Good news, Bettina. Gradually Australia might be coming out of the darkest period of time, with the help of you and other hard working men and women resisting the Culture War.
If I understand correctly there is about to be an avalanche of Female law graduates who will swamp the legal sector and they will have more than likely been indoctrinated into feminist ideology.
Just finished listening to ‘The Wigs’ podcast recommended here by BA. Found it extremely interesting and deeply concerning. It would appear that the ODPP is so cowed by the fear of a backlash from feminist activists, that they prefer to let ‘unconvincing’ claims of rape make their way to the courts and have the jury ultimately make the decision at trial.
The impression I’m getting from various sources is that ultimately, rape cases, in the future, will not be heard before a jury - that is, they will be a ‘judge only’ hearing. It remains speculative whether this would result in a higher conviction rate, which is what activists are furiously seeking.
‘A jury of one’s peers’ is now a suspect concept that apparently works in favour of the defence. Worrying times indeed.
I am glad you found the time to listen to The Wigs. Some of their earlier ones are fascinating too but they are all very PC so you will never hear any criticism of the way feminists have tilted the system to favour women!
bettina-- thank you for this detailed discussion including your discussion of the martinez case, where a woman has nine times intentionally made herself drunk, had sex with a different man each time, and then accused that man of raping her because her drunkenness supposedly prevented her consent. i wrote in response to a prior post of yours, 'coitus interruptus,' outlining the elements of the traditional common law crime of rape and how each and every element has now been subverted by feminism. again, at common law rape was when a 1) man, 2) engaged in sexual intercourse, 3) with a woman, 4) not his wife, 5) by force, and 6) without her consent
in the martinez case, it is the elimination of the force requirement that invites this sort of evil. the complainant doesnt have to allege she was forced to have sex. all she has to say is she did have sex and she was drunk. there's your rape
so, every man out there, did you ever have sex with your girlfriend when she was drunk? if so you're a rapist. did you ever have sex with your wife when she was drunk? if so you're a rapist. and that's just the beginning. as bettina covered in her article about australia's 'enthusiastic consent' laws you're also a rapist if you ever had sex with your wife and she did consent and didnt resist but wasnt really into it, which is, let's get real, over 90% of marital sex, because normally it's men who require sex and their wives accept it. calling all of that rape is a lunatic hammer attack on heterosexual marriage
if the force requirement were in effect it would not be rape to have sex with a girl who was drunk unless force was used, and this force has to be of a type that intends to overcome the physical resistance that would be expected from a chaste girl or a woman loyal to her husband
if it was your wife it would never be rape. wives owe their husbands sex just as husbands owe their wives support. that is implicit in the marital contract
there should be some sort of protection for women (and men) who not only cannot consent but also lack capacity to physically resist, e.g., the victim is unconscious, but such protection should not be looked for in rape statutes. as i've suggested elsewhere i would look for these protections in the statutes and tort law that covers assault and battery. there is adequate protection there and these protections should be taken seriously
battery includes any type of touching without consent, but it contains an important limitation. the touching has to be outrageous to a normal person. having sex with an unconscious person sounds pretty outrageous to me as does pulling an unchaste girl into the bushes and forcing yourself on her. acts like these should be actionable and/or punishable as a battery
having sex with a girl who dolls herself up, gets herself tipsy, and comes on to you at a bar might be poor judgment, but it is not outrageous and therefore not battery. neither is it rape under the common law, and the woman who engages in this sort of thing need only reform her behavior to avoid any unwanted consequences
you've also pointed out how the accused is not able to fully confront his accuser, because there are many questions he cannot ask, and lots of potentially exculpatory evidence that feminists have made sure cannot be introduced at trial. so the martinez juries arent allowed to know that she's done this sort of thing repeatedly. all these limitations have been pushed by feminists to make it easier to convict innocent men of rape, but none of these innovations in evidentiary limitations are there for mass murderers or serial killers
finally, imagine a motorist accused of causing an accident while drunk driving who argues he isnt guilty of anything because he was drunk and therefore lacked the capacity to form a criminal intent. no court in a common law jurisdiction and maybe no court in the world would hear such an argument. and yet all these courts accept the argument that a woman who dolls herself up and goes to a bar looking to hook up with a man has been raped if he has sex with her
i've said it before and i'll say it again. all common law elements of the crime of rape must be restored including and especially the marital exemption. all evidentiary limitations pertaining peculiarly to rape defense must be abolished
thank you as always for all your great work in this and other areas
I agree with many of your points but have concerns about some of the language you use. "Wives owe their husband sex"?? No way. A loving wife should feel an obligation to be concerned about their husband's needs, including sex, just as women expect men to consider their wants and needs. That's very different. Similarly speaking of "force" isn't helpful in making the argument about concerns about consent.
bettina, thank you for your reply, but i have to disagree that "no way" is a rational argument. i don't agree that feminist elimination of the common law element of force in the legal definition of rape is acceptable, much less that discussing the force requirement is 'unhelpful' when discussing consent
your disagreements come from a variety of beliefs you have, including:
1. chastity is a not a positive virtue for an unmarried woman
2. the sexual revolution was great but now feminism has gone too far
3. a marriage contract is not really a lifelong contract, it's an at-will agreement you make as long as both parties feel good about it
4. the common law definition of rape, which included both a marital exemption and a force requirement, was, in part, the product of misogyny (and any man who insists on restoring these archaic legal features probably hates women)
you may or may not have said any of that. but that is what you believe. please tell me if i have any of it wrong
here is a fact. the vast majority of men and women even in developed western countries (and let's reluctantly include australia in that group) did not agree with any of these beliefs prior to the emergence and popular use of the birth control pill
and here would be my positions re your beliefs 1-4 above:
1. chastity is a positive virtue for unmarried women, and men who place a lot of value on it generally do so because it is consonant with the integrity of the family and not out of a hatred of women
2. the sexual revolution made sex much cheaper for men and that is why men largely went along with it, and the results have been horrific for men and women
3. a marriage contract is a lifelong contract where the wife owes the husband sex and the husband owes her support and no one dreamed otherwise for thousands of years until very recently when feminists convinced almost everyone it was oppressive to women and we all had to believe it terminable if you felt like it. feminists also convinced us that marriage created enforceable obligations for men but almost never for women
4. the traditional common law definition of rape, which included both a marital exemption and a force requirement, recognized a special dignitary interest that unmarried women have in their chastity and married women have in sexual loyalty to their husbands. but for these special interests there would have been no reason for a rape statute since action for assault and battery would have been adequate to protect the plaintiff/prosecutrix and was available since ancient times
the force requirement is necessary because consent alone is a subjective state on the part of the woman and is extremely malleable and easy to misrepresent. the force requirement was based on the reasonable assumption that a woman who valued her chastity or a woman who wanted to remain sexually loyal to her husband would not simply say 'no' to unwanted sex and then if the man continued to advance, say, oh well i give up. that is not real. a woman in that situation who does not consent does not just use a word to state her non-consent, she struggles against the violation physically and this requires force on the man's part to overcome her physical resistance. under these circumstances, most people are rightly outraged that a man would continue his course of action and this justifies criminalizing the behavior
this is not only not unhelpful to discussing consent, it is the way non-consent must be understood in the context of a rape allegation. otherwise you are buying into the feminist lie that sex is rape anytime a woman imagines it wasnt what she 'really' wanted
as i have also explained elsewhere rape statutes were never meant to protect unchaste women or wives disloyal to their husbands from unwanted sex. and no one in the world ever thought so until they were brainwashed by feminists into believing that rape statutes were intended to protect women from their husbands having sex with them and that rape statutes could protect prostitutes too
and no, i am not calling all women who have sex out of wedlock prostitutes, nor do i mean that unchaste women or women not loyal to their husbands can be sexually attacked with impunity. it means that their interests do not rise to the same level as traditional victims of rape, and that action for battery is more suitable to protect these interests for reasons i have explained
the elimination of the marital rape exemption began in the US in the mid-70's (coinciding exactly with popular use of the pill). the last US states to repeal the marital exemption were oklahoma and north carolina, in 1993
as of 2024 states in the US are currently split on the force requirement. feminists are at work trying to get all states to repeal the force requirement and move to a pure consent standard for rape, which is effectively, what a woman feels
again, all elements of the common law definition of rape must be restored, including and especially the marital exemption, and the force requirement must be preserved and/or restored as the case may be. all rape shield laws and other laws that give prosecutors special advantages in prosecuting rape must be repealed. aggrieved woman who are not protected by rape laws should find redress in private and criminal actions for battery, and battery laws should be taken seriously
bettina, i've raised serious criticisms here but on the whole i strongly support your work and want to call on others to support you as well. not only it is bold and brave and generally right-minded, you are one of the few people willing to confront and expose the feminists in a focussed and credible way. i thank you again for your great work, but my criticisms respectfully remain
Women should be more careful about how much they drink and who they have sex with , this is part of the problem.
Womens liberation and feminism have drilled into young women that they could and should act like men and be sexually promiscuous , in the name of “equality”
So women got what they wanted in every way including sexual freedom , so what’s the problem? ,along with this freedom comes the risk of being raped , surely this was obvious from the start, but as with all things the feminists want their cake and to eat it too.
Women should indeed act more like men, and take it on the chin ,when things don’t go as expected instead of crying to the “Nanny State” .
This is yet another example of women destroying an institution created by men over centuries, if not millenia (democracy is another). If the law won't provide justice then the only deterrence to false accusations will be that supplied by men themselves.
Dear Bettina, after reading your excellent text I believe that the Australian “virgin rape jury system” leads to theatrical “courts of law” with juries of low IQ being easily bamboozled by performing actors In horsehair wigs. In the Scandinavian countries with a 1,000 yo legal tradition, they don’t use uneducated dumb bunch of virgin juries made up of people that had no excuse to deny jury duty or people that would gape at past public beheadings and hangings. Or just plain angry over the waste of their pitifully paid time. Who may their anger be focused on?
In Scandinavian countries all courts look like the High Courts of Australia or the ICJ. BUT looks is deceiving because in the low courts the 5 person panel only have one trained judge. The other four are not exactly Ombudsman, they are four elected and usually experienced and intelligent Nämdeman. (A bit like church deacons vs priests!) Interestingly the judge only vote in a draw and the main purpose is to serve as a expert on the law and relevant High Court decisions when deciding on the sentence. Not just a omnipotent judge decides that may have slept during the trail, as happens.
Also, TOTALLY unlike Australian courts the system first appoints a researcher that maps the life of the accused. What are the previous convictions? How does the family support look like? What is his workmates opinions? Or his sport club support? All this including previous convictions is read to the court so the five on the panel knows what kind of person he/she is. It’s kind of important, right?
Finally Scandinavian countries have “too late” limits, a “prescribation” so they do not need to waste time and resources on hopeless or downright wasteful crybaby cases with little or no merit. Thank you.
Interesting article and good to see some judges can shoot straight against their fellow Gov stooges. It is the way of the world, the decent men and women suffer in relative silence, and the dishonest and narcissistic types crow the loudest. There are plenty of sleazy guys, particularly at the sexual peak along with alcohol (eg 18-20yo) that will happily take advantage of women. It seems the ones prosecute are from women that are a hot mess. I knew several guys that back in the day admitted crossing the line with a passed out random girl they found at a bar or concert. Everyone, but especially girls just need to taper than booze and drugs.
keep up the good work of continually exposing this level of social (societal?) dementia: the actioning of it and the acquiescence to the madness.
you may be interested in a book by jasun horsley. he explores the idea that we have quietly sneakily entered a 'gynocracy', a form of tyranny with soft gloves and 'we are doing this for your own good because we (female) are the natural good.' orwell was big brother's boot to the head; big mother is the suffocation of too much protection.
Legal system has ignored reality too often. In my case, my masked neurodiversity got misunderstood and overreactions of family led to legal problems when all I needed was medical help. Still stuck in the system!
Thanks Bettina, though it's terrible to hear. The step-wise corruption of western legal processes by feminists is reaching ridiculous, inexcusable levels. Now it's essentially 'guilty as accused until a man can convince a jury of innocence'. When the hell will a government wake up?
The case of the woman who kept getting drunk and enticing or at least allowing men to have sex with her only to accuse them later of rape is appalling. One aspect of such cases is that the man usually is also drunk, so why is it that only the female couldn't consent and only the man is considered to have taken advantage? Sexist, misandrist law we now live under.
and to think, back in the day, I thought "Women's Liberation" had merit....and supported it. The weaponization of this cause wrought by "womens" groups is breathtaking...
Good point , what did happen to Womens Liberation? They got what they wanted and more now it’s men who need liberating. But the feminists refused to see that what they called gender inequality was just as much a case of class inequality. Poor working class men were just as downtrodden by the ruling elites as women were.
Thank you for the reminder about the English scandal 2017/18. The result of feminist policies initiated under Keir Starmer, who preceded Alison Saunders as head of the CPS. The SNP are already "piloting" trials by Tribunals of judges for sexual crimes in Scotland, ending the right to trial by jury. And there is agitation from the feminist lobby for the same in England and Wales, no doubt a Labour Gov. will do their bidding and end the right to trial by jury for rape and sexual assault.
I never thought I’ll write this, but after reading this excellent text by Bettina I believe that the Australian “virgin jury” system leads to a theatrical system with people of very low IQ being bamboozled by performing actors In horsehair wigs. In the Scandinavian countries with a 1,000 yo legal tradition, they don’t use uneducated dumb juries made up of people that had no excuse to deny jury duty or would gape at past public beheadings and hangings.
In Scandinavian countries all courts look like the High Courts of Australia or the ICJ. BUT looks is deceiving because in the low courts the 5 person panel only have one trained judge. The other four are not exactly Ombudsman, they are four elected and usually experienced and intelligent Nämdeman. A bit like church deacons vs priests! Interestingly the judge only vote in a draw and the main purpose is to serve as a expert on the law and relevant High Court decisions. Also, TOTALLY unlike Australian courts the system appoints a researcher that maps the life of the accused. What are the previous convictions? What are the family support like? What is his workmates opinions? Or his sport club support? All this including previous convictions is read to the court so the five knows what kind of person he/she is. It’s kind of important, right?
Finally Scandinavian countries have “too late” limits so they do not need to waste time and resources on hopeless or downright wasteful crybaby cases, like Bishops Pell where a claimant was dead and no concrete evidence existed. A bishop in full regalia who came early and finding raping two boys habitually stealing alcohol in the sacristy after a Sunday ceremony. The Australian justice system convicted Pell for decades earlier simultaneously raping two boys at the same time in the light of day. No other misbehaviour ever reported - Wow!
The jury system is seriously flawed , there is a case to say that juries should be trained specially for the job, and paid well. Scandinavian countries are way ahead of stuffy old English law , which refuses to change.
The justice system Australia inherited from England is more of an old boys network than a “justice” system . Lawyers can start at the bottom and work their way up to be a judge . This in itself is wrong , ensuring a closed shop where corruption can flourish.
But worse than any corruption is the apathy and inertia of the system which has become a top heavy bureaucracy , the people working in it are cowed into subservience .
I was a juror for rape trial, on of the jury persons (a 60+ old women) kept on insisting that the man was guilty as the the police would not have arrested him otherwise. There where 4 other jurors that could not follow basic instructions. Some did not care about the verdict only that they voted with the majority.
This is wonderful news 🙌
Good news, Bettina. Gradually Australia might be coming out of the darkest period of time, with the help of you and other hard working men and women resisting the Culture War.
If I understand correctly there is about to be an avalanche of Female law graduates who will swamp the legal sector and they will have more than likely been indoctrinated into feminist ideology.
So the worst is yet to come.
Just finished listening to ‘The Wigs’ podcast recommended here by BA. Found it extremely interesting and deeply concerning. It would appear that the ODPP is so cowed by the fear of a backlash from feminist activists, that they prefer to let ‘unconvincing’ claims of rape make their way to the courts and have the jury ultimately make the decision at trial.
The impression I’m getting from various sources is that ultimately, rape cases, in the future, will not be heard before a jury - that is, they will be a ‘judge only’ hearing. It remains speculative whether this would result in a higher conviction rate, which is what activists are furiously seeking.
‘A jury of one’s peers’ is now a suspect concept that apparently works in favour of the defence. Worrying times indeed.
I am glad you found the time to listen to The Wigs. Some of their earlier ones are fascinating too but they are all very PC so you will never hear any criticism of the way feminists have tilted the system to favour women!
bettina-- thank you for this detailed discussion including your discussion of the martinez case, where a woman has nine times intentionally made herself drunk, had sex with a different man each time, and then accused that man of raping her because her drunkenness supposedly prevented her consent. i wrote in response to a prior post of yours, 'coitus interruptus,' outlining the elements of the traditional common law crime of rape and how each and every element has now been subverted by feminism. again, at common law rape was when a 1) man, 2) engaged in sexual intercourse, 3) with a woman, 4) not his wife, 5) by force, and 6) without her consent
in the martinez case, it is the elimination of the force requirement that invites this sort of evil. the complainant doesnt have to allege she was forced to have sex. all she has to say is she did have sex and she was drunk. there's your rape
so, every man out there, did you ever have sex with your girlfriend when she was drunk? if so you're a rapist. did you ever have sex with your wife when she was drunk? if so you're a rapist. and that's just the beginning. as bettina covered in her article about australia's 'enthusiastic consent' laws you're also a rapist if you ever had sex with your wife and she did consent and didnt resist but wasnt really into it, which is, let's get real, over 90% of marital sex, because normally it's men who require sex and their wives accept it. calling all of that rape is a lunatic hammer attack on heterosexual marriage
if the force requirement were in effect it would not be rape to have sex with a girl who was drunk unless force was used, and this force has to be of a type that intends to overcome the physical resistance that would be expected from a chaste girl or a woman loyal to her husband
if it was your wife it would never be rape. wives owe their husbands sex just as husbands owe their wives support. that is implicit in the marital contract
there should be some sort of protection for women (and men) who not only cannot consent but also lack capacity to physically resist, e.g., the victim is unconscious, but such protection should not be looked for in rape statutes. as i've suggested elsewhere i would look for these protections in the statutes and tort law that covers assault and battery. there is adequate protection there and these protections should be taken seriously
battery includes any type of touching without consent, but it contains an important limitation. the touching has to be outrageous to a normal person. having sex with an unconscious person sounds pretty outrageous to me as does pulling an unchaste girl into the bushes and forcing yourself on her. acts like these should be actionable and/or punishable as a battery
having sex with a girl who dolls herself up, gets herself tipsy, and comes on to you at a bar might be poor judgment, but it is not outrageous and therefore not battery. neither is it rape under the common law, and the woman who engages in this sort of thing need only reform her behavior to avoid any unwanted consequences
you've also pointed out how the accused is not able to fully confront his accuser, because there are many questions he cannot ask, and lots of potentially exculpatory evidence that feminists have made sure cannot be introduced at trial. so the martinez juries arent allowed to know that she's done this sort of thing repeatedly. all these limitations have been pushed by feminists to make it easier to convict innocent men of rape, but none of these innovations in evidentiary limitations are there for mass murderers or serial killers
finally, imagine a motorist accused of causing an accident while drunk driving who argues he isnt guilty of anything because he was drunk and therefore lacked the capacity to form a criminal intent. no court in a common law jurisdiction and maybe no court in the world would hear such an argument. and yet all these courts accept the argument that a woman who dolls herself up and goes to a bar looking to hook up with a man has been raped if he has sex with her
i've said it before and i'll say it again. all common law elements of the crime of rape must be restored including and especially the marital exemption. all evidentiary limitations pertaining peculiarly to rape defense must be abolished
thank you as always for all your great work in this and other areas
I agree with many of your points but have concerns about some of the language you use. "Wives owe their husband sex"?? No way. A loving wife should feel an obligation to be concerned about their husband's needs, including sex, just as women expect men to consider their wants and needs. That's very different. Similarly speaking of "force" isn't helpful in making the argument about concerns about consent.
bettina, thank you for your reply, but i have to disagree that "no way" is a rational argument. i don't agree that feminist elimination of the common law element of force in the legal definition of rape is acceptable, much less that discussing the force requirement is 'unhelpful' when discussing consent
your disagreements come from a variety of beliefs you have, including:
1. chastity is a not a positive virtue for an unmarried woman
2. the sexual revolution was great but now feminism has gone too far
3. a marriage contract is not really a lifelong contract, it's an at-will agreement you make as long as both parties feel good about it
4. the common law definition of rape, which included both a marital exemption and a force requirement, was, in part, the product of misogyny (and any man who insists on restoring these archaic legal features probably hates women)
you may or may not have said any of that. but that is what you believe. please tell me if i have any of it wrong
here is a fact. the vast majority of men and women even in developed western countries (and let's reluctantly include australia in that group) did not agree with any of these beliefs prior to the emergence and popular use of the birth control pill
and here would be my positions re your beliefs 1-4 above:
1. chastity is a positive virtue for unmarried women, and men who place a lot of value on it generally do so because it is consonant with the integrity of the family and not out of a hatred of women
2. the sexual revolution made sex much cheaper for men and that is why men largely went along with it, and the results have been horrific for men and women
3. a marriage contract is a lifelong contract where the wife owes the husband sex and the husband owes her support and no one dreamed otherwise for thousands of years until very recently when feminists convinced almost everyone it was oppressive to women and we all had to believe it terminable if you felt like it. feminists also convinced us that marriage created enforceable obligations for men but almost never for women
4. the traditional common law definition of rape, which included both a marital exemption and a force requirement, recognized a special dignitary interest that unmarried women have in their chastity and married women have in sexual loyalty to their husbands. but for these special interests there would have been no reason for a rape statute since action for assault and battery would have been adequate to protect the plaintiff/prosecutrix and was available since ancient times
the force requirement is necessary because consent alone is a subjective state on the part of the woman and is extremely malleable and easy to misrepresent. the force requirement was based on the reasonable assumption that a woman who valued her chastity or a woman who wanted to remain sexually loyal to her husband would not simply say 'no' to unwanted sex and then if the man continued to advance, say, oh well i give up. that is not real. a woman in that situation who does not consent does not just use a word to state her non-consent, she struggles against the violation physically and this requires force on the man's part to overcome her physical resistance. under these circumstances, most people are rightly outraged that a man would continue his course of action and this justifies criminalizing the behavior
this is not only not unhelpful to discussing consent, it is the way non-consent must be understood in the context of a rape allegation. otherwise you are buying into the feminist lie that sex is rape anytime a woman imagines it wasnt what she 'really' wanted
as i have also explained elsewhere rape statutes were never meant to protect unchaste women or wives disloyal to their husbands from unwanted sex. and no one in the world ever thought so until they were brainwashed by feminists into believing that rape statutes were intended to protect women from their husbands having sex with them and that rape statutes could protect prostitutes too
and no, i am not calling all women who have sex out of wedlock prostitutes, nor do i mean that unchaste women or women not loyal to their husbands can be sexually attacked with impunity. it means that their interests do not rise to the same level as traditional victims of rape, and that action for battery is more suitable to protect these interests for reasons i have explained
the elimination of the marital rape exemption began in the US in the mid-70's (coinciding exactly with popular use of the pill). the last US states to repeal the marital exemption were oklahoma and north carolina, in 1993
as of 2024 states in the US are currently split on the force requirement. feminists are at work trying to get all states to repeal the force requirement and move to a pure consent standard for rape, which is effectively, what a woman feels
again, all elements of the common law definition of rape must be restored, including and especially the marital exemption, and the force requirement must be preserved and/or restored as the case may be. all rape shield laws and other laws that give prosecutors special advantages in prosecuting rape must be repealed. aggrieved woman who are not protected by rape laws should find redress in private and criminal actions for battery, and battery laws should be taken seriously
bettina, i've raised serious criticisms here but on the whole i strongly support your work and want to call on others to support you as well. not only it is bold and brave and generally right-minded, you are one of the few people willing to confront and expose the feminists in a focussed and credible way. i thank you again for your great work, but my criticisms respectfully remain
Women should be more careful about how much they drink and who they have sex with , this is part of the problem.
Womens liberation and feminism have drilled into young women that they could and should act like men and be sexually promiscuous , in the name of “equality”
So women got what they wanted in every way including sexual freedom , so what’s the problem? ,along with this freedom comes the risk of being raped , surely this was obvious from the start, but as with all things the feminists want their cake and to eat it too.
Women should indeed act more like men, and take it on the chin ,when things don’t go as expected instead of crying to the “Nanny State” .
This is yet another example of women destroying an institution created by men over centuries, if not millenia (democracy is another). If the law won't provide justice then the only deterrence to false accusations will be that supplied by men themselves.
Dear Bettina, after reading your excellent text I believe that the Australian “virgin rape jury system” leads to theatrical “courts of law” with juries of low IQ being easily bamboozled by performing actors In horsehair wigs. In the Scandinavian countries with a 1,000 yo legal tradition, they don’t use uneducated dumb bunch of virgin juries made up of people that had no excuse to deny jury duty or people that would gape at past public beheadings and hangings. Or just plain angry over the waste of their pitifully paid time. Who may their anger be focused on?
In Scandinavian countries all courts look like the High Courts of Australia or the ICJ. BUT looks is deceiving because in the low courts the 5 person panel only have one trained judge. The other four are not exactly Ombudsman, they are four elected and usually experienced and intelligent Nämdeman. (A bit like church deacons vs priests!) Interestingly the judge only vote in a draw and the main purpose is to serve as a expert on the law and relevant High Court decisions when deciding on the sentence. Not just a omnipotent judge decides that may have slept during the trail, as happens.
Also, TOTALLY unlike Australian courts the system first appoints a researcher that maps the life of the accused. What are the previous convictions? How does the family support look like? What is his workmates opinions? Or his sport club support? All this including previous convictions is read to the court so the five on the panel knows what kind of person he/she is. It’s kind of important, right?
Finally Scandinavian countries have “too late” limits, a “prescribation” so they do not need to waste time and resources on hopeless or downright wasteful crybaby cases with little or no merit. Thank you.
Interesting article and good to see some judges can shoot straight against their fellow Gov stooges. It is the way of the world, the decent men and women suffer in relative silence, and the dishonest and narcissistic types crow the loudest. There are plenty of sleazy guys, particularly at the sexual peak along with alcohol (eg 18-20yo) that will happily take advantage of women. It seems the ones prosecute are from women that are a hot mess. I knew several guys that back in the day admitted crossing the line with a passed out random girl they found at a bar or concert. Everyone, but especially girls just need to taper than booze and drugs.
keep up the good work of continually exposing this level of social (societal?) dementia: the actioning of it and the acquiescence to the madness.
you may be interested in a book by jasun horsley. he explores the idea that we have quietly sneakily entered a 'gynocracy', a form of tyranny with soft gloves and 'we are doing this for your own good because we (female) are the natural good.' orwell was big brother's boot to the head; big mother is the suffocation of too much protection.
if curious: Big Mother: The Technological Body of Evil by Jasun Horsely. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/135688883-big-mother
Legal system has ignored reality too often. In my case, my masked neurodiversity got misunderstood and overreactions of family led to legal problems when all I needed was medical help. Still stuck in the system!
Too ready to act without consideration of all the facts.
Thanks Bettina, though it's terrible to hear. The step-wise corruption of western legal processes by feminists is reaching ridiculous, inexcusable levels. Now it's essentially 'guilty as accused until a man can convince a jury of innocence'. When the hell will a government wake up?
The case of the woman who kept getting drunk and enticing or at least allowing men to have sex with her only to accuse them later of rape is appalling. One aspect of such cases is that the man usually is also drunk, so why is it that only the female couldn't consent and only the man is considered to have taken advantage? Sexist, misandrist law we now live under.
and to think, back in the day, I thought "Women's Liberation" had merit....and supported it. The weaponization of this cause wrought by "womens" groups is breathtaking...
Good point , what did happen to Womens Liberation? They got what they wanted and more now it’s men who need liberating. But the feminists refused to see that what they called gender inequality was just as much a case of class inequality. Poor working class men were just as downtrodden by the ruling elites as women were.
I sincerely hope that Bettina keeps on fighting for Men's rights, we need the help! ;-(
Thank you for the reminder about the English scandal 2017/18. The result of feminist policies initiated under Keir Starmer, who preceded Alison Saunders as head of the CPS. The SNP are already "piloting" trials by Tribunals of judges for sexual crimes in Scotland, ending the right to trial by jury. And there is agitation from the feminist lobby for the same in England and Wales, no doubt a Labour Gov. will do their bidding and end the right to trial by jury for rape and sexual assault.
Thanks again Bettina ..great article
I never thought I’ll write this, but after reading this excellent text by Bettina I believe that the Australian “virgin jury” system leads to a theatrical system with people of very low IQ being bamboozled by performing actors In horsehair wigs. In the Scandinavian countries with a 1,000 yo legal tradition, they don’t use uneducated dumb juries made up of people that had no excuse to deny jury duty or would gape at past public beheadings and hangings.
In Scandinavian countries all courts look like the High Courts of Australia or the ICJ. BUT looks is deceiving because in the low courts the 5 person panel only have one trained judge. The other four are not exactly Ombudsman, they are four elected and usually experienced and intelligent Nämdeman. A bit like church deacons vs priests! Interestingly the judge only vote in a draw and the main purpose is to serve as a expert on the law and relevant High Court decisions. Also, TOTALLY unlike Australian courts the system appoints a researcher that maps the life of the accused. What are the previous convictions? What are the family support like? What is his workmates opinions? Or his sport club support? All this including previous convictions is read to the court so the five knows what kind of person he/she is. It’s kind of important, right?
Finally Scandinavian countries have “too late” limits so they do not need to waste time and resources on hopeless or downright wasteful crybaby cases, like Bishops Pell where a claimant was dead and no concrete evidence existed. A bishop in full regalia who came early and finding raping two boys habitually stealing alcohol in the sacristy after a Sunday ceremony. The Australian justice system convicted Pell for decades earlier simultaneously raping two boys at the same time in the light of day. No other misbehaviour ever reported - Wow!
The jury system is seriously flawed , there is a case to say that juries should be trained specially for the job, and paid well. Scandinavian countries are way ahead of stuffy old English law , which refuses to change.
The justice system Australia inherited from England is more of an old boys network than a “justice” system . Lawyers can start at the bottom and work their way up to be a judge . This in itself is wrong , ensuring a closed shop where corruption can flourish.
But worse than any corruption is the apathy and inertia of the system which has become a top heavy bureaucracy , the people working in it are cowed into subservience .
that's very interesting, Bob. The historic cases are just a nightmare. I think most guys are being convicted in these cases.
I was a juror for rape trial, on of the jury persons (a 60+ old women) kept on insisting that the man was guilty as the the police would not have arrested him otherwise. There where 4 other jurors that could not follow basic instructions. Some did not care about the verdict only that they voted with the majority.
That’s terrible… I fear this is not uncommon