Never, at any stage, should a person of average intelligence considered that Higgins was traumatised. In fact, from go to woe, she was blase and calculating.
I would be very surprised if the Anglicare school changed its position on allowing this speaker. The organisation is so keen to demonstrate its wokeness that is could hardly not. I would love it if I'm proved wrong.
Having watched approximately 5 to 6 hours of the Board of Enquiry Criminal Justice System (https://www.cjsinquiry.act.gov.au/public-hearings/livestream) live streams – as posted by Bettina in one of her comments, and having re read this article, I now have a more informed view and that is: it is plainly one person’s word against another’s – unless there is absolute evidence! Also, just because a jury or judge makes a decision to prosecute / send to jail does not mean that the crime actually happened – without absolute evidence! Therefore, the ‘believe the complainant at all costs’ is absolute nonsense.
It is also apparent to me, that the Police Forces job is to collect evidence, objectively, and that they should be given the resources and time to bring this about and that all interviews/meetings with anyone associated with the case in question need to be recorded as ‘proof’.
Bruce Lehrmann has done well to keep his mouth shut, as far as I am aware! Maybe his text messages get him/got him into trouble in one way… his statements were doubted maybe!
Why should ‘anyone’ incriminate themselves and that is something you should all think about if you start to think your partner is going to take you to the cleaners.
Start remaining silent and only answer what you have to (watch the live streams to see how this can be done) and be ‘very careful’ what you text, email to ‘anyone’ as it can be used as evidence against you and hopefully for you!. In fact, if able, go to the police and state that you just want to register what you are going through.
As I read this substack and others, I see a lot of criticism about the so called ‘LGBTQ…’ groups being noisy and in context of Bettina’s work to inform us; I can only say: men, you need to get noisy!
You need to start talking about your trauma: whether it is work, relationships (to a therapist maybe) or your experiences in the military. You don’t have to be a screaming it out, but people need to start hearing about YOUR trauma. Maybe a sentence here or there.
Anyone notice a trend here, firstly the book "Asking for it" and now this. I should also add "Backlash", "The Glass Ceiling", "The Beauty Myth" to the mix.
"𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 [enter name of alleged crime here] 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭” can also be said of all too many judges, registrars and magistrates, especially those in our family court.
Thank you for this article. I don't always click on the links to the citations but I did this time. The CPI (Center for Prosecution Intergrity) was as well concise, well written piece on the 'Junk Science' of Informed Trauma Theory. There was a further link on that to a paper by FACE (Families Advocating for Campus Equality) which was just as informative, titled 'Trauma Informed Theories Disguised as Evidence'. It didn't take long to read them.
It also doesn't take long to reach the conclusion just how unscientific and superstitious these rape trauma theories are. We have taken the Enlightenment Project for granted in recent years. We have dragged ourselves out of the superstitious mire for over 250 years and it's been a hard slog. But it's been worth it as all we value about the modern world comes from the Enlightenment. Even Christianity has benefited as many religious people focus on religion for personal well-being rather than avoiding a fire-and-brimstone eternal damnation.
You would have thought that a world governed my made-up, fictional assertions about how everything works would be dead and buried. But no. Here is feminism digging up that old, fetid corpse, re-animating it and demanding we all listen to it speak. Their language is riddled with pseudo-science junk. 'Research shows...', 'the evidence presented...' when there is no research or evidence. The fact that this superstitious crap has reached the highest levels of the land - our Chief Justices and our First Ministers (Scotland), is seriously worrying. Way more-so than just this one topic.
In a similar vein, I endured a kangaroo trial at the university where I teach over accusations of “racism.” My crime was not exempting a student who clearly needed a writing class, which could easily be assessed by her grievance statement alone: a litany of feelings with no evidence of my saying or doing anything “racist.” When the HR person advised me to find people who would testify that I am not a racist, and supply other evidence that I am not racist, I asked what evidence the accuser had provided. The HR woman replied (and I recorded it): “She doesn’t have to provide evidence. All that matters is the way you made her feel.” This took place at a prominent New York university.
That nonsense has been around the US for at least a couple of decades. The upshot? Claimant #1 is clear-headed, concise and believable; ergo, believe her. Claimant #2 is evasive, doesn't make eye-contact, often changes her story and has no physical evidence to corroborate her story; ergo, believe her. Simple; all rape claimants are to be believed, making exoneration of even the most innocent defendant all but impossible. The point all along.
Yes, the world has gone completely crazy over sexual assaults. And women are clearly abusing men though legal accusations to get massive publicity (eg. Brittany Higgins). There really should be a clear set of criteria, before a rape accusation can be made.
Of course, physical violence rape is terrible and should never be committed. But compliant sex (where a woman then changes her mind) can never be rape!
Ironically ... how many rape cases are there in China, Russia and Islamic countries??? It's only in the West where rape happens!
Hopefully the profession in Australia will show similar commitment to due process and human rights.. Perhaps this will motivate them to follow their Scottish colleagues.
Never, at any stage, should a person of average intelligence considered that Higgins was traumatised. In fact, from go to woe, she was blase and calculating.
has anyone watch Heidi Yates being interviewed?
It is very interesting I find.. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-01/bruce-lehrmann-board-of-inquiry-heidi-yates-evidence/102421424
I would be very surprised if the Anglicare school changed its position on allowing this speaker. The organisation is so keen to demonstrate its wokeness that is could hardly not. I would love it if I'm proved wrong.
Having watched approximately 5 to 6 hours of the Board of Enquiry Criminal Justice System (https://www.cjsinquiry.act.gov.au/public-hearings/livestream) live streams – as posted by Bettina in one of her comments, and having re read this article, I now have a more informed view and that is: it is plainly one person’s word against another’s – unless there is absolute evidence! Also, just because a jury or judge makes a decision to prosecute / send to jail does not mean that the crime actually happened – without absolute evidence! Therefore, the ‘believe the complainant at all costs’ is absolute nonsense.
It is also apparent to me, that the Police Forces job is to collect evidence, objectively, and that they should be given the resources and time to bring this about and that all interviews/meetings with anyone associated with the case in question need to be recorded as ‘proof’.
Bruce Lehrmann has done well to keep his mouth shut, as far as I am aware! Maybe his text messages get him/got him into trouble in one way… his statements were doubted maybe!
Why should ‘anyone’ incriminate themselves and that is something you should all think about if you start to think your partner is going to take you to the cleaners.
Start remaining silent and only answer what you have to (watch the live streams to see how this can be done) and be ‘very careful’ what you text, email to ‘anyone’ as it can be used as evidence against you and hopefully for you!. In fact, if able, go to the police and state that you just want to register what you are going through.
As I read this substack and others, I see a lot of criticism about the so called ‘LGBTQ…’ groups being noisy and in context of Bettina’s work to inform us; I can only say: men, you need to get noisy!
You need to start talking about your trauma: whether it is work, relationships (to a therapist maybe) or your experiences in the military. You don’t have to be a screaming it out, but people need to start hearing about YOUR trauma. Maybe a sentence here or there.
Did readers/subscribers of Bettina's substack know about this >>>>>https://consultations.ag.gov.au/crime/sexual-assault/?fbclid=IwAR2WMd360e4t2jnbc2Rx_OP08FioPEwUhf1cUk6g3z7x8gyVc9XtmlMMoxs
Thanks for this informative piece, Cheryl. It has provided me with a lot of insight and reflection.
Anyone notice a trend here, firstly the book "Asking for it" and now this. I should also add "Backlash", "The Glass Ceiling", "The Beauty Myth" to the mix.
"𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 [enter name of alleged crime here] 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭” can also be said of all too many judges, registrars and magistrates, especially those in our family court.
Whoops, sorry, I was mistaken about the Family Law changes I mentioned yesterday. The good news is that Labor's attempt to push us back to sole custody failed and the issue is now with a committee. Bravo to the Opposition and key independents for refusing to allow this to go through. I removed yesterday's comment on this so you don't get confused. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/concerns-scupper-change-to-family-law/news-story/5a10331a7b54d99d42cf14833b1e544a
Thanks for this unique work Ms Arndt. it is valuable.
Please be respectful to other people making comments. I am removing any comments where people abuse or insult each other.
Thank you for this article. I don't always click on the links to the citations but I did this time. The CPI (Center for Prosecution Intergrity) was as well concise, well written piece on the 'Junk Science' of Informed Trauma Theory. There was a further link on that to a paper by FACE (Families Advocating for Campus Equality) which was just as informative, titled 'Trauma Informed Theories Disguised as Evidence'. It didn't take long to read them.
It also doesn't take long to reach the conclusion just how unscientific and superstitious these rape trauma theories are. We have taken the Enlightenment Project for granted in recent years. We have dragged ourselves out of the superstitious mire for over 250 years and it's been a hard slog. But it's been worth it as all we value about the modern world comes from the Enlightenment. Even Christianity has benefited as many religious people focus on religion for personal well-being rather than avoiding a fire-and-brimstone eternal damnation.
You would have thought that a world governed my made-up, fictional assertions about how everything works would be dead and buried. But no. Here is feminism digging up that old, fetid corpse, re-animating it and demanding we all listen to it speak. Their language is riddled with pseudo-science junk. 'Research shows...', 'the evidence presented...' when there is no research or evidence. The fact that this superstitious crap has reached the highest levels of the land - our Chief Justices and our First Ministers (Scotland), is seriously worrying. Way more-so than just this one topic.
In a similar vein, I endured a kangaroo trial at the university where I teach over accusations of “racism.” My crime was not exempting a student who clearly needed a writing class, which could easily be assessed by her grievance statement alone: a litany of feelings with no evidence of my saying or doing anything “racist.” When the HR person advised me to find people who would testify that I am not a racist, and supply other evidence that I am not racist, I asked what evidence the accuser had provided. The HR woman replied (and I recorded it): “She doesn’t have to provide evidence. All that matters is the way you made her feel.” This took place at a prominent New York university.
That nonsense has been around the US for at least a couple of decades. The upshot? Claimant #1 is clear-headed, concise and believable; ergo, believe her. Claimant #2 is evasive, doesn't make eye-contact, often changes her story and has no physical evidence to corroborate her story; ergo, believe her. Simple; all rape claimants are to be believed, making exoneration of even the most innocent defendant all but impossible. The point all along.
Another great article, Bettina.
Yes, the world has gone completely crazy over sexual assaults. And women are clearly abusing men though legal accusations to get massive publicity (eg. Brittany Higgins). There really should be a clear set of criteria, before a rape accusation can be made.
Of course, physical violence rape is terrible and should never be committed. But compliant sex (where a woman then changes her mind) can never be rape!
Ironically ... how many rape cases are there in China, Russia and Islamic countries??? It's only in the West where rape happens!
on a hopeful note the legal profession in Scotland has made very clear that the Scottish proposal is wrong. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65531380
Hopefully the profession in Australia will show similar commitment to due process and human rights.. Perhaps this will motivate them to follow their Scottish colleagues.
But.. OH!.. what a snake-pit!
It almost gives me a hissy fit.
I think I'll keep out if it..
And just keep to my little wit..