No Trivial Pursuit

Although there will have to be very careful safeguards (in at least one of the more celebrated cases, no evidence of domestic abuse by the deceased against the deceaser was ever produced), there is an argument for reducing murder to manslaughter if the perpetrator really is in grave fear of violence.

But the abolition of the defence of provocation is something else entirely. Or, at least, the terms in which that abolition has been proposed are deeply disturbing. Adultery might not be a good enough reason to kill somebody (Jesus Himself ruled out that one), but politicians, interviewers and commentators have simply assumed, as if it were self-evident, that adultery is in itself a trivial matter. No, it is not. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” comes just after “Thou shalt not kill” and just before “Thou shalt not steal”. Murder and theft are not trivial. Nor is adultery.

As for nagging, it is feminists themselves who have done sterling work in explaining and illustrating that verbal abuse really is abuse, and can be just as serious as physical abuse. Subjecting a man (or woman) to years of nagging is just as bad as subjecting a woman (or man) to years of verbal denigration of other kinds. Or have I missed something?