Home > Issues > Men and the Law > Bias in the case: R v Danny Brian Mayes |
||||||||||
|
Empowering Men:fighting feminist lies |
|||||||||
Bias in the case: R v Danny Brian Mayes© Peter Zohrab 2003 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Home > Issues > Men and the Law > Bias in the case: R v Danny Brian Mayes |
||||||||||
|
|
Empowering Men:fighting feminist lies |
|||||||||
Bias in the case: R v Danny Brian Mayes© Peter Zohrab 2003 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
"That relationship was somewhat 'on again, off again'. It attracted its share of difficulties. There were allegations both ways. At times Mr. Mayes was physically abusive towards Karnia; and for his part, Mr Mayes considered that Karnia (who had drug difficulties) forced herself on him and took advantage of him, and his drugs. There is scientific evidence to support the latter...." (N.B. The Judge says that there were "allegations" both ways, but Mr. Mayes' physical abuse is stated as if it were a fact, whereas Karnia's abuse of him is treated as a mere opinion of Mr. Mayes'. On the face of it, it appears to be anti-male sexism on the part of the judge.)
"... Karnia divulged to Mr. Mayes that she was on a methadone programme when she had her first child. Mr. Mayes commented, 'oh you got a junkie baby'. There was then a fight between Karnia and Mr. Mayes which escalated to a level that the police were called. Mr. Mayes was arrested and charged with assault." (That is a clear case of anti-male discrimination by the Police: it is quite obvious that the fight must have been started by Karnia, who was on the receiving end of a very hurtful remark by Danny Mayes. His remark might well be classified as psychological abuse, but it was not assault. Anyway, the Police would never let a man off if he assaulted his girlfriend after she had made a cutting remark against him !)
"A week later (on the morning of 22 May 2002) Mr. Mayes appeared in the Napier District Court. He pleaded guilty to assaulting Karnia. His bail conditions included terms that he was not to associate with Karnia, and he was not to consume alcohol." (N.B. The fact that he pleaded guilty is no indication that he actually was guilty. In cases of domestic violence between a man and a woman, the man is almost automatically presumed to be the guilty party, and any attempt to convince a court to the contrary would admittedly be heroic, but probably futile, without the assistance of a competently pro-male lawyer, who are almost nonexistent -- see: famsecrt.html#Domestic ).
"When Mr. Mayes went back to his home from his court appearance, Karnia was in fact outside his house. He told her of this court order. She was asked by him to leave. But then Karnia went inside Mr Mayes (sic) house and asked him for money. She was given some money by him, and initially used it for a taxi to go to her mother's home. She returned later that evening to Mr Mayes (sic) house, having brought (sic) a bottle of bourbon with some of the money that Mr Mayes had given her. She had that bottle of bourbon with her." (In what is probably a typical scenario, this woman, having got her boyfriend arrested for Domestic Violence by starting a fight, now causes him more trouble by placing him in breach of his bail conditions.)
"An altercation then developed between Mr Mayes and Karnia. It is difficult to know the precise details. It is highly likely that they were of a relatively petty character. But undoubtedly Karnia threw a mirror inside Mr Mayes (sic) house, and she became very aggressive. So much so, that a neighbour who lived across the road was summoned. He actually got Karnia 'down' and held her by more or less lying on her on the porch, whilst the police were called." (This use of the passive -- "was summoned" and "were called" -- downplays the trauma of what the couple were going through. It makes it sound like a detached account of a scientific experiment. Who called the neighbour and then the Police ? Presumably Danny Mayes called the neighbour and also the Police. If it had been a female victim of male aggression, the Judge would have said, "She had to call the neighbour" and then "She had to call the Police". Danny's feelings, property rights, and right to be free from assault by a woman are censored out by this clinical use of the passive. In fairness to the judge in this case, however, I should add that he did state: "In his own way, he is every bit as battered (in moral terms) in his mind, as a battered woman." However, it is not clear that the judge is taking the politically incorrect step of actually recognising here that Karnia battered Danny. The context was a discussion of Danny's "affective syndrome". As can be seen from: famsecrt.html#Domestic , the New Zealand Judicial System does not recognise men as having feelings that women can hurt.)
"A police officer arrived. The situation was such that this officer found it necessary to handcuff Karnia to a post on the porch. He was on duty, on his own, and he needed to separate Mr Mayes and Karnia whilst he endeavoured to calm the situation down."
"When Mr Mayes and Karnia, in particular, had become somewhat calmer, both gave the police officer assurances that there would be no further problems. He accepted those assurances. He left, and Mr Mayes and Karnia returned inside the house." (Why didn't the Police officer arrest Karnia for Domestic Violence ? She was obviously the more violent of the two on that occasion. Both the neighbour and the police officer had had to lie on top of her or handcuff her to restrain her. Only gross Police anti-male sexism can explain the fact that Karnia was not arrested on both occasions.)
| |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Top |
