Post: #1

If a woman accused a man of rape in England, she can now give a "video testimony" that prevents the defense from cross-examining her. The reason for this law is to give a woman "confidence."

Quote:Plans to allow alleged rape victims to avoid cross-examination in front of the accused are being brought forward, the justice secretary said.

Liz Truss said victims of sexual assault would be able to pre-record their testimony from September.

Speaking to the Sunday Times, she said schemes in three cities showed the system led to a higher level of "early guilty pleas".

"It reduces the level of trauma for the victim," she said.

Give victims 'confidence'

In her Sunday Times interview, she said: "I want to see that being the standard offer in those cases and that will give more victims confidence to come forward."
The scheme was piloted for child victims of sexual offences in Liverpool, Leeds and Kingston-upon-Thames.

The government announced its intention to extend the scheme last year, before the latest decision to speed up the reform.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39319495

More men must be accused of rape to prove that rape culture exists. Justice is being completely thrown out the window. Even banana republics don't have such insane measures.

Post: #2

This is unbelievable. An absolute travesty.

The rights of the accuser in England now are placed before the accused's right to a fair trial. This is an outrage and I hope the British bar does something about it. I don't know how the British system works but there must be some way to challenge this law.

In the US (in theory) the Constitution guarantees a defendant's right to confront his accuser in court, and have the accuser be cross examined. It's an essential part of a fair trial.

Sadly this right has been somewhat eroded in recent decades with many states passing laws that permit alleged child victims of sex crimes to "testify" out of court in a video deposition rather than in open court.

So-called "rape shield" statutes limit the scope of cross-examination for adult accusers. Basically, a defense attorney will not be permitted (unless certain circumstances exist) to probe into the prior sexual history of an accuser. The idea behind such statutes was that an accuser should not have to talk about her sexual past, and that it was supposedly "irrelevant" to the present case. Despite what the media says, it often is relevant.

The British court system should be ashamed of itself for giving in to politically correct whims of the moment. One of the cornerstones of British law was the whole idea that a man could not be convicted by secret tribunals or sealed testimony. This was one of the things that made English law the fairest, most just, and most enlightened in the world (when compared to what was happening on the Continent).

Under the tribunals run by the Inquisition, an accused would not even know who accused him. He was not allowed to examine witnesses, and it was done for the very same rationale as here: to "protect" the accuser from "harm." What the hell is wrong with us? The whole cornerstone of Anglo-American law is that we don't permit secret tribunals or secret testimony.

This law needs to be vigorously challenged at every opportunity. It's practically becoming a civil rights issue now.

.

Post: #3

(03-19-2017 06:38 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The rights of the accuser in England now are placed before the accused's right to a fair trial. This is an outrage and I hope the British bar does something about it. I don't know how the British system works but there must be some way to challenge this law.

Prediction: White Men won't do shit.

Post: #4

Quote:Prediction: White Men won't do shit.

In terms of fighting back against the state, you're correct.

But they will be more careful about which women they interact with, exclude lefty chicks from their prospect pipeline, record their sexual interactions, etc. In the end, this will just divide the sexes further, as planned.

Post: #5

After more accusations, come the claims that the conviction rate is far too low.
I can't find a link, but I was listening to ABC News Radio over the weekend and there was a story about how conviction rates for sexual assault were far lower than for other crimes (ones that have things like evidence and witnesses) because of the he said/she said nature of cases.
Whoever these experts were said that steps needed to be taken to bring rape convictions in line with things like robbery and assault.

Not it, but related:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-li...f4fd019b8e

Post: #6

Keep adding straws to the camel's back. Pay no heed to any complaints from the beast. What harm a single extra sheaf?

Post: #7

Are we certain that this bill forbids all cross-examination, or just forbids cross-examination while the accuser is in front of a jury and the accused?

At least in Western jurisdictions it's fairly common for child rape victims to pre-record their testimony, i.e., they are examined and cross-examined by the accused's lawyer and the process is recorded on videotape, to be shown to the jury during the course of the trial when all the other evidence is being presented.

We can probably see the rationale: asking a nine-year-old to testify in a court before 12 people with their rapist sitting listening to them is a fucking bridge too far. A court setting is designed to intimidate.

On the other hand, if this bill is proposing that the accused isn't allowed to be in the same room as the accuser at the time they're being cross-examined, it's fucking ludicrous. How is an accused meant to give his solicitor reasonable instructions if the accuser starts making shit up?

If, as I suspect, the bill is designed so the accuser never has to physically face a jury with her allegations, it's basically more special snowflake allowances in the same vein as safe spaces. It's frequently and conveniently forgotten that in a trial it's the accusation that is on trial, not the accused. But you can expect to see more of this kind of rubbish as the millenials, the generation raised without resilience, get older and get into positions of influence.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #8

Looks like the left is doubling down on their ridiculousness across the pond post-Brexit.

First the whole thing where a man saying hi to a woman in Britain was harassment, now rape-accusers don't have to face an accused rape victim?

I hope to God this bill fails, but I have a bad feeling that it will pass, and with it, more innocent men will have their lives potentially ruined with a wrong sexual encounter.

Post: #9

How is this going to work alongside Britain's upcoming Sharia Law...?

Post: #10

(03-19-2017 06:38 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  This is unbelievable. An absolute travesty.

The rights of the accuser in England now are placed before the accused's right to a fair trial. This is an outrage and I hope the British bar does something about it. I don't know how the British system works but there must be some way to challenge this law.

They won't do a thing about it.

See the legion of footballers, celebs and unknowns getting the book thrown at them on a consistent basis and a judge barely getting away with a mere comment saying women should be more responsible for their behaviour when drinking.

Nobody will challenge this outside of the circles who practise law because rape and those convicted or suspected of it are very touchy subjects.

Post: #11

Yeah, seeing similar laws in Europe too. See rape accusations on uptick too.

And no, you're not going to see Euro men doing shit in public. Those with a brain have taken precautions already.

It's getting really ugly in Europe though.

You got Trump, we're still trudging on with the agenda. A polish European Union member just got fined a months salary for saying women are worse at chess than men and weaker so they should be paid less. Yes, they just abolished the right to free speech if you critize women. The European Union is an abomination. The so called right wants harsher rape laws, because in their demented cuck minds, they probably think rape is only something the bad boys and muslims do, the thought that normal men could be charged doesn't enter their mind. The idea that a girl would give a blowjob in a bathroom is inconceivable to these cucks.

Post: #12

(03-19-2017 08:33 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  How is this going to work alongside Britain's upcoming Sharia Law...?

I gotta wonder if that doesn't have something to do with things like this?

Accuse someone of rape with sharia law: get whipped to death. Without it, guilty as charged.

The left is way to far left and the right is way to far right that the middle is this crazy shit.

Aloha!

Post: #13

The foundations are laid. The wheels are in motion. They know they can get away with anything and everything now because the people of the septic isle are truly broken, beaten and bowed. Are we not men? No, we are jellyfish!

Expect more of this. Expect the great descendants of the Vikings who like to beat their chest as they say "We were kings", to do, well, absolutely nothing.

I checked all of the forums on the net that matter - that have some kind of reach or political sway, and when the Spy Charter was finally made official, not one British coward made a single post about it. The silence was deafening. And with the internet we have the greatest human feedback machine in history - they are collating information, making lists, etc. etc. but most of all they get to gauge public opinion as well as forge it first-hand. And when they see not a peep from the peeps, they know they can bring about fucking outrages like this.

Fellow RVF'ers. My nation is truly lost. The backs of the men (I use the term loosely) are well and truly snapped in two. It sickens me to be classed along with these spineless jelly filled cowards who have no heart, no balls, and it would appear no fucking brains. Because it doesn't take a genius to work this out. I had this all worked out a few years ago. And everything I said would happen has come true. It's just drip drip drip from now on.

Mark my words, this will go unannounced and uncontested. And there will be far bigger travesties of justice coming soon. Not only must justice be seen NOT to be done, it must NOT be done!

This is from the end of last year:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/06...sh_courts/

The UK's Investigatory Powers Act allows the State to tell lies in court

Analysis Blighty's freshly passed Investigatory Powers Act, better known as the Snoopers' Charter, is a dog's dinner of a law. It gives virtually unrestricted powers not only to State spy organisations but also to the police and a host of other government agencies.

The operation of the oversight and accountability mechanisms in the IPA are all kept firmly out of sight – and, so its authors hope, out of mind – of the public. It is up to the State to volunteer the truth to its victims if the State thinks it has abused its secret powers. "Marking your own homework" is a phrase which does not fully capture this.

However, despite the establishment of a parallel system of secret justice, the IPA's tentacles also enshrine parallel construction into law. That is, the practice where prosecutors lie about the origins of evidence to judges and juries – thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial because he cannot review or question the truth of the evidence against him.

Section 56 of the act as passed sets out a number of matters that are now prohibited from being brought up in court. The exact wording of section 56(1) is as follows:

Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings etc.
(1) No evidence may be adduced, question asked, assertion or disclosure made or other thing done in, for the purposes of or in connection with any legal proceedings or Inquiries Act proceedings which (in any manner)—

(a) discloses, in circumstances from which its origin in interception-related conduct may be inferred—

(i) any content of an intercepted communication, or

(ii) any secondary data obtained from a communication, or

(b) tends to suggest that any interception-related conduct has or may have occurred or may be going to occur.

This is subject to Schedule 3 (exceptions).

Schedule 3's list of exemptions is broadly confined to national security court hearings, tribunals and other judicial occasions when the great unwashed, usually including the defendant and his legal representatives, are excluded from part or all of the hearing. Out of sight, out of mind.

Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability – nay, duty – to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions. This is incredibly dangerous. Even if you know that the story being told in court is false, you and your legal representatives are now banned from being able to question those falsehoods and cast doubt upon the prosecution story.

Potentially, you could be legally bound to go along with lies told in court about your communications – lies told by people whose sole task is to weave a story that will get you sent to prison or fined thousands of pounds.

Moreover, as section 56(4) makes clear, this applies retroactively, ensuring that it is very difficult for criminal offences committed by GCHQ employees and contractors over the years, using powers that were only made legal a fortnight ago, to be brought to light in a meaningful way. It might even be against the law for a solicitor or barrister to mention in court this Reg story by veteran investigative journalist Duncan Campbell about GCHQ's snooping station in Oman (covered by the section 56(1)(b) wording "interception-related conduct has occurred") – or large volumes of material published on Wikileaks.

The existence of section 56(4) makes a mockery of the "general privacy protections" in Part 1 of the IPA, which includes various criminal offences. Part 1 was introduced as a sop to privacy advocates horrified at the full extent of the act's legalisation of intrusive, disruptive and dangerous hacking powers for the State, including powers to force the co-operation of telcos and similar organisations. There is no point in having punishments for lawbreakers if it is illegal to talk about their law-breaking behaviour.

Like the rest of the Snoopers' Charter, section 56 has become law. Apart from Reg readers and a handful of Twitter slacktivists, nobody cares. The general public neither knows nor cares what abuses and perversions of the law take place in its name. Theresa May and the British government have utterly defeated advocates of privacy and security, completely ignoring those who correctly identify the zero-sum game between freedom and security in favour of those who feel the need to destroy liberty in order to "save" it.

The UK is now a measurably less free country in terms of technological security, permitted speech and ability to resist abuses of power and position by agents of the State, be those shadowy spys, police inspectors and above (ie, shift leaders in your local cop shop) and even food hygiene inspectors – no, really.

Sleep safely tonight, citizen. Trust us. ®

----------------------------

Not a peep from anyone on the forums full of big hard men who also have high IQs. The men that will argue the toss with each other till the cow's come home about the latest outrage, yet they are strangely silent.

Not so strange. They are beaten down and they are afraid. They are cowering.

But like the scene in Easy Rider before Jack gets pummeled to death (to paraphrase): Don't go telling anyone that they ain't free, coz they will go fighting and killing all in the name of, to prove to you that they are!

I have no respect for my countrymen, cowards to a man.

Read the comments on that Register article. Very enlightening and worth your time. I have also lost all respect for the Register as they are just about totally cucked now. I chucked my long years of service and my Silver badge rep in the bin. I wouldn't waste my time posting there now. But this article was genuinely frightening and opened my eyes, I'll give them that.

As for this new shit they are pulling? Of course. What did you expect would happen? Did you think they would just stop now they are just getting warmed up? I don't throw words like 'fascism' and 'totalitarianism' about lightly. I wish I could find a snappier phrase for it that isn't so over-used and semi-meaningless being lost in the semantics of it all, but they will have to do for now, along with 'anarcho-tyranny' - that's another good one.

It's been known we have secret courts here for a while. Get your noddle around that if you can.

Sometimes, I think this is my destiny. That I am the last man standing on Earth that has not been infected with the cancer, and it's down to me and me alone to stand up and fight, as I am the only man left alive who can save the people of Planet Earth. Then I wake up when my anti-psychotic medication wears off, and I realise, it wasn't a dream!

And that is what frightens me.

Post: #14

UK law has disgraced itself recently. The whims of the moment ie the SJWs, women and their cuck accomplices are running the narratives.

Adam Johnson got 6 years for shagging a 15 year old groupie slut. He should've got 6 months for his crime and another 6 months for being so stupid as to incriminate himself on his mobile phone.

Post: #15

(03-20-2017 01:13 AM)dongiovanni Wrote:  Adam Johnson got 6 years for shagging a 15 year old groupie slut.

I don't know this case, but that's retarded as fuck. SIX years? Can you imagine sitting in a cage for SIX fucking years for anything less than robbery or murder? Jesus fucking H.

If you don't pin a girl down and force yourself, then I don't agree that it's rape. Call me an asshole, but consensual sex shouldn't put a man in a cage for 6 years.

Post: #16

I'm half thinking all these laws are to make us accept Sharia law, because there's nothing for British men to fight for with this system. Why fight to protect your right to be banged up whenever a woman feels like it? When the civil war comes, will there be mass conversions to Islam by British men? Women will simply follow where they are led once they realise their increasingly oppressive series of shit tests has finally been passed.

Post: #17

No one will repel this, it will just never happen. There may be some loose fringe members from 'fathers4justice' who will make a statement. But ultimately he will be interviewed on 'this morning' or 'loose women' and just get called a rapist. The U.K court system and legal system is massively entrenched in social justice activism.

Post: #18

(03-19-2017 08:10 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  We can probably see the rationale: asking a nine-year-old to testify in a court before 12 people with their rapist sitting listening to them is a fucking bridge too far. A court setting is designed to intimidate.

So basically, this kind of legislation sends the message, "Women are as weak and vulnerable as nine-year-olds." (Cool, more grist for the anti-feminist mill! I guess women will be in need of patriarchal rule, similar to what is exercised over children, for their own protection, given their inability to be as strong and independent as men.)

This is similar to the theory behind rape shield laws, which are another means by which the accuser is shown favor relative to the accused. The defense is not allowed to bring up the accuser's sexual history, even though sexual promiscuity is closely linked to a lot of disorders, like borderline personality disorder, that can lead to false rape accusations. Yet, at least during pretrial and sentencing proceedings, hearsay from family members, former employers, etc. about the defendant's life story is fair game for the prosecution and the probation officer to use against him.

So we have a situation that very much encourages putting forth a narrative of the accuser as virginal angel, and the accused as demonic predatory villain. If there's nothing wrong with a woman's being sexually promiscuous, then why are feminists so adamant that no evidence of an accuser's sexual promiscuity should come out during trial? If, as the feminists claim, the only men who care about a woman's sexual promiscuity are misogynists with whom no self-respecting woman would want to associate anyway, then why would accusers care about those men's opinions? By that logic, women who only want quality men should trumpet as loudly as possible the fact that they're sluts, in order to repel the kind of low-quality men who harbor outdated, sexist ideas. (This is similar to how the feminists over at Wonkette advocate openly being a Trump-hater in order to repel red pillers.)

Why is it necessary to have rape shield laws, unless juries do in fact find a woman's sexual history quite relevant in determining whether she was raped, or in determining what the punishment for raping her should be? What is the point of having a jury system, if the courts are going to rig the system by preventing the jury from hearing information that they might quite pertinent and important? The whole point of the jury system is to let the common man, with his conventional wisdom, have his say, rather than to let "experts" (e.g. jurists who have been steeped in feminist indoctrination at the university) decide. If we can't trust our peers more than the elites, then the whole premise behind the jury system is flawed.

Why are women behaving as sluts, if they know that they wouldn't want to be exposed as sluts? They could just be chaste, and then they wouldn't have to worry about it. Feminists want to protect women's reputations, while reserving the right to trash men's reputations.

It's important to keep in mind that trials are not only judicial proceedings, but also morality plays that are full of symbolic gestures. For example, the fact that the accused gets to appear in a three-piece suit instead of a prison jumpsuit is supposed to remind the jury, "This man isn't a convicted criminal yet. He's to be considered innocent until proven guilty."

If, when the accused gets up there to speak in his own defense, he has to be exposed to all the "intimidation" that comes with taking the stand in front of a jury and courtroom audience, but the accused is protected by being allowed to testify via closed circuit TV, as though even being in the same room with the accused would traumatize her, the message that is already being sent is that the accused is a very dangerous and scary criminal, who can incapacitate this very fragile woman just by his very presence in the same room.

The subtext is, "If the power imbalance between these two is so great, and his influence over her so strong, that she can't even handle being in the same courtroom as him, think how hopeless it would have been for her to try to fight off this vicious, depraved animal when he was raping her! Think how helpless she must have been to try to fend off his manipulation when he was trying to get her alone in a location where he could rape her!"

Of course, given the kinds of men who are being accused of rape these days, and the kinds of women who typically are making the rape accusations, the accusers need every advantage they can get. Often the alleged rapist isn't a muscular guy with lots of prison tattoos, but rather a meek, beta ex-boyfriend, or someone like that. And the accuser is not some timid, home-schooled, churchgoing maiden, but rather a well-known party slut, drug user, and psychologically disturbed woman with severe daddy issues and a long history of making rape accusations. The jury might be inclined to laugh these claims out of court, except that the judge seems to be showing so much concern for the reputation and emotional fragility of the accuser (compared to how the accused is being treated), that a message is already being sent about who deserves the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

Another aspect of this is that juries need to be able to observe witnesses closely and watch their body language. Some witnesses will give away signs of deception or psychological instability. Maybe a deterrent against false accusations is that some accusers are reluctant to have to lie in the faces of twelve jurors and a courtroom audience? I would imagine, the easier we make it for them, the more women will be tempted to lie.

Post: #19

(03-20-2017 03:11 AM)Matsufubu Wrote:  I'm half thinking all these laws are to make us accept Sharia law, because there's nothing for British men to fight for with this system. Why fight to protect your right to be banged up whenever a woman feels like it? When the civil war comes, will there be mass conversions to Islam by British men? Women will simply follow where they are led once they realise their increasingly oppressive series of shit tests has finally been passed.

This is what I was thinking, although I suspect that the conversions are likely happening now in small numbers and will ramp up in the future. There will definitely be a lot of men who simply recognise the Islamic system to literally be free-er than their current national (and EU) system. Perhaps not for women, but there is increasingly a sentiment among Western men that the women of their nations can get fucked for all they care.

I despise islam as much as anyone, but if it came down to a choice between joining the pedo death cult and being made a eunuch to the globalist elites I would choose islam. At least under islam I would still be free to be a man. A slave to God, perhaps, but not to some earthly trillionaire bastard and his feminist undercunt bureaucrat lackeys.

Post: #20

(03-20-2017 07:01 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  ...
So basically, this kind of legislation sends the message, "Women are as weak and vulnerable as nine-year-olds." (Cool, more grist for the anti-feminist mill! I guess women will be in need of patriarchal rule, similar to what is exercised over children, for their own protection, given their inability to be as strong and independent as men.)

This is similar to the theory behind rape shield laws, which are another means by which the accuser is shown favor relative to the accused. The defense is not allowed to bring up the accuser's sexual history, even though sexual promiscuity is closely linked to a lot of disorders, like borderline personality disorder, that can lead to false rape accusations. Yet, at least during pretrial and sentencing proceedings, hearsay from family members, former employers, etc. about the defendant's life story is fair game for the prosecution and the probation officer to use against him.

So we have a situation that very much encourages putting forth a narrative of the accuser as virginal angel, and the accused as demonic predatory villain. If there's nothing wrong with a woman's being sexually promiscuous, then why are feminists so adamant that no evidence of an accuser's sexual promiscuity should come out during trial? If, as the feminists claim, the only men who care about a woman's sexual promiscuity are misogynists with whom no self-respecting woman would want to associate anyway, then why would accusers care about those men's opinions? By that logic, women who only want quality men should trumpet as loudly as possible the fact that they're sluts, in order to repel the kind of low-quality men who harbor outdated, sexist ideas. (This is similar to how the feminists over at Wonkette advocate openly being a Trump-hater in order to repel red pillers.)

Why is it necessary to have rape shield laws, unless juries do in fact find a woman's sexual history quite relevant in determining whether she was raped, or in determining what the punishment for raping her should be? What is the point of having a jury system, if the courts are going to rig the system by preventing the jury from hearing information that they might quite pertinent and important? The whole point of the jury system is to let the common man, with his conventional wisdom, have his say, rather than to let "experts" (e.g. jurists who have been steeped in feminist indoctrination at the university) decide. If we can't trust our peers more than the elites, then the whole premise behind the jury system is flawed.

Why are women behaving as sluts, if they know that they wouldn't want to be exposed as sluts? They could just be chaste, and then they wouldn't have to worry about it. Feminists want to protect women's reputations, while reserving the right to trash men's reputations.

It's important to keep in mind that trials are not only judicial proceedings, but also morality plays that are full of symbolic gestures. For example, the fact that the accused gets to appear in a three-piece suit instead of a prison jumpsuit is supposed to remind the jury, "This man isn't a convicted criminal yet. He's to be considered innocent until proven guilty."

If, when the accused gets up there to speak in his own defense, he has to be exposed to all the "intimidation" that comes with taking the stand in front of a jury and courtroom audience, but the accused is protected by being allowed to testify via closed circuit TV, as though even being in the same room with the accused would traumatize her, the message that is already being sent is that the accused is a very dangerous and scary criminal, who can incapacitate this very fragile woman just by his very presence in the same room.

The subtext is, "If the power imbalance between these two is so great, and his influence over her so strong, that she can't even handle being in the same courtroom as him, think how hopeless it would have been for her to try to fight off this vicious, depraved animal when he was raping her! Think how helpless she must have been to try to fend off his manipulation when he was trying to get her alone in a location where he could rape her!"

Of course, given the men who are being accused of rape these days, the accusers need every advantage they can get. Often these aren't tattooed, muscular guys, but rather their meek, beta ex-husband or someone like that. And the accused is not some timid, churchgoing maiden, but rather a well-known party slut, drug user, and psychologically disturbed woman with a long history of making rape accusations. The jury might be inclined to laugh these claims out of court, except that the judge seems to be showing so much concern for the reputation and emotional fragility of the accuser (compared to how the accused is being treated), that a message is already being sent about who deserves the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

Another aspect of this is that juries need to be able to observe witnesses closely and watch their body language. Some witnesses will give away signs of deception or psychological instability. Maybe a deterrent against false accusations is that some accusers are reluctant to have to lie in the faces of twelve jurors and a courtroom audience? I would imagine, the easier we make it for them, the more women will be tempted to lie.

The principle of the feminist response to your intelligent and well worded rebuttal to this legal and moral travesty will be as follows.

"You are either a rapist or a rapist protector! Fuck you! You have been reported and doxxed, so expect to be banned and fired by tomorrow!"

The principle of the average man's response to both your intelligent and well worded rebuttal to this legal and moral travesty, and to the feminist's response will be as follows.

".................."

Post: #21

What is stopping each man falsely accused of rape when he knows consensual sex took place from immediately counter-claiming that she raped him? Surely he must be taken just as seriously.

Post: #22

What I don't understand about rape is that it's presented as being the worse possible thing one human can do to another.

It's not. In grand scheme of things it's not even that big a deal at all. I know absolutely zero people who've been raped. Murder is far worse than rape. The ending of someone's life versus an unwanted penetration of a pussy. A pussy can lubricate during rape and reach orgasm which suggests the supposed "victim" is having some enjoyment or satisfaction.

I'm not in anyway suggesting that people should be free to assault one another when lever they damn feel like it but to suggest that women are too emotionally incapable of sitting in a court of law is rediculous. Especially when most accusations are proven to be false.

It won't be long before we do need contracts in place before we have sex with a woman.


They really need to restrict the definition of rape to something along the lines of a violent sexual penetration in a public/semi public place.

It's amazing how mike Tyson was jailed for rape for fucking a girl who knocked on his hotel room and invited herself in. Makes me mad.

Post: #23

(03-20-2017 08:07 AM)Ethan Hunt Wrote:  What I don't understand about rape is that it's presented as being the worse possible thing one human can do to another.

It is a horrible thing, actual rape, where a woman (or man) is raped by knifepoint.

Sex with varying degress of regret and mixed/negative emotions or loss of face is not rape though.

What is apparant, is that women, not men, are actually asking for a return to Victorian laws, they want laws against seduction basically. They want laws to protect their virtue (public opinion of chastity).

Post: #24

(03-20-2017 07:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  This is what I was thinking, although I suspect that the conversions are likely happening now in small numbers and will ramp up in the future. There will definitely be a lot of men who simply recognise the Islamic system to literally be free-er than their current national (and EU) system. Perhaps not for women, but there is increasingly a sentiment among Western men that the women of their nations can get fucked for all they care.

I despise islam as much as anyone, but if it came down to a choice between joining the pedo death cult and being made a eunuch to the globalist elites I would choose islam. At least under islam I would still be free to be a man. A slave to God, perhaps, but not to some earthly trillionaire bastard and his feminist undercunt bureaucrat lackeys.

The West is making the civil rights case for Islam to it's citizens rather than the religious one which the secular West would reject. Clever bastards.

Post: #25

Great comment above by Jean Valjean. I agree.

Laws like this demonstrate the fact that every generation has to fight, and re-fight, the battles of the past for itself. Rights, once won, do not stay won forever. Every generation has to re-fight them, and push back the tide of injustice and ignorance for itself. If it rests on its laurels--if it relies too much on the labor of previous generations--then it stagnates and risks losing what has been won in the past.

Civilization is a constant battle to keep barbarism and injustice at bay. Our generation, and the once preceding us, forgot this lesson. And this is why we are facing what we're facing now. Not just in this example, but in so many other things: student loan debt, not holding politicians accountable for their wars, not demanding better education and health care, etc., etc.

Until a critical mass point is reached, people will blissfully go about their business, thinking "Well, it's not my problem."

Until it does become their problem.

I'm also deeply disappointed with the so-called "intelligentsia" in Britain and the US for sitting on their asses and not saying anything about the rank injustices happening all around them. The whole lot is just swimming in chickenshitism (for lack of a better word) and spinelessness.

Think of the old days. In the old days, public intellectual figures like Arthur Conan Doyle, George B. Shaw, and H.G. Wells had some level of commitment to public duty. I know that Conan Doyle personally took up the cases of certain people who were wrongfully accused of things. So did Shaw. Not anymore. There's just no one.

.