Law may make rape suspects prove consent

**MikeT** · 20th-August-2008

From Stuff:

Accused rapists who plan to argue that sex with their victims was consensual may have to prove in court what measures they took to gain consent.

The proposal is one of three changes to sexual violence legislation being put forward by the Justice Ministry.
"Changing the law would send an important message about community standards and about what the law expects," ministry documents say.
"In particular, there would be a reminder that consent has to be obtained on each separate occasion."

Under the proposal, if a defendant claimed sex was consensual the courts would have to look at what steps had been taken to find out that consent had been given.

Other changes being considered are including creating a legal definition of consent to remove ambiguity and banning questioning complainants about their sexual history with the alleged attacker.
The ministry has issued a discussion paper on the proposals and is calling for public submissions.

Nineteen per cent of women and 5 per cent of men would be subjected to sexual violence at some point in their lives, but it was thought about 90 per cent of sexual offending went unreported, the ministry said.
"Victims and the public need to see that sexual violence is taken seriously, that justice is being done, and that this behaviour is not tolerated in our society."

The discussion document only relates to issues affecting sexual violence between adults.
Sexual offending against children is being addressed by a separate ministry task force.

Bill Hodge, Auckland University associate professor of law, said though he was "not one to stick up for criminals", caution was needed when making changes to legislation.

Requiring a higher standard of proof of consent from defendants would lessen the burden on the Crown to prove an offence.
"So just because it is hard to get convictions we do away with the standards? A drunk consent is still consent," Dr Hodge said.

Helen Sullivan, Wellington Sexual Abuse Help Foundation general manager, said the changes would be an important first step in improving attitudes to sex crimes and creating clearer guidelines about acceptable behaviour.
"Society perceives that there is a whole bunch of vindictive women out there waiting to get back at guys."

Balancing the rights of both the accused and the victim was a "tricky area" but more needed to be done to strengthen victims' rights, Ms Sullivan said.
Justice Minister Annette King said that though legislation changes on their own would not automatically lead to an increase in convictions, they were an "important first step".

The aim of the document was to create discussion within the community about how to deal with sexual violence.
The document raised questions about sexual violence, Ms King said. "What are the boundaries of acceptable sexual conduct in law, and what aspects of the current law may act as barriers to cases proceeding through the justice system or inhibit successful convictions?"

Link:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4662060a11.html

**Dr David Banner** · 20th-August-2008

....CELIBACY Lads!

or put it this way

Live like rock stars no peace

Live like monks know peace

**Marx** · 20th-August-2008

Even if a man gets a signed contract for each & every occasion, she can still claim he forced her to sign... hence, rape.

It doesn't matter what they do, false allegations will still occur and genuine rape will still occur.

Putting the onus on men (removing innocent until proven guilty) will do nothing but imprison more men, innocent and guilty alike.

**Timocrat** · 20th-August-2008

Sometimes, and this is one of them, I really think they are trying to provoke men into open rebellion. Maybe they want to then use this revolt to further their agenda under the guise of protecting the public from these crazy men. How can they possible keep this up, and keep a straight face? Why aren't men up in arms? Is there something in the water that makes them such manginas? If they want to slow down rape, control porn better. Yet porn is now a scared cow, and men's rights are flying in the wind.

Unite or fall.

**Dr David Banner** · 20th-August-2008

Sometimes, and this is one of them, I really think they are trying to provoke men into open rebellion. Maybe they want to then use this revolt to further their agenda under the guise of protecting the public from these crazy men.

Timocrat
I believe you are spot on here!
Open rebellion Timo, men taking to the streets silly pointless violence easy to quell. Yes they would LOVE it. Morally wrong IMO as well for the innocent allways suffer in such madness.
They damn well know what they are doing but.....They are in for a shock they have underestimated us. I would still say we are on the way to dictatorship and we may all experience this for a time until it collapses. Evil rises truimphs for a short time then is no more . The evil doers repeat their errors .Hitler Stalin Amin Polpot....enjoyed the brief hour power ...They ALWAYS do..but where are they all now?

**Garak** · 20th-August-2008

They may want us to revolt but they forget, men fight revolutions, not women. They (mangina's included) wouldn't stand a chance. Especially in the US where we have the right to bear arms (for this purpose actually).

**brian44** · 20th-August-2008

Quote from Dr David Banner

Timocrat
I believe you are spot on here!
Open rebellion Timo, men taking to the streets silly pointless violence easy to quell. Yes they would LOVE it. Morally wrong IMO as well for the innocent allways suffer in such madness.
They damn well know what they are doing but.....They are in for a shock they have underestimated us. I would still say we are on the way to dictatorship and we may all experience this for a time until it collapses. Evil rises truimphs for a short time then is no more . The evil doers repeat their errors .Hitler Stalin Amin Polpot....enjoyed the brief hour power ...They ALWAYS do..but where are they all now?

We already live in surveillance Britain, with much of the apparatus of a police state is already in place, so I wonder how a dictatorship could be overthrown. The only thing stopping this being a Big Brother state is democracy. I almost expect the government to announce an Orwellian thought detection device and a new Ministry of Truth and a division of the police called the Thought Police!

**Tyrael** · 20th-August-2008

Solution? Sue whoever or whatever is responsible for the sexual, discriminatory laws and have it altered to something reasonable.

**Garak** · 20th-August-2008

Quote from Billy

Same line of thought.
But I thought you were a Canuck. No ?

.

Canuck? I am an American, I don't know what Canuck means.

**Timocrat** · 21st-August-2008

Canuck is another name for a Canadian.

As for how will they take over democraty? Gradualism.

First you have some main parties that make it very hard for new ones to start up. In the US, for example, some new parties can't get on the voting lists even when they get enough signatures. The establishment often back both parties and thus can't loose.

Second a party may be open to supporters but when choosing leaders and candidates they have added diversity limits. Women, miniorities etc are said to be wanted, but they must have the values of the establishment in point of fact. Rivalries between minorites are both encouraged and then used by their representatives candidates to talk how terrible they are and how if you dislike ethic fighting one should vote for the charisma candidate.

Third those who are willing, because of ambition and passion and or to get attention for themselves, are always to be had in this culture and so the leaders with money have a choice of many persons to back with more money. The media plays up looks, difference that are meaningless, and so the petty become important and the substance candidates become unskilled as they have no charisma (when they just have no charisma under the medias version of it). If you work on principle and ideas you lack style, charism and sniveling to whoever you can to win. Caesar was reported to have got on his knees to other politicans in Rome so they would give him money. Some want to be pulled by strings, so they can be on top and be effete famous looking.

In the future it will be made that each party must have 50% candidates made up of women, and also other minorities with different percentages. Now are new immigrants and women wiser to politics are less so? Therefore you will be limited in voting for the best candidate as you will only be able to vote for who they choose. Women, as we comment here won't rock the boat in large groups and don't lead revolutions but sit them out or support them as spies, though they will sound tough in discussions.

I had this argument in university 20 years ago in my Political Science class as the the right to vote was being chipped away at with 50% ratios in diversities and how its undemocratic (yet the men in the class who were traditionalist were quiet, the women were quiet, and the manginas men were pushing it in full). They have taken the right of dead beat dads to vote in New Jersey, while have pushed for other crimes not to be stopped from voting????

We must see this as it is. We need a men's party, not so much to even win, but to make the establishment move to catering to men and take this this slack they give us and build on it.

**Dylan MacVillain** · 21st-August-2008

The average person in America and probably most Western countries is photographed and videotape 300x per day (banks, ATMs, traffic cams, toll booths, store cameras, etc.). With this "prove your innocence" take on rape, the only solution is celibacy or having a CCTV system in the bedroom. The only thing is, you would probably need to make the videotaping as consenual as the sex!

How many women would agree to that? Women don't have to worry about being accused of rape, so the sex surveillance wouldn't help them. Then again, maybe Big Brother will not only require that each home have a CCTV system in the bedroom but will also review our footage the way HE monitors our e-mails and calls.

**julie** · 21st-August-2008

Quote from Timocrat

Sometimes, and this is one of them, I really think they are trying to provoke men into open rebellion. Maybe they want to then use this revolt to further their agenda under the guise of protecting the public from these crazy men. How can they possible keep this up, and keep a straight face? Why aren't men up in arms? Is there something in the water that makes them such manginas? If they want to slow down rape, control porn better. Yet porn is now a scared cow, and men's rights are flying in the wind.

Unite or fall.

You are on the right track with this. I know I should leave you alone but I suggest you look to the bigger picture.

Socialism which is communism is the way we are going. If men rebel then sure we will never get there.

But how many souls lose their lives? How many lives must pay?

It is a big choice from the MRM. What are you prepared to give up for a revolution?

On the other side of the coin (so to speak) what are your demands. What are wanting to achieve under negotiation.

I personally think you need to ask questions instead of 'say what you think is the best for men'.

Otherwise you stay on the outside with a few men who have nothing to lose but a word. Whether they will go to prison for their word is another thing.

**julie** · 21st-August-2008

Here's a strange thought for negotiation.

Would men give up sex with 2 women or 3 or 4 for a revolution?

No they won't. So lesbianism stays. Men love sex with multiple women. They don't seem to care if the women find out they enjoy sex more with women than men. A good time is a good time. And if you have enough money for a good time, you are into capitalism. Right wing.

(gosh, I am a bitch)

Also listening to a few hippies has led me to believe, from their enjoyment of men having sex with men that we are far off track for opposites should only attract.