Women Want Men Convicted Without Sufficient Evidence
Three women yesterday protested outside the Auckland Central Police Station and media rushed to give them publicity. Groups of men have mounted many protests against systemic misandry, exploitation and sexism that contribute to more males committing suicide each year than die on the roads, but media almost always ignore the male protesters. Men just don’t matter much.
The three females yesterday were complaining that, in the absence of sufficient evidence, police chose not to prosecute anyone in relation to the ‘Roast Busters’ story. What the women are actually demanding is that men be prosecuted at any female’s behest even when the evidence isn’t there to justify prosecution. They seem incapable of considering broader ethical matters of justice and fairness, instead insisting that our law-enforcement and justice systems should exist only to meet women’s preferences.
Dr Kim McGregor, executive director of the organisation called Rape Prevention, showed her true colours on October 29 with Newstalk ZB when she called for rape cases to be heard by a judge alone because “it’s too hard for a jury to make a decision when there’s often no witnesses or evidence”. Um, what? What kind of justice system would prosecute and convict when there are no witnesses or evidence? Well, the kind that McGregor and her male-hating feminists want. Single judges can act like tribal psychics capable of divining the truth; perhaps they can tell by the way an accused holds his mouth or how convincingly an accuser produces tears in Court. Even that ‘evidence’ is irrelevant if judges simply increase conviction rates because that’s expected by the government to appease feminist lobby groups. Single judges can more easily be targeted and pressured than juries if they don’t give verdicts as required.
We have already seen many changes specifically for sexual allegations to make it easier to convict an accused. Police have to tip-toe around questioning any female complainant, time limitations were removed completely for complaints to be accepted, corroborative evidence was allowed to include psychologists’ opinion as to whether a complainant’s behaviour was ‘consistent with’ the alleged offending (even though in the Christchurch Creche case the prosecution’s psychologist admitted that there is no behaviour that could be said to be inconsistent with sexual abuse), and complainants are no longer allowed to be cross-examined concerning their own moral or sexual history. Why such reductions in protections against wrongful conviction are seen as acceptable for sexual abuse cases but not for most other criminal proceedings is unclear but probably it’s because mainly men and few women will suffer. But these and other existing reductions in justice caution aren’t enough and feminists demand even more cavalier practice. They don’t care that simply lowering the goal-posts for conviction will see many more innocent men wrongfully convicted alongside any increase in convictions of truly guilty men. They don’t go along with the principle that it’s more unjust to convict and punish an innocent person than to acquit a truly guilty one. They don’t care if many more innocent men are put unnecessarily through the financially catastrophic, psychologically damaging and socially alienating process of prosecution, at additional great expense to the taxpayer.
As incredible as the appalling disregard these feminists have for fairness and caring towards men, has been the atrocious journalism practised by those giving publicity to the feminist demands. No questioning, no informing the public of the implications of the changes demanded, no attempt to obtain balanced comment. Men, it seems, are not important enough to bother.