Labour says a rape victim should be believed as a starting point.
I hate getting political. But when you read the news story below you just have no choice but to say something.
.
Stuff news story reports;
1. Labour would change the system so that a victim was believed as a starting point, and that an accused would have to prove consent – an idea rejected by National.
2. Associate justice spokesperson for sexual and domestic violence Poto Williams said only 13 per cent of the sexual assault cases reported to police ended in a conviction and something needed to be done to address the “power imbalance”.
http://www.labour.org.nz/potowilliams
I see Poto Williams was the Chief Executive Officer, Western Refuge Society Incorporated (Oct 2009 – Aug 2011)
Western Refuge Society Incorporated report on their web site that the culture within the Eastern Refuge collective will be based on national collective values, which support the four cornerstones of the refuge movement. Being;
Collectivism
Feminism
Lesbian visibility
Parallel development
http://www.easternrefugesociety.org.nz/
I am not that impressed with any of the political parties. None stand up for mens issues because they are too scared to. But how can you even consider voting in Poto Williams, who is the associate justice spokesperson and has got it in her head that there is some power imbalance just because 13% of sexual assault cases are found guilty.
Maybe Poto Williams should investigate just why juries acquit. Look at the evidence of each case. If the evidence doesn’t stack up on 87% you cant just call it an imbalance and take away the jury and restrict evidence. That will lead to unsafe convictions.
Poto Williams should check herself. The figures show 87% of the accused are the victims and will remain so for the rest of their life. Because we all know the accusation is the verdict. No member of parliament should be that unbalanced or careless when is comes to locking a human away for up to 20 years and destroying their life forever.
And for those MPs who think the woman in mens lives agree with Poto Williams you should research all male and female voters without loaded questions. There is quite a rise in public opinion regarding mens issues and wrongful charges is one of them.
MP’s should take into account every male has a mother and most have sisters, wifes, girl friends and other female family and friends who can vote. And that is by far the vast majority of voters.
Some people get into power with a one set task. I think Poto Williams has an idea that an accusation is the only thing required to lock a human away for years. Take away the jury and right to present some evidence that could acquit is completely unacceptable to the vast majority.
With 87% of juries voting acquittals does Labour really want to put their flag in the minority camp?
Poto’s website claims 320 people were killed by domestic violence last year. The actual figure is between 32-35.
She cannot point to a source and refuses to change the claim.
Poto showed indignation when we challenged her criticism of the chiefs stripper scandal, when we pointed out these men were all falsely accused she still blamed them.
When Willie Jackson was appointed labour mp by Little, Poto hired a public relations firm to help her discredit him.
When that failed she apologised to him.
Her apology came after Jackson had Apologised himself seemingly multiple times for comments he made on the radio.
When I tried to talk to her about male victims of domestic violence she sat and tried to make little brackets from rubber bands avoiding the topic.
Clearly Labour has learned nothing from three years ago when David cunliffe apologised for being a man and Labour got less than 10% of men’s votes nationally.
A record loss for labour in the polls and some.
Poto won her seat because almost everyone in New Brighton and east Christchurch would vote for anyone but Key.
Now we have this insane proposition from Poto which I don’t see endorsed by any other minister yet were told will become law if labour gets in.
Poto is calling for discussion supposedly but don’t expect her to be asking you if your a male. Of course this law will be made for women and male victims of sexual assault need not apply.
Its extremely unlikely the public will back this dispite her claims of urgency.
I do hope this time when the preposterous notion of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is discounted, perhaps Labour will have the nouce to rid us of her lies and scaremongering with false statistics by sending her back to the dpb where she came from and perhaps, just possibly labour could win the election in 2020.
I’ve never in my life voted blue but I’d do that just so I could be sure that my vote was not counted towards putting men in Prison and destroying their life to appease jilted rape victims like Poto and the rest of her fucked up wimmins entitlement network.
Ask her how many male victims she has advocated for…the answer is None.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sun 30th April 2017 @ 8:23 pm
Unfortunately in our criminal injustice system ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is the order of the day in sex cases especially historical allegations. For the accused to prove innocence when alleged offenses occurred 30/40/50 years ago is nigh on impossible and as one corrupt District Court Judge was heard to tell a jury last year “if the victim says it happened you can be sure it happened” which proves the system supports and encourages females to make false allegations.
Comment by JONO — Sun 30th April 2017 @ 9:59 pm
I hope Labour pays heed to what happened to Hillary Clinton when she started waving the “men vs women” flag. Labour need to stuff Poto back into her box and tell her to shut the hell up – if they don’t then I for one will be worried about the possible makeup of the next government.
Comment by Doug — Sun 30th April 2017 @ 10:06 pm
It’s fun as a woman challenging gender biggots like these women.
Usually start by asking if they’re familiar with Erin Pizzy and her work on domestic violence.
I have a good working relationship with David Clark. I will bring this up with him next time we meet.
It is worth noting that 13% conviction is with deep denominator of all logged rape complaints. All through the system there is attrition including complaints being withdrawn and the crown deciding that the chance of a successful trial is too low based on evidence. An FOI interrogating that looking at reasons the claim was dropped would be the basis of a good discussion paper.
Comment by QuirkyFriend — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 2:28 am
@lukenz thanks for putting this up.
Years ago historic rape complaints were simply not credible cases and some genuine cases were not investigated. We moved on from there to all cases must be investigated, but now we are seeing a push to all cases must be prosecuted.
This doesn’t change the fact that some ‘rape victims’ are only ‘rape victims’ in their own mind – in reality more fictious stories, rather than more rapes is not likely to push jury conviction rates up.
As you point out, getting rid of a jury and manipulating evidence to satisfy a women’s desire to be a victim, has a price, and male life is further cheapened by this stupidity.
Let’s not forget that the conviction rate only went down because more cases were put before the court.
Juries can see through stupidity, but judges would have a field day making decisions based on consent.
More men would leave New Zealand, while more men would be imprisoned, and the country would turn to more immigration to feed the work force.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 6:35 am
Your bottom line.
Labour is fast becoming the minority party for silly women, and a convenient clingon to and for the Green Party.
It’s a ‘Red Flag’ alright. Watch how badly Labour does this election.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 6:51 am
Downunder @6; I was raised in a culture which blamed the USSR for all bad things and it was so often said that the Soviets wanted to Nuke us. That blaming is still happening, even though today, Russian forces are not a fraction of what the USA has. Indeed only one aircraft carrier, and that is laid up. We should be so afraid of Russia/red-flag…. really??? Russia was the core to the USSR and theirs was the “Red Flag”. These days I see a lot of hope in the “Red Flag” state of Russia. For one example they have removed some of the gender specific violence laws, so that all citizens have to be tried under the same law. Now would we not all think that a step in the right direction if it would happen here. So I think its worth re-evaluating the “Red Flag” and Labour’s relevence to it. Like Labour’s origins of a “fair days pay for a fair days work”; the fourty hour week; workers rights and representation etc etc which would fit well under the “red flag”, Labour has been completely disloyal to. IMHO Labour are now a disperate collection of competing pressure groups with little relevence to the common person’s interests.
That said, which party has the common persons interests at its core values? None – and I saw on the weekend Shipley suggesting Winston will go with National at the upcoming election.
I’m sorry I have no answers and no power. If I did, I would form my own party.
Comment by Jerry — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 7:11 am
I thought this was pretty obvious when Andrew Little was talking about shifting the burden of proof.
Good to see people slowly becoming aware that a ‘leopard never changes spots’.
Comment by ashish — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 8:05 am
@Jerry not that it is relevant to this post but last year the Russians decommissioned the world’s largest nuclear carrying submarine as part of the on-going peace plan.
They have more nukes than any country, but they operate a defensive and detergent strategy. You’re right, they don’t waste money on a visible presence.
And why Turkey’s president delivered a hand written apology to the Kremlin is another story.
It’s probably best to leave Russia’s flag out of this.
As for the red flag of the Labour Party, I don’t see a way back for it. Who knows, it may even get replaced by a black and white flag with two pair of tits.
People are becoming more aware of the destructive nature of the Feminist programme, but as long as we have MMP, that red flag will represent the screaming bitches of the left wing.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 8:06 am
Young men need to realise that according to nz laws, all sex is rape until consent is proven in court.
Anytime two lovers passionately undress each other and continue coitus (fucking) a man is committing a crime worthy of 20 years imprisonment.
Anytime a man and his lover don’t pause so the man can ask “do you consent to the next stage of sexual contact? Then recieve a clear ” yes” in reply,(from a female who has had no alcohol or drugs of any kind, a man is committing sexual assault.
With these new proposed laws Andrew Little considers the majority of the burden of proof still remains with the prosecution because they must first prove that identity of the accused.
This aspect is not questionable in more than 80% of rape accusations.
Creating a verbal contract at each stage of intimacy is the only way to avoid having sex without raping someone according to nz law.
Proving this in court is totally impossible in every case.
When the defendant is asked how can you be sure that when the woman said ‘yes’ she was consenting to coitus’ no answer can be sufficient to disprove a complantants accusation.
When the burden of proof is placed on the defendant without a jury to apply common sense, its impossible for the man to prove consent. He will be convicted, his life will never be the same, he will be known as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Yet ask any woman how many of the times that she has had sex, she paused to give clear consent.
The answer will be almost never.
Women will say that pausing for a verbal contract is a mood killer they have never experienced.
So all sex is rape until proven otherwise.
Men like me and you who have engaged in sex without a verbal contract are all rapists who are yet to be charged for our crime.
We had all better hope that our previous partners that we loved have better principles and a greater understanding of reasonable human interaction than Poto Williams and Andrew Little.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 9:56 am
Voices @10; Exactly right. Well and clearly put. Downunder is also right – MMP needs to go.
Comment by Jerry — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 11:27 am
@ Voices back from the bush and Downunder.
Changing the burden of proof for consent re any sexual contact away from prosecution to the defense and combine it with prosecuting all or most accused simply means a man will be guilty the moment they are accused or charged.
Hard to fathom a main political party and MP’s could think like that.
I would expect to see the suicide rate for men to double.
Comment by Lukenz — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 1:07 pm
If you look at Rhianon Brooker on this site or Google, that is a good example of where this sillyness can end up.
I don’t agree it would be a driver for a major increase in suicide rates for men.
It is more likely to have a spiraling detrimental affect on the complainant if she gets tipped off her pedestal through other evidence.
These political positions are not well thought out, they are just vote catchers. You could parallel this situation with an historic one like the Australian Greens solar power policy.
It was a vote catcher alright, but what a bloody great mess they left behind them after that bit of sillyness.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 2:20 pm
The NZ Herald at it again with feminist propaganda about rape and sexual assault. It claims that 5865 people were the victim of a rape or other sexual assault in NZ in the 13 months to January 2017. It does not make it clear where that figure came from but states “and remember, that’s only the reported incidents”. So the figure refers to the number of ‘reported incidents’, not even the number of complainants. The figure actually refers to the number of alleged incidents, i.e. the number of allegations. To misrepresent that as being equal to the number of actual victims of sexual crimes is nothing short of lying.
Of course, the article trots out other lies regularly spread by feminist forces. The author did use the term ‘up to’ when referring to the tired old lies about 1 in 3 girls experiencing an unwanted sexual experience by the age of 16, and 1 in 5 adult women experiencing a sexual assault. But really, the term ‘up to’ is simply another trick used to mislead. One wonders what ‘unwanted sexual experience’ means; certainly not necessarily a sexual offence.
One of the main cases made by the article is fair enough and good advice. If someone has been subjected to a sexual or any other crime and this is troubling them, they may well feel better by reporting it. It would be better if the article made it clear that reporting a crime with an expectation that a prosecution will be successful is not a good idea because if a Court doesn’t convict then a real victim may feel even worse. It’s better to proceed with the goal of standing up and confronting your abuser and realizing that the rest is beyond your control and responsibility.
The other main claim in the article (which is also in the headline) that ‘unwanted sexual experiences’ are ‘never your fault’, is irrational and inaccurate. In many cases it will be true, such as being sexually exploited as a child, being raped (under a realistic definition of rape) or having things done to you clearly without consent. However, many other sexual cases involve mixed messages, going along with events without asserting one’s actual wishes, or participating in sexual activity that is regretted the next day or years later. In such cases the alleged offender has been misled and the alleged victim has a high degree of responsibility for the events. In yet other cases the victim may be a real victim who was really stupid, such as by getting inebriated at a gang party. In those kinds of cases the victim of a sexual assault is not responsible for the violent or exploitative behaviour of the offender(s) but clearly is responsible for his/her own stupid decisions, just as responsible as another person is for leaving his/her keys in the ignition then having it stolen, even though the thief is still 100% responsible for the act of thievery.
The implied claim in the article that all allegations are necessarily true, is simply inexcusable dishonesty.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 1st May 2017 @ 8:14 pm
12, Yes, if for example my ex-wife went to the police station and said that one day in 1992 when we made love i had not paused to make a verbal contract so she could clearly consent to the sex.
She tells the officer that its taken her many years to realise that she didnt want sex on that occasion and so she believes she was raped.
Under Labour’s new “VICTIM$ MUST BE BELIEVED POLICY”,- I would without doubt -be immediately arrested and charged with rape.
What would be the point in pleading not guilty?
I’d have no case.
I couldn’t prove that she was verbally contracted to the sex so in spite of her willing participation,
OBVEOUSLY I would have no recollection of any of the events of the chosen day, much less what was said.
From the moment the officers pen touches the notebook, my life would cease to exist in any worthwhile form.
Any future plans or career hopes, over.
Employment and likelihood of another relationship, over.
Family relationships, valued friendships, – over.
Hopes of future travel, over.
Any community standing, over.
Yes, the chances that I would be suicidal after all this is an almost certainty.
But say i choose to endure….
So then I spend 8 years or so in the sex offenders wing.
Then eventually im bailed to some half way house having to report twice a week.
I go for a job on a roading gang or apply for a forestry position or something where im no where near other people as im a convicted rapist.
For the first time in many years im free to have lunch in the park on a sunday with the sun streaming down on me.
Then my ex-wife walks in to the police station and say’s – you know, ive just realised there was one day we had sex in 1994 when no verbal contract was arranged before we had sex.
As “VICTIMS MUST BE BELIEVED” I would then be charged again.
The only question is would my sentence be longer or shorter than the first time I went to prison?
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Tue 2nd May 2017 @ 3:47 am
This article is a good description of where we were three years ago when labour tried to do away with basic democratic rights.
It also names some of the organisations behind this hate-crime against innocent men.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/28/nzrp-j28.html?view=article_mobile
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Tue 2nd May 2017 @ 5:56 am
I contribute from the falsely accused experience. I think it best that all males avoid relationships with females altogether. Save yourselves, walk out now and do not look back. Leave women to amuse eachother. Guys are safest going to the pub or going fishing. Although watch out for new innovative ways to exploit your stuff, your sttrength and your wallet. FYI: My second false accuser died last week from cancer. But it does not end there. She brainwashed the next generation, who now posess the original lies, but now on steroids. Lies and hatred just keep growing and are likely to be believed intergenerationally, even after being debunked using evidence. Oh! lest we forget – evidence and cross examination won’t be there for future accused defence.
Comment by Jerry — Tue 2nd May 2017 @ 6:17 am
@voicesbackfromthebush
That article you linked to in #16 also points to Labour’s intention to have a complainant’s evidence heard by a judge prior to the hearing so there is no cross examination.
What is also interesting is that while there is a screaming demand for increased convictions, there has already been a significant increase in the numbers jailed for sexual violence.
What labour is proposing is avoiding the sticking point of the social balance of the jury.
These additional convictions for sexual violence cases have been the single biggest contributor to the doubling of the prison population in recent years.
What will Labour’s next flamming-torch-and-pitch-fork policy be?
A prison farm with a gas chamber perhaps.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 2nd May 2017 @ 8:00 am
So what healthy advice can a caring father give to his sons? The answer has been obvious for so long. Women have used the supply of sex to exert influence over their partner. I advocate all men going on strike, but not just with sex, but with all other forms of compassionate assistance.
Comment by Jerry — Tue 2nd May 2017 @ 9:57 am
Downunder, re your first paragraph, I believe this plan is almost a carbon copy of the french legal system whereupon prosecutions evidence is first put before a judge before trial.
This is to establish if prosecutution has a case at all or if the complantant has no case and courts are saved for cases with real evidence.
I dont have issue with this aspect as such a system could have saved me many thousands of dollars and a world of grief when I was attacked and accused of retaliation by a female. (Three years ago tomorrow)
Re your seccond, no matter what the statistics we will be told were the most violent in the world and rapists by definition of male.
Thanks for reading the link I posted.
It does appear that Labour government are hell bent on losing this election, I cant understand how they could believe that creating ever more imprisoned men can possibly help the country in any way considering our prisons are proven to be a revolving door for increasing crime and gang activity.
It all makes me very sad that we cant do any better than the usa when chosing leaders with vision and practical solutions.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Tue 2nd May 2017 @ 1:16 pm
#20 sorry I can’t share your enthusiasm.
I also think it is dangerous to suggest this is a copy of the European Inquisitorial System. Something along those lines, yes, but you are giving Labour’s suggestions a degree of credibility they do not deserve.
It will be Family Court judges lining up for these positions and remembering that the High Court refers to their ability to think, as repugnant to justice, in reality, these will be political appointments expected to increase conviction percentages.
If you have enough cases, you could increase the numbers covicted and imprisoned but still see that required percentage increase drop.
If you want to see how badly this pans out, look at the information on this site and in the English media, with their own disaster – pushing the percentage barrow isn’t a new untried idea.
Remember also, how the Bradford Bill came about. A Green List MP on the coat tails of a Labour coalition.
You only need a Labour List MP on the coat tails of a Green Party coalition and we could see this become law in New Zealand.
It is what Feminists revel in – The hatred and persecution of the male of our species.
Even if the idea did save your bacon in your own case, law like this in general will sicken our already ailing society.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 3rd May 2017 @ 10:53 am
#21 You may well be 100% correct, I concede. Im a swimming pool builder and have a laymans understanding of these laws.
I will look into the examples you mentioned when im able.
I made my comments because – in my case I was charged without evidence, infact all evidence proved that that I had been attacked but had not retaliated as was the accusation.
I felt that the charge was merely to apease the fantasy of an upset female and was entertained to suit the budgets of the lawyers and the judge and rest of thier ilk.
Thanks.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Wed 3rd May 2017 @ 12:02 pm
#22 you don’t have to concede anything.
It was a discussion, and a valuable one too.
Too many guys are knocked down too hard, and they can’t bounce back like you have and put their story on the net.
You are not just speaking for yourself but for hundreds of men who, for various reasons, will never tell their story like you are here.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 3rd May 2017 @ 2:45 pm
#23 I don’t think it’s hundreds or men. Or even thousands or millions.
Tens of millions of men across the world who are suppose to be living under the Westminster system of an elected government and enforcing authorities including police and courts at a minimum starting point should take an unbiased opinion or attitude towards all people regardless of gender.
And that is the core of the problem. Extending across all areas including education, health, family and criminal law, property, support, equal access to their own child. Males are not entitle to the same level of protection as females.
Comment by Lukenz — Wed 3rd May 2017 @ 8:22 pm
I have exhausted every complaints process, with the exception of the govenor generals office, it was suggested (by those before me) that none would be worth the effort.
But I had to find out for myself.
I can show anyone the paperwork police issued in three minutes, proof that a travesty of justice is what I experienced, no one I’ve shown disbelieves that.
But no department can speak about the facts.
It was the beginning of an enlightening for me.
I realise now that justice is a word and nothing more.
We have laws, but they are there for some, but not all of us.
They dont apply to those of us they consider – privelledged.
I now know – that to remain a victim is to allow ones self to remain waiting for a perpetrators apology.
Counting my losses, for me the worst remains the struggle to fathom that someone I treasured and adored, would so willingly tell fibs upon fibs to try to put me in prison.
Ive become, and remain – Angry.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Wed 3rd May 2017 @ 10:32 pm
Voices @25; You remain angry! I respect that because its an appropriate reaction to injustice which is dressed up and stands in the stead of real justice. My case is now long ago, but the PTSD remains with me. My asset stripped life in poverty is permanent. Yet my kids still need help from me and like any parent, I help all the time. But I resent when interecting with others who give this corrupt system their silent consent – that is if not their whole hearted active support. That describes almost all others I share the planet with – and I do not forgive them. So I go around as “GRUMPY” its my persona. The long version is “GAS or Grumpy-as-shit”. I do not hesitate going under that persona everywhere. Its in every interaction except on MENZ.
Its not okay for the masses to puff on about child abuse or violence against women, while not just ignoring male victims, but framing innocent sons as if they are to blame for women’s violence [Applying the same definitions of violence which the feminists use to define male violence = EQUALITY].
So good on you. I do think we get to a point where being angry is the only reasonable response from which self respect can be derived. For me it makes it clear that I do not accept or approve in any way of all this bull-shit.
Comment by Jerry — Thu 4th May 2017 @ 7:48 am
Dead right Jerry. Anger is a natural response to injustice.
As blokes we are meant to fire up when we’re being ripped off or threatened.
It’s part of our protective nature, but becomes a strange conflict, when the situation we are defending starts ripping us off.
That’s not to say that anger won’t come from other places, the tired mind for example.
It’s about time a few more people started getting angry about the injustices of Feminism instead of buying into the bullshit without thinking.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 4th May 2017 @ 9:09 am
Jerry and voices. Very brave to write what has happened to you here.
I would never think anything I could type would change the past or replace where you once were in life. But at some point you need to make a start on a new life. Dwelling on a nasty experiences or wrong doings isn’t going to get you back.
No one can turn back the clock a single second. But you can wind it up again. It requires courage and termination. And a plan.
Not all woman are the same. Finding a partner who wants to have and do the same things you want to will only happen when you set aside the past and come to terms with the task before you.
I had a very bad experience too. But I am not as courageous as you are to type it here. Secretly I still love my first wife even though she left me for another. It sounds absurd but I still worry if she is having a good life and is being looked after. At times I have moments. I just try and not dwell on it.
Along came a second lady. A very good woman no kids like me. We now have 5 children and she is a stay at home mum. She is part time uni now. While at times money is tight, we make do.
So why am I on this site? I am here to point out injustices to men. This very post came out of my upset of lowing the bar to automatic guilty before trial made me want to speak up.
Jerry and Voices, helping those who do not understand when the need or opportunities arise is OK for a time. But a resolve to move forward was the path to happiness and peace for me. And I sincerely hope you choose it your yourself.
Comment by Lukenz — Thu 4th May 2017 @ 10:29 pm
Lukeenz @28; Hi, I think you must have missed some of my points. Have I ever written as if I thought I could change the past? – thats impossible; the future would be nice. But I don’t matter, so my future improving or worsening is irrelevent. My family is no longer vulnerable is one thing. So because I can speak up, then I should. I know so many others have to hold back in fear of making things worse if they didn’t play the game. Then thinking optimistically and positively about the future and relationships sounds all well and nice, but unless I see even a faint chance of things changing, having positive expectations would be self delusion, and I would not admire that in myself. As I see it these circumstances will never change in the time I have left. You know when I have been sent to counsellors in the past, I know as soon as I hear them say – 1) “You have to move on” – 2) “you need to take responsibility for yourself”. 3) “You cannot live a happy life this way”; I’m consulting an idiot.
I gave up years ago expecting that their “Fairy-Dairy land” was for me or would ever include me. I am an outsider and quite comfortable, even proud of that fact. I do not dance to their expectations. They find me confronting wherever, whenever they encounter me.
Now about my Grumpy-persona. It is a little misleading, since as stated earlier, Im ANGRY. You know, when folks ask us how we are today, they do not really mean it, but really its just a meaningless nod as our paths cross. Were I to respond to it with “Angry as shit” then security might show me the door. Substituting Angry with Grumpy keeps me in the game and very most often provokes their curiosity. Thus Grumpy is my “fish-hook” I have them hooked and I reel them in. I inform them about families, the court, abused children women’s violence, hypocrisy etc etc etc. And you know, very rarely do my targets go away unconvinced – and why is that? – well its because they are most likely to have their own family court disaster they are pretending did not happen – that is until I reminded them. If everybody who had been unjustly dealt to rose up to resurect justice – then it could actually happen – but instead we sigh and go about our limp days.
I’m not brave or silly – I’m angry. I get angrier when I see this family killing process claiming more victims. And society lets it happen. How can I respect people who just let it happen? And half of those who are in denial are Grand-mothers, mothers, sisters etc. Too many of them lament the alienation of their sons and descendents, but do nothing, to solve that – but do mobilise for feminism (however they imagine it to be) and White-ribbon (Not Erin Pizzey’s).
Although I have been out protesting, and I have protested alone at the court, the good decent folks just looked at me as if I were an offender, or was out of my mind. Tackling folks one by one does not inform masses, but at least I’m doing it one by one.
I have no doubt some others who do not participate will be watching this, some even with harmful ulterior motivation. Too cowardly to meet me face to face to debate the issues. They dwell in the dark – toxic things grow in dark places. Honest and honourable things are usually found in the light.
Its been a while since I would have to be fearful of them – but then they would still represent a threat to other families involved here. Who could blame such families for hesitating to stick their necks out here?, but me, yes I could be reasonably blamed.
I saw a fascinating article around a Month ago in the news. Neuroscientists could now define which neurons contained the traumatic memories and were able to zap those neurons – effectively curing PTSD. The article was positive towards this science, and I’m sure it might have some use – BUT not for me. Imagine all my experiences were deleted. I suppose I would be reset back to some past time when I was as vulnerable as I originally was. At least carrying these horrors, I have some robust policies to keep myself safe.
So Lukeenz, I’m not brave at all. I’m just like everybody else – doing what I can – doing what I should.
Comment by Jerry — Fri 5th May 2017 @ 7:10 am
Thanks Jerry,
We’re busy commemorating the sacrifices of WW1 at present, but I think you have described well enough that the war goes on, even in the face of peace, we are still soldiers fighting for a decent chance at life.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 5th May 2017 @ 7:33 am
Downunder?? WW1?? What your first battle, or the one early last century? Too late for ANZAC day, so if the one involving nations, then have you some particular interest?
Comment by Jerry — Fri 5th May 2017 @ 6:14 pm
I was trying out your philosophical imagery Jerry.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 7th May 2017 @ 7:51 am
Downunder @32; It did occur to me that you probably were. So soon after ANZAC Day, I wanted to be sure.
Comment by Jerry — Sun 7th May 2017 @ 10:41 am
Referring to the original post.
The proposal of rape convictions being decided by the ability of the accused to prove that sex was not rape is being proposed by feminists around the globe.
Females seemingly will be responsible for themselves – unless there’s a male involved in which case only the male can be responsible for any poor choices.
If a female gets drunk and falls off a chair or crashes a car she is responsible.
She should have realised her limits and maintained adequate sobriety.
If a drunk female has sex, she has- been raped.
Her consent was not valid.
She can claim she was unable to know at the time that she didn’t really want the sex- she was seduced and afterwards regretted it.
Is there really any need for a trial in these cases, the mans guilt can not be unproven unless the he can somehow prove that she initiated each stage of interaction and can somehow prove that it was her hand that inserted the penis and he had verbal consent for every act and that the woman was coherent and sober enough to consent. To do this he would need video evidence. (But he’s not allowed it)
A written sex contract might be helpful if he can also somehow prove that it wasn’t signed under duress.
The chance a man can prove all of this is not possible.
‘No means no ‘ which was a perfectly reasonable and fair method of communication is unreasonable now.
Your date might be – ,’freezing, terrified of their attacker ‘ and unwilling to voice her objection so she continues with sex unopposed. That’s rape too.
The accused must demonstrate how the complainant had consented with full capacity and freedom to do so.
If your date regrets the sex for any reason, – she is reminded by these laws that her participation is someone else’s fault.
An invisible gun is pointed at the mans head.
The female has become an inanimate object, she is no longer a person, after drinking alcohol or (or smoking weed) she doesn’t have to make adult human decisions.
She can have no will of her own.
These laws officially establish that women are socially incompetent. Unable to manage their own social activities.
Men, (and boys over 16) must take a parental responsibility over the women they are considering sex with.
I don’t see social media sites like trade me message board confronting these issues.
Where are the women that object to being considered so helpless and where are the women that do not want their sons lives ruined by accusations – deemed sex offenders for life.
The consequences of such laws will increase the suspicion of rape accusers and real victims of rape. (not decrease it which is the reason for the laws).
These laws will only create further male disaffection and aversion from women.
Prostitutes will be the safest sex partners, they will become the responsible ‘ adults’ among our women.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Thu 11th May 2017 @ 3:39 pm
If no means no and yes means yes, then we are talking about permission, not agreement.
But agreement @ #34 leaves the man not only totally responsible for its management but completely liable for its failure.
Oh, wow, I forgot, women are perfect and only men can fuck up.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 11th May 2017 @ 4:15 pm
Voices back from the bush @34; You nailed it there. Well written and all precisely true. 100%+
Comment by Jerry — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 11:32 am
36, thanks Jerry,
I’ve appreciated your comments also and its about time I got around to saying so.
I understand you have staged one man protests and if no has ever said so, let me be the first to thank you for that effort.
Interesting points raised between you and Hornet this passed week.
I believe (as I am) Hornet is looking for unity and proposed that child protection should/could be an issue we should target.
He is well aware of the devide and conquer tactics used against us all and realises that as long as were focussed on each others faults, The govt can get away with murder.
I don’t want to pick sides but no one likes a fence sitter, so I’m inclined to agree that in danger its best to fit your own oxygen mask before attending to your children. Sadly these safety devices are – one size fits all and the risks are now so significant,In most cases I’d suggest that its best not to feed the monster, get yourself together, in time your kids will come looking for you. Best if they find you safe and well.
I propose ‘Mens Rights’ is the best issue for unity and action.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 1:26 pm
Interesting thoughts @ voices back from the bush.
Whether you look at the bible in the case of religion or politics in general, unity is an awkward compromise.
Both I would suggest are more a consequence of social failure, than preconceived aspirations.
Then you might ask, is that why yet another alternative is such a difficult undertaking?
As fast as more men are excluded, they can be categorized as suicides, jailed, emigrated, or terrorized remnants, easily replaced by the immigration machine.
Those not excluded don’t understand that experience. Their judgment is based on what they know, not on what they can’t see.
Men’s rights might have an appeal to the few disaffected that can be bothered (again) and prove me wrong, but I think you would be pushing shit uphill with that one.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 2:30 pm
38, you were around in the days of uof.
I’ve been reading articles you wrote many many years ago. A tremendous effort but I’ve personally met others who were there with you that lament that they didn’t really achieve anything – concrete.
You just can’t fight city hall they say.
But I see a younger generation coming through with distrust of the societal expectations.
No faith that they are or will be considered equal.
They see what’s happened to their brothers and uncles and fathers and they are aware of the risks.
They haven’t been put through the mincer, they just know that its been clamped to the bench ready for them.
MGTOW is now a word that many young men respect as a social antidote.
Growing up, I must’ve heard a thousand times that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bycicle, these days, I hear- the bycicle doesn’t need a fish.
I’m surprised you went through all you did, and withdraw to warn about pushing shit uphill.
But perhaps your right.
Pushing shit uphill has consequences and the hill seems steeper by the day.
But even if a man ends up with shit all over him but there’s no one around to smell him? Does he still stink?
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 3:18 pm
35, ” If no means no and yes means yes, then we are talking about permission, not agreement.”
While it depends how the question is phrased – this is an excellent argument in itself.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 4:02 pm
#39 I hear what you are saying, we achieved a lot, much more than we get credit for, because it is an untold story.
Some people are rightfully disappointed that we didn’t go further, and the reasons for that are better not discussed here.
But how we got to where we did is worth understanding.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 4:26 pm
If a man was to buy drinks for a woman or bring alcohol to her knowing she was partial to the demon drink, then tell her after a hours of watching and encouraging her, to pour strong liquour down her throat,even topping up her drinks,insists that she was fine to drive, perhaps he insists that if she doesn’t she would be spending the night in the cold? Hands her the keys…
He would be an total -asshole, – but when she got pulled over at a checkpoint she would not be able to claim any reduced responsibility. She could not claim in court she was coerced.
She is responsible for her actions.
Yet if a woman has only had one or two perhaps brings a joint for her and her partner to enjoy together, then for any reason she regrets a sexual encounter that resulted frontier a romantic exchange, she need only claim she has diminished responsibility and (according to labour)EVERYONE MUST BELIEVE a rape has occurred. The man then needs to SOMEHOW prove that he did not commit rape or HE WILL spend up to 20 years in prison.
How can anyone see nothing wrong with this scenario.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 4:58 pm
Voices @37; Actually I can’t really care about consent etc much; thing is I don’t see that discussing it or not changes anything or achieves anything.
One point you made “Sadly these safety devices are – one size fits all and the risks are now so significant,In most cases I’d suggest that its best not to feed the monster, get yourself together, in time your kids will come looking for you. Best if they find you safe and well” – Hmmmmm ??? I have no experience of this. Seen too much parental and grand-parental alienation to believe in that. Related to this, two weeks ago my second accuser died. Her mother is my friend still. Because of that her mother has been cut off from her grand-children and now her great grand children. The poison has not beel buried with the corpse sadly. Indeed the grand-kids are now thte parents and have greater poison and hatred than their deceased mother. None of them are interested in Grandma, even though they were old enough at the time to know what the truth is for themselves. Reality, evidence etc simply do not matter, and I would not bank on the kids coming back when they are seventeen or older. For me this makes alienation a serious crime in its own right.
Although I do not believe in consent, I still {as I’ve admitted before} would have said I was putting my children first while our case was still active. Consent for me is just as vague a quantity as “Responsibility”. Endless discussions can be had about the nuances without achieving anything positive, or profound. Its a waste of time and energy. I too was around at the time of the Union of fathers” although I was remotely located I suppose and still had a lot of distractions on my plate. But we did attend protests. Yes I’ve protested alone. But usually my daughter would be along too. Indeed she was a driving force, and enabled me to attend Hastings and Napier. We have video of a guy wielding a running chainsaw at one protest. If it had been a women’s protest menaced with a chainsaw, it would have hit the news and I’m sure charges would have been laid – but being a father’s protest, nothing happened.
Seeing is this thread relates to RAPE: Did you see? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11854743 “Rape, violence and squalid conditions inside jail where Cassie Sainsbury is being held”. That is interesting isn’t it.
Comment by Jerry — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 5:01 pm
Voices @42; You slipped that one in while I was typing. I agree entirely. I see the problem, but then I’m male – and so I’m a part of the wicked thing called Patriarchy – which comprises all males who were conceived by, carried by, born to, first educated by, morally trained by, and schooled almost exclusively by, manipulated by, exploited by – WOMEN, and all too often and for no good reason without their father in their lives. Oh Woh doesn’t that mean that women create their hated patriarchy themselves? 🙂 Voices – I love your imagery. Images paint a million words.
Comment by Jerry — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 5:10 pm
Jerry,Cassie Sainsbury is in a horrible place. Rape wont be recognised unless theres a man to blame. Id say -Its hard for any of us to wish her situation apon her.
I was raised by women also.
But just as the chiefs players who were slandered even after committing to white ribbon ambassidorship, wearing pink socks and anything else that could suggest they cared about women, they still were chastised even after the accusations against them were proven untrue.
We cannot hope that respecting women enough- will free us from male bashing.
No matter what we say or do we cant mansplain our way out of patriarchy theory.
While we come from an age where a familys seccond or third most valuble asset was the jewels placed on a wifes/mothers left hand as a symbol of our acknowledgment for her commitment to family values, those values are not appreciated anymore, its deemed by feminism that men shackled them for the sake of dominance.
This paridigm is taught in schools, even in museums now as lesbian curators display that female struggles were against -patriarchy.
Its not often revealed that even in the 30’s 40’s and 50’s many women (35%) were employers and managers, respected in those roles. Those days you usually had to work your way up and they were considered the right person for thier station regardless of thier sex.
Yet feminism will have no acknowledgment for mens welcoming women into the upper domain of managment.
Infact NZ Women were milking cows and doing the same work as men, more often than not.
We had equality,communities worked with what we had and men and women endeavoured and celebrated male strengths and female strengths.
Now feminist want to call bad dates a crime worth 20 years imprisonment unless a man can prove otherwise.
As extreme as this is its a drop in the ocean, (unless your the one accused).
Some also want the right to abort thier children even after theyre born, not to mention the right to murder thier husbands with the excuse that she knew not, what else to do.
Lets pose theories and examples to women as i have at comment #42 and rejoin them by exposing feminist lies so our next generation can strive together.
Men have created marvellous things, lets take this challenge and convince women that feminism is not egalitarianism, its not good for any of us.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 12th May 2017 @ 9:21 pm
Damn!
I hope Labour pushes ahead with this because at the vote box they will AGAIN get smashed back to the 18th Century where they belong F… they r hypocrites. I bet Little goes into caucus with his teeny weeny tucked way between his legs while wearing spandex so he looks like all the others with camel toe haha!
Comment by Buster — Sat 13th May 2017 @ 6:51 am
#40 …
“Want a fuck?” is pretty basic and I’d prefer human relations had a little more intrigue.
My point is that in criminal law, and the policing of consent, establishing permission is as far as the police should investigate in terms of consent.
It’s bad enough that we have a Family Court digesting society, without going down the path of a Sex Court.
The only difference is that gate keeper to the court room door is a judge rather than a lawyer, but the reality is we would have one court assisting in conflicts of reproduction and another assisting in the conflicts of sexual relations.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 13th May 2017 @ 8:35 am
With a new feminist in charge she will be happy to hear that success has occurred and not surprisingly she hasn’t done anything yet.
The alleged rape victim really was believed as a starting and finishing point.
There is a very old allegation.
There is a corroborating witness who denies the offence was witnessed.
The accused denied the claim.
That’s it. Nothing else.
The case is summarised, someone is not telling the truth.
What about manufactured memories.
What about consistency of behaviour.
Since when did deciding with no other inputs is deciding guilt only based on judging the honesty of two people.
Has beyond reasonable doubt been excluded.
Now she’s heading towards retirement the ACC payment will come in handy.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/95352461/jury-takes-just-45-minutes-to-find-teacher-guilty-of-rape-and-indecent-assault
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 2nd August 2017 @ 1:27 pm
DJ Ward @48: I understand that sexual allegations are the only criminal cases that are able to proceed without any evidence except the allegations. They then reach a jury that is allowed to intuit that the complainant is telling the truth. But how can “The complainant sounded convincing” ever be allowed by the state to stand as ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’?
Sexual trials are our modern witch hunt. We don’t yet burn the accused at the stake but we’re close to it. We already have draconian life imprisonment and renewable 10-year additional sentences after an accused has already served the entire sentence that had initially been seen as befitting the allegations. Male haters constantly call for even lower standards of justice with accusers not being put to the trouble of being questioned at all, and even more inhumane punishments for those accused.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 2nd August 2017 @ 10:54 pm
Discussion is continued here
Comment by Downunder — Mon 7th August 2017 @ 4:43 pm
Cases such as this one come to light quite frequently from around the world.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 12th June 2018 @ 11:58 am