Unbelievably, some members of the social conservative fringe are trying to preserve the existence of the provocation defence (Section 169 of the Crimes Act). I'm certainly not thinking of the Sensible Sentencing Trust's Garth McVicar, who seems to be onside, given his presence at the Weatherston trial and his strong show of support for Sophie Elliot's grieving parents. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, and whether Mr McVicar finds that there'll be problems withawkward brigade social conservative entryists. Who are the 'awkward brigade?' Round up the usual suspects. As with the anti-belting legislation, most of these individuals are involved with fundamentalist fringe groups past and present, although another is a conservative Catholic fellow traveller, and another is Stephen Franks, former National Party candidate for Wellington Central and ACT Party neoconservative. Another opposing voice is the Law Society, as opposed to the Law Commission, who supports repeal, and has elaborated their opposition to Section 169. I'd like to see them go any further with this. I suspect it'll be difficult. Effectively, they are isolated from the current Key administration, the Law Commission and mainstream public opinion. And let's not use the excuse of protecting one's children from an attacker, please. Most of these individuals have proven antigay track records and it is obvious who their real target is, when they oppose this legislative reform. That's right, us. They're willing to put those who aren't even gay through hell, having to listen to defence counsel attacks on their deceased loved one's personal and sexual history, merely because of their fanatical religious beliefs that we should be punished for being gay, through discriminatory and anachronistic anti-victim provisions within the Crimes Act. That's sick. Craig Young - 24th July 2009