Right now the Greens are quietly and slowly pushing the largest changes to our sexual assault laws we’ve ever seen.
On top of the existing protections for victims of sexual assault, the Greens want to actively gerrymander the current defence to rape by having past sexual history between accuser and the accused wiped from the Jury.
The only defence to rape when there isn’t a disagreement over the event occurring is that the one being accused thought they had consent and they use past sexual history to arrive at that consent.
By eliminating this defence on top of eroding the right to silence alongside false promises that the victim won’t ever have to come back for cross examinations, the Greens hope to gerrymander a system of justice that is tailor-made to ensure the guilt of the accused.
Just consider that for a moment.
These changes are not about ensuring justice, these changes are about ensuring guilty convictions.
That is the total opposite of Justice.
I can’t tell the difference between a Woke Lynch mob or a Sensible Sentencing Lynch mob.
Most New Zealander’s will be utterly unaware of these proposed changes and the legal establishment in NZ have been vocal in challenging the Greens over their use of overseas examples which they claim don’t stand up to scrutiny.
To wilfully manipulate the legal system so that it is designed to find more men guilty rather than better quality justice is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent to set no mater who is doing it.
This isn’t a Left or Right wing issue, it’s about justice and the values we have built into that justice system.
The Greens continually point to the ‘1% conviction rate of all unreported sexual assaults’ as their justification to design a Court that ensures guilty verdicts, but right now 31% of sexual assault cases see a conviction and using guesstimates of something unmeasurable to justify a process that ensures guilt is Orwellian in its design.
Why bother having a trial if the Greens have already found all men guilty?
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
The smart move will be for males to literally have a women sign a consent agreement before any sex every time. Let’s see how that goes. Expect a large population drop once men realise they have a right (or left) hand and unlimited porn that gets the job done almost as well and whenever they want it.
And listen to the women cry “why can’t I find a good man?”
Excerpt from Wikipedia. Interesting text under ‘Re-labeling’ and ‘Regret’.
“An accuser may have several motivations to falsely claim they have been raped. There is disagreement on how many different categories these may be put into. Kanin (1994) put them in three: revenge, producing an alibi or to get sympathy/attention.[7] Author Sandra Newman listed four categories in 2017.[8] According to De Zutter et al. (2017), Kanin’s division is inadequate and one should recognise eight distinct categories in total:[7]
– Material gain: to receive money, professional promotion or other material benefits.
– Producing an alibi: a false allegation is used to cover up other behaviour, such as being late or absent to an appointment.
– Revenge: to retaliate against a disliked person by damaging the reputation, freedom or finances.
– Attention: an attempt to receive any kind of attention, positive or negative, by anyone.
– Sympathy: a special kind of attention-seeking whereby the complainant tries to improve a personal relationship with a specific individual.
– ‘A disturbed mental state’; this may include false memories (“sexual hallucinations”) or pathologic lying.
– Relabeling: consensual sex is relabeled ‘rape’ to the police, because of its ‘disappointing or shameful character’. De Zutter et al. argue that a distinction should be made between some acts during a consensual sexual encounter that a participant did not want or had no desire to engage in but nonetheless gave consent to (e.g., to please their partner) on the one hand, and rape (nonconsensual sex) on the other, but that many lay people and even some scholars do not make this distinction and confuse the two. It is often when accounts of such ‘unwanted consensual sex’ are told to friends and family that the latter interpret it as rape, and put the complainant under pressure to file an allegation.
– Regret: after having had consensual sex, a complainant experiences negative feelings such as disgust, shame, and sorrow; when others notice this and ask about the source of these negative feelings, they are prone to view the encounter as rape and put the complainant under pressure to file an allegation.”
In China’s Cultural Revolution Mao said each workplace of over one thousand employees should be able to produce about ten ‘counter-revolutionaries’.
In Stalin’s Soviet Union the NKVD had quotas of arrests for ‘State Crimes'(ten thousand a year for Leningrad).
Presumably the Greens and Feminist activists have worked out how many rape convictions there should be for each town and district( maybe 400 yearly for Hamilton and 350 yearly for Tauranga?)
Whatever their projections there will be more expected convictions for Porirura and Otara than for Epsom or Khandallah.
Feminists might be ‘woke’ but they are still mainly middle class Pakeha women with all their stereotype antennae working.
Just as well, it’s only the Greens pushing this then A.
The Khmer Rouge checked peoples palms for calluses and murdered them accordingly… 🙂
Comments are closed.