Judges are exhorted to go easy on female criminals. Legislators want to get rid of female prisons. Is there any better encouragement for ciminally-minded women that that?
My good friend Douglas came by and I gave him a prime spot to talk in the UK Room. I had an incking, as many do, of his points from simply reading the writing on the media walls. Take for instance.....
And do they? How about.....Judges told: 'be more lenient to women criminals'
Judges have been told to deal less severely with female criminals than men when determining how to sentence them.
Do Women Get Lighter Sentences Than Men?In Australia, men are more than three times more likely to commit crimes than women.But when we compare the sentences of those who commit offences, some have claimed that women ‘get let off easier’ than men when it comes to sentencing.
It has even been suggested that the disparity shows that there is “gender bias” in criminal law and sentencing, with many arguing that it is unfair to treat women more leniently than men.
So, what should legislators do? One might think that such an anomoly of 'equality' would be high on their agenda, despite the interferences of feminists, but that does not appear to be the case.So why does our justice system treat men and women differently? And is it justified?The DataIf we look at the issue from a purely statistical perspective, it would certainly appear that women are treated more favourably by the law.For instance, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 63.3% of men who were sentenced in higher courts received a penalty of imprisonment, compared to just 46.7% of women.Women were also seen to receive more lenient prison sentences, with an average term of imprisonment of 42.4 months, compared to 60.3 months for men.This apparent gender bias extended beyond penalties of imprisonment – one study found that male drink drivers generally received fines which were 9.7% higher than those received by women for the same offence, and received disqualification periods which were 22.2% longer.
But let me stand back and let Douglas say his piece.
There's a storm brewing in that little corner of Europe that is currently trying to work out how not to be so European. The outcome of the storm could affect the rest of the world in echoes of the influence once common from the mighty Empire founded by Britain.
Whistle-blowing has generally become a commended activity, viewed as a social good. What the world is not so sure about is when the whistle-blower is a politician. All the jokes about lying politicians aside, when one dares to stick his head above the parapet and expose government facts, not government lies, how should we view him?
In June 2016, Philip Davies MP gave a talk at the International Conference on Men's Issues on the Justice Gender Gap. Repeating much a 2012 Parliamentary address, but also expanding on the topic and updating his research, he disclosed yet again how
the justice system treats men and women differently.
Davies quoted from public data, government sources, and information provided by the Commons Library. The data he presented clearly showed that, far from the belief still being perpetuated in political, social and legal circles, it is men who are being treated more harshly than women by the judicial system, and that this is true of every main crime category and age group.
This leniency is common throughout the western world. For all their calls on 'equality under the law' it seems that feminists forgot to argue for equal treatment in the legal systems and by the judiciary. Indeed, as Philip Davies was to learn, feminists were most emphatic in arguing against equality, especially equality under the law.
Why should a victim of a crime feel they deserve less justice, just because the criminal is female?
If you are robbed, mugged, raped, or merely spat upon in the street, do you somehow feel better knowing that the person who did it was female? Why should a child molester, drug peddler or vandal be discouraged from such behaviour any less just for being a woman?
God judges all equally, He shows no partiality or favouritism and expects human judges to behave the same way. If God wants equality under the law, who is man to deny it?
It is not just the evidence Mr. Davies presented that they don't like. He said ..
"I want to be very clear that I don’t believe that there is actually an issue between men and women. I think the problem is being stirred up by those who could be described as militant feminists and the politically correct males who pander to this nonsense," and "feminist zealots really do want women to have their cake and eat it."
To what should be their great shame, women around the country started mocking Mr Davies by publishing selfies of themselves eating cake, and holding cake-eating events. These self-identified feminist zealots, are openly pouring disdain on their fathers, brothers and sons who surely deserve equal treatment under the law. They also pour scorn on anyone of either sex who have been victims of a female criminal.
So what is it that the militants are unhappy about? What is it that they never wanted to be brought to public attention?
Here are a few points extracted from Davies' speech:
* A higher proportion of men are given a sentence of custody than women, irrespective of age of offender (juveniles, young adults or adult) and type of court.* Probation staff were more than twice as likely to recommend custody for male offenders due to be sentenced in crown court cases than for female offenders.* Repeat offenders are more likely to fare better if they are women.* The average male prison sentence is over 50% more than the average female prison sentence.* More women are punished for disciplinary offences whilst in prison per 100 of the prison population than men. Despite this, women had 50% more chance than men to be released from prison early.* It is a myth that most women in prison have committed petty or nonviolent offences - at least 78% of female prisoners are serving a sentence imposed by a serious-crime court.* The community requirement that is imposed by courts on those who commit an offence in a domestic setting is only imposed on men and does not deal with female offenders.One of the excuses for sentencing women less is that women have children to look after and there are definitely issues when a pregnant or nursing mother is convicted. But this excuse must have its limits and cannot apply broadly to all women regardless of their age and circumstance. The fear of imprisoning mothers goes too far and women can be excused jail entirely on the basis that they have children in their care, even when they are convicted of child abuse!
Philip Davies represents the people in one small corner of England. The statistics he reveals are those for the UK. The problem he brings to our attention are common around the world. Even an elected politician is attacked by feminists for standing up for equality under the law. We are all suffering and national borders must play no part in our general resistance any more than borders matters to our enemy.
The radical feminists who would urge everyone else to follow their path of continuing to destroy the family unit, who will lie outright about the justice system, and will openly distort the call for women's rights are calling for Philip Davies to be silenced, or booted from his Party, or even to be banned from representing his constituents. Those "militant feminists" Davies spoke of don't want you, in your country or his, to know that you will get less justice if a female harms you than if a man does the same thing.
The deceivers, the sexists, the feminists who would radicalise our society have had a big voice in the media and elsewhere.
Why should those who would harm our society have the loudest voices?Haven't we all had enough yet?We need to ask ourselves what our values are. Are we unwilling to stand up for what is right, wherever, whatever and whoever that might be? For we all know the result of hiding, of doing nothing. We're living the results of enabling the militant zealots.Many of us find it hard to do much at all. We're shy, we're downtrodden, we don't feel skilled enough to talk or write. Perhaps there is is not enough commitment to demonstrate in the streets.Petitions can be a problem for an emerging movement. They can make us feel good for having done something but serve no purpose because they are too easy to ignore.
That's not to say they should not be signed:
every once in a while, a petition has an effect and it can be hard to know which one. Those petitions which are supported by organisations around the world and are well and publicised can achieve great change.
There is such a petition arranged to show that the politically 'correct' yobs are not the only voice in the world. As a way of illustrating that politicians should be behaving with greater integrity and be willing to stand up for fairness & justice, the petition is a quick way for any of us to make our voice heard over the rabble who care nothing for equality under the law, nor for the victims of crime regardless of the sex of the criminal.
Douglas is hopeful: and in this age of unreason where laws are passed that condemn people for someone else 'feeling' 'offended' when and where no offence has been given, I must admit he is more hopeful than I.In signing that and asking others to do the same — we can play a small but active part in saying that we want a fair and just society where the voice of reason carries a greater weight than than the screaming of repressive dogma.
But if we do not make our voices heard above the appalling shouts of those who would bring our civilisation down, we have only our own inactivity to blame.
So, some easy action is there in signing his petition.
The likelihood of Mrs May, the PM noted for her extreme feminist views, actually promoting Mr Davies is more likely to be positively affected than our silence on the matter.
Let us raise our glasses, tankards and chalices to Douglas for bringing this to our attention, and to Mr Davies for his efforts in standing up and speaking up for men and justice.