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.

This article explores the prospects and pitfalls faced by a feminist legal scholar wanting to set up a ‘sexual infidelity’ homicide public engagement project. Following Carol Smart’s suggestion that law is an important site of engagement, counter-discourse and critical feminist interventions, it argues that provocation by infidelity femicide cases are ideal sites for continuing the project of encouraging discursive struggle. The cases cry out for conversion into a critical, pedagogical means of mobilising consciousness about emotional excuses for violence against women.