6 Comments »

1. 

   Are these situations relevant, they also have a man victim?
   Male rape victim tells of barman’s attack
   Restaurateur gets 9 years for drugging young men

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 4th June 2014 @ 10:38 pm

2. 

   Almost certainly if this were a female complainant the jury would have been directed to apply s128A of the Crimes Act 1961, a section the Helen Clark government added that makes it rape to have sex with someone who is too drunk to give informed consent (and in many other circumstances when it has been established that a person actually did give consent but consent is then retrospectively determined not to have been given. Yes, read that again, check out s128A and marvel at the magic disappearing tricks Auntie Helen authorized our Courts to perform).

   And if this were a female complainant the jury would be likely to have felt the usual empathy and support for her, seen her as exploited whilst in a vulnerable state, and so on. But when it’s a male, well he should have known better than to get drunk in the first place. And of course Auntie Helen only wrote that law for females to use against men, so our Courts have been true to her tradition by refusing to apply it for the benefit of a male complainant.

   Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 4th June 2014 @ 11:15 pm

3. 

   So let me get this right: Its official now.
   Women cannot give consent to any sexual act when they are drunk;
   But men can.

   How often over the years have men been found guilty of sexual offences for ‘taking advantage’ of drunk women; How often have judges ruled women who are too intoxicated cannot give consent?
   Maybe those girls did consent to the Roast Buster boys? Maybe Louise Nichols did consent to those Police officers?
   But they are girls, and when drunk, they can’t possibly have given consent????

   Comment by OMG You're (&*)^*( — Thu 5th June 2014 @ 5:23 pm

4. 

   OMG (#3). You got it! And also when they go along with sex without any protest, and when they claim they were afraid that force would be applied to them or someone else (no rational basis for this fear is necessary), and when they claim to have been mistaken about the identity of the male, and when they claim to have been mistaken about the nature and quality of the sexual act (yes, you’d better perform at top quality, or else!). And there is a catch-all clause added to allow Courts to negate clearly-given consent under any number of other unspecified claimed circumstances.

   Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 5th June 2014 @ 8:02 pm

5. 

   I imagine when the laws were written they were written to protect women from the few men that do pose a genuine threat. Also perhaps men didn’t report rape done to them or it was perceived as not being a crime that occurs….in part due to the non reporting of it. Yes, some women have abused the law but not all. The judge should have stepped in here & set a precedence for male rape. I can’t begin to imagine what the victim went through but to have no justice for it beggars belief. Any victim whether they are male or female deserves justice not that it will ever make up for what happened. So sad this is not a victory for anybody but the defendant & your anger directed at women is misplaced. Both sexes are human beings & deserve the same level of protection inside & outside the judicial systems & we all deserve respect & dignity

   Comment by Denise Cronin — Sun 8th June 2014 @ 4:28 am

6. 

   Denise #5
   Thankyou for your comments, it is about equality
   Yes anger at women is displaced
   It is anger at the Organised Criminal Groups that is not displaced

   Example in NZ
   A man was prosecuted for rape by stupification
   Both man and women independenly went to a pub having never met each other
   Both man and women independenly drank alcohol
   Both man and women independenly decided to go to a house
   Both man and women independenly jumped into bed together and had sex
   IE a drunk one night stand
   The women woke up in the morning and decided that she normaly would not give consent to a man like the one she had sex with.
   She couldn’t remember giving consent, (20% binge drinkers can remember last night)
   A prosecuter decided to prosecute the man
   He was convicted and given an arbitrary minimum centence of 5 years.

   At the instant of giving consent to have sex, the conditions of consent were exactly the same for the women as it is for the man.

   The women is as arbitrarily guilty as the man
   The prosecutor has no exuse for not knowing this
   The prosecutor is guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice
   The prosecutor did not expose the women to her actions being examined in a court of law as to weather or not she had legal consent to have sex, but did to the man where the circumstances were undeniably identical

   It is not a law issue or a man/women issue
   It is issue pertaining to an Organised Criminal Group (the police) and their activities in the community

   They conspire to facilitate and commit sexual offences against men, to induce crimminal responses by men, which is how they make thier money

   The enabling of unlawfull sexual conection against men by stupification, is the Crime Against Humanity of mass rape

   In anouther example a friend had a stalker women in his workplace who on multiple occasions at work do’s had harassed him for sexual intercourse. As a married man with kids he refused her advaces on multiple occasions, he didn’t actualy like the women. However his last work do he got especially drunk, she took advantage of the situation, did not use protection and got pregnant. Promptly after establishing she was pregnant, went to the mans house, told his wife that he was leaving the wife for her and their child. The wife has kicked him out and suprise corrupt suprise he has hardly been aloud to see his kids. He is not in a relationship with the sex offender women. Wont be aloud to see that child either.

   However an Organised Criminal Group (the Police) won’t prosecute her
   And another Organised Criminal Group (child support) is going to force him to financialy support the rapist, leaving a child in the care of a rapist.

   Bigotry IS NOT OK

   Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 19th June 2014 @ 3:57 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ