Abstract

The argument that the provocation defence is adeeply sexed excuse for murder and should beabolished is often dismissed as polemical. Thisarticle challenges this subordinating strategyfavoured by the law of provocation's apologistsand continues to make the case againstprovocation. Drawing on a range of theoreticalapproaches to questions related to polemic,anger, and ethics, it strives to valorisefeminist and queer anger about provocation'svictim-blaming narratives, while remainingcognisant of poststructuralistproblematisations of both law and law reform