FYI, my email to National Radio today:
The feminist lynch mob wants Mr Rickard convicted on the basis of inadequate evidence. They appear to want any man accused by any woman to be considered guilty regardless of due process. When a man is acquitted in a fair trial by a jury that closely inspects the case against him, the armchair zealots steadfastly ensure he is still punished in every way possible as if guilty, and they demand changes to fundamental legal principles but of course only for male crimes. We even hear shrill cries insisting he is punished for exercising his right to free speech; in effect calling to remove that right also. Feminist ideology has so captured our society that even media and spokespersons who should know better have jumped on the bandwagon that treats men much as black slaves in America not so many years ago, when all that was required to prove guilt was an accusation from a white landowner. Such vengeful abandonment of fairness for accused men is the result of a feminist ideology largely based on erroneous assumptions. When the fundamentals are wrong no good outcome is likely.
Onward – Jim
I am horrified by the feminist backlash against Rickard’s aquital.
A-The rules of evidence that exist in the Family Court (LOL) extend to the District and High courts.
B-All Judge’s must attend 1 years training at a Women’s Refuge.
C-A panel fully examines the evidence and decides what is admisable.
D-The same panel fully examines the verdict of a judge or jury, and decides;
-if the verdict was just,
-what names are to be released,
-which party the media should bag, and -whether or not current legislation should be changed to prevent a similar verdict.
E-The Panel consists of 6 people,
-a retired Family Court judge,
-two MPs (1 Labor and 1 Green),
-a lawyer (female) and
-two notorary public (1 homosexual and CEO of Women’s refuge).
Would the Feminists be happy now?
What percentage of NZ men would end up in prison or destroyed?
How many children will never know what is was like to have a father in their lives?
What percentage of men would remain in NZ after the Great Bradford Migration?
It’s disappointing International Women’s day will be marked in two of
our major centres by holding a protest march in support of two women
whose charges of rape have not been upheld by the court.
No one is denying the justice system is harsh and adversarial, but
investigations the police hold into this type of allegation are often
prejudicial and treat the accused as guilty until proven innocent.
While tremendous sympathy must be shown to those that have been
raped, it is equally appalling that there are women who make false
accusations of rape which cause tremendous psychological, financial,
and emotional harm to the wives and children of the accused.
Undeniably the behaviour of the police involved in these cases was
immoral, but they were found not guilty of rape by two juries, and
one of the complainants had admitted to previously making false
claims of rape, therefore it’s wrong to label the men rapists in this
instance, or indeed to label the complainants liars even though one
had previously made a false accusation.
There are much better things women could be advocating on this
important day such as the need to respect ourselves, teach our
children decent morals and values and to not over indulge in alcohol
or drugs that can lead to sexually risky behaviour that they may
regret in twenty years time.
Well done Hans, that last line “When the fundamentals are wrong no good outcome is likely,” sums the sorrowful and unbalanced situation of New Zealand society.
So you think if your 16 year old daughter was having group sex with three adult police officers, she would have known what she was consenting to/been in a position to consent?
Three men and a teenage girl isn’t group sex – its three men treating a young girl like a sex toy. I would expect cops to act like *adults* and protect our young people – not bloody abuse them for their own ends. How the hell can any teenager (male or female) in a small town be considered able to reject or consent to sexual advances by three cops who come to their house in their uniforms.
This is not a churchy moralistic take on group sex but a practical one – you have to make sure all the participants know what’s what. And teenagers have a very different idea of sex from adults.
Sure, the jury could not reasonably convict Rickards et al with rape on the evidence presented. But he’s sure as fuck guilty of acting unethically as a cop and should not be reinstated.
You guys are so busy trying to see prejudice where there isn’t any – imagine if it was your daughter (or son).
Firstly, my understanding is that the “men” were in their early 20s (21-22) and the “teenage girl” was 18.
Secondly, the “teenage girl” was known to be a “party girl” of sorts.
I’m not suggesting for one second that what any of them (including the girl) did was morally right, quite the contrary, but your own comments come across as very prejudiced. Just remember that today (thanks to the Labor government) a girl of the same age can legally be a prostitute.
Many of the good folk who comment on this site have experienced extreme bias against them in a court of law, and that is why they post on this site. Many of us wish that our family court cases could be decided by a jury to prevent prejudice and bias, yet you are not happy with the verdict in a court process which is far more just, open and accountable than the court system that has destroyed our families and left us financially ruined.
Please look past your prejudiced view of the world and see it as it is.
a) Your characterization of events is misleading and this is typical of the feminist machine. There was no 16-year-old and the men were in fact only a few years older than the young woman who appeared to participate freely at the time. The age difference was actually typical for heterosexual relationships. Retrospectively, after talking with a “counsellor”, she decided that she had not consented.
b) Personally I don’t like what I make of the men’s behaviour but if they didn’t break the law then they should not be treated as if they did. If our society doesn’t accept that 18-year-old women can realistically give consent to sex with persuasive males, then we should change the age of consent to 19. However, many 16-year-olds would object strongly, seeing themselves as quite capable of making such choices.
c) There was no suggestion in the recent cases that the police were abusing any position of power because they knew the complainants as acquaintances rather than in any official capacity. If we believe that police officers should not be allowed to have sex with anyone in the community in which they hold a position of “power”, then we should make that a law. It might make recruitment and retention difficult though.
d) If an 18-year-old woman, for whatever reason, goes along with legally acceptable sexual advances rather than declining them then surely that’s her responsibility. Contrary to your misleading claim, most 18-year-olds and indeed most 16-year-olds are fully aware of sexual behaviour and are quite capable of saying they don’t want to participate in any male’s proposed activities. It seems that when it helps in male-bashing, older teenagers who are at or beyond the age of consent will be referred to as “young girls” and otherwise characterized as helpless children, but of course if a male were to refer to them as “girls” in other circumstances he would be criticized for stereotyping and patronizing young women as juveniles.
e) Your response did not relate to the points I made in my posting. We have a system in place to consider the likely veracity of criminal allegations but feminists don’t wish to play by the rules when those rules don’t bash males enough. They prefer witch-hunting techniques to reason and fairness in their zeal to demonize, oppress and imprison men.
The complainant in this latest case said she was 16 years old when kidnapped and raped. However, the events as alleged were not proven to have happened and there was no evidence that Rickards had ever met the complainant or was in the place these events were alleged to have happened.
The only group sex for which there was credible evidence was with Louise Nicholas who I understand was 18 at the time.
You seem to have the gall to put your feminist 2 cents in for any of these publicly at large issues that arise, but you do not seem to have the spine to respond to any debate on your posts.
Consider this :
What if (in the universe of feminism) Clint Rickards is actually innocent ?
Damn, he has been JUDGED INNOCENT BY YOUR PEERS IN THE COURT OF LAW.
Or is it that the media have you feminists so hyped up, that you just have to have someone to burn at the stake on a vengeful accusation ?
Sorry – been working and away from computer Moose.
He admitted to having group sex with Louise Nicholas, who was 18, when he was in his 20s and the others were in their 30s. They turned up in their uniforms. I think it is an abuse of power. If you read my post, I accept that the jury’s verdict based on the evidence. I don’t accept that we want someone like Rickards on the force, let alone a top cop. Because he can’t even recognise abuse of power – instead he is going around calling Nicholas a malicious liar. I would be a lot more sympathetic if he was ‘i really don’t think it was rape but looking back – I see that it was unethical as a cop’. But he doesn’t – because he arrogantly thinks he did nothing wrong. What’s worse – he feels entitled to declare that his mates who have been convicted by their peers are innocent, suggesting he thinks all rape cases are a sham. So I have to trust the jury but he doesn’t? Case closed in my book – not fit to be a cop.
Re: changing age of consent.
I wouldn’t support that in that I think the age of consent is set at a level that we expect teenagers are likely to be having set. Unfortunately the law is an inadequate tool at times in terms of how it reflects a society’s morality. We expect teenagers to have sex with each other (16 or 18 by the way I think are largely interchangeable in terms of maturity) butnot for adults to have with teenagers. I knew several 16yrs olds as a teen having sexual relationships with 20 or 40 year old men and they invariably were not mature enough to cope with it – but obviously the adults thought they had it made. Having said that, if it was one cop who’d had an inappropriate relationship with Nicholas I wouldn’t look at it in the same way – more chance of an equal footing there. But … there wasn’t. It was three men which is a totally unequal situation at all times – let alone for a teenage girl.
I find it pretty reprehensible that Union of Fathers picketed the rally in Akl saying women who lie should get 10 years jail. I understand that in the family court there is not the same standard of evidence and that’s what some men’s rights activists are fighting against. But is that the right forum to get public support? – at a rally for a criminal case that the majority of NZers think was severely flawed. How would you go about proving if a woman lied? Have you seen the stats for women who do actually lie (I’ve seen reports of around 1-4%).? You minimise the issues for your own gain.
Well here’s a thought for all the fathers of teenage girls in the Fathers Union who tried to talk over top of the rally. Last year a 30 year old man was found guilty of raping a 14 year old girl in Timaru and sentenced to a palty 18mths. Meanwhile, the judge tells the girl that ‘she is partly the author of her own misfortune’ because she was drinking and drank more alcohol with this guy. The offender is the adult – we should expect him to shoulder the responsibility for what happened because at the very least she is underage. In the same week another case of an adult man who was raped by a bartender who gave him free drinks until he passed out was commiserated with by the judge andhis attacker (rightfully) got 8 years. There is something very wrong with our way of dealing with rape cases. Some are systemic (allowing Nicholas’s sexual history to be brought up but not Schollums and Shiptons) and some seem to be gender bias.
I’m not convinced about arguments for lowering the standard of evidence (for the reasons discussed around here – we need to balance right of accused with right of victim) but I”m very very convinced that there is something very very wrong with how we deal with rape cases.
So Hans’ post irked because it attributed the issue over the rape case to ‘feminazis’ which I think is a blinkered position. We need to protect young people from not only predatory adults but a pretty useless legal system.
I know the young victim of the Timaru rape and it was a pc feminazi influenced judge that handed out the pathetic sentence. Run with fact lady not your feminazi lies from Supreme leader Klark !!!
dad4justice – how am I running with lies? I didn’t say whether the judge was feminist or anti-feminist. You don’t dispute what I said about that case so what’s your point?
Whether the judge in this case is feminist, neutral or an anti-feminist is besides the point. The judge showed a shocking lack of judgement – suggesting that a girl who is under the age of consent should be held responsible for an adult’s actions. I think the reason why is because many people still hold to old steretypes about girls ‘asking for it’.
What do you expect when judges can access Internet porn on court computers and still remain behind the bench (Justice Fisher)?
I was accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour 6 years ago and the dirty low life court will not allow me to vindicate myself and my life is now stuffed. It is little wonder I write such vitriolic words, as I got two beautiful estranged teenage daughters and I fear public or police will rape them, as this country is so corrupt under the most conniving and deceitful Prime Minister we have ever had.
God save New Zealand please.
None of us were there to know what went on between Rickards and Nicholas when they were both kids. Even they weren’t, being now middle-aged and saddled with responsibilities and a fairly savage need for respectability.
The culture of the time has gone.
And whatever they got up to, it’s not on trial.
Toni, you stated:
“There is something very wrong with our way of dealing with rape cases. Some are systemic (allowing Nicholas’s sexual history to be brought up but not Schollums and Shiptons)…”
One of the changes brought about several decades ago to make it easier to convict men on sexual offence charges was that evidence cannot be introduced about a complainant’s sexual behaviour history, and the complainant cannot be cross-examined on this. However, such evidence can be presented concerning the defendant’s sexual behaviour history, except that previous convictions and conviction-related events cannot be disclosed to the jury. It is still permissible however to introduce evidence about the complainant’s general history, character and credibility. There is no way that details of Nicholas’ sexual history were canvassed in Court, but aspects of her character and general behaviour will have been. The feminist lynch mob of course would like that all changed so that nothing is presented that could ever call into question the trustworthiness of women complainants.
Withholding from a jury a defendant’s previous convictions has been a fundamental protection in our justice system, because such information would influence a jury far too much. In effect, it would mean that anyone convicted of an offence would be almost certain to be found guilty any time in the future that anyone accused them of a similar offence. But whether someone was convicted of a previous offence adds very little to a jury’s ability to decide whether the currently alleged events have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have occurred.
Your claim that “… and some (rape cases) seem to be gender bias.” is easy to make but where are your examples and where is your evidence? The only gender bias I have seen in rape cases in the modern era is that against male defendants and in favour of women complainants, the sexual history ban being one of many examples. Others are the complainant’s right to be shielded from the defendant through a video link and the fact that complainants even when proven to have lied in Court evidence are seldom if ever held accountable for that.
Incidently, I think the word is “biased”.
did you read my post Hans? DOn’t you think that a judge suggesting that a 14 year old girl ‘asked for it’ by drinking with a man and being flirtatious exhibits the sexist old chestnut that women are responsible for when sex happens, not men. As I said in my earlier post, a similar case involving a male victim didn’t blame the victim in the same way.
Let alone that the last police trial excluded the testimony of the complainant’s friend that the complainant told her about the rape a week after it happened on the ground that it was improbable that the complainant wouldn’t tell anyone until a week after. This is indicative of a belief that if women are raped, there is a ‘right’ way for them to act. This came into the Nicholas case too, which is why I mentioned it. Note the suggestion that keeping the dress she wore when she was raped was a suggestion it wasn’t raped. These beliefs aren’t logical – they’re based on the idea that you can tell if someone has been raped on how they behave afterwards – rather than on the evidence surrounding the event itself.
And women tend to be censured more than men in regards to how they act.
Incidentally, the defence in the case involving Nicholas also insinuated she was ‘promiscous’ like that has anything to do with whether its rape. By the way – there are already laws that enable people who lie to the police to be prosecuted si I think it’s you who’s twisting the facts to deny the obvious.
Toni, thanks for your comments. Although I don’t agree with much of what you say I think this is an important area for debate. That we are doing so rationally and in good faith is to all our credit. I did read your posts of course because I quoted from them and responded specifically. However, I offer some further comment below. I realize this is a long post but there’s a lot to consider and hopefully it will contribute usefully to the process of considering this complex matter.
First though, it’s worth recognizing and understanding the depth of passion among people on both sides of this debate. I guess women fear the downtrodden status that their forebears suffered, when (for example) violation of their bodies was in many circumstances minimized, overlooked, condoned or blamed on them. Any indication that such gender- exploitative conditions might still exist and anything seen as a sign or threat that they might be reinstated understandably brings about angry, defensive reactions in many women. On the other hand, many men feel highly threatened by an erosion of fairness and justice that sees their sexuality sullied and their social contribution demonized, that sees them at increasing risk of being wrongly convicted of sex and other crimes, given life-ruining terms of imprisonment and being turned into life-long social rejects. Therefore many men become angry and defensive when they see evidence or threats of further derogatory stereotyping and/or erosion of their civil rights. With high levels of fear it is difficult for people to maintain rational thinking. When our toes are over the edge of a cliff our emotions usually override our rational brain.
Now to your posts:
First, I disagree that Rickards’ actions with respect to Nicholas involved “power imbalance” dynamics any more than other relationships do. Research has long shown that most women seek male partners of higher wealth and social status to themselves. I probably wouldn’t like Rickards and his mates as people and I don’t like what I make of their way of getting young women to have sex with them. But we don’t know why Nicholas went along with the sexual activity and why (by her own admission) she made no effort to say “no” clearly or to object to what was happening. Was she overawed by them, was she attracted to their uniforms (as research shows many women are) or to their athletic bodies, or did she seek social approval? Whatever, at 18 surely people need to take responsibility for what they choose to go along with?
Also, I understand (from http://policewatch-nz.blogspot.com/) that Nicholas did not make a formal rape complaint against the trio concerning the mid-1980’s group sex until AFTER they had appeared as defence witnesses in a 1994 trial of another police officer she had accused of raping her. (It remains a reasonable question as to why she would place herself in potentially intimate situations with yet another police officer if she genuinely had felt raped by three officers previously?) In that trial the trio disclosed the group sex she had participated in and thereby damaged the credibility of aspects of her testimony. That defendant was acquitted after three trials. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that Nicholas’ subsequent rape allegations against Rickards and co were made in retribution for their successful support of their colleague rather than the result of any pre-existing sense by her that she had been raped by them. We know that memory is highly fallible and likely to be affected by subsequent events, and this is one of the problems with accepting complaints years after events were alleged to occur. One might also question why she would embark upon yet another round of Court action after what feminists would describe as three grueling, “re-victimizing” trials in which she was unsuccessful in being believed. I suppose at that stage she had admissions under oath about the group sex and she believed she could use that evidence against the men. During those trials she may well have sought to defend her own credibility to her prosecution team by claiming the group sex had been coercive, then found it difficult to recant her position. She may also have been pressured by prosecutors who were keen to make her put her money where her mouth was, or perhaps keen to show they were jumping to feminist demands concerning their management of rape allegations. Talking of money of course, as complainant the trials would not cost her anything whereas, because it would cost the defendants everything they had in order to dispute the allegations, her retribution would be exacted regardless of the outcome of the trial. And she was becoming a feminist celebrity as well. There is usually more than one side to a story, and there are certainly other sides to this particular story than that chanted by the lynch mob of Nicholas supporters.
Secondly, I don’t think police officers should have less right to free speech than anyone else. Rickards expressed strong criticisms of the investigation/prosecution team after he had just been acquitted of their charges in a quick and unanimous decision by a jury. This was the same team that had prosecuted his convicted colleagues and he gave his personal opinion that they were wrongfully convicted, clearly basing this on his personal knowledge of them as friends. His views about the prosecutions were understandable and as a senior police officer he was better qualified than most to make such assessments. He made no libelous allegations. If others have the right to chant “We believe Louise Nicholas” and “Their previous convictions should have been disclosed to the jury” despite being highly ill-informed about both the case and about fundamental legal principles, then surely Rickards has the right to hold and to express his opinion. Conversely, if Rickards is to lose his job for expressing opinions you don’t like, then perhaps the lynch mob members should all be sacked from their jobs for expressing opinions I don’t like.
Thirdly, as I said before if we don’t want “adults” to have sex with teenagers then that should be made law through proper democratic process. When men keep to the laws of the country they should not then be denigrated under some further, ambiguous set of feminist expectations retrospectively applied. I agree that protectiveness above all towards younger members of society is a desirable social good (though we don’t seem to expect older people in pursuit of profit, e.g. retailers, car salespeople or educational providers, to give much thought to protecting younger, less experienced adults from themselves when it comes to a sale). But if we are not to be guided by what the law says, then what is the cut
off limit or age gap for sex to be o.k.? (And, if “power dynamics” analysis is to be applied, shouldn’t there also be clear rules prohibiting sex for certain income gaps, social status differences, height difference, inequality in physical strength?) What about the young woman who wants to marry the old rich guy? What about the many teenagers who are fully sexually active, dress up to look much older and will readily claim to be a higher age. How complicated, unclear and dangerous shall we make the process for men to determine whether they should take up sexual invitations? Do you care about fairness to men?
Fourth, I agree that where there is evidence that complainants either male or female have told lies, they should be prosecuted and severely punished if convicted. I would suggest that they be subject to the same penalty that their accused would have faced if convicted. I have known of cases where complainants’ claims were clearly shown to be lies by solid evidence, e.g. that they were somewhere else from where they claimed to be. Such lies can be investigated and proved in much the same way as in any other offence.
Fifth, your statistics about how many women “actually lie” are probably based on recanted allegations. That is not a good measure. I would claim that the statistics are much closer to the rate at which acquittals are given. Actually, we don’t have much idea because we don’t seem to care about false allegations. There are laws against perjury but as I stated before they never seem to be used against female complainants even though evidence often comes up in trials that some of their claims cannot be true, are mutually exclusive with their previous statements and so forth. It seems that in our society men’s welfare isn’t important so what does it matter that they are falsely accused, wrongly convicted and punished?
Sixth, your one case history of a 14-year-old and comparison with some other case does not show a general problem with discrimination against women. Sentences will vary enormously depending on particular circumstances and ameliorating factors, and that’s only right and just. However, research into sentencing has shown that on average men receive significantly harsher sentences than women for similar offences, men are seen to be the most culpable when couples commit offences together, women are much more likely to be referred for psychiatric assessment and excused on mental health grounds for their offending. For that matter, women are much less likely to be prosecuted in the first place. For example, if a man is assaulted by his wife and he calls the police, he is the one likely to be charged or at least made to leave the home so things “cool down”. The likelihood of the violent female being prosecuted is almost zero. If you have read other posts on this site you would know this. The claim that the justice system generally discriminates against women is quite unfounded, propaganda invented by feminism keen to maintain the myth of female disadvantage.
Finally, you claim there is something very wrong with how we deal with rape cases. I agree, but in my opinion the wrong is done to male defendants. Even if acquitted they face financial ruin, the dirt sticks to them forever as you and others are ensuring it will with respect to Rickards, they are subject to repeated trials with hung juries which surely must have been a sign of reasonable doubt. The crown has unlimited resources to dig up whatever might be used as evidence against the accused and to assemble a case but the accused is limited to his savings and/or limited legal aid if granted. Prosecutions are allowed to proceed on the basis of complaints made years or decades after the alleged events although memory research shows us that memories are highly malleable and unreliable. Prosecutions and convictions are allowed on the basis of absolutely nothing but one person’s allegations. Prosecutions are often delayed for months or years, resulting in long periods of stress for the accused existing in constant fear of losing everything and gaining a long future in prison. The accused stands alone and frightened in the dock throughout a long trial but the complainant does not. These, among others, are wrongs. I’m sure it’s not pleasant for a true victim of rape to go through the process. Changes in Court procedures have been made through the years to make the process less stressful for complainants but no similar attention has been given to the experience of the accused.
It is a sad fact that sexual offences tend to be difficult to prove because (among other things) there are rarely any witnesses and complaints are often not made in time for any genetic or medical evidence to be obtained; this probably results in some wrongful acquittals. (Incidentally, I don’t think it’s reasonable for adults to expect to hold an offender accountable without calling the police promptly, holding off from showers in the meantime, etc; there’s plenty of expensive public education that has gone into such matters and I’m sure girls at College are given the drill as well; you wouldn’t expect the police to take you seriously if you called them years after a burglary and at that point claim you saw who the offender was as (s)he drove away with your property.) But the fact is that evidential rules and Court procedures have changed in response to feminist complaints that not enough accused were being convicted. Each of those changes increased the likelihood of convicting, but this increase has applied equally to truly guilty and truly innocent men because those changes do not provide any better ability to judge between them. The result is: more guilty men rightfully convicted and more innocent men wrongfully convicted, in equal proportion. (Contrast this with the advent of DNA evidence that improves our ability – always imperfect – to discriminate between the truly guilty and the truly innocent.)
Some other offences are also difficult to prove, for example, arson because evidence is often destroyed in the fire. But does this mean we should change the rules to make it easier to obtain convictions on the same evidence? In that case, you had better hope that your neighbour’s house doesn’t burn down!
It is frustrating for most of us that rape cases can be difficult to prove. But to me that doesn’t justify wrecking the lives of more innocent men. To feminists, those men are simply sacrifices to ensure more truly guilty parties are convicted; injustice towards innocent men doesn’t seem to matter.