Weaponizing the western criminal justice systems against men

Weaponizing the western criminal justice systems against men. By Bettina Arndt.

Feminist academics have been lobbying for years for a yes means yes affirmative consent model where enthusiastic consent must be given at every stage throughout the sexual encounter. Under the new laws an accused must now prove to have taken active steps to ascertain consent throughout the sexual proceedings. And as [prominent Sydney barrister Margaret Cunneen] pointed out, this renders most of the sex most of us have as potentially illegal. …

But the main game here is to provide more cannon fodder — a new supply of accused men to face a justice system already weaponised against them.

That was the real bombshell in the Cunneen presentation — her expose of the extent to which the feminists have already succeeded in stacking the system by removing the filtering system which once ensured that only rape cases with sufficient evidence went through to trial. Now almost all cases are pushed through into court, where many get thrown out by juries. That means conviction rates go down, inspiring more rage from the feminists, more politicians frothing at the mouth demanding more be done to ensure the safety of women and ever more legal measures to ensure rapists get their comeuppance.

It’s just perfect, a carefully calibrated system to ensure the feminist project just keeps gaining more momentum — very like the ever-expanding definition of domestic violence, soon to include “coercive control”, which ensures an unending supply of victims and an expanding cash cow as governments pour in funds to address the problem. …

Police must take every allegation to court, which changes everything:

No longer permitted to determine on the basis of evidence whether the case had legs. No longer permitted to do proper investigations to see where the truth lies.  

Police are now required to refer in their “facts sheets” to complainants as “victims” and treat them accordingly, says Cunneen, adding police have very little discretion or often, none at all, about proceeding to charge.

As Cunneen explains, “with ownership of the case the police then want the case to succeed.” After the complainant has been declared a ‘victim,’ the system then takes hold. “There’s not much more investigation that goes on, there’s just a zeal to get to the end and to convict the charged person.” …

The police are hiding evidence that might weaken the case against the accused, they coach complainants to try to trick the accused into confessing in taped phone calls, they refuse to interview witnesses or examine social media evidence that could help the accused. The zeal works just one way. …

UK, NZ, Canada:

[In] the UK last week … the Justice Secretary Robert Buckland came under pressure to resign if he can’t reverse the plunging rape conviction rates. Within days he was on the BBC apologising to victims and promising to “do a lot better”. …

Activists in New Zealand are in the news complaining the rate of successful rape convictions in 2020 was the lowest for more than 10 years.

Diana Davison is co-founder of The Lighthouse Project, a Canadian non-profit that helps the falsely accused. She reported this week that Canada now has “an automatic charge policy on sexual assault complaints. The police have no discretion and must lay charges if the complainant describes a sexual assault. Investigation is discouraged. Of course, this results in fewer convictions.” In Canada too there are media headlines despairing that despite more rape victims coming forward these are resulting in fewer convictions.

Justice, not social justice or social work:

Cunneen did a great job explaining that a criminal trial “is not a social work forum or a psychology convention. It’s not there to provide the complainant with some kind of solace or affirmation or tremendous triumph. It’s not about the complainant.” …

“It’s the accused whose liberty is at stake in a criminal trial. It is he — generally it’s a ‘he’ — who’s been arrested and thrown into custody until bail can be sought, who has had his home raided and searched by police, who’s had to pledge his life savings or have his parents mortgage their house to get put for legal fees and whose life is on hold for two or three years.”

The stakes are high, warns Cunneen. “We are really blurring lines here and men, all men and mothers and sisters and friends of men ought to be very concerned because what wasn’t rape last year may be rape next year if the purpose of these reforms is simply to increase the numbers of people who are convicted of rape.”

The aim is convict more men of rape, by broadening the definition of rape. But it’s also a power play, awarding much greater power — backed up by state power — to the people who get to make accusations. It’s like #Me too and #Believe all women, coming to the police and a courtroom near you.