Is the Oscar Case Really an Abusive Wake-up Call?

Over the past few days I have been inundated with emails, Facebook messages, electronic news and good old fashioned newspaper articles lambasting the judgement by Judge Masipa in the Oscar Pistorius case.  What has intrigued me is that most of these have tended to focus on the apparent abuse of Reeva and the plight of abused women in general. Even the ANC Women's League ranted outside the court and took issue with the learned judge after the judgement was announced. She was after all a woman, and women should stick together, sisters! 

Don't get me wrong here, I absolutely abhor abuse of any sort, particularly that of women and children. However, is this case really the right case to attach such sentiment to, or merely an opportunistic window used to get exposure no matter the association, proof or lack thereof?

I have said before on a few occasions however, that I find it rather cheap journalism to have to turn this into a sexist or racist case.  Moreover, there are many ill-informed South Africans who are rubbishing their country and the legal system due to pure ignorance of the law. 

I most certainly don't agree with their sentiment, because it surely applies equally to women who murder their husbands and their children as much as it applies to men who murder other men, white or black. The point of law is not to be presumptuous or swayed by people with personal gripes or media hype, but to consider all the evidence and facts of the case very carefully. In this case there was never going to be clear cut evidence, as the only other witness is dead. Advocate Gerrie Nel did his best to throw insinuations and possible scenarios at the court, but that’s all it was.  There was no factual evidence to back it up.  There is a chance that Oscar’s explanation is true, although very unlikely, there is still a chance. Hence, where there is 'reasonable doubt' there cannot be a guilty verdict and that goes for presumptuous opinions about their allegedly abusive relationship too.

To give you an example. Years ago, whilst playing mixed doubles tennis with my cousin’s wife as my partner against my then girlfriend and cousin, I hit the ball, which hit the top of the net and shot up into my rather competitive girlfriend’s eye.  She was playing up at the net at time.  Needless to say, she ended up with a beaut black eye for the rest of the holiday.  What was interesting, and rather disturbing however, was the fact that when asked (and very few people did ask her directly, incidentally), she told them that I had given her a smack, thinking it rather amusing.  Needless to say, I am still convinced that those who didn’t get her Aussie sense of humour, may still believe that to be the case to this day.  After all, people love a scandalous story, especially when it’s least expected.  At least I hope it was least expected!

We must remember that many people were hung from the gallows in the past and later found to be innocent, hence the updating of the law to protect those innocent until proven guilty. Reasonable doubt is the saving grace.

There is no doubt that many people would have loved to have seen Oscar found guilty of first degree murder, merely because he came across as a bit of a bastard, not only to Reeva, but to others around him at times.  That does seem to be a little extreme it must be said. But it certainly doesn't make of him a murderer, nor a woman abuser necessarily. Sadly as with most things in life, perception becomes the onlooker's reality and therefore any conviction to the contrary is likely to spark discontent amongst the masses. People love to see justice done, even if it is unjust.

As much as it is always a possibility, I'm not sure about the 'clear' conclusion regarding 'violence against women' in this case however. Take the case of the woman in Jo'burg who arranged to have her husband killed by supposed house robbers when he went to check why the lights had tripped. Or the woman who arranged to have her judge husband murdered in Sea Point recently, etc. Is that something that indicates violence against men? I think not. It's murder, that's for sure.  Similarly I'm not certain that one can conclusively presume abuse against Reeva. Murder possibly, manslaughter, without doubt, as he admitted to that. Oscar may have some serious issues, that's for sure, but judging by the witness reports it appears he has issues from both a men's and women's perspective. 

I understand the plight of abuse against women who are not able to be independent, self-supporting, or have themselves had an abusive upbringing.  But surely Reeva must have been equally stupid to have stayed with Oscar, if what they say is true. After all, she was pretty, smart, financially self-sufficient and apparently very well liked. Why many women do this to themselves and blame men alone I have never been able to understand.  Surely women must learn to take some responsibility themselves for staying with abusive men, whether the abuse is induced physically or emotionally. I am sorry if I don't sound very sympathetic, as I regard myself, perhaps mistakenly, as a fairly considerate and open minded bloke who loves women dearly. However, I find behaviour such as this extremely hard to understand from both sides.  Perhaps society needs to rethink their approach to matters of abuse.  After all it is the mothers and fathers of sons and daughters who are clearly jointly responsible for getting the message through without any ambiguity.  Where that system fails we need it to be part of school curriculum, as sex education is already, and prevent this scourge from passing through to yet another generation.