[TheWastelander]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...92559.html

Excerpt:

Quote:

New Zealand’s second-largest political party wants to reverse the burden of proof in rape cases if it gets into power, making defendants prove their innocence to reduce the trauma suffered by victims.

Andrew Little, the Labour Party’s justice spokesman, has outlined plans for a monumental shift in the justice system in the run-up to the country’s general elections in September.

“The reason why many victims either don't lay a complaint or don't go through with one is fear of the court process and the likelihood of humiliation and re-victimisation,” he said.

“A better measure would be to hand control of all examination of a victim to the judge with lawyers for both sides notifying the court which issues they want dealt with, along with shifting the burden of proof on the issue of consent to the defence.

[corners]

This is the literal end of the world. It is isnt enough all the crap everywhere on Radio on TV about how "Every 1 in 2 women in the world have been victims of rape",
now this...

[Parlay44]

Doesn't New Zealand have the sluttiest girls in the world
Coincidence

Quote:

Dating culture is dead - instead, young New Zealand women are regularly getting drunk and cruising around in packs looking for men to have sex with.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/295808/N...s-just-sex

[It_is_my_time]

I am sure in the next 10 years the Democratic party in the USA will at least start to have a few members support this. The movement will grow. In 20 years the Democrats will probably be able to run on it and sweep out any conservative candidates. Women were 54% of the voters in 2012 and you have plenty of White Knights to add to it.

This is the result of giving women the right to vote. The elites knew this and pushed hard for women's suffrage for a good reason.

[Parlay44]

It's just sluts pissed off because the guy they just fucked doesn't want to date them.
Just toss the bastard in jail

[scorpion]

The funny thing is this law will actually lead to more rape. What are guys going to do when literally any girl who knows them can ruin their life simply by pointing her finger at him?

They sure as hell aren't going to bother taking women on dates and trying to seduce them. No, they'll rely even more on picking up shitfaced girls from bars while using fake names and fucking them in back alleys. And those will be the nice guys. The not so nice guys will actually start using GHB to drug girls to make sure they have no memory of their identity the next morning. The really not so nice guys will go back to the old ski mask strategy and simply pull girls off the street at night.

You can't have a sexualized culture where only women are allowed to have sex and expect all the men to be chaste. It just doesn't work.

What this is really about is population control. They simply want to discourage men from having sex and starting families. They want to turn every young man into something like the Japanese herbivores, who just go to work, come home and play video games and watch television, never even trying to meet women.

[It_is_my_time]

(07-09-2014 10:51 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

The funny thing is this law will actually lead to more rape. What are guys going to do when literally any girl who knows them can ruin their life simply by pointing her finger at him?

They sure as hell aren't going to bother taking women on dates and trying to seduce them. No, they'll rely even more on picking up shitfaced girls from bars while using fake names and fucking them in back alleys. And those will be the nice guys. The not so nice guys will actually start using GHB to drug girls to make sure they have no memory of their identity the next morning. The really not so nice guys will go back to the old ski mask strategy and simply pull girls off the street at night.

You can't have a sexualized culture where only women are allowed to have sex and expect all the men to be chaste. It just doesn't work.

What this is really about is population control. They simply want to discourage men from having sex and starting families. They want to turn every young man into something like the Japanese herbivores, who just go to work, come home and play video games and watch television, never even trying to meet women.

Agreed. It is about population control.

I just wish they would be honest about it and do it like China with the 1 child policy, instead of just destroying the hopes and dreams of the entire middle and lower class of citizens.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Huh, "population control"? Where did that come from? New Zealand is a country of 4.5 million occupying a tiny fraction of a huge area. They are growing at exactly replacement rate (2.1 births per woman) meaning the population is essentially stable. Why would they be particularly worried about "population control" and why would they then try to resort to such ludicrously convoluted means of enforcing it?

Why invent incredible reasons to explain something that's happening all over the world as part of the current disgusting wave of misandrist hysteria? This is part of the same evil witch hunt as the "sexual assault" kangaroo courts being created in US colleges, and similar measures being promoted all over the world, especially but not exclusively in the Anglophone countries.

We will see whether this actually flies in New Zealand (I would bet against it but you never know). But this is a good time to say thanks, once again, for the US Constitution that makes it impossible for disgraces of this level to be realized here. Sure, feminists would love it but they will never get it -- innocent until proven guilty is embedded too deeply into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and it ain't going anywhere.

[It_is_my_time]

(07-09-2014 11:43 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Huh, "population control"? Where did that come from? New Zealand is a country of 4.5 million occupying a tiny fraction of a huge area. They are growing at exactly replacement rate (2.1 births per woman) meaning the population is essentially stable. Why would they be particularly worried about "population control" and why would they then try to resort to such ludicrously convoluted means of enforcing it?

Why invent incredible reasons to explain something that's happening all over the world as part of the current disgusting wave of misandrist hysteria? This is part of the same evil witch hunt as the "sexual assault" kangaroo courts being created in US colleges, and similar measures being promoted all over the world, especially but not exclusively in the Anglophone countries.

We will see whether this actually flies in New Zealand (I would bet against it but you never know). But this is a good time to say thanks, once again, for the US Constitution that makes it impossible for disgraces of this level to be realized here. Sure, feminists would love it but they will never get it -- innocent until proven guilty is embedded too deeply into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and it ain't going anywhere.

Because what is the root cause of this misandrist movement?

The elites. The wealthy bankers and insiders who are worth billions. Why would billionaires push for socialist and anti-family laws? These are the people who have proven free markets and healthy families provide success. Yet they loom in the shadows and strongly support both political parties as they push further and further to the left.

Two reasons...

#1) Control. They realize how wonderful a free market and pro-male system is. They won that game. But as long as the game remains, someone else may come along and beat them at their own game. So they must destroy the tool that gave them success before someone else uses it better than they did.

#2) Population Control. The world is at 7 billion people right now. And machines can replace more and more people every year. We are slowly getting to a stage where we simply have too many people. And idle people are a huge threat to the establishment.

[samsamsam]

[draguer]

The Labour Party in New Zealand has no chance of winning this years election.

They troll every week by promising more free stuff from the public teat and wack policies such as this.

Our politics leans far to the left generally however, our "centre-right" party in power is probably more leftist than the American democrats.

Feminism has a long history in New Zealand - we were the first country to grant women the vote.

Edit: it's true we don't have a dating culture. It's also very common for girls to be uneasy with their sexuality and only feel comfortable having sex after drinking.

[Parlay44]

(07-09-2014 12:11 PM)draguer Wrote:  

Edit: it's true we don't have a dating culture. It's also very common for girls to be uneasy with their sexuality and only feel comfortable having sex after drinking.

Isn't that what Roosh reported that Iceland is like as well

[Sp5]

This was already tried in the USA, in the military justice system. An amendment to the Military Rules of Evidence required a defendant to show to a preponderance of the evidence to the judge that the complainant consented before being allowed to raise the defense to the court martial jury.

The rule was passed by Congress, but later thrown out by the courts as unconstitutional burden-shifting.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/21/12...itary.html

Not quite as bad as this NZ thing, but bad enough.

The NZ proposal is a sign of where the law is going. It will spread to the UK probably. Only the Constitution protects us in the USA.

[Cr33pin]

Basically you are guilty until proven innocent in rape cases as a man. If you are lucky and get proven innocent in court you still have a guilty rape stigma to you and your reputation.

[tomtud]

If you are from NZ and slow this to happen, you are done as a male. They will take more and more until you are legally discriminated against.

Reminds me of the feminist son being falsely accused of rape article. Sadly, it may take a false accusation against one of these politicians to get them to see that their new law is flawed and how false accusers need to be punished more.

[Feisbook Control]

Saying this won't happen is naive. There are two points. The first is that most representative democracies are a winner takes all system. A bicameral system goes some way to checking this, but not entirely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but New Zealand has a unicameral system, so where is the check that would normally occur in a bicameral system? What this means is that you elect a government and get a whole basket of policies. You don't get to vote on each individual policy. As such, most people tend to vote on a handful of major issues: economy/tax, health care, education, defence, immigration. This particular issue might be number 47 down the list, so it's not important to voters in the main (and most won't even know about it). Thus, the party that wins the public debate on the handful of major issues gets to implement all of its minor policies also, such as this one. Then, ten years later, everyone scratches their heads thinking, "Why is everything so fucked up? I just wanted more money for schools."

That leads into the second point: the ratchet. Western politics is a ratchet. What this means is that when right wing political parties get in power, at best, they assume a holding pattern, but they cannot really shift the cultural issues back towards the right. They stop the rot, but cannot reverse it. Then, the next time they get ousted based upon the economy/health/education/defence/immigration, the ratchet moves a couple of clicks to the left. Then the right wing party gets back in and there's another holding pattern. Then it's another couple of clicks to the left... Taken over a few decades, this is how pretty much all Western nations have shifted significantly to the left to where they were even just a generation ago.

You might well ask why the ratchet only moves in one direction, and that's where the Cathedral (as we neoreactionaries call it) comes into play. There is a whole system of unelected power -- the civil service, the media, academia, the primary and secondary education systems, etc. -- that is radically left wing, which we call the Cathedral. They have experienced a Gramscian march through the institutions and were captured decades ago. The Cathedral never lets up on any right wing government. Every little thing it does gets made into a big deal. On the other hand, they not only give a free pass to the left, but actively cavort with them. The civil service is particularly important as even when right wing policies do get passed through Parliament, they make sure they die a death of a thousand cuts when implemented. Thus, not only do they not work, but they actually become an enormous liability to the right wing party, and everyone on the left (and the other tentacles of the Cathedral) chimes in, "See, we told you this was a horrible idea. Look how it's turned out. You need to kick these bums out of office..." Then the left get back in, and the ratchet moves a couple of clicks.

This is how the game is played, and yet most on the right deny that it is played this way, which is why the right has been losing the culture war for decades and continues to lose it.

[RawGod]

NZ's problem has always been that any man with ambition goes overseas to make his mark, far in excess of the women who leave. This means that the country is ruled by women and weak men. If this gets passed, it will only make that worse. For every smart young Kiwi man catching a plane there is an extra single woman getting another tattoo, vomiting after another night at the pub, and agitating for more legal reform at the expense of men.

[TheWastelander]

(07-09-2014 07:10 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Saying this won't happen is naive. There are two points. The first is that most representative democracies are a winner takes all system. A bicameral system goes some way to checking this, but not entirely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but New Zealand has a unicameral system, so where is the check that would normally occur in a bicameral system? What this means is that you elect a government and get a whole basket of policies. You don't get to vote on each individual policy. As such, most people tend to vote on a handful of major issues: economy/tax, health care, education, defence, immigration. This particular issue might be number 47 down the list, so it's not important to voters in the main (and most won't even know about it). Thus, the party that wins the public debate on the handful of major issues gets to implement all of its minor policies also, such as this one. Then, ten years later, everyone scratches their heads thinking, "Why is everything so fucked up? I just wanted more money for schools."

That leads into the second point: the ratchet. Western politics is a ratchet. What this means is that when right wing political parties get in power, at best, they assume a holding pattern, but they cannot really shift the cultural issues back towards the right. They stop the rot, but cannot reverse it. Then, the next time they get ousted based upon the economy/health/education/defence/immigration, the ratchet moves a couple of clicks to the left. Then the right wing party gets back in and there's another holding pattern. Then it's another couple of clicks to the left... Taken over a few decades, this is how pretty much all Western nations have shifted significantly to the left to where they were even just a generation ago.

You might well ask why the ratchet only moves in one direction, and that's where the Cathedral (as we neoreactionaries call it) comes into play. There is a whole system of unelected power -- the civil service, the media, academia, the primary and secondary education systems, etc. -- that is radically left wing, which we call the Cathedral. They have experienced a Gramscian march through the institutions and were captured decades ago. The Cathedral never lets up on any right wing government. Every little thing it does gets made into a big deal. On the other hand, they not only give a free pass to the left, but actively cavort with them. The civil service is particularly important as even when right wing policies do get passed through Parliament, they make sure they die a death of a thousand cuts when implemented. Thus, not only do they not work, but they actually become an enormous liability to the right wing party, and everyone on the left (and the other tentacles of the Cathedral) chimes in, "See, we told you this was a horrible idea. Look how it's turned out. You need to kick these bums out of office..." Then the left get back in, and the ratchet moves a couple of clicks.

This is how the game is played, and yet most on the right deny that it is played this way, which is why the right has been losing the culture war for decades and continues to lose it.

How do you turn the ratchet back to the right? Or, in your estimation, is it doomed to just keep going left until we run out of money and/or they destroy everything?

[Sp5]

(07-10-2014 09:29 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 07:10 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Saying this won't happen is naive. There are two points. The first is that most representative democracies are a winner takes all system. A bicameral system goes some way to checking this, but not entirely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but New Zealand has a unicameral system, so where is the check that would normally occur in a bicameral system? What this means is that you elect a government and get a whole basket of policies. You don't get to vote on each individual policy. As such, most people tend to vote on a handful of major issues: economy/tax, health care, education, defence, immigration. This particular issue might be number 47 down the list, so it's not important to voters in the main (and most won't even know about it). Thus, the party that wins the public debate on the handful of major issues gets to implement all of its minor policies also, such as this one. Then, ten years later, everyone scratches their heads thinking, "Why is everything so fucked up? I just wanted more money for schools."

That leads into the second point: the ratchet. Western politics is a ratchet. What this means is that when right wing political parties get in power, at best, they assume a holding pattern, but they cannot really shift the cultural issues back towards the right. They stop the rot, but cannot reverse it. Then, the next time they get ousted based upon the economy/health/education/defence/immigration, the ratchet moves a couple of clicks to the left. Then the right wing party gets back in and there's another holding pattern. Then it's another couple of clicks to the left... Taken over a few decades, this is how pretty much all Western nations have shifted significantly to the left to where they were even just a generation ago.

You might well ask why the ratchet only moves in one direction, and that's where the Cathedral (as we neoreactionaries call it) comes into play. There is a whole system of unelected power -- the civil service, the media, academia, the primary and secondary education systems, etc. -- that is radically left wing, which we call the Cathedral. They have experienced a Gramscian march through the institutions and were captured decades ago. The Cathedral never lets up on any right wing government. Every little thing it does gets made into a big deal. On the other hand, they not only give a free pass to the left, but actively cavort with them. The civil service is particularly important as even when right wing policies do get passed through Parliament, they make sure they die a death of a thousand cuts when implemented. Thus, not only do they not work, but they actually become an enormous liability to the right wing party, and everyone on the left (and the other tentacles of the Cathedral) chimes in, "See, we told you this was a horrible idea. Look how it's turned out. You need to kick these bums out of office..." Then the left get back in, and the ratchet moves a couple of clicks.

This is how the game is played, and yet most on the right deny that it is played this way, which is why the right has been losing the culture war for decades and continues to lose it.

How do you turn the ratchet back to the right? Or, in your estimation, is it doomed to just keep going left until we run out of money and/or they destroy everything?

On anything to do with crime, right-wing parties are as bad or worse than left-wing parties.

They'll always vote for less protection for the accused, less procedural safeguards, and harsher punishments.

The amendment to the U.S. military justice code I mentioned above was supported by both parties.

Nobody is going to allow themselves to be framed as "soft on rapists."

[rekruler]

While the intent of this law is clear, the wording itself places the burden of proof on the "defendant," not the male party. So what happens when an accusation from the woman is met with a counter-accusation from the man? "No, I didn't rape her, she raped ME!" Both parties are then guilty until proven innocent. Crazy shit. Leftism is a mental disease.

[Mage]

(07-10-2014 11:45 AM)rekruler Wrote:  

While the intent of this law is clear, the wording itself places the burden of proof on the "defendant," not the male party. So what happens when an accusation from the woman is met with a counter-accusation from the man? "No, I didn't rape her, she raped ME!" Both parties are then guilty until proven innocent. Crazy shit. Leftism is a mental disease.

What if someone accuses the whole labourist party of gangrape?

[Quintus Curtius]

This is a huge deal.

Actually, it's only saying openly what is already the developing de facto rule in many places: guilty until proven innocent.

It's a big deal because one of the cornerstones of Anglo-American jurisprudence (the concept of being innocent until guilt was proved) has now been eviscerated.

This concept of the "presumption of innocence" which we take for granted developed in the late Middle Ages from ancient Germanic and Saxon customs that preceded it, such as the trial by combat, trial by ordeal, and the "wergild" custom.

But like so much else in our society, it is under severe attack by people who don't respect our customs or traditions. And no one is stepping in to save or preserve them.

If the presumption of innocence means nothing, then we're literally done. With state power steadily spreading its tentacles slowly but surely, there is going to be no way to stop the rise of the all-powerful state.

[It_is_my_time]

(07-10-2014 10:21 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 09:29 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 07:10 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Saying this won't happen is naive. There are two points. The first is that most representative democracies are a winner takes all system. A bicameral system goes some way to checking this, but not entirely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but New Zealand has a unicameral system, so where is the check that would normally occur in a bicameral system? What this means is that you elect a government and get a whole basket of policies. You don't get to vote on each individual policy. As such, most people tend to vote on a handful of major issues: economy/tax, health care, education, defence, immigration. This particular issue might be number 47 down the list, so it's not important to voters in the main (and most won't even know about it). Thus, the party that wins the public debate on the handful of major issues gets to implement all of its minor policies also, such as this one. Then, ten years later, everyone scratches their heads thinking, "Why is everything so fucked up? I just wanted more money for schools."

That leads into the second point: the ratchet. Western politics is a ratchet. What this means is that when right wing political parties get in power, at best, they assume a holding pattern, but they cannot really shift the cultural issues back towards the right. They stop the rot, but cannot reverse it. Then, the next time they get ousted based upon the economy/health/education/defence/immigration, the ratchet moves a couple of clicks to the left. Then the right wing party gets back in and there's another holding pattern. Then it's another couple of clicks to the left... Taken over a few decades, this is how pretty much all Western nations have shifted significantly to the left to where they were even just a generation ago.

You might well ask why the ratchet only moves in one direction, and that's where the Cathedral (as we neoreactionaries call it) comes into play. There is a whole system of unelected power -- the civil service, the media, academia, the primary and secondary education systems, etc. -- that is radically left wing, which we call the Cathedral. They have experienced a Gramscian march through the institutions and were captured decades ago. The Cathedral never lets up on any right wing government. Every little thing it does gets made into a big deal. On the other hand, they not only give a free pass to the left, but actively cavort with them. The civil service is particularly important as even when right wing policies do get passed through Parliament, they make sure they die a death of a thousand cuts when implemented. Thus, not only do they not work, but they actually become an enormous liability to the right wing party, and everyone on the left (and the other tentacles of the Cathedral) chimes in, "See, we told you this was a horrible idea. Look how it's turned out. You need to kick these bums out of office..." Then the left get back in, and the ratchet moves a couple of clicks.

This is how the game is played, and yet most on the right deny that it is played this way, which is why the right has been losing the culture war for decades and continues to lose it.

How do you turn the ratchet back to the right? Or, in your estimation, is it doomed to just keep going left until we run out of money and/or they destroy everything?

On anything to do with crime, right-wing parties are as bad or worse than left-wing parties.

They'll always vote for less protection for the accused, less procedural safeguards, and harsher punishments.

The amendment to the U.S. military justice code I mentioned above was supported by both parties.

Nobody is going to allow themselves to be framed as "soft on rapists."

The problem is the "right" parties keep moving to the left to appease the voter base which continues to move further to the left as more people come from broken families and are dependent upon the govt.

[runsonmagic]

(07-10-2014 12:36 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This concept of the "presumption of innocence" which we take for granted developed in the late Middle Ages from ancient Germanic and Saxon customs that preceded it, such as the trial by combat, trial by ordeal, and the "wergild" custom.

Not to detract from the seriousness of the issue, but if trial by combat made a comeback that would be FUCKING AWESOME.

Instead of lawyers we'd have martial artists.

Court TV would be the bomb.

[Mage]

(07-10-2014 01:22 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

Not to detract from the seriousness of the issue, but if trial by combat made a comeback that would be FUCKING AWESOME.

Instead of lawyers we'd have martial artists.

Court TV would be the bomb.

I actually beleive that trial by combat is by far better system than the current system of trial by bribe (or playing victim the victim card)

Building strength and combat skills requires character and discipline, which already is something good and positive. Building strength requires male mentorship and unification.

Such a trial would promote strength,responsibility and risk-awareness in society. The current form of trial promotes weakness, bribery, backstabbing, playing victim, conformism and slut walks.