Last updated 2018 10 06
In the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher, “Provincial court Judge Judith Shriar and Crown prosecutor Deven Singhal both said the woman should be treated in the same manner as a man who assaulted his wife.”
That is commendable. So, how come she wasn’t treated like a man who committed a crime of equal severity? How come the Edmonton Journal severely distorted the truth about the nature and the circumstances of the injuries inflicted by the attacker?
April 4, 2008, B16
Wife sentenced for slicing man’s penis, butt
Convinced he was having an affair, Calgary woman attacked husband during sex
In the midst of lovemaking, Abigail London-Fife pulled out a knife she had hidden under the bed and slashed her husband’s penis and buttocks.
The woman suspected her husband of cheating, court heard Thursday, when she was handed a 12-month conditional jail sentence, with house arrest for the first six months.
Provincial court Judge Judith Shriar and Crown prosecutor Deven Singhal both said the woman should be treated in the same manner as a man who assaulted his wife.
“Regardless of what’s going on in the home and background, you do not take two knives to the bedroom and stab your husband in the penis and buttocks,” Shriar said.
London-Fife, 35, pleaded guilty Jan. 16 to assault causing bodily harm to Leonard Fife for the Aug. 24 assault. She has had no contact with him since.
Singhal earlier told court London-Fife was angry over phone calls she intercepted that led her to believe her husband was having an affair.
She planned the attack by bringing the weapons to bed, and carried it out at the most opportune time, the prosecutor said. “He was in a vulnerable position and she took advantage of it.”
The judge ordered her to take psychological counselling, and to continue domestic violence and anger-management courses.
She is also prohibited from owning or possessing any weapons for a year.
Notes by Fathers for Life
The Edmonton journal took considerable liberties with what it purports is an article published in the Calgary Herald. For example, the following information was deleted from the edited text of the article:
Singhal noted the victim sustained a 2.5-centimetre laceration to the shaft of his penis, a 15-centimetre laceration to his left buttock, a puncture wound inside his right thigh, a laceration to his scrotum, a 10-centimetre laceration to the back of his shoulder and 7.5-centimetre lacerations to both hands.
However serious the redactions by the Edmonton Journal are, the case of Abigail-the-penis-slasher deserves more attention than even the Calgary Herald gave it.
What would happen if a man would attack his wife in a similar manner? Right, the man would get locked up, and the key would be thrown away. However, the “punishment” handed down to Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher proves that women can with impunity commit crimes of domestic violence. We can rest assured that if a man had committed a crime of comparable and equal severity, not only would he have served a long term of incarceration, the story would quite likely have made the front page.
For some crimes of equal severity committed by men or by women there are even laws, unlike in this case, that provide preferential treatment for women, such as the category of murder involving children of age 12 months or under. It is called murder when a father kills his child, and it is called infanticide when a mother murders her child that truly or allegedly is an infant – supposedly less human than a child.
In fact, the category of crime “infanticide” has been applied in cases of the murders by mothers of their children when the victims were far older, as old as six years. When murdering a child, a woman almost always gets off free, with at most a conditional sentence (serving no time in prison, such as in the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher), while a man gets locked up for a lengthy time, which he should be, just as a woman should be. After all, according to our most fundamental laws, men and women are equal in all regards.
However, there is always an excuse when a woman commits a crime. There is always someone – virtually always a man – or something (if everything else fails, even her inner demons or the devil will do) that compelled a woman to be a criminal or to have been violent, whereby she is then deemed to be suffering and not deserving of any punishment.
The excuse used – entirely illegally, nevertheless, by a judge in a court of law – in the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher is that she is a woman and therefore dumb and ignorant of the law.
Isn’t it odd that the feminists refuse to raise a stink about that sort of demeaning and most vile discrimination against women?
In reality, of course, feminists welcome such discrimination. Such discrimination perpetuates the lie that women cannot be violent, and when evidence to the contrary presents itself, as it invariably will and shows women to be as often and as seriously violent as men are, the violence must be excused and thereby condoned.
The worst consequence of that will of course be that the victimization by women of all those who are less powerful or lower in social status (that is primarily children, men and the elderly) intensifies. A “sentence” such as that with which Judge Judith Shriar rewarded Abigail London-Fife for slashing her husband’s penis and body is an incitement, not a deterrent, for all women to freely exercise their potential for violence against others.
The most remarkable aspect of the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher is what neither the original nor the edited version of the story mentions, the total absence of any injuries to the penis-slasher. That says a lot about men’s potential for violence against women. Virtually all men will protect and avoid hurting women, even when under a potentially deadly attack by a violent woman.
- Capital offences proliferate under political correctness
- The Future is Female
- Instant and excessive punishment
- Feminist myth of female innocence debunked
- Catherine Kieu sentenced to life — eligible for parole in seven years
- The myth of female innocence – correctional services
- Canadian shelters for battered men — a long history of failures
- Infanticide — a euphemism for child murder