Some women quiz use of sprays

Press, 17 June 1988, Page 4

Some women quiz use of sprays

By

DEBORAH MCPHERSON

Some Christchurch women’s groups have disputed suggestions that anti-mugging tear-gas sprays would be a defence against a determined attack.

A self-defence instructor, Ms Lynne Gifford, said she was against people using any weapon unless they knew how to use it effectively because a weapon could be turned against a victim in an attack.

Women were among the most likely victims of violence, but most grew up learning -to be nice and not to fight. Because of that conditioning they were often unprepared to hurt others, even when attacked.

Aerosol sprays, particularly those with dangerous

chemicals, could easily be misdirected. “Anyone who wants to use a weapon in selfdefence must be willing to use it, and for many people fear reduces their effectiveness.” '• Ms Gifford said she would prefer women learnt how to use more positive action against attacks by defending themselves with familiar objects such as key rings as well as defence techniques. A spokeswoman for the National Organisation for Women, Mrs Betty Roberts, said N.O.W. had been concerned to hear the Minister of Customs, Mr de Cleene, supporting the use of the tear-gas, Mace, as protection. Mace had been used to quell student riots in the United States, with severe

side-effects for some, said Mrs Roberts. The organisation was more supportive of a spray it had heard being promoted by self-defence groups in Auckland. That was allegedly harmless. It caused the eyes to blurr temporarily, but left no permanent damage. An Auckland specialist in self-defence for women and girls, Ms Sue Lytollis, said she supported the use of a “passive” protective spray. “I would rather have sore eyes than a knife in my stomach,” she said. Many women she knew slept with a “knife under the pillow” because they were so afraid of being attacked, but not many would be prepared to use it.