Rape accused would have to prove consent under Labour plan
Story here:
Rape accused would have to prove consent under Labour plan
Labours Justice spokesman Andrew Little thinks the 1% conviction rate of sex cases shows the system is broken. Rather than a trial Mr Little wants;
1. No defence council to question the victim. A judge would do it.
2. Wants the defendant to be questioned by judge instead of a trial.
The Law Society has argued strongly against inquisitorial systems in the past for obvious reasons.
You know Mr Little when you call a complainant a victim even before a trial you are already convinced the defendant is guilty.
There are already some innocent men in jail right now that have been convicted of rape. How could you possible even think of trying to make it possible for more men that may be innocent to be locked up.
Mr Little said he acknowledged the change would be a “huge leap”. I say it’s a huge leap alright, off the deep end!
#nzpol #VoteForABetterNZ #votepositive #teamkey
Time to invest in recorders and video cams.
ANY type of intimate liaison between two adults will NEED to be recorded now so that there is proof in the case of rape being called out.
There has been numerous cases of false rape allegations as well.
If you think marriage is a contract for having sex, remember MARITAL RAPE also happens.
Be safe. Don’t be a FALSE ALLEGATION or NEXT DAY GUILT victim. Download your contract forms, and keep proof handy.
Comment by ashish — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 10:11 am
Those with twitter and facebook accounts – tweet and spread message:
—————————-
Record consent before being falsely accused of “ª#‎rape”¬ or “ª#‎DomesticViolence”¬. Under @nzlabour you are guilty unless proven innocent. “ª#‎nzpol”¬
Comment by ashish — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 11:52 am
Andrew Little and Labour Party are obviously suffering from a serious case of vagina or penis & lack of sex envy.
they will do any sort of feminist pleasing to try and get sympathy sex.
Best for the rest of us to never have sex or live with a woman again as its just too dangerous, with all these feminists taking away mens human rights.
Comment by The Logical Song — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 2:57 pm
Totally agree to a point….However “The Logical Song” I would have worded it slightly differently…
For I now permanently live in a Asian country, which these fine Asian ladies have rejected Radical Feminism….Where the so the so called…Vile…and Evil…male gender haven’t been demonised to hell and back……By Feminism ….
“Best for the rest of us to never have sex or live with a woman again ….In a western European Country… as its just too dangerous, with all these feminists taking away men’s human rights…..”
Comment by john dutchie — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 3:20 pm
This is election year. In his book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” historian Thomas Frank writes how the conservatives use social issues during election campaigns to gain sympathy from voters and to avoid having to debate their real goals. Once in office, these social issues are no longer important.
I fear Labour’s strategists also read this book and have chosen domestic violence as their pet social issue. If elected, don’t expect them to implement any of what they’re crying out for during the next couple of months.
BTW: both Labour and National are excellent parties to cast your vote for. Whoa, almost forgot to add “if you’re filthy rich”.
Comment by pete — Mon 14th July 2014 @ 11:03 am
I think a contract is a great idea! like a pre-nup only a pre-coitus. would make everyone think seriously. honestly, having to prove consent is ludicrous when most communication in this context is body language!
Comment by Chick — Mon 14th July 2014 @ 11:10 am
Daily Mail UK
Comment by Downunder — Mon 14th July 2014 @ 11:49 am
I’ve got it!
In order to later ‘prove’ you did not rape your partner, each partner should be required under law to have (1) an independent witness of each partner’s choosing; (2) a ‘joint’ witness of both partner’s mutual choosing; and (3) a suitably qualified independent witness unknown by either partner, all physically present and observing the sexual activity between consenting adults, and all required to sign affidavits within 24hours of said-sexual activity, confirming (a) all activity that took place; (b) any activity that did not appear to be mutually consenting; and (c) that they were impartial non-participants to the sexual activity, sane, sober, and fully observant of the activity.
Further, a suitable audio visual record of the sexual activity must be openly recorded, and filed with a central authority, to be stored for not less than 7 years. All parties (partners and witnesses) shall receive their copy of the av. A statute of limitations should then apply that following the 7 years, all affidavits and audio-visuals be destroyed, and neither partner thereafter has any basis for comeback (no pun), complaint, or laying of charges.
Comment by OMG! you're f%^^&*($@#! — Thu 17th July 2014 @ 6:31 pm
Should the hyphen be between said-sexual or sexual activity?
Comment by Downunder — Thu 17th July 2014 @ 6:47 pm
OMG! Good thinking. The ‘suitably qualified’ certifiers of the consensual sexual activity should also have to provide independent legal advice to their respective clients concerning the sexual activity being consented to, their right to withhold consent, and ensuring that their client understands the nature and meaning of the activity in order to be able to give properly informed consent. This independent legal advice will need to be given before each stage of the sexual activity, because informed consent has to be obtained for each behaviour. So if the couple are kissing, ok, but before they involve their tongues they will need to be given legal advice about consenting to that. Similarly, she might be consenting to vigorous intercourse but she hasn’t yet consented to him ejaculating, so just before he does they will both need to be given independent legal advice about what they are agreeing to and their right to not consent.
Men are commonly convicted for taking a next step without having ensured they have consent. If at any point in the process, even just at the moment of ejaculation, the woman has not given explicit consent, then he is committing a sexual offence, which if it involves any penetration at all of any part of the woman’s body will be sexual violation for which he can be imprisoned for 20 years. And remember, section 128(A)(1) of the Crimes Act states
This makes it clear that specific consent has to be given actively for each activity; such consent cannot be assumed simply because the woman is participating equally and fully in the activity or even if she initiates it. Section 128(A)(8) states
so the legal advice will need to be full and clear and the legal certification of the agreements will need to be comprehensive and robust.
The proposed solution here might be humorous but the information about sex laws and consent to sexual activity is all quite true, and the dangerous position this puts men in is no joke.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 18th July 2014 @ 3:24 pm
Article here:
This is interesting that a journalist is suggesting the shift in the burden of proof is a major factor in Labour’s retreating popularity.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 18th July 2014 @ 3:51 pm
So far Labour hasn’t delivered one single promise that exclusively ‘caters’ for men.
Comment by OMG! you're f%^^&*($@#! — Fri 18th July 2014 @ 5:14 pm
I go a bit of Ray Charles goin on here …
Lyrics
Hit the road Jack and don’t you come back no moa, no moa, no moa.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 18th July 2014 @ 5:32 pm
Shouldn’t that be
Comment by OMG! you're f%^^&*($@#! — Fri 18th July 2014 @ 5:56 pm
I saw Jack as being both Mallard for being such a silly bird and Cunliffe for being out for a duck.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 18th July 2014 @ 6:13 pm
Or Mallard’s plan to bring back the moa, the moa, the moa, the moa?
Comment by OMG! you're f%^^&*($@#! — Fri 18th July 2014 @ 6:15 pm
I cannot forgive Labour for it’s inability to think in a rational manner when thinking about policy.
Clearly the fact that it did nothing about one of the most sexually bigoted laws in human history, the Guardianship Act. Then when it did was forced to do something, it replaced it with something that, take a guess, is a crime itself, the Care Of Children Act.
Maybe one day they will wake up and realise that the crime of extortion, is a crime that they can go prison for. MMM
Comment by The man in Absentia — Fri 18th July 2014 @ 9:58 pm
Dear Ms Salisbury:- He won’t initiate sex. My guess is he is wisely waiting for her consent process and paperwork. Take a look on STUFF today – https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/94558865/dear-mrs-salisbury-my-partner-doesnt-initiate-sex
By the way, my ex and I were referred to Ms Salisbury by the court. She brought out the Duluth Wheel of course.
Comment by Jerry — Sun 16th July 2017 @ 7:10 am