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.
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.
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
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...
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!
Thanks for ur effort Bettina,, truely amazing.. speaking for myself,, im not prepared to get into a relationship with a woman.. the juice is NOT worth the squeeze.. basically i have NO rights,, i"d be playing with fire.. at any time a woman can false claim DV, ,Rape,, touching kids and now the new one coersive control.. she doesnt need any evedence,, just make the false claim,, then im in HUGE trouble and could end up in jail.. giving anyone that much power over my life is a very scarey prospect.. its a very sad state of affairs for men in australia.. i actually feel uncomfortable being around women now,, and try and avoid them like the plaque,, its very dangerous being a man now days.. blokes really have to be aware to not put themselves in a situation where all hell can break loose,, over a LIE or false claim, or revenge..
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.
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.
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
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...
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!
Thanks for ur effort Bettina,, truely amazing.. speaking for myself,, im not prepared to get into a relationship with a woman.. the juice is NOT worth the squeeze.. basically i have NO rights,, i"d be playing with fire.. at any time a woman can false claim DV, ,Rape,, touching kids and now the new one coersive control.. she doesnt need any evedence,, just make the false claim,, then im in HUGE trouble and could end up in jail.. giving anyone that much power over my life is a very scarey prospect.. its a very sad state of affairs for men in australia.. i actually feel uncomfortable being around women now,, and try and avoid them like the plaque,, its very dangerous being a man now days.. blokes really have to be aware to not put themselves in a situation where all hell can break loose,, over a LIE or false claim, or revenge..