Non-molestation orders are to be extended in England and Wales. They will now apply on a mere balance of probabilities and may be imposed notwithstanding a defendantâs acquitted of any criminal offence relating to domestic violence or harassment. One cannot help but wonder whether in this area, men and women are equal before the law and whether in our desire to protect the weak, certain groups enjoy automatic âvictim statusâ in which men are viewed as little more than violent predatory animals less deserving of the lawâs protection? Have we arrived at the point where in order to secure exclusive residence of property and dispose of an unwanted partner, a woman may simply allege, or, in the face of inconvenient passivity, provoke inculpatory behaviour on the part of the man secure in the knowledge that on a mere balance of probabilities, she is more likely to be believed than he? Is it not actually the case that women have forfeited any right whatsoever to be treated with due deference as this case would seem to indicate? Do laws such as these actually encourage women to be more violent? Is it any longer morally or socially acceptable for a man who is the victim of a violent assault by an enraged female to accept a beating with bovine passivity because that is how a 19th Century code of chivalry has conditioned him to react? Or has the time now come for a woman who fights like a man to expect a broken jaw or a disjointed nose as the common currency of exchange in a violent encounter? It would be interesting to hear what others think!