There’s a dangerous problem with the Believe Survivors movement
I do not think I have ever seen a news article where the reporter was fearful enough to put “Name Withheld”. Mostly reporters like to receive recognition, appreciation and industry respect for writing newsworthy features. Indeed, I am surprised the Editor published this piece.
The publishing of comments against the “believe survivors movement” and the overwhelming positive thumbs up is astonishing. Politicians should take note how many votes there are for change.
Well done to the writer editor and positive comment writers. Brave enough for the time being. Hopefully next time the reporter will put their name to it.
The article is a ‘Readers Report’ … Something along the lines of a letter to the editor but more in the fashion of encouraging readers to be the reporter, as is done here, by encouraging authors to tell their story.
Stuff News also does this under their Stuff Nation section.
Editors will sometimes publish ‘the desenting voice’ as they didn’t say it but this is what some people think. Good for business (click bait)
What is important to remember is that these rear glimpses are often more inline with public opinion than the tripe that is regularly pumped out by the Feminist machine online.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 22nd October 2018 @ 6:32 am
Facebook = Conform….
…extra dangerous in gods own given the current government.
Comment by mama — Mon 22nd October 2018 @ 9:36 am
What the world needs is TRACE BOOK where only truth be told!!
Comment by mama — Mon 22nd October 2018 @ 9:43 am
It’s great that someone has written a warning against treating accused ‘people’ as guilty unless they can convince us they’re innocent, and that the Stuff site saw fit to allow this article to see the light of day. However, the author seems naive in avoiding mentioning the fact that it is almost exclusively men who are treated as guilty and it’s almost exclusively women whom we are required to believe. The author, or perhaps the editor, ensured the elephant in the room was ignored, that elephant being rampant feminism devoid of caring towards men and lacking the wisdom to recognize fundamental principles of ethics, fairness or law.
Also, the author ‘Name Withheld’ stated
But the author doesn’t mention that, for sexual cases with male defendants in feminist saturated countries, ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ is now a much more unreliable finding than it used to be. Laws and Court procedures have been steadily changed to stack trials against the accused and in favour of the accuser. Here a just a few of them:
– The accused no longer has the right to face his accuser who can ask to be hidden behind screens or in a separate room to convey to the jury that the accused is dangerous and scary, aside from the loss of the test of the accuser’s honesty that was based on the difficulty most people have maintaining lies about someone while they face you as opposed to doing so behind your back.
– Indeed, the accuser no longer has to make the allegations under oath in Court at all because their video interview can be used to make those allegations at trial. That video interview was not done under oath but in a supportive situation with an interviewer who could not be interrupted through Courtroom objections regarding leading questions, suggestion or other evidence manipulation. The video interview also shows only what is in the camera’s field of view, enabling other people to prompt the accuser in various ways from behind the camera.
– The accuser gets to see the video interview when it’s played in Court before cross examination, removing yet another opportunity to detect lies in this case through inconsistency between the accuser’s account previously and the present.
– Cross examination of the female accuser now is quickly shut down by the judge if she starts to show tears or upset, even though that upset may well be because answering the questions honestly would expose untruths.
– The removal of time limits on sexual allegations also weakens the reliability of the ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ judgment. For adult victims there is no good reason they should not be required to make their allegations within a realistic time frame, say a couple of years. Beyond that an accused will generally find it impossible to defend himself through clear recall of exact events or finding witnesses to provide an alibi. Allowing many more years or decades simply enables the accuser’s memory to become increasingly distorted to the point of believing a consensual sexual interaction was rape. Allowing a jury to convict at all based purely on an accuser’s allegations and how convincingly she cried in Court can never amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt, but that now happens frequently.
So unfortunately, although Withheld makes some reasonable suggestions, failure to recognize the true cancer underlying the problem means the treatment is unlikely to improve matters much.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 22nd October 2018 @ 11:18 am
Isn’t there a term for them?
You know… a group of people who believe in the guilt of an accused before following due process.
And especially when that is done because of the group the accused belongs to…
It’s on the tip of my tongue…
Oh yes – I remember! It’s called a lynch-mob!
I make no apologies for the use of that term. Although the results are less graphically displayed – hanging from trees – the lynched men today are hanging from the rafters of their garages.
I also posit that sociologically speaking the lynch-mob mentality that seems to be an ever-increasing aspect of 3rd wave feminism today, is no different to lynch mobs of years gone by that saw predominantly black people hanging as “strange fruit”.
Comment by Audi Alteram Partem — Mon 22nd October 2018 @ 4:16 pm