There’s been a lot of buzz recently about the newly crafted “coward punch” laws introduced to the New South Wales Parliament and is being considered by other state governments across the country.
The bill came into effect as a result of the death of Daniel Christie (18) on January 11, and Thomas Kelly (also 18) in 2012. In supporting the bill, opposition leader John Robertson said, “We will support the Government’s one punch laws. The Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do something about alcohol-fuelled violence.”
No matter that the incidence of alcohol-fuelled violence is at its lowest level in a decade, our legislators have responded with speed and high moral bearing in response to the public outcry. And rightly so, in my opinion. Whether the legislation will prevent another attack or stop a mother having to bury her child after a moment’s madness is doubtful, but I applaud the motivation. It’s what our elected representatives should be doing: everything in their power to stop the violence. Then it’s up to us. Personal responsibility and all that.
During the debate about the legislation, I gave serious thought to the ramifications of changing or strengthening law to protect an innocent victim. In most cases, this is someone who is in the wrong place at the wrong time. But what about the perpetrator? Then it dawned on me. A coward by definition is a person who lacks courage in facing danger or difficulty. What about the violence perpetrated by some men against women. What do we call that? What do we call the man who strikes a woman?
Top Comments
Yes. Teach your sons that violence is wrong by threatening them with a royal flogging. Wait a minute... So you're saying that hitting your son is the right response to finding out that he has hit someone? And you're trying to convince people that you want to put an end to violence? I call bullshit.
Wouldn't it be great if we grew up in a world where men didn't HAVE to protect women because men stopped violating women?