Yesterday we celebrated Women's Day, a useless pandering to the gods of commerce that's only rivalled by Valentine's Day.

Yesterday, in Malta, we also celebrated the fact that a man can pretty much do whatever he feels like to a woman that is considered "his property" and get away with it.

Because yes, we may roll our eyes and make tut-tutting noises at "those Muslims and the way they treat women", but man oh man does Maltese law give them a run for their supposed money.

Yesterday, a man was found guilty of attempting to murder his wife - read the judgment here: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160308/local/jurors-start-their-deliberations.605007 .

And, yet, he got away with a piddling seven-year jail sentence.

The reason? Jurors found that he acted "under the transport of sudden passion".

In other words, his wife provoked him enough to make him lose all reason. And in other words still, trying to shoot her was not quite as reprehensible an act as, say, cultivating cannabis, for which got Daniel Holmes a ten-year-sentence.

Of course, the words I use are not quite what the court said upon delivery of sentence. On the contrary, the judge made it a point to state that the court can't be seen to be giving the message that "that anyone going through marital strife could just grab a weapon and shoot their partner".

In other words, his wife provoked him enough to make him lose all reason. And in other words still, trying to shoot her was not quite as reprehensible an act as, say, cultivating cannabis, for which got Daniel Holmes a ten-year-sentence.

And yet, unfortunately, this is exactly the message being given. It is true that our law limits jail time to a mere nine years even for the worst cases of grievous bodily harm.

However, there were two aggravating circumstances that allowed the courts to hand down a longer sentence: the violence was committed against a spouse and it was committed by a public officer.

How reasonable is it in a supposedly civilized age to make allowances for those who commit a crime under this fabled "transport of sudden passion"? Its existence makes a mockery of the justice system.

After all, what exactly is the meaning of "sudden passion"? Isn't it nothing but a fancy way to say that someone was angry and lost all semblance of control? Isn't it simply a discreet way of justifying the behavior of someone who clearly needed anger management lessons?

Modern day society expects a certain degree of control from its members. No matter how justified our extreme anger, we are taught that retaliating in a physical manner is legally and morally wrong. And, in most social situations, this principle is adhered to.

However, judging from the track record of past legal cases, this rule does not apply when some hapless woman is foolish enough to attempt to end a marriage or a relationship. Just take a look at the number of women who, over the years, end up badly injured, or worse, after standing up to some bully who fancies himself 'a man', but whose ego was too fragile to take a dumping.

And the punishment pretty much never fits the crime. Anyone care to remember the various levels of shocked amusement that greeted Magistrate Peralta’s judgment about the man who ran over some hapless sod in Mellieha? That judgment had pretty much justified the crime because said sod had provoked the accused by calling him 'gay', presumably in the Maltese vernacular. Ye gods, but we are hung up about our sexuality on this blessed island.

If you reflect upon the circumstances of both cases for a minute, you can see the similarities - leniency based on provocation. In both cases, said leniency is offensive to the victims.

No, it's not okay to hit a woman because she is leaving you.

It's not okay to beat her, burn her, stab her or shoot her because "she misbehaved".

No, your fragile, injured ego does not justify your violent actions.

Not even if your wife, partner or girlfriend is seeing someone else. Sure, it's painful. You grieve, you mourn, you swear at her and her family from the privacy of your home. You bitch about her with friends.

But you never go at her with a knife or gun and make the law your accomplice.

This man stalked his estranged wife as she went about her business, harassed her at her work place, intimidated her until she was forced to flee and then chased her across Rabat until he caught up with her and shot her.

Interestingly, psychiatrists found the man to be of completely sound mind when he committed the act. It was the jury - which, by the sounds of it should have been coached in the tenets of modern, civilised society before the trial started - that dragged the issue of "sudden passion" into the equation. It's a shame that the court went along with it.

The court might not have wanted to give the message that anyone going through marital strife can shoot their partner. But, sadly, this is exactly what this judgment achieves. And, until our law makers show us otherwise, men of a certain pathetic temperament will continue thinking that it's fine to treat "their women" like chattel.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.