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.
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.
An ex AFL indigenous player said "if a player feels booing is racist then it is." Not one person pushed back at this outrageously stupid comment because they are terrified of being branded a racist. So, he will continue to make similarly stupid comments in the future.
Ironically, he only has his high paying job because he is indigenous , and that surely is true racism.
So true Mark. I know of the incident of which you speak. I was a paid up 20 year member of the Richmond Football Club and when I pushed back to the club in 2017 on this matter (ie having a different view to the one authorised ) I received feedback from a young woman in her 20s informing me of my racism. Canceled my membership and have not been to an AFL game since. Still follow my Tigers. - they can’t take that away from me but I refuse to pay money to be told by brainwashed idealogues how to think.
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.
Ineresting read. I understand that the raates of sexual assault are declining even though feminist have had the definition of "sexual assault" broadened to prop-up the feminist ndustrial complexes
Yes indeed they are. All the more remarkable as the courts have have been clogged by the "pakistani grooming gang" cases. One just concluded locally (Oldham) had 8 convicted for 80 offences dating from the early years of this century. In 2018 the Ministry of Justice estimated the cases across England covered at least 10,000. So it is truly remarkable that the the downward trend continued. It also fell by 25% following whistle blowing by prosecuting Barristers and the Criminal Bar Association in 2018/19 when investigation found that Police and Crown Prosecution Service were concealing evidence, or deliberately revealing at the last minute, from the courts. Three different investigations, one by the BBC!, estimated that about a quarter of convictions in the previous 5 years were "unsound". In surprisingly in subsequent years convictions have been "down" by 25%. This latter has of course meant the feminist lobby has doubled down on legislation to exclude phone and social media evidence in particular and to prevent cross examination, to supposedly protect the complainants "privacy" and "special courts" including Judge only. As you say given all the attempts to get more convictions, if one excludes the "historic" cases of the grooming gangs and factors in the dramatic increases in population in England there has been a considerable fall. Not of course what the feminists would admit.
The same attempts to exclude evidence and to prevent cross-examination of the allegor are also being spruiker in AU. Given our current woke state and federal governments (and opposition trying to court favour with the feminist Industrial Complex) in AU, it's unlikely that the "War on Boys, Men and Fathers" will cease any time soon in Australia.
Right ,the Aust. Legal profession have proved to be distinctly timid when faced with challenges like this , they shrug their collective shoulders and say “we can’t do anything we are just doing our job” the Nuremberg defence
What’s happened to Australia’s rebel spirit the willingness to protest against authoritarian evil.
But maybe they will take their cue from their Scotch colleagues .
A hypothetical scenario could be made from the Wyatt case. What if, given the obvious lack of evidence the legal fraternity had unanimously refused to supply legal representation to the defendant , the charges would have had to be dropped.
Also the subject of appeals if the judge was to find some poor guy guilty, an appeal would also be held before a single judge at first .
The judges are a close knit bunch of old boys (and girls). They take a dim view indeed of any upstart questioning their decision , the appeal judge might be having drinks with the first judge and would not want to cause any friction. So the appeal would fail.
The appeal court should have a jury this would only be fair.
Those who wish to have "trauma informed" convictions mandated do not take into consideration that both the prosecutor and the defence counsel can challenge (reject) a juror without giving reasons. They are each allowed a maximum of three challenges. If jurors who lake the “appropriate [feminist] ideological bias” are being select, maybe this is evidence in favour of our current jury system.
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.
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.
An ex AFL indigenous player said "if a player feels booing is racist then it is." Not one person pushed back at this outrageously stupid comment because they are terrified of being branded a racist. So, he will continue to make similarly stupid comments in the future.
Ironically, he only has his high paying job because he is indigenous , and that surely is true racism.
So true Mark. I know of the incident of which you speak. I was a paid up 20 year member of the Richmond Football Club and when I pushed back to the club in 2017 on this matter (ie having a different view to the one authorised ) I received feedback from a young woman in her 20s informing me of my racism. Canceled my membership and have not been to an AFL game since. Still follow my Tigers. - they can’t take that away from me but I refuse to pay money to be told by brainwashed idealogues how to think.
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.
Ineresting read. I understand that the raates of sexual assault are declining even though feminist have had the definition of "sexual assault" broadened to prop-up the feminist ndustrial complexes
Yes indeed they are. All the more remarkable as the courts have have been clogged by the "pakistani grooming gang" cases. One just concluded locally (Oldham) had 8 convicted for 80 offences dating from the early years of this century. In 2018 the Ministry of Justice estimated the cases across England covered at least 10,000. So it is truly remarkable that the the downward trend continued. It also fell by 25% following whistle blowing by prosecuting Barristers and the Criminal Bar Association in 2018/19 when investigation found that Police and Crown Prosecution Service were concealing evidence, or deliberately revealing at the last minute, from the courts. Three different investigations, one by the BBC!, estimated that about a quarter of convictions in the previous 5 years were "unsound". In surprisingly in subsequent years convictions have been "down" by 25%. This latter has of course meant the feminist lobby has doubled down on legislation to exclude phone and social media evidence in particular and to prevent cross examination, to supposedly protect the complainants "privacy" and "special courts" including Judge only. As you say given all the attempts to get more convictions, if one excludes the "historic" cases of the grooming gangs and factors in the dramatic increases in population in England there has been a considerable fall. Not of course what the feminists would admit.
The same attempts to exclude evidence and to prevent cross-examination of the allegor are also being spruiker in AU. Given our current woke state and federal governments (and opposition trying to court favour with the feminist Industrial Complex) in AU, it's unlikely that the "War on Boys, Men and Fathers" will cease any time soon in Australia.
Right ,the Aust. Legal profession have proved to be distinctly timid when faced with challenges like this , they shrug their collective shoulders and say “we can’t do anything we are just doing our job” the Nuremberg defence
What’s happened to Australia’s rebel spirit the willingness to protest against authoritarian evil.
But maybe they will take their cue from their Scotch colleagues .
A hypothetical scenario could be made from the Wyatt case. What if, given the obvious lack of evidence the legal fraternity had unanimously refused to supply legal representation to the defendant , the charges would have had to be dropped.
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..
It's far easier to indoct...er...train a captive group like judges than random members of the public who may be called up for jury service.
Also the subject of appeals if the judge was to find some poor guy guilty, an appeal would also be held before a single judge at first .
The judges are a close knit bunch of old boys (and girls). They take a dim view indeed of any upstart questioning their decision , the appeal judge might be having drinks with the first judge and would not want to cause any friction. So the appeal would fail.
The appeal court should have a jury this would only be fair.
Those who wish to have "trauma informed" convictions mandated do not take into consideration that both the prosecutor and the defence counsel can challenge (reject) a juror without giving reasons. They are each allowed a maximum of three challenges. If jurors who lake the “appropriate [feminist] ideological bias” are being select, maybe this is evidence in favour of our current jury system.
You are a great light in this weird world - thank you for your common sense and all you do!