Another woman murdered in Melbourne as 19 Australian female senators vote to prevent women from defending themselves

Another day in the world’s most liveable city. I’m sure Lisa Wilkinson has another vacuous monologue lined up for this one:

It would be interesting to know if an AVO was already in place on the partner, because if it was it tragically failed.

Now cast your mind back to last week before the Leyonhjelm vs Hanson-Young nonsense kicked off. What caused it all? Nothing, just 46 Senators voting against a motion for women to protect themselves:

The most striking part: 19 female Senators from Labor, Liberal and the Greens all voting to keep women as victims, but not wasting a chance at any turn to lecture the public about gender equality, throw on white ribbons and all the rest of it that comes with vacuous virtue signalling.

Most hypocritically is Greens’ dingbat Sarah Hanson-Young who has spent the past week, if not her entire political career, playing the victim against David Leyonhjelm who was one of the 5 male Senators to vote in favour of the motion. Yet, here she is voting to keep her female brethren at a disadvantage at the hands of violent offenders.

The majors don’t care about anyone’s right to preserve their life, other than their own. Enough said.

Meanwhile, the ABC decided to wheel out two female “academics” to continue the narrative of why the Australian populace should remain disarmed:

“Adelaide Law School’s Kellie Toole, an expert in laws surrounding self-defence, says pepper spray poses a similar dilemma to that of gun laws in America.

“Items that are maintained for self-defence can actually have the perverse effect of creating risks for the users and other members of the community, through accidental or deliberate misuse,” she said. While I am very sympathetic to the right of women to feel safe, I agree that it should be prohibited for reasons of public safety.”

Ms Toole also questioned the motive behind the push for the legalisation of pepper spray.

“I do think where certain men are suddenly advocating for women’s rights and women’s safety there is the possibility of an alternative agenda, and victim safety can easily blur into a vigilante mentality of which gun laws can be a part,” she said.

Absolute drivel.

As is standard fare at the ABC, when you have no real argument play the “America” and “public safety” cards.

Criminals already have access to essentially any of the items (including golden guns now in NSW) that Toole is complaining about and use them. WA has pepper spray, which the article spends two thirds of it’s content on, and doesn’t have an epidemic of criminal misuse. Instead, it charges pregnant women for carrying it to protect themselves with.

Further, defensive gun use in the United States far exceeds it’s misuse and the per capita homicide rate in the United States has reduced 49% since 1980, despite now 400 million firearms in circulation.

Toole wouldn’t know the first thing about practical self-defence (she’s whinged about pepper spray before in 2012) but what would you expect from a university safe space academic?

Meanwhile, these past couple of days in America:

Does Toole want to jump in here and argue why this woman should have been disarmed? Or would she have preferred the beating to continue?

Or this Texas mother protecting her kids from being abducted?

Of course, the ABC article ends with the usual utopian, motherhood statement we’ve heard ad nauseum about “if we didn’t have people committing crimes this wouldn’t be necessary”. I’d actually like to hear this grand social engineering plan these ideologues have and how they intend to implement it in an imperfect universe and why they should be taken seriously?

It’s a cop-out statement, plain and simple.

Self-defence is an inalienable right for everyone, not some privilege granted to you by government bureaucrats and degraded by wowser academics. The right is essentially meaningless without the practical means and the current state of play in Australia puts the law abiding at the mercy of whoever wishes to abuse them, by denying access to said practical means.

Rendering someone defenceless by operation of law or physical disarmament, is just as much coercion as that committed by any violent offender on a victim.

But only if we didn’t have people making laws preventing them from preserving their lives in an emergency, this wouldn’t be necessary.