I just saw this from 'Justice for Men & Boys' and want all those that can sign to do so please (UK citizens only) or pass it on to everyone just in case there is a person in your audience that can sign it.
anyone notice that all social media channels that have analyzed or provided commentary on the trial have disabled public 'Comments', 'Posts' etc. What are they frightened of?
Let’s not let the outcome of a civil trial for defamation detract from Bettina’s work exposing the bias in the courtroom concerning men within the legal system & during criminal trials. In recent times outspoken judges show concern as why police & prosecution are having men go through to trial because of lack of evidence & then have charges withdrawn.
Civil trials are different to criminal, the bar is set much lower. This is how prosecution are setting the bar for criminal trial similar to civil. This needs to be exposed & this is happening because of Bettina Arndt & her supporters.
Keep insisting the bar should be set higher in a real court. Our legal system & all Australians deserve nothing less.
thanks Bettina for all your hard work & persistence in showing the increasing bias against men, especially when it comes to allegations of sexual assault and/or rape. Social media is full of stories where men have been accused of all kinds of misadventures towards women and suffered the wrath of the law, their friends/peers, and society. However when men fight back and show the woman to be a narcissistic liar, not a word. The Bruce Lehmann case is a classic example. Justice Lee found that all parties (Lehmann, Higgins, TEN, Wilkinson, etc) were pathological liars, but Brittney's lies were 'more credible' than Bruce's. And the consequence? Bruce has been labelled a rapist whilst 'Little Miss Sunshine' returns to her villa in France with $3.6M in the bank. It stinks more than Wilkinson's underwear drawer.
Again, thank you Bettina for your efforts. It's now Wednesday after the Lehmann finding. I have deliberately not followed this story, but for a few highlights and low-lights of the saga. I have chosen to do this because the forces of the media and the Feminist Cult (which it seems to resemble) leave me with the idea that opposing them in the regular way is futile. Cognitive Dissonance, I think it's called.
I wanted to say that the presumption of innocence is not entirely missing. As men have been systematically demonized for a century, it can be taken as-given that we are guilty - our burden is to prove ourselves innocent.
This is not the case for women and children. Women have the God-given right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then, playing the victim card, forgiven for being "oppressed".
So the presumption of innocence is there, but not for men - particularly working men. One need only see the prison population demographics to bear this out.
As a man, I have no faith in the criminal justice system.
I want to say one thing that is important to me. I am of "The Left". I do not subscribe to Right Wing ideology, and I think that one can be Left and still see criminality fairly. The extreme Left, as in the extreme Right, are something both wings have to think about.
on one news site this morning the heading reads as:
Appalling rape myth Bruce Lehrmann relied on to win
Cocky Bruce Lehrmann and his legal team relied on one outdated myth to win their case – and it saw them spectacularly fail.
=============================
One of the heads of the Beast is the way a news site categorises 'news'.
The above heading is sorted as:
Lifestyle >> Real Life >>News Life
So a so called Rape case is considered Lifestyle !!!!
So while the news media are reporting the horror of rape and murder, this is just another Lifestyle event to them... and people think Bruce Lehrmann is the psycho!!!!!!!
Isn't what Deborah Lyttle posted considered "hate" speech? Will she be brought to task for her vile vitriole? And what about the reporter who asked Bruce Lehrmann when leaving the Court House "what does it feel like to be a rapist"? Bruce has NOT been found guilty and this "on the balance of probability" clause is just a bit too convenient.
In light of recent events, Bruce Lehrmann has decided not to appear at the Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference. He is being subject to extremely aggressive pursuit by the media and is concerned that his participation may threaten the audience, jeopardise this important event, and distract from its main purpose.
ASF and Mothers and Sons have accepted his decision, and will find an alternative presenter while ensuring that the Lehrmann case still receives appropriate attention at the conference as a powerful example of trial by media undermining the vital legal principle of the presumption of innocence.
100% of our "esteemed" judges supported lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
Not all of their decisions are wrong but, inasmuch as they're correct, it's more good luck than good management.
You can parse the whole decision but the key here is that Lee somehow divined that Lehrmann ejaculated in Higgins. How could he have possibly been convinced of such a thing with a high balance of probability?
He couldn't. Lee just made it up. He's just as much of a liar as anybody who entered his courtroom.
The decision is a disgrace. Our court system is beyond repair.
It is my limited understanding that Bruce Lehrmann has lost his defamation case against 'the media'.
Yet, the media continue to post headlines like the following- I am reading from screen shots before opening the article to read it fully:
Live: Lehrmann raped Higgins. Judge finds
Justice Michael Lee has found that Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019, stressing that this was a civil trial, and not a criminal one.
WATCH LIVE: Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins on a couch in parliament in 2019, Justice Lee Finds
Justice Michael Lee has found that it is 'more than likely than not' that Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins on a couch in parliament in 2019 by being recklessly indifferent to her inability to consent to sexual intercourse.
and last but not least:
JUST IN
Lehrmann 'did not care' if Higgins consented: court
So Bruce Lehrmann, most people, cannot have a fair trial because of how the Media present 'news'.
In this case the Media are presenting what Justice Lee has said but they wrap it up in a certain way for drama only, but how many people reading newspapers believe what is said?
I'm left, by reading the headlines only, that Lehrmann is a rapist of the first order and yet, this was not proven beyond doubt!!!!
Justice Lee, who apparently was in the same room at the same time and can read peoples minds, has basically put a huge stamp on Lehmann's forehead that tells us all that he is a rapist.
Maybe Justice Lee knows something that I don't but for me, this is not Justice to do this.
AND, he is a lone Judge!! Made this decision all by himself.. not a panel of Judges!!??
This is why I hope that the 'Restoring the Presumption of Innocence' conference still goes ahead and that Bruce Lehrmann can attend, despite this outcome for him personally.
Edit: I forgot to mention that it was also reported on how members of the Press sat outside the house of the father of the man that stabbed people at Bondi Shopping Centre.
How can this be allowed?
By what right do the Press have to do this behaviour?
A parent grieving over the death of a child, despite the circumstances, is being hounded by members of the Press....
I listened today to Justice Lee describing the events of Higgins-Lehrmann affair as he saw them and, in particular as that related to the offence of rape.
I make no comment about the specific events of that evening, but would like to make general comments about the offence in the abstract, particularly in the context of gender equality.
1. The first thing I’d like to say is that in these days of equality, unless there is an element of physical coercion (or a credible threat thereof) why should there be obligations on one gender which are not reflected in the obligations of the other. This issue in this, as so many cases, is the impact of alcohol on the woman’s ability to give (or in this case as I understand .justice Lee, to *continue* giving) consent. There is, however no corresponding consideration on the impact of alcohol on the man’s ability to assess or need to ensure continuing consent. The point I’m trying to explore is this - suppose that two parties arrive at “privacy” with the intention at least of “pashing on”, presumably to conclusion…how can it be - in a world of equality of intellect, decision making, competence etc etc etc - that the woman’s responsibility for her behaviour (but not the man’s for his) is reduced by means of voluntary alcohol consumption.
2. Similarly, in circumstances of equality, why are the two not equally responsible for their shared, known, alcohol consumption (presumably intended by both parties - of not, why not? - to lubricate the implementation of shared desire)
3. Once again, in circumstance of equality, why is it a reasonable assumption that the man is a supplicant, the woman an unwilling provider?
The problem, from my PoV, is the hypocrisy of “the strong woman” coupled with the assumption that, in essence, every man wants to “take advantage” of a woman’s moral weakness…
As I say, physical coercion or its threat, I have no problem understanding…but how is it women hav3 the moral high ground no matter how they act, while men always act from the basest motives.
If this *is* the law (and I think I have it right) the law is no5 just an ass, it’s an evil ass.
Hi Tina, are tickets still available, I just tried to buy some buy it says sold out?
I just saw this from 'Justice for Men & Boys' and want all those that can sign to do so please (UK citizens only) or pass it on to everyone just in case there is a person in your audience that can sign it.
Petition the UK Government is here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/660592
I received notification from here: https://j4mb.org.uk/2024/04/23/petition-to-the-uk-government-make-male-genital-mutilation-circumcision-an-offence-unless-medically-requiredpetition-to-the-uk-government/
anyone notice that all social media channels that have analyzed or provided commentary on the trial have disabled public 'Comments', 'Posts' etc. What are they frightened of?
I see in the news that Higgins posted about Australian Legal Reform Commission and submissions are open !!
I could only find this: https://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiry/justice-responses-to-sexual-violence/
and https://www.alrc.gov.au/news/justice-systems-response-to-sexual-violence-inquiry-begins/
I posted then found this: https://www.thelawyermag.com/au/news/general/alrc-initiates-inquiry-into-justice-systems-response-to-sexual-violence/474907#
Let’s not let the outcome of a civil trial for defamation detract from Bettina’s work exposing the bias in the courtroom concerning men within the legal system & during criminal trials. In recent times outspoken judges show concern as why police & prosecution are having men go through to trial because of lack of evidence & then have charges withdrawn.
Civil trials are different to criminal, the bar is set much lower. This is how prosecution are setting the bar for criminal trial similar to civil. This needs to be exposed & this is happening because of Bettina Arndt & her supporters.
Keep insisting the bar should be set higher in a real court. Our legal system & all Australians deserve nothing less.
thanks Bettina for all your hard work & persistence in showing the increasing bias against men, especially when it comes to allegations of sexual assault and/or rape. Social media is full of stories where men have been accused of all kinds of misadventures towards women and suffered the wrath of the law, their friends/peers, and society. However when men fight back and show the woman to be a narcissistic liar, not a word. The Bruce Lehmann case is a classic example. Justice Lee found that all parties (Lehmann, Higgins, TEN, Wilkinson, etc) were pathological liars, but Brittney's lies were 'more credible' than Bruce's. And the consequence? Bruce has been labelled a rapist whilst 'Little Miss Sunshine' returns to her villa in France with $3.6M in the bank. It stinks more than Wilkinson's underwear drawer.
Again, thank you Bettina for your efforts. It's now Wednesday after the Lehmann finding. I have deliberately not followed this story, but for a few highlights and low-lights of the saga. I have chosen to do this because the forces of the media and the Feminist Cult (which it seems to resemble) leave me with the idea that opposing them in the regular way is futile. Cognitive Dissonance, I think it's called.
I wanted to say that the presumption of innocence is not entirely missing. As men have been systematically demonized for a century, it can be taken as-given that we are guilty - our burden is to prove ourselves innocent.
This is not the case for women and children. Women have the God-given right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then, playing the victim card, forgiven for being "oppressed".
So the presumption of innocence is there, but not for men - particularly working men. One need only see the prison population demographics to bear this out.
As a man, I have no faith in the criminal justice system.
I want to say one thing that is important to me. I am of "The Left". I do not subscribe to Right Wing ideology, and I think that one can be Left and still see criminality fairly. The extreme Left, as in the extreme Right, are something both wings have to think about.
It is very interesting is it not? how in the name of LOVE that these leftist radicals are so hateful and vicious.
But then they are the hate movement par excellence who have the effrontery to think that their hatreds are righteous.
The "woe" keep revealing their hypocrisy and outright bullying cruelty at every step.
and for that I can thank them
on one news site this morning the heading reads as:
Appalling rape myth Bruce Lehrmann relied on to win
Cocky Bruce Lehrmann and his legal team relied on one outdated myth to win their case – and it saw them spectacularly fail.
=============================
One of the heads of the Beast is the way a news site categorises 'news'.
The above heading is sorted as:
Lifestyle >> Real Life >>News Life
So a so called Rape case is considered Lifestyle !!!!
So while the news media are reporting the horror of rape and murder, this is just another Lifestyle event to them... and people think Bruce Lehrmann is the psycho!!!!!!!
Edit: I then noticed this: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/man-wrongly-named-as-bondi-killer-engages-top-lawyer-in-defo-fight-against-channel-7/news-story/920b07e058b8b13c855e12ad3e46fba6
The wrong man was reported!!!
Isn't what Deborah Lyttle posted considered "hate" speech? Will she be brought to task for her vile vitriole? And what about the reporter who asked Bruce Lehrmann when leaving the Court House "what does it feel like to be a rapist"? Bruce has NOT been found guilty and this "on the balance of probability" clause is just a bit too convenient.
This hasn't aged well has it love
Thank you Bettina! Where would we be without you. Where would men be? We thank all those who support you.
In light of recent events, Bruce Lehrmann has decided not to appear at the Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference. He is being subject to extremely aggressive pursuit by the media and is concerned that his participation may threaten the audience, jeopardise this important event, and distract from its main purpose.
ASF and Mothers and Sons have accepted his decision, and will find an alternative presenter while ensuring that the Lehrmann case still receives appropriate attention at the conference as a powerful example of trial by media undermining the vital legal principle of the presumption of innocence.
100% of our "esteemed" judges supported lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
Not all of their decisions are wrong but, inasmuch as they're correct, it's more good luck than good management.
You can parse the whole decision but the key here is that Lee somehow divined that Lehrmann ejaculated in Higgins. How could he have possibly been convinced of such a thing with a high balance of probability?
He couldn't. Lee just made it up. He's just as much of a liar as anybody who entered his courtroom.
The decision is a disgrace. Our court system is beyond repair.
It is my limited understanding that Bruce Lehrmann has lost his defamation case against 'the media'.
Yet, the media continue to post headlines like the following- I am reading from screen shots before opening the article to read it fully:
Live: Lehrmann raped Higgins. Judge finds
Justice Michael Lee has found that Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019, stressing that this was a civil trial, and not a criminal one.
WATCH LIVE: Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins on a couch in parliament in 2019, Justice Lee Finds
Justice Michael Lee has found that it is 'more than likely than not' that Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins on a couch in parliament in 2019 by being recklessly indifferent to her inability to consent to sexual intercourse.
and last but not least:
JUST IN
Lehrmann 'did not care' if Higgins consented: court
So Bruce Lehrmann, most people, cannot have a fair trial because of how the Media present 'news'.
In this case the Media are presenting what Justice Lee has said but they wrap it up in a certain way for drama only, but how many people reading newspapers believe what is said?
I'm left, by reading the headlines only, that Lehrmann is a rapist of the first order and yet, this was not proven beyond doubt!!!!
Justice Lee, who apparently was in the same room at the same time and can read peoples minds, has basically put a huge stamp on Lehmann's forehead that tells us all that he is a rapist.
Maybe Justice Lee knows something that I don't but for me, this is not Justice to do this.
AND, he is a lone Judge!! Made this decision all by himself.. not a panel of Judges!!??
This is why I hope that the 'Restoring the Presumption of Innocence' conference still goes ahead and that Bruce Lehrmann can attend, despite this outcome for him personally.
Edit: I forgot to mention that it was also reported on how members of the Press sat outside the house of the father of the man that stabbed people at Bondi Shopping Centre.
How can this be allowed?
By what right do the Press have to do this behaviour?
A parent grieving over the death of a child, despite the circumstances, is being hounded by members of the Press....
I listened today to Justice Lee describing the events of Higgins-Lehrmann affair as he saw them and, in particular as that related to the offence of rape.
I make no comment about the specific events of that evening, but would like to make general comments about the offence in the abstract, particularly in the context of gender equality.
1. The first thing I’d like to say is that in these days of equality, unless there is an element of physical coercion (or a credible threat thereof) why should there be obligations on one gender which are not reflected in the obligations of the other. This issue in this, as so many cases, is the impact of alcohol on the woman’s ability to give (or in this case as I understand .justice Lee, to *continue* giving) consent. There is, however no corresponding consideration on the impact of alcohol on the man’s ability to assess or need to ensure continuing consent. The point I’m trying to explore is this - suppose that two parties arrive at “privacy” with the intention at least of “pashing on”, presumably to conclusion…how can it be - in a world of equality of intellect, decision making, competence etc etc etc - that the woman’s responsibility for her behaviour (but not the man’s for his) is reduced by means of voluntary alcohol consumption.
2. Similarly, in circumstances of equality, why are the two not equally responsible for their shared, known, alcohol consumption (presumably intended by both parties - of not, why not? - to lubricate the implementation of shared desire)
3. Once again, in circumstance of equality, why is it a reasonable assumption that the man is a supplicant, the woman an unwilling provider?
The problem, from my PoV, is the hypocrisy of “the strong woman” coupled with the assumption that, in essence, every man wants to “take advantage” of a woman’s moral weakness…
As I say, physical coercion or its threat, I have no problem understanding…but how is it women hav3 the moral high ground no matter how they act, while men always act from the basest motives.
If this *is* the law (and I think I have it right) the law is no5 just an ass, it’s an evil ass.