"Yes, guilty until proven innocent! Don’t tell me it cannot be done, if you are caught speeding it is up to you to prove that you were in fact not."

Well that's just not true. You remain innocent but you are required to refute the overwhelming evidence against you ie the speed camera photo or similar. There is evidence that shows you did it and you have to demonstrate why that evidence is faulty.

Similarly, in rape cases if there is evidence of the rape then the defendant has to refute that evidence. But in many cases, such as the Higgins case, there is no or inconclusive evidence. Just her claims aren't enough. Look at how justice was subverted over Pell when its was originally decided to just take the claimed victim's word.

The problem is that, for many feminists and their followers, they've developed this fantasy that rape is everywhere. And when the statistics don't support their fantasies they want to change the stats. So they want to tilt the game against the defendant.

This has already been done. We were told that it was unfair to bring up the victims past sexuality so the law was changed to ban that. (Imagine a law that said, to continue to speed offence analogy, you weren't allowed to bring up a drivers past driving fines when determining whether to cancel his licence. Would the community go along with that?). We were told this change would allow more women to report their rape. It didn't.

So then we were told that they needed to be able to give evidence via video to lessen their trauma. But that didn't result in more convictions either.

So now they want to subvert the very basis of our judicial system in order to make the stats comply with their fantasies.

Apart from the fact it'll probably also fail, it continues the trend of failing to give women and girls the sort of advice that would truly protect them.

petere I think it is fair to say that women who report rape, with no evidence to support the claim should have a pretty fair chance of being accused of lying.

Surely there should be some torn clothing or bruising to show she resisted.

Those who report a rape years after the claimed event should be viewed with a high level of suspicion.

Those who report a hearsay of rape, after the death of the supposed victim should be viewed with extreme suspicion, & charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, if they can't produce any real evidence.

'Surely there should be some torn clothing or bruising to show she resisted.'

Hasbeen, you are making a very common mistake/assumption, but you are also suggesting that a woman has to able to fight a bloke off to prove that she was raped.

She merely has to have not consented to sex.

Years ago, when I was young this issue was being discussed at a gathering at my place. One guy, a large lad was putting, loudly and aggressively, similar to your point of view.

Another lad, smaller but solid rose off the couch, the loud mouth, hit the floor and in less than ten seconds he was quivering, stark naked, mouth working but making no sound, unmarked and making ineffectual fending off movements with his hands.

'You were saying?' Frank asked. (sometime about the mid 60s)

The guy grabbed his clothes and fled.

Blokes can be dominated without any physical assault, yet you expect a woman to fight until she is injured and her clothes ripped!

With the forum dominated by hard right misogynistic old males, one can see how in a similarly dominated conservative political party those basic misogynistic attitudes of victim blaming, denial, cover up, blackmailing and protection of the perpetrator would come to the fore. Making it extremely difficult for the victim to receive natural justice.

The fact Morrison had to go home and tell the little woman that he had a "girly problem" at work, and what should he do, speaks volumes for the lack of understanding of the conservative leadership when it comes to dealing with these issues. Hopefully for the misogynists they are never put into the position where one of their own, a child, a grandchild, a wife or a partner is a victim of rape, I'm sure the misogynistic attitude will then change very quickly.

So Paul assumes that anyone who fails to agree with him that all rape allegations must be accepted as true must be a misogynist. No other explanation is possible. It can't possibly be that they just see these issues differently and have different life experiences.

Yet when I previously raised the issue of Shorten's rape allegations, the facts of which are functionally the same as those that apply to the, as yet, unidentified Liberal minister (save that the alleged victim is still alive), Paul ran a mile. None of the believe-all-women crowd were prepared to say that Shorten ought to be held to account.

When you base your response to a rape allegation on politics, when you decide which women to believe and which to cast aside based on the politics of the accused, then you aren't trying to help women - you are trying to help a side, your side by using those women. That's real misogyny.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/bartsexdem-600x473.jpg

Ah, now we see it all. As someone suggested a rape victim should "lay back & enjoy it" then report the sex partner for rape after.

Come on petere, you are trying to eliminate a girls greatest ploy, lead a bloke to bed, then down the isle. So now, if after the bedding he won't walk down the isle, scream rape appears to be your idea. Perhaps the old shot gun thing has lost it's effectiveness.