Kiri Allan’s woke interpretation of suppression law could weaponise legal process
When Harvey Weinstein went down under the weight of Me Too, most men didn’t fear the witch hunt because clearly there were monsters out there.
What they feared was a witch trial.
The gerrymandering of the sexual assault laws were argued by the Greens as a means to increase guilty convictions by removing any defence of rape by the person being accused.
If a person being accused of sexual assault thinks they have consent, that is a defence.
They might arrive at believing they have consent based on previous sexual encounters. The Greens had changes made to block out previous history from the jury so as to counter the Jury’s belief in rape myths, but by removing previous history, you remove a defence for the accused…
The bill also states that consent to sexual intimacy must be given every time, which no-one disputes, but then stretches logic to say the jury cannot hear about intimate encounters the same couple had previously. With a rape allegation, when the sex is not denied, the trial turns on whether the defendant had reasonable grounds for believing the complainant consented. Where a couple are in a relationship, that belief may well depend on what had been usual and acceptable between them before.
If the belief was unreasonable, let the jury decide, which they cannot do if the defendant is banned from telling his side of the story.
…This was felt by the Greens to be a fair enough trade off because so few men are found guilty of sexual assault…
New report reveals barriers to prosecution and conviction for sexual violence cases
“For every 100 sexual violence incidents reported to the Police,” Jan Logie says, “the figures show only 31 made it to court, 11 resulted in a conviction and 6 in imprisonment.
“This isn’t good enough, and demonstrates the importance of our whole-of-Government approach to ending family violence and sexual violence. No single agency or department can fix this on their own. We have to work together, work differently and work across the whole justice system so every person harmed can get the resolution they need.
“This report does not make for happy reading, but it is crucial that we have good data to measure our progress against.
“We can already see positive results, with the changes Police have made to the way they investigate sexual assaults reflected in a 34% increase in the number of investigations resulting in court action just in the last year, and a substantial decrease in the proportion of victimisations not classed as a crime,” said Jan Logie.
“But there is still a very long way to go. This Government is committed to making progress on these long-term challenges. We are improving court facilities, providing psycho-social support for complainants, the Solicitor-General has issued new prosecution guidelines, and later this year will introduce legislation to address long-standing issues with our sexual violence laws.”
…I know. It’s appalling logic. They restructured the law by removing a defence for sexual assault so that more men accused of sexual assault are found guilty.
That’s not justice, that’s a system designed to find more people guilty.
But that’s where we are now.
Remember, currently 31% of sexual assault cases lead to guilty verdicts.
In the new woke world, due process is heteronormative white cis male privilege, the new evidential threshold is whatever someone says on Twitter and To Kill A Mockingbird is cishet patriarchal propaganda.
It’s all the jurisprudence of the Salem Witch Trials these days.
That’s why Minister Kiri Allan’s enthusiasm to remove name suppression in sexual assault cases is so deeply concerning…
Justice Minister Kiritapu Allan wants urgent changes to name suppression laws
Justice Minister Kiritapu Allan is seeking urgent advice on changing New Zealand’s name suppression laws, which she says are not working for victims.
Asked on Sunday’s Q+A programme if name suppression is working, Allan said, “I don’t think so.”
She said this was particularly so for sexual violence and sexual offending.
“Right now there’s a current requirement that automatic name suppression applies. And then, only once the case is completed and finalised, can that victim, therefore, make an application at her own or his own cost to have that name suppression removed.
“I don’t think that that’s fair. I don’t think that that’s a victim-centric way of looking at the way these rules apply.”
The Justice Minister is adamant she wants that to change.
…I believe name suppression should be in place until someone is found guilty.
That name suppression should be lifted immediately once the person is found guilty, regardless of their intentions to appeal the sentence. It is ludicrous that the victim has to apply and pay to have the name suppression removed.
Name suppression is fair because it protects the presumption of innocence, particularly in cases where evidence is limited.
Removing name suppression will allow those doing the accusing to weaponise the prosecution process by destroying a persons reputation and career by just using the prosecution to name them.
That’s not a justice system, that’s vengeance.
It’s part of a new woke faith based legal system where you must believe women and removes any defence from anyone accused so that 10 innocent men go to jail rather than allow one guilty man to go free.
We struggle to keep our Courts to be justice without emotion as it is, that mercy and natural justice are our touchstones. We have already built into place vast changes in the trial system to protect those who are being accused. To remove name suppression would allow the process to be punishment before innocence or guilt is even determined.
We changed our sexual assault laws to gerrymander more guilty convictions by removing defences to the allegation of assault, this desire to remove name suppression insures punishment even if you are found innocent.
It’s the same belief that anyone accused should be punished regardless of guilt because they probably are guilty right?
Because you know, ‘patriarchy’.
That’s the totality of their intellectual position on this.
Once the enormity of these changes are understood by the wider public, parents will stop fearing their daughter being sexual assaulted and start fearing their sons of being accused of sexual assault.
The backlash to this will not be pretty.
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.
Have to agree Ada. In fact until there is a guilty verdict, is ‘victim’ the right word to describe the accuser? Rather presumptive.
The name gets out and about anyway, suppressed or not. Back in 1994 a bright young Kiwi guy about whom a suggestion of this sort had been made, went to London, lay down on railway track, and got run over. Families never recover from something like that, and sometimes friends don’t either.
Naming persons accused of unproven crimes requires greater caution than Kiri may appreciate, particularly when the naming, can in itself, lead to great harm.
As sexual crimes in particular are mainly perpetrated by males, this can be seen as more male bashing according to the bible of the gender-obsessive woke, and is very cruel. However lifting of name suppression of the proven guilty is another matter, and not always without its own complexities.
Bomber, I think the automatic name suppression Kiri is talking about is the one that applies to the victim.
Victims of sexual assaults have automatic name suppression. They have to apply to have that suppression lifted.
People accused of sexual assault do not have automatic name suppression, unless making their name public would identify the victim. The names of people accused of rapes are often public during the court process, though they can apply to have suppression, and some, perhaps many, do, not always successfully.
What Kiri seems to be saying is that victims should not have to apply at the end of a court process to be able to go public, but to be able to go public at any stage in the process.
Good point David. Thank goodness someone reads. It actually makes you wonder if the accused should be entitled to automatic name suppression at the beginning. What if the accusation is bollocks?
Good commentary Martyn.
If the Greens are so irrational and anti-man, why do you keep voting for them? You must have realized by now that it’s open season on white males. That’s you and me.
@Andrew it’s white men and everyone else. Insert crowbar into any social fissure where the woke cultural conflict theory imagines an oppressive power dynamic.
It’s also (not an exhaustive list):
(cis) Women – removal of women’s spaces, (because of trans activists, who are nothing to do with trans people)
Māori:
The vast majority will see zero material gain from woke policies while being used as a political football. The historical legacy of colonialism is the favoured scapegoat for contemporary effects of neoliberalism.
Homosexuals:
Are now ‘same gender’ attracted, lesbians should suck lady dick, in extreme cases gay kids affirmed as the the opposite sex if displaying non-gender typical behaviour.
Trans:
Queer theory ideologues favourite political football, actively reversing respect and acceptance of trans people. Medical care and procedures often informed by politics not evidence.
Non-woke minorities of all races, sexes, genders, sexualities:
Try having a non-woke opinion and your ‘protected’ status evaporates faster than a Kayne West sponsorship deal.
The working class:
Who?
Further weaponise the legal process, I think you mean. Any man who has been confronted by the family court or IRD administered child support systems will tell you that the current processes are designed to use the power of the state to break them, not to ensure fair outcomes. Kiri’s interpretation is just an example of the process creeping further and further away from any semblance of fairness.
I’ve never understood why an accused (of whatever crime) should be named UNTIL convicted.
I know it satisfies a number of people that – pffft.
But why the need to name an accused before an actual conviction”. Why isn’t it sufficient to just say a 26yo from ekka ta hoonah has been arrested and is facing charges of being a wanker. What is it that satisfies the public by pre-conviction shaming. (I await Hold the ladder steady Wayne Wayne to enlighten me. I seem to remember some spurious comment from him on The Standard a few years ago the last time I ever went near the site)
One convicted – go for your lives – put ’em in the stocks and do whatever satisfies your concept of justice.
I’ve got some premium content in the compost, and the neighbours blocked sewer should provide youse a big enough bag of shit to throw at them – and you’d be doing me a favour
I agree. i also believe if the State via police and crown law (with their huge resources) bring a criminal case and it fails, then the total costs incurred by the defendant should be reimbursed, automatically, no questions asked. And prior to verdict the State should front up with a loan for defence costs regardless of outcome.
Penalties for malicious or negligent prosecution by police should be large and vigorously applied.
I would venture to comment that I believe the existing blanket suppression laws regarding complainants actually came about due to pressure and activism from the same groups now seeking to change them again.
The current name suppression law is one extreme. And of course those found guilty resort to appeal to maintain it, even while in prison.
Those who find the other extreme threatening should have advocated for/changed the law to end name suppression on conviction years ago.
This is why I hate this identarian crap, it is so so nonsensical – almost always impractical, sometimes morally incomprehensible and usually widely uneconomic.
Imagine if the Mad Butcher was accused or paedophilia? His business would be destroyed, his life publicly and privately would be over. His franchisees would suffer and be repeatedly targeted as the Woke wouldnt allow something like ‘Guilty by association’ to stand in the way of their righteous anger.
I think the sexual assault law changes are one of Labour’s most pernicious pieces of legislation, second only to Hate Speech.
Another observation.
In the Peter Ellis case, suppression rulings ensured that much relevant information relating to both the initial case and to matters relevant to why there was a subsequent failure to fix it were also suppressed – and remain so, despite tacit acknowledgement the offending never happened.
So, why the suppression of identity of people who were never victims (of Peter Ellis at any rate) at all?
In my view those responsible for the miscarriage of justice are the ones continuing to be protected.
I was in a high court jury where allegations were made without ANY hard evidence – just hearsay and circumstance – we threw it out. How the accused was treated was a travesty.