polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 8
th, 2021 at 12:41pm:
grap, there may be a legitimate point to be made about due process and how important it is to acquire real evidence before convicting.
However in this case your argument is somewhat compromised by the fact that:
a) your starting position, not just here but in every single discussion of this nature, is always that this is just some sinister conspiracy to oppress men.
b) you willfully ignore the deep, dark historical and cultural context of rape, and without even an acknowledgement of how heavily and unfairly the cards are stacked against the victim achieving justice. Its about the glaring power imbalance - both biological and societal that has empowered rapists throughout our history. And its about victims feeling so disempowered, and so ashamed (by culture and society) that they overwhelmingly don't even report it. Hence when an alleged victim does actually report it, that should mean something - something a bit more than "you are presumed to be lying until evidence surfaces supporting your claim".
So what am I saying? Is it right to convict men purely on the say-so of their accused? Of course not. But at the same time, we should not automatically assume that an accuser is lying until physical evidence comes to light. And in a similar vein, I don't accept that the only admissible evidence should be from whats obtained through an examination of the woman's vagina. I don't have the solution, its a terrible pickle for our justice system, which most of the time is woefully inadequate to deal with the issue of rape. But I would say we can begin to approach this better by changing our starting position - to acknowledge that a) rape is horribly endemic, and always has been, and b) that almost always the perpetrator will get away with it, and c) victims rarely report the crime.
No doubt you would deny it, but my feeling is that our society, including our justice system, still errs towards reflexively blaming the victim whenever a case comes up.
Pure nonsense - it was not I who initiated discussion of conspiracy - I merely pointed out that proper handling of Law requires fact and not assumption, supposition, innuendo, or outright discrimination.
At no time did I suggest that any accuser was a liar.... I merely pointed out that OUR system of law, as opposed to Star Chambers and Ayatollah justice - demands that the rights of the accused be protected, that all doubt must go to the defence, and that any matter be determined on the basis of facts and not anything else.
On what basis do you say that the accuser's right are being abrogated by ensuring a proper handling of Law? YOU are the one creating out of thin air some conspiracy to do down poor little women. HOW exactly is it difficult for the victim - who has yet to be proven to be so and should properly be referred to as the 'alleged victim' - to get what you consider justice? What do you consider this 'justice' to be? He's accused - therefore he must be guilty? Your thinking is muddled.
Once again - I run Australia's Wrongfully Convicted, on whose front page I make clear the world of difference between false and wrongful conviction.
Your assumption that anyone who demands due process is somehow calling the accuser a liar is utter nonsense.
In the Higgins case - there is NO physical evidence, largely because of her own actions - ergo by your own reasoning, no reason for this matter to proceed at all, other than it has become a political hobby-horse in the movement to reduce men under penury and subservience.
Remember what I quoted from Angela Davis - Black Afro-American activist in the 1960's.... "If they come for me in the morning - they will come for you at night!"
What far too many of you well-meaning useful fools fail to understand is that once you permit and even demand that Rights be violated by the state to suit some half-baked agenda - the violated Right(s) are the Rights of ALL - and one day it will come back to bite you.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance - and the greatest enemy of democracy is government.
As with mothra - the jury system was created and organised to prevent such fools from making the decisions in most cases. With your view of female victimhood at all times - you would not make it on the jury.
Forum
Pages: 
