

So, unless women are being oppressed by family members, including their children, friends, acquaintances, strangers and others, then women are killing for more reasons than the Department of Justice would have us believe.

This leads us to the part where the lunacy goes through the roof as we look at Defensive homicide itself.

First of all, this is not to be confused with self-defence. Self defence is not a crime. In legalese it is a complete defence to murder. Prove self-defence means the killer rightly goes free. Instead, Defensive Homicide is a crime in its own right and is intended to be an alternative to manslaughter with similar penalties.

The doublethink in Defensive homicide is inherent in its name. How can it be defensive if it was homicide? How could it be homicide if it was defensive?

The insanity becomes clearer when we look at how Defensive Homicide is defined. The legal definition is that it is when a person kills in what they believe is self-defence, but “he or she did not have reasonable grounds for the belief.”

No matter how many times I read that definition, I cannot process it. How can an unreasonable belief be part of a legitimate argument for reducing the severity of a crime?

Add further to that the question of how this could only apply to battered wives. Here we have to step around even more doublethink.

The general theory here is that women are “trapped” in an abusive relationship to the extent that they believe their only avenue of escape is to kill their husband. This is what they call “women who kill in response to family violence.”

How do we know that there was “family violence”? It’s simple. Just ask the accused.

Let me ask a question that seems to escape the Feminist mind all too easily. What happened to the “Dead women tell no tales” argument? Or is it simply the case that dead men count for even less than live ones?

In Australia today, the “trapped” scenario is more than just a long bow. Not only are there plenty of women’s shelters, there are a plethora of government departments, social workers and police officers all especially funded to deal with such situations. To admit they are still trapped, of course, would mean that many millions of taxpayers’ dollars are being wasted. And the feminists don’t want those funds drying up, do they?

So, instead, this being trapped when they are not is what the social engineers want the courts to make a special allowance for. This is the unreasonable belief of self defence that Section 9AD is referring to. Let us call it the reasonable unreasonable belief.

The new proposals to replace the Defensive Homicide are fraught with the same logic with a different disguise. Now they are looking to a new partial defence, where the court is to assess if “the conduct of the accused was a ‘reasonable response’ in the circumstances as perceived by the accused.” In other words, no matter how unreasonable the perception, as long as she was reasonable with her unreasonable perception then a sentencing discount will apply.

And, just to be clear, it is not reasonable to consider men’s actions due to unreasonable beliefs or unreasonable perceptions as reasonable. If they believe they are trapped when they are not it is their own stupid fault.

No matter how they dress it up, the logic still doesn’t make any sense. If she really was trapped, and really needed to kill him in order to escape, then it was self-defence. If not, then it is murder. If she’s killing based on unreasonable beliefs or perceptions, she needs to be locked up for everyone’s safety.

The Department of Justice’s reason for abolishing the Defensive Homicide says it all:

“It is inherently complex, making it difficult for judges and juries, and the community, to understand and apply.”

It is not “complex”, it is nonsensical.

The twisted logic gets even worse when you consider that, in the eighties and nineties, feminists were arguing that this battered wife scenario should be somehow included in the provocation partial defence.

The problem for that argument was that provocation is only a defence when the killing was done as an immediate response. There has to be that “lashing out” without thought to the consequences. The more time between provocation and reaction, the more it becomes revenge. And whilst this has long been a motive for murder, it has never been, nor should be, a justification for it.

So, if women couldn’t have the Provocation defence (and, of course, they could but not in the way that the Feminists wanted it), then no one could.

And here, of course, lies the real meat of the question. How much of this is to condone revenge? Particularly when we consider that this is to foster “cultural change” in the area of violence against women. It gives rise to that age old saying: Two wrongs do not make a right.

We now get into the Feminist doublethink of the most extraordinary degree.

In Battered But Not Beaten: Women Who Kill In Self Defence, Ian Leader-Elliot begins “Men and women kill for different reasons and in different circumstances.” This idea of essential difference between the sexes is stark throughout the whole debate.

Gone is the “Anything a man can do, a woman can do better, and do it in heels,” mentality. Women are reduced to mere candles in the wind. They are totally powerless (except to kill him) over their fortunes and fate.

The idea of gender being a social construct is also missing. These murderous traits in men are clearly innate, and simply cannot exist in women. Masculinity’s associations with aggression and action are clearly the drivers for this, and women’s total lack of such traits is simply because of their XX chromosomes.

But what, ultimately, is the point of this whole exercise? This is summed up by one word:


Yes, eight years ago we had a new law. Now we are having a review. Many of the groups involved are also insisting that part of the plan, going forward, is to have more reviews at more regular intervals.

All of these reviews will require conferences, forums, public consultations and the like. All of these will require, as well as catering, submissions by the legal representatives of the various interest parties and groups.

All of this will be funded by the public purse and the good citizens of Victoria will become playthings of the social engineers. Lives will be ruined and justice will become even more of a lottery as they experiment with the law as they see fit to bring about cultural change.

And, by the way, guess how many battered women have been found guilty of murder in the State of Victoria this century?


Also the ratio of illegal killings being classified as manslaughter between 1993 and 2005 was about 11% (the rest being murder). Since then, and clearly this is as a direct result of the social engineering, the ratio of illegal killings being classified as manslaughter / defensive homicide cases was…

….you guessed it: 11%

  1. Defensive Homicide – Proposals for Legislative Reform  – Consultation Paper Victorian Dept of Justice
  2. Section 9AD of the Crimes Act 1958 (2005)
  3. Australian Violent Crime Statistics
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics Causes of Death
  5. Australian Institute of Criminology Homicide Statistics
  6. Morgan, Jenny — “Provocation Law and Facts: Dead Women Tell No Tales, Tales Are Told About Them”
  7. Leader-Elliott, Ian — “Battered But Not Beaten: Women Who Kill in Self Defence”
  8. Greene, J — “A Provocation Defence for Battered Women Who Kill”
  9. Govt Abolishes Provocation Laws – The Age
  10. Provocation defence to be removed
  11. Ramage Manslaughter Verdict Under Attack – The Age

About Jim Muldoon

Jim Muldoon is an Australian men's human rights activist and Australian Editor for AVfM. He is an advocate for the equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

View All Posts
  • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

    Shockingly similar to Canada’s situation.
    The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Michael Ryan matter, clarified a man is not a person in no uncertain terms when they let his ex-wife nicole off for trying to have him murdered 3 times.

  • http://www.judgybitch.com Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

    Okay, so let me get this straight. Men CANNOT use provocation as a defense because it’s impossible to prove he really was provoked, since the victim is dead.

    But women CAN use reasonable unreasonable beliefs to justify killing men who abuse them.

    Just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence does a woman have to submit to prove that she was in an abusive relationship? There must be SOME evidence required, or else we have only her word to go on since the victim is dead.

    Perhaps I have an overly evil turn of mind, but if I were a woman looking to rid myself of the hubby and keep his cash and life insurance, I would quietly check myself into battered women’s shelters for the weekend, claim to be too brutally terrified to ever contact the police, go to a few counselling sessions and voila!

    Paper trail that “proves” an on-going abusive relationship without letting hubby know what I was up to.

    Just for added effect, I might cut my hair really short with dull scissors, put glycerin in my eyes, show up at the shelter weeping that “he cut my hair because I didn’t vacuum all the hair off the carpet as he ordered me to”, have lots of photos taken, then hit the salon for a cute little pixie cut and be back home from my “weekend with the girls” and hubby would be nary the wiser.

    Then boom!

    Make sure the bank accounts are all in order and kill him in his sleep.

    So Australia is basically just moving towards the legal murder of men as long as women are the killers?

    Well then.

    Nothing particularly hateful about that, is there?

    • Stu

      Yep, and of course, once you can excuse women who murder men, you can excuse them of doing anything lessor to them. Pretty much where we are now. The gov, the lawyers, the general public, will attempt to excuse anything a woman does to a man now, no matter how premeditated or how purely malicious and unjustifiable it is. The little mangina pea brain will come up with the most convoluted bullshit, anything to avoid tarnishing their god, anything to avoid any implication that their pussy worshiping religion is anything but morally correct.

      They are like flat earthers, who just refuse to accept that the earth is a sphere, no matter how much proof their is.

    • Sanguifer

      “So Australia is basically just moving towards the legal murder of men as long as women are the killers?”

      Not quite yet, no. If I understood the article correctly, “defensive homicide” is still only a partial defense, i.e. the convicted still goes to jail for manslaughter. Just not for first-degree murder.

      Not that it makes it that much better. And, of course, there’s still time for that. But just like provocation couldn’t be used to get off the hook entirely for killing a person, this can’t, either… at least on paper.

  • http://www.hermitparkclinic.com.au Greg Canning

    Thanks Jim for this well researched and presented analysis , will kook forward to the subsequent installments! Victoria is the epicenter of gender feminism in Aus and the Jenny Morgan that you mention is of the same ilk as Sheila Jefferies , Betty Mc lellan et al

  • Bev

    Not only Victoria. South Australia has let 4 women in 6 years walk out of court with a suspended sentence. The latest; a women threw accelerant over her husband and burnt him to death after he had an affair. She claimed she only meant to burn him a little. The judge said she had suffered greatly because of the affair. and she should not suffer more. Another ran her husband though with a sword in front of the children. Since there had been a couple of call outs for DV she claimed it was a last resort to escape abuse. The judge agreed and gave her a suspended sentence after being found guilty by the jury. She too had suffered enough.

  • John Narayan

    Note to self: start female only mafia gangs, I will only have to pay them %70 the wage of a male, and their time off from work will be minimised due to lesser Sentencing in court.

    • AlexB

      You may say that as a joke, but it’s actually happening in India, criminal gangs are using women to threaten people with false accusations of rape and extort money from them.

  • Shrek6

    Thanks for this Jim, can’t wait to see the other 2 articles.

    I think Vic is not on its own in this area of legal abuse of men. It has a ‘sister state’ in WA, where draconian laws against men have been in place for many years.

    It was somewhere around early 2006 when provocation as a defense was removed from the statute books for all sorts of crimes, especially anything to do with a woman. It was then that they introduced the harshest and most ridiculous restraining order laws in the country. Vic soon copied WA laws, because the manginas over in Vic loved them so much.

    Australia is first and foremost a ‘Penal Colony.’ Where anyone with a penis is seen as a criminal and those without, are seen as victims.

    Many evils begin here in Aus. After all, we taught the South Africans how to discriminate against indigenous populations. They loved our ‘White Aus Policy’ so much, they invented their Apartheid based on what they learned from us.

    The male and female scum here in Australia that love to destroy the lives of innocent human beings, number in the very many and they have the seats of power in all levels of society. It would take a revolution to change this, but I doubt there will ever be the desire for this in my lifetime.

  • ringo-boby

    Victoria is definitely the hot seat of out-in-the-open, radical, extreme feminism. Every single public institution is riddled with them, and every private enterprise under pressure to kowtow to the feminist elites.

    The legal system especially is virtually a logic-free zone. Case in point, although the set of laws in Family Law explicitly give the father a 50% say in custody and time spent with children, the law prescribes a report must be made which informs the judge which way to go on any case. Guess who writes the reports? Feminist counselors. So although Australia has had 50% Shared Care laws for about 8 years now, we still see fathers getting custody in only about 12% of cases. Just like the bad old days pre-Shared Care. Its amazing how easily feminists corrupted the judiciary, truly astounding.