The new Sexual Assault Laws being crammed through Parliament this week


Labour and the Greens are this week cramming through controversial law that amount to foundational changes to our sexual assault laws.

They are doing this in the hope no one notices just before Christmas.

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 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.

TDB Recommends

It’s part of a new woke faith based legal system where you must believe the accuser and removes any defence from anyone accused so that 10 innocent men go to jail rather than allowing one guilty man go free.

It’s the Spinoff threshold of guilt.

As far as Labour and the Greens are concerned, due process is a heteronormative white cis male privilege so undermining right to silence and removing contextualisation and intent to ensure guilt is perfectly acceptable.

The only difference between a woke lynch mob and a Sensible Sentencing lynch mob is that the woke use sustainable hemp rope.

You know what would be neat? If Labour and the Greens could put as much effort into the housing crisis as they are to ensuring anyone accused of sexual assault is found guilty.

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 people guilty rather than better quality justice is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent to set no matter who is doing it.

That so many prisoners are desperately grasping for this new Criminal Cases Review Commission should be a warning sign we are already imprisoning innocent people.

I would post a picture of Lady Justice here, but apparently she’s been cancelled..

..welcome to your brave new world where ‘To Kill A Mocking Bird’ was never written.

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


  1. It does not sound good.

    Buts it’s all this government is capable of, amendments to law, more than likely badly written. I mean what else in 4 years have they delivered?

    Housing reforms, get the fuck out of here! That requires more than a 5 minute attention span.

  2. I couldn’t fathom why, in some instances, the male accused was exonerated/not guilty as the defence found the woman was clearly lying about the assault….and no charges laid against her of lying under oath or false accusation/wasting police time.
    The male has been put through the wringer both mentally and physically and the stench of a sexual assault complaint will linger around him probably all his life.
    Can I assume the law change will NOT address any legal process of bogus claims by the accuser?

  3. WE can look at this thru the lens of our own lives, values and sexual advances. And we can look at this thru the lens of other peoples lives. Many cultures still see it as a husbands right to force himself upon his wife whenever he pleases. Even religious texts say its okay.

    How often does one half of a couple force themselves upon the other half? More than we might imagine maybe from our own lived experiences.

    This amendment specifically targets relationship rape, which most times probably rather being ugly and brutal, is probably closer to uncomfortable and inconvenient, if not dehumanising and domineering.

    Its very existence is an old trope sometimes chuckled over at morning smoko, and in the brave new world that cometh, is being addressed in this manner.

    My view is that rather than the ambulance at the top of the cliff, we put a fence at the top.

    So much porn involves coercion and non consensual sex whilst shes sleeping, and this type of encounter is often shoved in the face of those looking for a quick whack with a porn star.

    Hyper masculinity and toxic masculinity role models are everywhere in the media and sports as well. Even the upward fist pump of the victor is a gesture of putting it up there by physical force.

    This amendment will be akin to the divorce laws of 1975, and allow women to leave relationships with some dignity, as well as hurting those who have hurt them.

    Of course the downside is some will use it as a reason for getting half, or for being a cruel and toxic female.

    Some might even be paid to lie if others want the man dealt with.

  4. I don’t have much faith in the Government to develop sensible laws all the time however any relationship that has issues regarding unconsented sex has obviously got problems that any sensible man should have been aware of & made efforts to solve. The basic problem is a tendency by some to view people as sex objects instead of an equal partner to be respected.
    I know this proposed law will not cause me any problems & if it helps couples to be more respectful within their relationship it might have some value.

  5. We are apparently too venal, weak and stupid to hold onto the precious Enlightenment Age freedoms our forefathers fought and died for.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.