Not a great time to be a chap

The news and current affairs are, as we all know, systems designed to shout the most abrasive and divisive things to generate interest. Lately I’ve been trying to steer clear of NZ news because of the omnipresent coverage of Clayton Weatherston. This man is now the most hated man in the country, and I imagine he will hold that title for a long time to come. He is on trial for murdering his girlfriend, a much younger girl who was his student. The crime was appallingly violent. He is claiming a defence of provocation.
His claims are nonsensical, but there might be an effective legal strategy behind this defence. Most of all it bothers me that the victim’s family and friends are forced to endure this prolonged character assault as it is amplified through the media. (As Bartok noted, If they didn’t allow TV cameras in the courtroom, would it be getting nearly as much play?) I hate that our news coverage is so dominated by this man and his justifications for an act of the most extreme violence against a young girl. Never mind that he is hated, and none of his words are believed, and that he is certain to be found guilty; the mere fact that we have given him this national platform and that we attend to his words demeans us all. (See also NotKate’s take.)
Also we had in the last few days the woman who was in an abusive relationship with an NZ TV celeb telling her side of the story. Russell Brown has a good summary of why it matters. Remember, also, that this violent celeb has maintained a lot of public support throughout “his” ordeal.
And finally, the British midwife who thinks the pain of childbirth is important for parent/child bonding. Of course, this is a chap talking about what’s good for the womens. Jonny Nexus notes the appropriate response.

10 thoughts on “Not a great time to be a chap”

  1. TV news is (I guess) dominated by him. Paper news, I’m not sure but I don’t think so. Online news — no. There’s usually one story on the front page of stuff which is easy to not read.
    I’m sure I’m not alone in getting all my news from the internet, and I’m sure other people like me are skewed to the younger generations. It’s still possible now, I guess, for “everyone” to know who someone is because he’s on local TV a lot … but for how much longer?

  2. “he is certain to be found guilty”
    But of what? That is the million dollar question. Last week we saw someone found not guilty of murder (but guilty of murder) because the person he killed hit on him.
    If Weatherston is only found guilty of manslaughter via the provocation defence that rule really really needs to be looked at.
    Unfortunately, the simple solution – allow judges more leeway in sentancing murders to allow for ‘provocation’ will not be accepted by our government, supported as it is by the ‘hang ’em high brigade.’ Which means that people who kill in defence of property, or through retaliation to abuse, get lumped with people who kill gays or the women who dump them.

  3. Am I right in thinking that there’s no equivalent in NZ to the “2nd-degree murder” (murder without premeditation) charge that we have in North America and that’s why it’s either murder or manslaughter?
    Regardless I can’t stand the cameras in the courtroom since this is the result, this guy should be kept to being a creepy sketch not a constant feed of creepy video footage.
    And don’t get me started on the “gay panic” defence.

  4. Yes, he’s profoundly proud of himself and his description of the murder should not have been shown on TV. Lock him up without access to seeing himself in the news for a very long time! I did like Not Kate’s take, I think she’s got it right, he thinks he’s Special and Unique.
    But Morg I think it’s a great time to be a normal chap! Creeps like Weatherston make good guys stand out as Special!

  5. Having just had a baby I am now very sceptical of any pronouncement in relation to parent/child bonding and how it might occur.
    Many things did not go as I would have wanted them and that set me up for huge feelings of failure. It’s pronouncements like this that contributes to things like post natal depression.

  6. And having gone back and read the comments on that article now i’m absolutely steaming mad. Do all these freaking advocates of natural childbirth not realise that when your baby is just plain stuck in the birth canal and not going anywhere that so-called natural childbirth is no longer really an option unless you want death or serious injury to occur?

  8. It is all awfully done.
    The media has the power to not give him coverage, which seems to be the thing he is salivating over. It certainly makes for a good sound bite, but most of his accusations about the victim are nothing to do with his provocation defence and seem aimed purely at humiliating her or her family.
    Just ugh.
    I think the one interesting thing to come from his hearing, which will hopefully be quickly forgotten otherwise, will be a more lively debate about the ‘provocation’ issue. Laws need to change to reflect changes in the attitudes and understandings of society.
    I would be interested to hear more about what cases might come under this defence, and it differs from ‘self defence’, which is much more justifiable.

  10. “Am I right in thinking that there’s no equivalent in NZ to the “2nd-degree murder” (murder without premeditation) charge that we have in North America and that’s why it’s either murder or manslaughter?”
    Andrew, that’s right. Murder and manslaughter are both “unlawful killing”. The difference is that to prove a murder charge the prosecution has to show intent to kill.
    Example: I scream “I’ll kill you!” in front of witnesses, whack you with a bat, and you die: murder. I scream “you bastard!, whack you, and you die, and in court I testify that I didn’t mean to hit you that hard, just teach you a lesson: possibly manslaughter.
    There’s no equivalent to the degree concept in the US. The thinking is that sentencing (minimum parole period) will reflect the moral heinousness.

Comments are closed.