.
MURDER is something that poor people do to poor people. For those of us who feed the imagination with a diet of, snobbish English crime dramas and flash Hollywood lawyer soaps it is easy to form the erroneous impression that murder is what the rich do to the rich, usually motivated by lust, jealousy or, greed.
In Melbourne, the most liveable of cities, the facts are these: in the years from 1989 to 1999, 75 per cent of male murderers and 88 per cent of female murderers were unemployed. Of their victims, 60 per cent of men and 70 per cent of women were out of work. And "the number of homicides also appears to be disproportionately' high among some ethnic groups", says the Defences to Homicide. issues paper of the Victorian Law, Reform Commission. This is getting into touchy territory and the commission takes a less‑said‑the better attitude to such unpalatable news.
However, the higher homicide rates among migrant groups cannot be overlooked. And it has a bearing on some of the issues relating to defences to homicide.
When the Victorian Law Reform Commission, abolished by Jeff Kennett, was resurrected, by Steve Bracks, the Attorney General, Rob Hulls, instructed it to look at the homicide laws and consider whether "it would be appropriate to reform, narrow or extend defences or partial excuse to homicide, including self-defence, provocation and diminished‑responsibility.
Self-defence and diminished responsibility ‑ as, for instance,,, when the murderer is mentally ill, are excuses to a homicide charge that will not get a heated argument, but provocation is problematic. The various defences to homicide developed against the background of capital punishment, so it was appropriate to look for any excuse to diminish the charge and save a life. But, in our more enlightened situation the excuse of provocation looks pretty shabby. And that is one of the issues being considered by the commission on which it invited public comment.
Case study 8 in the issues paper concerns a migrant man who murdered his 16‑year‑old daughter because she was having sexual relations with a young man with whom she wanted to live. The, father found the two together in. the boyfriend's bedroom and he stabbed his daughter to death.
He was found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter because, as a "traditional Muslim", he was understandably angry at his daughter's affront to his patriarchal authority. The judge said that in this case the "ordinary person": the jury imagined had to be "an: ordinary man of Mr. Dincer's [the defendant's] origin, background, and beliefs".
The case study says "ordinary: man" and I am assuming that the words are chosen with care. What would an "ordinary woman of Mr Dincer's origin" feel about the: verdict? Unless she was the victim: of cultural brainwashing, she; might feel betrayed by a new, country and legal system that she " expected would afford her greater protection from male 'violence, and arrogance.
"The commission, will be looking at ways to negotiate the difficulties of framing the [ordinary person] test in a multicultural and heterogenous society." I wish it wouldn't . Or, at least, before it does so, it should famliarise itself with what the Koran has to say about women and ask itself if we want to bend our perceptions of the value of female life to fit with this: "Men have authority over women. Because God has made one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient ... As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them."
Before well‑meaning and soft‑hearted people rush to make the: law of homicide culturally relative, they had best ask themselves how: they feel about standing aside while men beat their disobedient wives. Cultural relativism has no place in a civilised society. We are not bound to make room for barbarism, even when it dresses: itself up in the fluffy rhetoric of multiculturalism.
Reply
Yet again we see one civilisation judging another by its own values, and Terry Lane has now joined the likes of Andrew Bolt and Pamela Bone in condemning the Islamic treatment of women.
Westerners are wilfully blind to the fact that feminism and family are mutually exclusive. If you want one, you cannot have the other. Why? Because feminism demands that both partners be joint heads of the family, but no institution can function smoothly with joint heads.
This is why we never have joint Prime Ministers.
The net result of ignoring this basic truth is the soaring rate of separations, which have but destroyed the institution of family.
Islam opts for the family, as it knows its critical importance in producing good citizens for a healthy society. So, it assigns a single leader -usually the husband ‑ who needs to ensure discipline by following a hierarchy of steps contained in the Koranic verse quoted by Lane.
I can understand the West's contempt for a culture that has diametrically opposite views. But I cannot understand the intolerance ‑ especially after September 11.
AMIRUDIN AHAMED (Dr)