It wasn’t mutual
A man has admitted assaulting an elderly woman during a protest against an anti-transgender speaker.
That’s a misnomer. It implies that the issue is just “transgender” in general, when it’s the way trans ideology erodes women’s rights. Letting women speak is not inherently “anti-transgender” and it’s certainly not an attack on trans people.
The protester, who has name suppression, appeared at the Auckland District Court on Thursday and pleaded guilty to a charge of assault, his lawyer Emma Priest confirmed to Stuff.
Why does the man who attacked a woman have name suppression?
The man hit the woman during a heated clash between supporters of Keen-Minshull and those who support transgender rights.
The man hit the woman while he and others were violently invading and trying to shut down supporters of women’s rights. It wasn’t a “clash,” it was a one-sided attack. By the way he fractured her eye socket.
Videos of the protest showed heated scenes between the protesters, with a man hitting a woman twice in the face.
Videos of the protest showed people violently attacking the protesters.
H/t Rob
Appears Twitter still has uses, he has been outed according to this.
https://twitter.com/SimonRAnderson1/status/1689517877018472448
Interesting that the man in the photo is wearing some sort of armour on his forearms. I don’t imagine any of the women there to hear Keen were wearing armour, though given the failure of police to protect them, they probably should have been.
So a violent man caught on video attacking a women in front of multiple witnesses is not immediately charged with assault, and his name is withheld when he finally is. An autistic teen is arrested and roughed up by half a dozen police officers for making an innocuous comment in her own home. Police decide who gets to speak, and who must remain silent; who is protected and who is attacked; who has rights and who does not. If they decide you had it coming, what can you do? Who do you turn to if not the police? I know it’s two different forces involved, but it’s a shared mentality of vindictive righteousness, coupled with arrogant impunity. Poisonous in a democracy, or anywhere else.
That’s a very restrained way to report about a young man deliberately, repeatedly, bashing an elderly woman in the face, causing serious damage. As I recall, the young man had to be pulled away by his friends as it clearly looked like he wanted to keep on hitting her. I’m also of the opinion that the young man looked like the sort who would run from a physical challenge from almost any other men. But still, young guy in his twenties vs. peaceful elderly woman, = no contest.
The media often do this when they don’t sympathize with the victimized party. Their pretences to objectivity go out the window and they talk of “clashes between” or “heated exchanges” or “demonstrations turning violent.”
How about this:
__________
A small group of women, meeting peacefully to discuss their rights, was violently invaded by a much larger mob who don’t believe that women should have the right to speak about anything.
The mostly male mob threw missiles and punches. One member of the mob, a young man, battered an elderly woman in the face with his fists, causing serious injury, and would have continued had he not been restrained by others.
__________
Take away any reference to the religious beliefs of the perpetrators, and the incident described could have taken place in Iran, or Afghanistan.
Hopefully, the metal bracers and wrapped fists are shown to the court. I cannot think of a clearer indication that that person expected violence.
tigger_the_wing,
Good. Factual with nothing in the way of editorializing.
Expected violence and planned to centre themselves in that violence. As an aside that armour looks pretty custom. The sort of thing that medieval re-enactment fans use, often making their own.