Table of Contents
Simon O’Connor
Husband, step-father, and longtime student of philosophy and history. Also happen to be a former politician, including chairing New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Committee.
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.
