Fag had it coming – another ‘provocation’ defense

Victim's family condemn 'archaic' law
The family of a man who was bashed to death with a banjo have angrily condemned the provocation law that allows a partial defence of murder after his killer was found guilty of manslaughter last night. Ferdinand Ambach, a 31-year-old dive master from Hungary, had been accused of murdering Ronald James Brown, 69, after the pair got into a violent argument at Mr Brown's Onehunga flat on December 7, 2007. He claims that Mr Brown, who was gay, made unwanted sexual advances towards him. During the trial in the High Court at Auckland, his lawyer, Peter Kaye, raised the possibility Mr Brown may have attempted to rape Ambach which triggered "a monstrous rage" where the tourist temporarily lost his self-control. After three and a half days of deliberations, the verdict was delivered at 6.45pm. When Ambach was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, there were gasps from Mr Brown's friends and family in the public gallery. Ambach was expressionless as he was remanded in custody until sentencing. Mr Brown's niece Tracy Evans told the Herald her family were "deeply disgusted with the verdict". She said the [provocation] law was "archaic" and had allowed a murderer to receive a reduced sentence for a "horrific crime". "It's a sad indictment on our legal system that the defence can completely fabricate a case and slander a good man's character in an attempt to defend a murderer." Ms Evans said the police efforts had been outstanding. Detective Inspector Greg Cramer, who led the police inquiry, said the defence's rape suggestion was "spurious". "While Mr Kaye made the point, it was circumstantial [and] it was drawing a very large bow to suggest that had been attempted." Mr Brown was found at the bottom of the stairs in his flat, covered in bits of furniture, and with a broken banjo sticking out of his mouth. He had been bashed with the instrument at least five times.

This killer tourist had rammed the bango down Ronald James Brown’s throat after bashing him 5 times with it in an act of provoked ‘hetero-rage’. It’s a provocation defense that we are all currently heaping bitter resentment on Clayton Weatherston for, but it is used time and time and time again in this country to reduce murder to manslaughter because the mere idea of a gay man hitting on a straight man is apparently such a terrifying concept for a heterosexual that it gives a heterosexual every excuse to kill a queer. If every woman killed every man for unwanted sexual advances, we wouldn’t have any males left in NZ, yet somehow in this day and age a defence can be mounted that a heterosexual can be so provoked by a homosexual that killing them is actually defendable.

Robert Hunt was killed by Dick Faisauvale in 2004 in a fit of hetero-rage and won provocation, so did Phillip Edwards in 2003 against David McNee. We seem to allow the murder of gay men to be reduced to manslaughter based on this ridiculous concept that the idea of a gay man wanting sex with a straight man so frightening for the straight man it defends him lashing out and killing. I’ve been hit on by men, I’m not gay, it’s one of those moments when you shrug and say, “not my thing bruv”, I never suddenly felt compelled to murder because the situation ‘freaked me out’.

This verdict, like the ones before it, legitimizes this legal homophobia and reduces our society to one where irrational hate becomes a defense. 'Gay panic' to justify homophobic violence and legally being able to get away with it suggests an Institutionalized bigotry that is unacceptable in a modern society.