It is my pleasure to cite the full text of the latest judgment, which at great length explains that rape law as applied in this case is par for the course in England and all over Europe. In England and Wales, the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 established rape as intentional penetration of a vagina without consent, and consent is defined as agreeing by choice with the freedom and capacity to make the choice. English rape law is thus at least as extreme as the Swedish version (where coercion is apparently still part of the definition), which means the requirement of dual criminality is satisfied and Assange is to be extradited.
Court cases are often decided more by a climate of opinion rather than the wording of the law itself. The hateful wave of radical feminism sweeping Europe is so powerful, it overrides the varying local definitions and has men uniformly tried and convicted based on the radical feminist definition of rape. Norway, for example, is more extreme than the norm insofar as mens rea is abolished, but we still technically define rape as sex accomplished by some manner of force or coercion, (though this can be as light as e.g. threatening to spread a rumor about a woman), unless the woman is unconscious or otherwise unable to resist. Even so, the Assange judgment asserts that feminism is so impetuous, the trend is to bring charges against men based on feminist ideology even when the law is insufficient. This explains the logical incoherence of defining rape as sex obtained by force/threat yet not requiring resistance from the woman, which is done here in Norway. We might as well ignore the letter of the law and acknowledge the fact that feminist ideology is so pervasive it trumps everything. Fighting feminist law reform with attempted reversal of that reform is thus a futile endeavor, and MRAs must instead mount a resistance external to legislation. An overarching purpose of the feminist police states of Europe is explicitly to “tackle attrition” in rape accusations by whatever means necessary, the law or innocence be damned, and based on an absurd de facto definition of rape by which the essential element is simply lack of consent.
So there you have it. Those who still equate rape with actually being forced to sex, wake up and smell the odious feminist cunt commanding your local police force. Based on this definition of rape, what to think of the “victims” is self-explanatory. Women cannot have their panacean definition of rape and sympathy at the same time. Something has to break. However, even if we arrive at the point where “rape victims” receive nothing but ridicule from the general public (much like Anna and Sofia are getting at the moment), the feminist police state will grind on and destroy innocent men’s lives. As the definition of rape has been expanded to absurdity, sentencing for convicted rapists has perversely increased at the same time, and due process is also constantly besieged. To MRAs this can only mean war.
I look forward to the next chapter in the Assange saga, which will expose more human-rights abuses in the sick joke that is the Swedish justice system. It shall be especially satisfying to have the Swedish travesty of conducting rape trials in secret exposed to the world, because no matter what definition of rape you subscribe to, such a fundamental denial of due process is universally appalling to civilized people.
I have read your new blog entry and this time I do agree with allot of what you are saying. While I think that for example threats of serious violence should also make something rape even if the woman is not unconscious or fighting I think that the concept of rape have become far to fuzzy, and is stretched to far. Rape is forcing someone to sex either though physical strength or through credible threats of serious violence, threatening to put someone in socially awkward situations or just being of a higher social status so the other part feel somewhat pressured is not enough.
ReplyDeleteNow for example you had this porn company who got some complaints as they took a young girl, wined her and dined her and flew her out to another city for a party and once they where there they told the woman that if she did not participate in their porn production they would not pay for her ticket home forcing the girl to call her father for help if she wanted to get home without doing what the porn producers asked. Now is this a bit on the side of what I would consider moral practice, yes, but is it rape, no nor should it be treated as such, it might be an immoral thing to do, but it should not be illegal.
Another problem is that there is no help for a woman who have had an bad sexual encounter without calling it rape. I met a girl online once who said at she had at one time been at a party, she had gotten drunk and ended up in a stranger's bed. Now this woman was terrified she had gotten diseases and quite distressed over the whole thing and felt terrible so she went to a women's crisis center to get tested and hopefully being able to talk with someone about her negative experience. Now once she got there everyone tried to convince her she had been raped, no matter how many times this girl said no, she had made a bad judgment call, gotten in a bad situation but none had forced her, the women at the crisis center would not let up on her, eventually beginning to emotionally harass this woman who where already in emotional turmoil trying to force her to press charges. Now this girl said she got out of there and got tested at her regular doctor's office later, however who knows how many others in a similar situation get pressured into calling rape when in reality the whole thing where just a bad judgment call.
Rape is a horrible thing and it should not be marginalized by making it a fuzzy term which can apply to anything. I liked your blogpost, it was well written and interesting.
Have a great day.
Anja