Hitting a woman in the face, twice
One, man charged with punching woman in the face.
Police have charged a 20-year-old man with allegedly assaulting an elderly woman at an Auckland anti-transgender rally last month.
The charges arise from the heated clashes at the speaking engagement for activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who goes by the alias Posie Parker, at Albert Park.
Videos online show both supporters of Keen-Minshull and protesters clashing, with one showing a man hitting a woman twice in the face.
Two, he got to hide his name.
A man charged with assaulting an elderly woman during a protest against an anti-transgender speaker has received name suppression.
The man appeared in the Auckland District Court on Thursday morning, where he was given name suppression and remanded on bail.
He was ordered not to associate with the complainant and not to act violently towards anyone or anything.
Why should he get to hide his name? It’s not a parking ticket – he punched a woman in the face, hard, twice. He fractured her eye socket. Why should he get to hide his violent assault?
H/t Rob
To protect him from those genocidal T_RFs.”
‘supporters of Keen-Minshull and protesters clashing’
No one’s clashing anything. Men attacked women.
My guess is that the name suppression thing is temporary, while he’s out on bail and awaiting trial. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. As a general principle, I don’t think it’s a bad practice. Is it appropriate in this particular case? Without knowing NZ law and how it’s practiced in similar cases, I find it hard to judge.
A side note about the language used:
What’s with the word “allegedly” here? “Allegedly assaulting” someone isn’t a crime, and you can’t be charged with it. All it means is that someone alleges that you committed an assault. He was charged with actually assaulting the woman, wasn’t he. Or am I off the mark? I see this phrasing all the time.
And of course they had to call it an “anti-transgender” rally. It’s so tabloid, and damaging to the truth.
It’s not normal for name suppression to be granted for minor assault cases. As I said there is a perception that I share that suppression is granted to often and too easily. The real test in this case will be whether it remains permanent. As for the allegedly, the Police charge with assault. The media should report it as he allegedly assaulted the woman. In the sloppy way people phrase things these days the reporter has mixed the two together.
It advances the narrative, though. Trans ‘folx’ have something to fear from TERFs. LITERAL VIOLENCE! They have to suppress his name so some 80-year-old woman doesn’t come looking him up and punching him out. Or murdering him. Or even worse, misgendering him.
Unless there is an overarching reason to promote community safety, I don’t mind name suppression for all accused people. Innocent until proven guilty.
OTOH, once a conviction is entered, there should be NO name suppression.