Time to Hit the Streets
This proposed legislation change shows the extent to which the Ministry of Justice, as is the case with most other ministries, is now dominated by the agenda of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. They want a man to be ruled guilty of a rape allegation unless he can prove he sought and obtained consent. They also want to disallow any questioning of complainants about their sexual history with the alleged “attacker”. Further, they want to define consent legally but we don’t know what they mean by that; rest assured, it will be a definition that makes it very difficult to prove consent was obtained.
The changes will see the principles of injustice in the DVA seeping into general criminal law; i.e. when a man is accused he needs to prove his innocence rather than the crown needing to prove his guilt. They will also see another major erosion of well-established protections against false conviction by further limiting the ability of defence counsel to test the allegations. Such erosion has been steadily occurring over the last few decades, specifically for sexual allegations for which men usually stand as the accused.
This proposal comes on top of amendments a while back that enables consent that was given to be seen as not having been given (See “Warning to all men” posted on MENZ 20/09/07).
As Bill Hodge said, the fact that a particular crime is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt does not justify reducing the standard of proof required. That will convict a few more truly guilty parties but it will also increase the rate of wrongful convictions. Arson is also difficult to prove (because the evidence has usually been destroyed), but does that mean that we should make it easier to convict anyone the police decide to charge with arson? Of course not; that would be highly unfair. But apparently fairness doesn’t matter when it comes to men.
Quite possibly, a hidden agenda here is a wish to give mothers an easy way of maintaining primary care of children in an environment where shared care is becoming fashionable (because it is so strongly supported by good outcome research). If the mother can obtain an easy rape conviction, this will rule out all but supervised contact for the father.
It will be very difficult for a man to prove he sought and obtained consent. Even if he has a signed consent form, the woman can argue that her signature was obtained under duress. Legally, such consent can only be defended if both parties have been given independent legal advice about what they are signing and agreeing to.
The proposal shows how much Annette King and her ilk hate men and want to turn men into slaves and lower caste citizens. It is outrageous yet there is every chance it will be brought in. Will this be enough to shock men out of their complacency and on to the streets?
i think we need to hire the nations truckies for a day maybe… (www.hrc.co.nz definition of human rights is a joke because it is a lie)
Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Like cows, maybe there will come a time, we can throw a difficult unworthy female on the BBQ (or a la spit roast), just a thought… it’s in our humanity to put up with these pathetic “it’s not ok” / “woe is me” advertisements on T.V. after all…
So, under a bull en a china shop led government, i would do away with Protection Orders and re-address the title of this particuliar order (to respect political correctness) as a “Woe is Me Order” whereby the applicant must not contact the respondent, (it would also apply vice versa) No requirement to complete an affidavit ladies and gentleman, you can apply for as many as you may like, instant approval, no judge required, wallah…
Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Hi Bull
You’ve got my permission to throw my husband’s ex wife onto a barbecue.
Be careful of the fat that splatters tho.
Comment by rosie — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 9:24 pm
i’m a vegetarian, but thanks for the vote of confidence… i might to be on to something here…
Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 9:35 pm
i don’t understand this “proposed legislation” because if a dog wants a root, it doesn’t have to ask… the bitch just go’s – yeah baby –
however, just film yourself having intercourse with the chick that could potentially have you up for rape, to show that it was consensual anyway, EASY… (great case for judge and jury to rule on)
Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 9:41 pm
I object to the content of reply # 2. I didn’t follow the argument at all, and no way do I support or find funny the notion of men throwing women on to a barbecue or otherwise treating them as animals or lesser humans. This kind of stuff will be used by political opponents of the men’s movement to portray us as violent and unreasonable neanderthals. Please observe some care rather than jeopardize the reputation and political credibility of everyone here.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 22nd August 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Hi guys, i just wanted to say, i like what Rosie had to say but i dont like the way we are judging each other, we all have an opinion and i feel we all have the right to express it no matter what, it shouldnt be us at war it should be as against the government
Comment by Hadi Akbari — Fri 22nd August 2008 @ 3:12 pm
sorry Hans
Comment by bull en a china shop — Fri 22nd August 2008 @ 4:13 pm
The proposal shows how much Annette King and her ilk hate men and want to turn men into slaves and lower caste citizens.
I’m not so sure it shows that they hate us – does a farmer hate his horse because he doesn’t treat it as an equal? But they do want to further reduce our status as slaves and lower caste citizens. The same thing is going on in the US – there it’s called ‘Federal Rule of Evidence 413’.
I don’t know if this will get men onto the streets, but it ought to be clear to any man now that government is not guided by any principle of equality. Either everyone is treated equally under the law, or they are not. There is no middle ground. This proposal aims to deny men the same legal rights accorded to women. The stated reason is to reduce sex crime, but no account has been made for the kind of abuse that will be unleashed upon men by such terrible law-making, even though there’s plenty of evidence already that men are being pilloried by idiotic legislation designed by people of an ideological bent.
Ultimately everyone ends up carrying the cost of bad law – there will be an effect on women, and it won’t be pretty. You can’t poison only half the well.
Comment by Rob Case — Fri 22nd August 2008 @ 7:09 pm
Has anyone noticed that these exact same laws are being proposed in the UK, Australia and America?
Comment by phillip — Sat 23rd August 2008 @ 10:41 am
Put Rob (Post 9) and Phillip (Post 10)together and the fact that current heads of state in many countries meet together to shape Law and Social Policy – We are in grave danger all over the world – We must track whats happening outside NZ to get to grip with whats really happening inside NZ – That is precisely what the Ration Shed Communique is aiming to do – Onward – Ration Shed – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 23rd August 2008 @ 5:58 pm
At the end of the day, women of these shores will be the biggest losers.
Comment by tren — Sun 24th August 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Tren – I agree that women will be losers too, but I don’t think anyone will be a bigger loser than each unfortunate target of women’s wrath, those men found guilty on the basis of nothing but female allegations that are not subject to proper scrutiny, and who then have their lives ruined with prison sentences longer than if they had killed someone.
Eventually perhaps women might be losers too, when men take up arms and impose a new patriarchy. Sadly, this is fast becoming necessary because feminism is showing itself to have no moral boundaries in its efforts to exploit and to harm men. Sadly, as feminist ideology pushes the pendulum further and further in the direction of male slavery and inferior status, the return swing of the pendulum will become increasingly harsh. If only those who forward feminist ideology were able to maintain some commitment to fairness and to the original feminist aim of equality, we could have settled on a sustainable social balance.
Comment by blamemenforall — Mon 25th August 2008 @ 10:44 am
All suspects will be innocent until proven male!
Comment by Scott — Fri 29th August 2008 @ 2:40 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2000899/Man-admits-%5C%27having-sex%5C%27-with-1,000-cars.html
A possible answer to all our problems ? (hehe)
Comment by Martin Swash — Fri 7th November 2008 @ 2:18 am