Feminists double down on campaign to put an end to fair trials

“One of the things that’s very harrowing for complainants is they are often subjected to lines of questioning that either imply or expressly state that they’re lying.”

But some complainants are lying – and being questioned is not as harrowing as being imprisoned.
This entry was posted in Fake news, Left-wing extremism, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Feminists double down on campaign to put an end to fair trials

  1. NFA says:

    Why bother with police investigations or courts?

    Lock the accused up and throw away the key.

    And grant each ‘victim’ a million dollars bounty money for the news ordeal of press interviews explaining the case.

  2. NFA says:

    Professor of Law at the University of Wollongong

    Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!

  3. Albos Toss says:

    How exactly does the accused deny an allegation of rape without implying the complainant is lying?

  4. rosie says:

    They’ll just have to get over it.
    Rape used to be a hanging offence, if people want rapists to get lengthy prison sentences they have to be allowed a vigorous defence, and that includes challenging the evidence of the accuser.
    Two options, wasn’t there or it was consensual, implying either mistaken, or lying.

  5. and says:

    The Spotlight program this Sunday night is featuring the Lehrmann trial.

  6. C.L. says:

    Rape used to be a hanging offence, if people want rapists to get lengthy prison sentences they have to be allowed a vigorous defence, and that includes challenging the evidence of the accuser.

    Germaine Greer has amplified this point. If all alleged rapes are punishable by hefty prison time, all accusers must be ruthlessly interrogated in court. Yes, that is unfortunate for genuine victims. The alternative – which feminists will not countenance because they’re fanatics – is to concede that some ‘he said/she said’ encounters gone wrong (usually in the context of alcohol) should either not be tried at all or be punishable by much reduced tariffs or non-prison alternatives.

    By insisting the latter class of debacles are the same as horrendous assaults, feminists harm real victims just to broaden the scope of their war on men. They are the ones damaging victims – not courts and not the ‘system.’

    And there is a flip side to the lamented disadvantage of cross-examination. Namely, women’s ‘gendered’ privilege of walking away from failed and wholly disproved allegations without being sued, investigated, prosecuted or imprisoned; often, in fact, without ever being named.

  7. Petros says:

    Proof of lying leads to the equivalent imprisonment that the accused would have suffered. Problem solved.

  8. rosie says:

    Reality is accusers already get a softly softly approach from specially trained police in Victoria.
    Woe betide any barrister that appears to be even a little aggressive in cross examination and of course it’s always remote location with support person.
    This of course is fall out from the Skaf and Khan gang rapes in NSW and I absolutely and unreservedly sympathise with the victims in those type of cases.
    But in he said she said, not so much.
    Sarah Jane Parkinson can’t be the only one to have set up an ex out of spite, greed etc.

    victim centric policing

  9. Christine says:

    It would be also ‘harrowing’ for a (falsely) accused male person to see the effect that a tearful accuser can have on her audience; ‘harrowing’ to hear her being praised as dignified and courageous; ‘harrowing’ to realise her deceit had little or no bearing.

  10. C.L. says:

    Harrowing to be unemployed while she banks $3000,000.

  11. C.L. says:

    This from the ABC today:

    Meagan set a challenge: a positive story about a rape trial. Two years on, here’s the verdict.

    Spoiler alert: In the 122nd paragraph, we learn that he was found not guilty.

    The innocent man wasn’t interviewed.

  12. Old Lefty says:

    The ABC and it’s wokerati constituency are in heated agreement when a US judge tells Trump that the courtroom is the place for mounting his defence and he should stop posting on social media:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-12/judge-warns-against-social-media-in-donald-trump-hearing/102722512

    But say the same thing about Brittany (or about Milligan’s posting on behalf of Mr Chocolate Drop Eyes) and you are an apologist for rapists and pedos, and an all-round running dog of patriarchal sexists fascist genocidal imperialis..

  13. Old Lefty says:

    I suspect that I’ll annoy some readers by saying this, but the US judge was right. And by the same token, Kidd should have done Milligan and McCallum should have done Wilkinson, Maiden and Higgins for contempt of court.

  14. Wyndham Dix says:

    Almost certainly in vain, I suggest feminists read the word of God in Deuteronomy, chapter 22.

    With one exception, unless the male and female were discovered in flagrante delicto, there was no punishment. In other words, no witness (es), no proof. It was a case of ‘she said / he said’.

    The one exception was the alleged offence occurring in ‘open country’ to a female betrothed to another man. The betrothed female was given the benefit of the doubt of having screamed but being unheard and thus not rescued. The male offender was presumed guilty and punished by death. (Vv. 25-27.)

    The unspoken corollary of the ‘open country’ allegation is that if the male put to death was, in fact, innocent of the charge, his blood will be on the female’s head on the coming Day of Judgment.

    One hopes the severe punishment for the undiscovered ‘open country’ offence constrained the male from having his way with any betrothed female, and likewise the female from bearing false witness against him.

    Capital punishment ensued for both parties if a man and another man’s wife, or betrothed and presumptive virgin, were caught in the act.

    Thus was evil to be purged from ancient Israel.

  15. rosie says:

    Meagan’s discipline, to not compare notes with her husband, would have an impact on her case.

    Yhey actually wrote that?

  16. Mantaray says:

    n you scrub my previous as it went into the wrong thread?

  17. C.L. says:

    Mantaray, I don’t want a sub-discussion about female rape fantasies – or a new visitor drawing conclusions about the site based on the existence of such a discussion.

    Your Quadrant link may have been posted in good faith but it has nothing to do with the denuding of natural justice in our courts.

    As I’ve asked people several times…

    1. please stay on the topic;
    2. I don’t have an open forum on the site. Therefore, please do not post things that may be interesting to you but are not relevant to the post.

  18. Texas Jack says:

    One of the other things that’s very harrowing for complainants is they are often subjected to lines of questioning that either imply or expressly state that they’re lying.

    Unlike the harrowing quadrella of a) being sacked, b) being accused of being a rapist, c) being forced to endure a formal prime ministerial statement made in the House of Representatives apologizing directly to the accuser and praise her “courage,” and d) having to overcome the legal jeopardy of the accuser being chaperoned to court each day by a Victims of Crime Commissioner?

  19. Memoryvault says:

    All true, Jack, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Violent sexual assault is still a harsh reality for many women, especially young ones. my late wife Marilyn counselled some of them.

  20. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Texas Jack says:
    13 August, 2023 at 12:10 pm”

    Quite so TJ. Last year I had to sit at a police station for over three hours and give a statement because a woman I know made an allegation that she’d been raped by a man know, and when did that alleged rape happen? In 2008. When did she make the claim of rape? In 2021. I wonder why? I wonder what could have motivated her?

    These trivial accusations make a mockery of women who are real victims of sexual violence.

    I don’t believe all women, women lie, women make up stuff, women manipulate, women connive, women are duplicitous, women are deceitful. And there’s nothing more dangerous than a female who is out to destroy a male who she feels has wronged her. I know what women can be like, because I am a woman.

  21. Christine says:

    It’s true that violent sexual assault is a harsh reality, but violent assaults are not as difficult to prove, as encounters in social situations.
    Mustn’t harshly judge the modern trend for young women to go out and get intoxicated? (many feminists will say they should be free to); well, it can’t be denied that they are putting themselves at risk, in more ways than one.
    They aren’t brave and they aren’t dignified.

    Spare me the sight of anointed role model/victim, in a white dress, enjoying the spotlight.

    Wrong to be praising and rewarding.

  22. Mantaray says:

    CL. The fact that 98.5% of sexual assault allegations are found to be flimsy and mostly not believable, begs the question of why the sheilas are making the allegations…indicates motivation of some nature not on the level. So what could it be?

    Just amazing you’d can a very legitimate link to A) Quadrant, and B) Many of the finest academic studies explaining WHY false allegations are so common.

    PS: What is a “bodice ripper”?…..https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2014/02/12/romance-novels-business-best-sellers. Cancelled for being too honest yet again?

  23. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “It’s true that violent sexual assault is a harsh reality, but violent assaults are not as difficult to prove, as encounters in social situations.”

    Correct.

  24. Texas Jack says:

    How do we feel about the following?

    1. Harmonized statute of limitations of 6 or 12 months for rape accusations.

    2. Amendment of the Parliamentary Privilege Act such that privilege is revoked where comments are determined to have jeopardized a sitting court case.

    I don’t like government – period. But the Higgins Case exposed major deficiencies in the extent to which the judicial system conveys even-handedness. Would these be steps too far?

  25. Ragu Namatjira says:

    2. Amendment of the Parliamentary Privilege Act such that privilege is revoked where comments are determined to have jeopardized a sitting court case.

    Isn’t that the exact reason PP exists in the first place? So sensible adults can freely talk about a subject to formulate a legislative response because it is strictly verboten for the hairy-arsed class to utter anything.

    So we arrive at the problem. Parliament is devoid of sensible people. A sensible, fully paid member of team Haggins wouldn’t have said a damn thing to jeopardise her trial.

  26. Ragu Namatjira says:

    It’s kind of ironic.

    Richard Alexander wrote a great thesis that humans have evolved in a co-operate-to-compete environment, and this explains a lot of our higher intelligence. We are juggling go-along-to get-along with an imperative to outclass all others to keep our lineage. Plus the whole feed yourself or die situation.

    In the modern world, those who best utilise this skill are those that aren’t broadly smart but narcissistic enough to want to win popularity contests in order to impose their own ideal of how society should operate.

    It is probably the origin of politics. One group is happy enough to play the game, but they also want to be left out of the consequences of winning at all costs, while the others want to suck everything into the game to dominate.

  27. Ragu Namatjira says:

    How did humans evolve? Reflections on the uniquely unique species.

    Alexander, Richard D.

    1990

    https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/57178

  28. C.L. says:

    Statutes of limitations could be problematic in a few ways, Jack. Adults reporting real crimes perpetrated against them as children cannot be barred from pursuing the alleged culprit. The DNA factor is also in play, of course.

    Bettina Arndt’s argument about DPPs being too afraid (or too dogmatic) not to prosecute ridiculous cases – and their resultant tendency to chuck accused ‘rapists’ before a jury to appease the sisterhood – is 100 per cent correct. However, I’m afraid we have to fight the long fight. The presumption of innocence has to be upheld in toto and lawyers must be properly trained to act – and prosecute – accordingly and rationally.

    Notwithstanding what Ragu says about parliamentary privilege, sure – why shouldn’t this hallowed right be reformed? Gratuitous defamation of an accused should be actionable.

  29. NFA says:

    Gratuitous defamation of an accused should be actionable.

    Aye… and there’s the ‘nub’, C.L.

  30. Texas Jack says:

    Adults reporting real crimes perpetrated against them as children cannot be barred from pursuing the alleged culprit. The DNA factor is also in play, of course.

    Good point, C.L.

    I’m still very concerned about the types of cases Cassie described (where the accuser makes the case 13 years after the claimed event). The Porter case was particularly concerning. What if a statute of limitations applied in any situation where the accuser was over the age of consent?

    I have a 21 year old lad and a 23 year old lass, some 5 generations down from their currency lad and lass forebears. Of course I’m concerned for the world both are emerging into as young adults, but I see only downsides in the ‘warehousing’ of claims of rape beyond a few weeks.

    Am I off my trolley?

  31. Mantaray says:

    C’mon. Not reporting various incidents is almost certainly because they were either enjoyable at the time, or inconsequential thren: now beaten up into drama-queen grade BS.

    Why would I have reported my 6th class teacher in a very short mini-skirt for touching me up at her place (near where I lived) by the pool? Why would I dob in my then high-school English teacher for having her way with me (a la Emmanuel Macron and his English teacher..now wife) while we were on an away debating (snigger snigger) trip all those decades ago?

    Meanwhile, had it been an unwanted encounter, every person I’ve ever met would have…or did…reported / report it. No idea what any of this is about.

    I suppose it comes down to how you were brought up. The high school I went to incessantly drummed it into us lads that “every man is the maker of his destiny”. meaning there is no fall-back to “it weren’t my fault but I took no action”.

    As an old boy of that school once remarked to us “Boys like us don’t cry.” Nifty was right. STOP CRYING C.L. bloggers!

  32. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Am I off my trolley?”

    No. TJ, I’m sure you’re a good and loving parent. But with the Porter, Lehrmann et all the other allegations, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking. So, let me state this, these problems, particularly of the kind that have been alleged against Porter and Lehrmann (and the ALP staffer whose name I forget), are NOT happening in religious communities, be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or others. Religious people of all creeds almost always believe that you don’t have sex until marriage, that sex is regarded as sacred, you marry young, and you procreate. Sex in Judaism is regarded as a gift from God, something to be enjoyed and celebrated, but only between a husband and wife, and I suspect it’s exactly the same in Christianity. But these rules, now only confined to the religious, were the rules across the West until only about fifty years ago. Since then, thanks to militant feminism, we’ve seen the unravelling and collapse of religion across the West, and with that the accompanying collapse of social and sexual mores. The problem nowadays is that too many young men and young women are sexually active outside marriage, they’re often promiscuous, this demeans the sexual act. But I also believe that it exposes men and women to unsavoury allegations. Casual sex is demeaning, it sullies the soul and it emotionally, physically and psychologically exposes people. We’ve all now seen the video footage of Bruce and Brittany entering the minister’s office, the repercussions of what happened or did not happen in that office that night destroyed a government, but more importantly, it’s destroyed a young man’s life. But here’s the thing, once upon a time it would have been taboo for a young women to go out without knickers, and it would have been taboo for a young women to accompany a young man back to an empty office. That would never happen in religious communities.

    Our grandparent’s generation usually only had one sexual partner in their lives….ONE, unless there was a bereavement or more rarely, divorce. I am pretty sure that that all of my four grandparents were virgins when they married in the mid and late 1930s (my mother’s mother was eighteen). I think we need to instruct our young that sex is sacred, it belongs in marriage, and that young men and women shouldn’t be going to nightclubs, parties, or worse….online, to pick up sexual partners that not only don’t provide them with any long-term intimacy and satisfaction, but also adds to their unhappiness, their loneliness and makes them vulnerable, very vulnerable to false accusations.

    UK author and journalist, Louise Perry, has written an excellent good book called The Case against the Sexual Revolution. I’ve read it and it confirms everything I’ve long thought, that the sexual revolution has only made men and women lonelier and unhappier. It’s certainly been the case with me. If I could relive my life over again, I would never ever have had sex before marriage.

    Apologies about the rant!

  33. NFA says:

    what Cassie of Sydney says 13 August, 2023 at 8:02 pm

    Rant away Cassie of Sydney – All good!

  34. C.L. says:

    Thank you, Cassie.

  35. Christine says:

    Such good thoughts from Cassie
    Forthright, crystal-clear

  36. Mantaray says:

    NFA (7.53pm) What’s Biden’s senile dementia got to do with “historical sex crimes” having…or not having….a statute of limitations? PLUS, what about the wife telling Joe to F Off….instead of her husband telling him?

    Anyhow…the most obvious aspect of historical unreported “crimes” is that they were NOT unwanted…or else didn’t happen. Who wouldn’t report a theft, or an assault (of any type), or an embezzlement, a murder, a truly dangerous dog etc etc (and etc) if it was for real.

    I am so tired of unfulfilled-wish-dreams being elevated (by hysterics) into “crimes”!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *