MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Prosecution of the Fantasy

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 8:58 am Mon 15th February 2016

The recent post England – A Terrorist State of Law discusses a report that brought into the light the activism of their Feminised Crown Prosecution Service.

It is centred on the case of Mark Pearson, accused of the sexual violation of actress Souad Faress.

Looking at this case, many people are asking, including the accused, “How did this end up in court?”

We have no idea what is going on in the complainant’s mind, and we shouldn’t speculate too much on that.

Rather, we should look at what actually happened, and who should be held accountable for Pearson’s traumatic experience.

The complainant made an allegation that she suffered a sexual attack in public but an investigation found no evidence that would support a prosecution.

Let’s just define this further:

Her allegation was her unproven assertion.

A legal allegation was not possible as no proof could be found, in fact the proof that was found was proof to the contrary, that this in fact did not happen.

Let’s look at some elements of Feminist philosophy; firstly, that all women are equal, and secondly, that all women should be believed when they say they have been sexually violated.

How can this be brought to court (this equality maintained) if these demands of Feminism do not qualify for prosecution within the Criminal Justice System?

You turn to Civil Law.

This woman’s claim, no matter how much it indulges fantasy, becomes a court case to which the accused man must respond.

The presiding judge expressed concern, but the CPS refused to withdraw, determined to bring the case to a conclusion. Thankfully it was a jury and not a Feminist judge that was presiding.

What we should also be concerned about is the fact that it is the Crown Prosecutor that brought this case to court.

Perhaps you might say, this was simply a political stunt, politicising the court, in order to achieve a lowering of the burden of proof for sexual offences in the Criminal Jurisdiction. I would disagree with you on that, it is not the end game of Feminism, but it would be a stepping stone.

Either way, and we should not forget this in any analysis; Feminism is a State of Inequality.

That is an evil WE cannot afford, and do not need, but the demands of Feminists will continue, and men and society must be vigilant in defending the State and the law we wish the Crown to preside over.


  1. This happens regularly in NZ and plenty of males are successfully prosecuted as a consequence of female allegations that could only be supported by the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence at best. In our criminal [in]justice system any male accused of sexual offenses against women is considered “guilty until proven otherwise” or a clever defense lawyer convinces a jury to find his client ‘not guilty’ and if that lawyer is working on legal aid the accused (victim) can expect to be found guilty.

    Comment by Jon — Mon 15th February 2016 @ 9:13 am

  2. So, does this raise the bar further?

    That men are not equal with women, and men are not equal with each other.

    A man’s fate is in the hands of the lawyer, rather than in the hands of the law?

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 15th February 2016 @ 10:18 am

  3. Interestingly, Souad Farress at the time that she was allegedly poked in the middle of a train station was working on the following according to a quick sqizz on Wikipedia:

    In October 2014, it was announced that Faress would perform in Hurried Steps, Sharon Wood’s translation of “Passi Affrettati by Dacia Maraini. The play’s narratives were mainly sourced from Amnesty International, the subject matter including rape, honour killings, sex trafficking and other issues of violence against women.

    I think she was just wanting desperately to be part of the victim culture that is just SOOOO trendy at the moment. It could of course have innocently been her attempt at getting into her character for this play. The mind boggles. A person who has all the freedoms and protection her native country would NEVER afford her turns on an innocent man with the full support of the institutions they still claim are part of the patriarchy.

    This vile person should be prosecuted, lose her job and be forced to make a public apology to the man in affected, victims of ACTUAL sexual assault and to the world in general for being such a complete twat.

    Comment by GIJoe — Mon 15th February 2016 @ 10:41 am

  4. Suppose then that this 60 year old actress is on the edge of dementia and is no longer capable of functioning at the completely rational level, that would bring her to make such sensible decisions?

    Is it acceptable for any man to be dragged into court to answer to the fantasies of an insane mind?

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 15th February 2016 @ 11:43 am

  5. What I’m struggling to understand here, is why commenters around this topic are determined to attack the actress.

    Surely you must think the Crown Prosecutors are cruel, callous and cunning, hiding the evidence where it can never be found.

    In this woman’s mind.

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 15th February 2016 @ 12:53 pm

  6. It’s easy to understand why people want to attack the actress. She made up serious false allegations against a man. She likely believed the victim would be convicted on that basis but she did not realize that video surveillance would catch her out. The CPS deserve to be attacked even more because instead of acting as a servant of the public’s safety it has carried out feminist terrorism with some agenda that we can only guess at. It seems that the CPS even tried to doctor the video evidence to make it seem consistent with the actress’ story.

    If the actress had made the same allegation as part of Family Court proceedings it would have been treated as true. The accused party would not have had any right to obtain the video surveillance recordings, so could not have adequately refuted the allegation. The same would apply in true civil proceedings but in that case the accuser would still need to prove the allegation, and without medical or other evidence a civil case would almost certainly fail.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 15th February 2016 @ 6:39 pm

  7. In NZ we see actions far short of the CPS but in the same vein. For example, the woman who falsely alleged she was assaulted for speaking te reo was initially believed and her story sent through all news media. Also, the intermediate school girl’s claims that a car load of men tried to abduct her on the way home from school has been spread around with a clear assumption it was true. It seems she saw a car in a magazine that looked like the car the men were in and police have now published a that picture and are calling for sightings. It seems strange that no witnesses provided a description of such a car. Perhaps the story is true but the whole thing seems a bit unlikely and our authorities are taking liberties making announcements that assume it’s all true. The damage this causes to the reputation of the male gender, perhaps unjustly, clearly isn’t considered important.

    Somewhat more similar to the CPS was the insistence of the police to push through with prosecution of George Gwaze.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 15th February 2016 @ 7:28 pm

  8. It’s easy to understand why people want to attack the actress. She made up serious false allegations against a man.

    Assumptions – Man X Norton – the mother of all fuck ups.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 16th February 2016 @ 6:01 am

  9. Consequences- Cases such as this are hardly new. People who have experience of this ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ system tend to protect themselves, by avoiding circumstances in which they might be accused. Men avoid teaching. Fathers avoid contact with their children and grandchildren. Men avoid stopping by the roadside to help stranded women motorists. There are many other examples- but a general breakdown in trust is the inevitable result of such stupid policies.

    Comment by John Brett — Thu 18th February 2016 @ 8:43 am

  10. Our “very own” judge Lowell Goddard is over there at this very moment to bring “historical sex offenders” to justice. I imagine that even if video surveillance was widespread 30 years ago it is not kept that long – so if a woman like Ms Faress were to accuse a man of bumping into her and violating her 30 years ago he wouldn’t stand a chance.

    Comment by Doug — Sun 21st February 2016 @ 9:07 am

  11. My understanding is that although the video evidence proves no crime occurred it is still evidence therefore police continued to trial presuming prosecutors can manipulate the interpretation of the evidence by slowing video replay to imply there was a timeframe where a crime occurred. Police presumed this woman’s actress skills would have fooled a jury into believing the impossible.
    Police attempted to frame this man.
    The woman attempted to frame this man also.
    Both Police and the woman have committed a crime.
    Both should be held accountable and their misdeeds punished.
    Yet neither will be.
    They will both continue to frame men knowing there’s no repercusions.
    A false accusers database is required to expose the frequency and severity of their crimes and to reduce the likelyhood of repeat performances, our justice system is failing us. We need to stand against it.

    Comment by dunnuffinwrong — Sun 21st February 2016 @ 10:33 am

  12. White knights; not too hot at childcare, child development and household chores. Similarly at work they talk the talk but can’t walk the walk. They are however masters of the dark arts of avoiding work, stealing others work, backstabbing and feathering their own nest. Qualities highly suited to a successful parasitic career in social terrorism, politics or law.

    Comment by Peadar — Sun 21st February 2016 @ 10:39 am

  13. @John Brett and @Peadar – great points 100 percent agree.

    Comment by J — Sun 21st February 2016 @ 11:02 am

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.

Skip to toolbar