Not long ago one could regularly hear on national radio an advertising slogan, used to promote an organisation dedicated to helping female victims of domestic violence, which went: "Remember, it's a crime to beat a woman". From time to time someone would ask naive questions, like "Does that mean it is not a crime to beat other kinds of people?"
Following a minor public outcry (a Liveline discussion, to be precise), the slogan was tweaked a little to take it out of the realm of objective ludicrousness. Questions now arise, however, as to whether this may not have been a mistake, since it appears that the official policy of the Government can be reduced to something along the same lines.
Last week the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, announced with a solemnity of which few are capable that he was extending the categories of offenders who shall not qualify for bail or temporary release from prison. At present only armed robbers, drug importers and sex offenders are denied bail or temporary release. Henceforth, the Minister announced, such benefits will be denied also to those convicted of (1) violence against women (2) violence against children (3) attacks on the elderly and "other vulnerable members of the community", and (4) "joyriding" or persistent car-thieving.
If he was the type of person disposed to saving his wind, the Minister might just as easily have said that, henceforth, bail and temporary release will be extended only to persons convicted of violent offences against males between the ages of 16 and 65. Unless I am missing something, this is the only category of person omitted from his list. There is a message here for potential criminals: if you are going to beat someone up, make sure your victim is an adult male. If you take this elementary precaution, be assured that this State will look kindly on any requests for bail or temporary release, so that, presumably, you may be free to go back and finish off your man. Beware, however, that, having beaten your victim to a pulp, you do not afterwards make off in his motor vehicle, for then this State would have no option but to ensure you face the full rigour of the law.
Let me put it another way: it is clear that the top four priorities of the Irish justice system are now, in descending order: women, children, the elderly and motor vehicles. I would say that after this come adult males under 65, except that there is no indication that the Minister for Justice has given any thought whatsoever to this category.
Perhaps, if asked to extend the litany of his priorities, Mr O'Donoghue would go on to list race horses, bicycles, ornamental shrubs, Charolais heifers without permanent teeth, golf balls, magpies and, then, at last, adult males; or perhaps he would not mention adult males until after hotel towels and company stationery. Since the Minister made no reference at all to how the system he presides over proposes to extend protection to this section of humanity, we just don't know.
I do not suggest that there is anything legally amiss with the Minister's logic: in fact, whereas Article 40.1 of the Constitution asserts that "all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law", I have no doubt that Mr O'Donoghue's legal advice has laid emphasis on the qualifier which follows: "This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function".
And so, fellow adult males, be notified that it is the policy of this State that, if someone comes at you with a chainsaw, the fact that you are theoretically bigger and stronger than certain others of the human species shall mean that you are expected to be a match for this attacker, and should not expect the justice system to waste its energies in vindicating your so-called rights. If your assailant is female, however, be warned to avoid doing her any undue violence in the course of this attempt to defend yourself, for this would result in forfeiture of any right to bail or early release.
Neither do I suggest that the Minister's statement lacks logic. In a society dominated by the strident demands of man-haters, it is very logical for politicians, male or female, to make statements like this and create policy in harmony with them.
What can be said, however, is that the logic of the Minister's position is contradicted by what we know of the facts. A man from Mars might conclude, listening to Mr O'Donoghue's statement, that most crimes of violence are committed against women, children and the elderly, and might accordingly compliment the Minister on the appropriateness of his response.
The trouble is that, in every category of violent crime, with the exception of rape, the more violent the crime the more likely the victim is to be male.
Neither the Garda Siochana nor, oddly enough, Mr O'Donoghue's Department is able to provide detailed breakdowns either of perpetrator or victim gender, but there are some telling indicators in the figures which are available. For example, in 1997, the latest year for which figures have been published, there were twice as many murders of males as of females, and four times as many manslaughters. In other words, seven out of every 10 homicide victims were male. I should note that a significant number of perpetrators of violent crimes do not end up in our prison system at all, because they are female, and so require neither bail nor early release.
Why, when these facts are readily available to him, does an adult male Minister for Justice suggest that the situation is otherwise? The answer: Mr O'Donoghue was merely giving voice to the official policy of this State: that adult males do not deserve protection as do other categories of human being, and had better be prepared to look out for themselves. If they succeed in beating each other into oblivion, then so much, it seems, the better.
This form of public thought is the result of nearly 30 years of relentless campaigning by the misandrist forces which now dominate our public discourse, having developed a multi-million-pound industry out of the demonisation of the adult male. It is an awesome achievement, for which those campaigners deserve full credit, and is all the more spectacular when one considers that this consciousness has been created to exist simultaneously with the widespread belief that men are the dominant gender.
The supreme irony is that if a female minister, known as a radical feminist, had made such a statement, it might well be met with public scepticism and even some anger. No greater tribute can be paid to the achievements of "feminazism" than that a man as unreconstructed as Mr John O'Donoghue is able to stand up in public, make such a statement and cause nobody to blink an eye.