On no subject is the Uniparty less qualified to legislate

RARELY has an extremist who happens to be the First Law Officer of an Australian state so boldly admitted to ‘flipping’ the rule of law. But rarely, if ever, has a government as vengeance-crazed and dangerous as the junta in Victoria held office in this country – in either colonial or federated times. Jaclyn Symes’ bravado may be ill-advised but it is well buttressed. China sycophant Mr Andrews is not content with a so-called pandemic bill designed to consolidate all power in his own hands – his version of Xi’s historic resolution. He also wants to abolish religious liberty and the presumption of innocence. There is no such thing in common law as an “affirmative consent model” compelling an accused to prove his or her innocence to a jury. You would have thought the attempt to reverse the onus of proof in the rigged prosecution of George Pell would have discouraged the Andrews Sisters from replacing Blackstone’s Ratio with Blackadder’s. But no.

The Liberal government in New South Wales has also decided to enact what the absurdly titled Attorney-General and Minister for Prevention of Domestic and Sexual Violence, Mark Speakman, is selling beneath the flickering gaslight as common sense reforms “to make sexual consent laws easier to follow.” The presumption of innocence will be replaced with a gimcrack axiom that he and his feminist controllers invented: “the basic principle of common decency.” The ‘principle’ insists “consent is a free choice involving mutual and ongoing communication.” The Attorney-General has confirmed that married couples will also be required to seek prior approval for each and every twist and turn – not to mention kiss, tickle, thrust and nibble – of sexual intercourse. Men who fail to do so are rapists, according to the NSW Liberal Party. Technically, randy women who take matters into their own hands could also be prosecuted. No more pecking coppers on New Year’s Eve, girls. Speaking of Mr Speakman’s police, unelected Commissioner, Mick Fuller, is like his over-the-limit counterparts Australia-wide: he no longer stays in his lane. Fuller supports the ‘reforms’ because they will “improve victim outcomes.” He means enough men will be railroaded to get bluestockings off his back.

Most people have nothing but sympathy for Saxon Mullins, the then 18 year-old whose devastating sexual experience in 2013 ended in the acquittal of Luke Lazarus in 2018 and – three years later – to this ‘positive consent’ bill. The maxim-cum-cliché that hard cases make bad law has only limited relevance here. It is truer to say that politicising cases to appease culture warriors destroys the rule of law. That feminists are more interested in gender trolling than justice is obvious. Last week, the Perrottet government introduced a Zoe’s Law bill that, if enacted, will make killing an unborn baby during the commission of a crime against the mother a separate offence. Without any support from the left-wing establishment, the victim who pushed for this reform, Brodie Donegan, had to wait 12 years – not merely three – for change. Why? Because a women’s coalition kept derailing the bill on behalf of the abortion industry. They wanted the drugged driver who killed Mrs Donegan’s child to get away with it. Like Mr Lazarus, he had powerful and influential friends.

A superb and related essay by Alexandra Marshall at The Spectator: A cheap bottle of Perrottet.
This entry was posted in Australian police state, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to On no subject is the Uniparty less qualified to legislate

  1. Mkrsie says:

    Guilty till proven innocent.I sure the Libs and the Independence will be all over this.
    Surely Fiionae Patten can’t support this?
    Who am I kidding.

  2. Shy Ted says:

    Surely this could include the little incident that happened just before Dan fell down the stairs?

  3. Tel says:

    China sycophant Mr Andrews is not content …

    You can accuse the commies of lot of things, but they don’t take half measures.

    Victoria is heading down the path of all or nothing.

    It is truer to say that politicising cases to appease culture warriors destroys the rule of law.

    Destroying the rule of law is a very useful outcome, for those who are inconvenienced by having laws in the first place. Remove the rule of law and it gets replaced by rule of powerful men, whoever that might turn out to be when the dust settles.

  4. Howardb says:

    So henceforth in the radical feminist gulag of Danistan all men and boys are declared to be evil and will be presumed guilty of rape by accusation.

    a person “does not” consent to sex if there’s “verbal aggression, begging & nagging, physical persistence, social pressuring, emotional manipulation or lying

    Every man in family court can now be prosecuted for rape. Lying about income is now 14yrs to life

    Consent for each stage (??) allows an individual to withdraw consent at any time including retrospectively by claiming she was drinking. So now bad sex or regret equals rape.

    And we must believe women never lie and and that any evidence of such is simply evidence of trauma and truth. … what could possibly go wrong.

    The only possible explanation for this change is that the feminized government wants not to punish more actual rapists, but to secure more guilty verdicts against men.

    The ultimate goal of this sort of legislation is to officially redefine virtually all sex as rape & ‘create another tool to criminalize male sexuality and men’

    And of course, provide massive earnings and power to the parasite barristocracy and a huge entourage of feminist sycophants

    The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is all that stands in the way of tyranny

  5. C.L. says:

    Consent for each stage (??) allows an individual to withdraw consent at any time including retrospectively by claiming she was drinking. So now bad sex or regret equals rape.

    Yes, Howard. That will be the law. And I fail to see what difference it will make in a courtroom. It will still come down to he said/she said. Bold male defendants could even conceivably counter-claim that she – for example – took liberties with his penis without asking for consent.

  6. a reader says:

    They could CL but there is no way a man is ever going to be believed in this environment

  7. Tel says:

    So henceforth in the radical feminist gulag of Danistan all men and boys are declared to be evil and will be presumed guilty of rape by accusation.

    Of course it won’t be ALL men … you must surely have heard the term “selective enforcement”.

  8. Boambee John says:

    If this law goes through, it will be interesting to see the reaction to complaints from members of national women’s sporting teams about non-consensual sexual activities by other team members. Or did the advisers to the AG think that complaints would only be made against men?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.