The widespread belief in feminist circles that ‘women don’t lie about rape’ is coming under serious challenge after a series of high profile cases in which accused men have been charged and brought to trial under highly dubious circumstances.
Because of these cases, the subject of rape and the ability to remain anonymous during rape trial proceedings has been elevated within the attention of the gender war/discussion recently, by several high profile cases that have found men innocent of the charges brought against them, after juries uncharacteristically deliberated for only a handful of hours before delivering acquittal.The feminist narrative that men are bad and should be punished while women are good and always to be believed is under threat.
The most noteworthy of these cases has been the trial of Mark Pearson, who suffered a year from hell from the accusation of sexual assault by a woman even though it was clear from video evidence that the man had done nothing. Allegedly Mr. Pearson committed a serious sexual assault while both of his hands were occupied, in the space of under .5 of a second.
Mr Pearson spent over a year under suspicion of sexually assaulting a semi-famous woman (whose identity has been plausibly revealed in the public domain of the internet) after she brought accusation against him which the Crown Prosecution Service considered worthy of pursuit. As a result, the CPS has appeared to be on an anti-male witch hunt, and a woman, whom we are told must be believed because she is a woman, has revealed herself to be a lying fantasist, with no regard for any man’s well being: a narcissist with no concern for the innocent person she accused, but only the relentless need to re-enforce her ‘victimhood’. A woman with no regard for whomsoever’s life she destroys. A woman of pure vindictiveness towards men at large .
Embedded within the recent flurry of news over this case (and others like Durham University student Louis Richardson) has been the suggestion that the anonymity of the men accused should be protected, exactly like those who have accused. This, however, is misguided. What is needed is the revealing of both identities, not the shielding of both.
In fact, the shielding of both parties used to be the case in the United Kingdom. But feminists got their hands on it in the late-1980s, saying that without anonymity, rape victims would be more reluctant to come forward. So (surprise) they were afforded special status. And that status has been seen to be increasingly abused. The problem, as ever, was that the veil of secrecy was never balanced against an equal demand for responsibility in the leveling accusations to begin with. The court system has said to women, “you can lie all you want, make up any story you like, and when it all comes out that you’ve lied, there will be, at most, a slap on the wrist for you.” Feel free to accuse at will. There is almost no chance of any repurcussions.
Removing female anonymity and imposing more serious sanction for false accusation would remove a good part of the problem. For the women afraid to come forward, they should realize, as difficult as it is, that they must withstand the glare of identification in order to achieve justice. There are no free rides through a system which operates as one of the most fundamental foundations of democracy. No one should get ‘special’ treatment.
If a man is assaulted or extorted by a member of a criminal gang and goes to court over it, he also will live with the fear of reprisal. He must decide which avenue he wishes to pursue. If he chooses the courts, he will be looking over his shoulder his entire life. If women want the equality they claim to so crave, the cases involving sexual assault and rape are one of the fundamental examples of the price they must pay for it. Justice and equality do not come free and those who aspire to it cannot demand it gratis. Feminists want a separate justice system all their own, through which identities can be hidden. It should not be allowed to continue.
But maybe women don’t really want justice. Maybe they want to be unquestionably believed. And maybe women don’t want to pay the price that comes with equality, they just want special treatment bestowed.
The ability to conduct judicial proceedings in private, away from media glare and the court of “public opinion” is a precarious one. We have already seen how the Crown Prosecution Service behaves. Do we now want to extend their charade to include proceedings conducted in total privacy? Without public oversight? How will we ever know when state prosecution has over-stepped the mark? If a case is brought in private, is the egregious stupidity and public danger of the prosecution’s behavior to be swept away within the confines of anonymity? First identities are kept secret, soon entire proceedings. Could it set a precedent for a raft of ‘other’ charges, to also be brought before the court system ‘in private’, where no one is publicly named, neither accuser or defendant?
Soon anonymity of one party will extend to anonymity of both. Perhaps, then, no trial transcript will be allowed to be released to the public. Soon the state will arrest whoever it wants, and since anonymity applies, no one but a select few can ever know what actual goes on in our judicial system.
It is telling that it is an MP (Nigel Evans) who was cleared of the charge of sexual assault that wants just that. But he’s a politician. He’s on the inside track, and as a public official will be able to see judicial proceedings in the light of the privileged access that only he, and the elite of politicians would hypothetically be allowed. The Crown Prosecution has shown prejudice, ineptitude, and downright misandry. Do we really want to further encourage them to hide their proceedings?
Let us name both sides, accused and accuser.
At the very least, the naming of the accuser should be mandatory upon acquittal.
Without that, as they say; behind a closed door, democracy dies.
With the current blood-lust for more and more cases to be brought to trial, prosecutions for rape and sexual assault are up, while convictions are down. That reveals that the state prosecution simply wishes to pile on cases… cases they have no hope of winning. That is what the case involving Mark Pearson reveals. The fact that the state prosecution said there was a case to answer should give everyone pause. The fact that they deliberately altered video evidence before handing it to the defense should make people’s blood run cold. Yet the prosecutions carry on, unhindered by their prejudicial nature, which in itself approaches criminality. (Is not the deliberate altering of primary evidence a crime?) Evidently not when you are the state’s prosecution. Remember, if you lie to the state it is a felony. If the state lies to you, it is merely politics (or ‘national security’).
Counter prosecutions against false accusers for false accusation or perverting the course of justice are essentially non-existent, at less than 1%. Even if the (honestly laughable) 2%-8% false accusation claim is believed, it still reveals a prejudice against men at the lower bound. Moreover, in the current sea of expanding prosecutions and declining convictions, the failure of the prosecution seems obvious: it is bringing cases it cannot win, simply to assuage feminist demands. And this suits the prosecutors fine. It does, after all, keep them gainfully employed and their pensions in tact, while the rest of society faces stagnating wages, disappearing jobs, and pensions that melt away when you come to claim them, after a lifetime of labour. But feminists don’t really have an interest in defending democracy.
In fact, feminism is doing exactly what it was always designed to do – destroy democracy. And it is aiding authority in that task, oh so perfectly. Because feminists, really, do not want democracy. They want privilege, and they don’t care who or what they destroy in that process. For the obtaining and sustaining of privilege they will happily flush democracy right down the toilet. And perhaps even more astounding to those espousing perpetual ‘victimhood’, feminists are roundly incapable of seeing that the deadly embrace they are locked into is with an authority structure which will eventually come after them as well. Their privilege is merely temporary, but they seem to be only capable of seeing into a very near-term future.
Judicial proceedings are supposed to be open to the public within a democracy… and maybe that’s exactly the problem. Women want protection from scrutiny, and not to be criticized for their sometimes deadly and life destroying folly of accusation. The maintenance of democracy is a second (at best) or third order consideration for them, and the forces of authoritarian politics know this well. It is why they have so strenuously pushed feminism to the forefront of political discussion. Feminists do the dirty work and hard lifting for them, paving the ground with righteousness, so that unmitigated political power can walk unimpeded, unchallenged and downright assured of its unassailability and with a mandate for continued, unimpeded expansion.
As is evident from recent cases, women want to be considered above the law, and to be intrinsically believed upon any claim that is made. If they prove themselves to be simple liars, or economical with the truth, they shall be excused, for a host of mitigating reasons which are never to be offered to man. The handling of infanticide by the judicial system alone should make democracies cringe.
Justice and democracy extracts a price for those societies that aspire to uphold it. Those who cannot or will not pay it, endanger its very existence. For the feminist world, it would appear, democracy is just another male political concoction created to oppress women.
That is where we are today.
The veil of anonymity for accuser needs to be dropped upon acquittal (at a minimum), not extended to the accused, however wrongfully accused they are. State prosecution needs a house cleaning, and needs to be free of the feminist politics that has engendered this whole charade: the charade of the need to be seen to be bringing more prosecutions against men, so that women will remain a politically captive audience. It is an audience who demands that its false howls of alleged historical oppression and injustice can continue to peal righteously through our political landscape… until every last vestige of democracy has been drowned and extinguished.
THAT is what a feminist looks like.