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.
Very nicely written and as I have been in a running battle for the last day with exactly these idiots that are blindly trumpeting all kinds of crap I am going to copy this and post it on the site concerned, than you I could not have put it anyway as good as you.
I appreciates the feelings of the women in this particular case however to go from a specific case to a general rule is very dangerous for society. People are rightly concerned about the misuse of the terrorism laws as we saw in the raids in the North Island where innocent men women and children were terrified by their treatment by the police. Justice has to be open and honest with the presumption of innocence of the accused no matter how distasteful the accused may appear to be. It is evidence that counts not emotions. We do not know the full facts.
Oh dear, I can shed light on getting media attention. It’s easy when you understand how to get it.
REAL LIFE EXAMPLE
When men protested for fathers in the Family Court, they got media attention including television coverage on a television newsmagazine program/current affairs program like ’60 minutes’ (may have been something else) because it was new-SWORTHY, something different.
A year later when other fathers wanted coverage, the media wasn’t interested because it had already been covered.
Point is, to get media attention, one needs something new-SWORTHY, something different, something interesting, something to draw the public. A new campaign, a new project.
Men protesting outside a prison for innocent men sentenced or outside the criminal court for innocent men on trial could get front page of the NZHerald, IMO.
A men’s organisation could make a media statement about the women’s protest.
Stunts and statements are 2 popular ways of getting media attention from my learning.
(PS, I am writing too much about MY experience for my liking. I could tell you I emailed and phoned media ahead of men’s protests, lol, so I know a lot about getting media attention for men’s issues….GRRR, I’ve done too much in the past and I know too much to be of fun, lol)
I’m not so sure we should be sticking up for these roast busters, I’d like to see them prove their innocence in court because I for one think they have something to answer for.
There are plenty of women – and a few men – who will use this episode to tar all of us with the same brush and push for exactly what the headline to this story says, and guys like these roastbusters are exposing us all to danger. I would like to think that a sensibly constructed legal system could distinguish between what these roastbusters are alleged to have done and falsely accused innocents like Peter Ellis, the last thing anyone needs is the law made any worse to appease harpies shrieking in the streets and in the media.
If someone accused you of being abusive Daniel, just how would you go about “proving your innocence”? If you think about it carefully you should realise that it is actually an impossible task.
The way the justice system is supposed to work in NZ is that the Crown has to prove you are guilty, beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
In spite of intense political pressure to charge the RoastBusters, and despite a considerable degree of public prejudice as demonstrated by your comment, the Crown Prosecutor has decided there is not enough evidence to make a conviction likely.
These boys (I don’t think they showed the maturity to be considered men) clearly behaved extremely foolishly, but I believe that unless a jury who have heard all the evidence finds them guilty they are entitled to be considered as innocent as the next man.
I think you missed my point John. They acted foolishly and because there is a perception that they appear to have got away with it – there are several complainants with similar stories, even before the story broke in the news – pressure will build for a backlash which, if it comes, may well result in even more draconian laws against all men.
I hear what you are trying to say in your first sentence, but on the other hand I like to reserve my support for those who deserve it and these guys need to prove they deserve sympathy, imo, and their stupidity has put me in even more danger in the event of an accusation of abuse.
I also realise that a “sensibly constructed legal system” doesn’t exist in NZ and probably never will.
Daniel (#6): You may be right, but I think it’s more dangerous to go along with the demands that the feminists are making for NZ to ignore existing legal and civil rights. If there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute someone who has accusations made against them, then there isn’t enough evidence and no prosecution should proceed. If there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute, much less convict, then any accused must be treated as innocent. That applies to stupid people as much as anyone else.
Going along with injustice in the hope that will stave off more injustice is probably not realistic. I would imagine that early in the Nazi regime there were Jews who dobbed in other Jews to the Nazi authorities for apparently doing stupid things that didn’t deserve sympathy, in the hope that would discourage more draconian laws against all Jews. It didn’t work.
Much better to resist injustice and loudly demand retention of civilized treatment of all men, even the stupid ones.