Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
 And how is what has been alleged not a crime in his home country of Australia or most other places. |
What is there to be confused about? Rape law is in general very unfair for the accused.
Look at this case, don't you think Assange should have been entitled to anonymity until a crime has been proved? There are countless cases of men's lives being ruined by false accusations, whilst the accusers (some of them serial accusers) enjoy full anonymity. They do it because they know they can get away with it.
If you read up on the history you will know that in the UK those accused of rape get publicly named so that other victims can come forward, as happened with a few notable cases back in the 80's.
However, the flaw with that logic, is that in a country of 60 million people, if you were to turn the tables, and only name the
accuser and allow the accused to enjoy anonymity, then in any given decade there would be other falsely accused men ALSO coming forward claiming that they'd been falsely accused.
But that hardly justifies naming the accusers, if the law were fair both parties would remain anonymous until a crime had been proven. Even most women I've spoken with seem to agree with this.
Another reason why that logic is flawed is because there is no way to be certain how many false accusers have come forward to accuse men of rape and then their testimony causing an innocent man to be found guilty by a jury.
And also considering, it is well documented that even after being acquitted, men falsely accused of rape have considered their lives so utterly trashed that they've committed suicide.
Many will say, mud sticks.
Its lop-sided and unfair.
Also, the 6% rape conviction statistic is unproven. The reason 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction, is because in 6% of reported rapes there is evidence that rape has occurred. Unproven, whereas feminists will parrot that statistic like it's gospel.
I recall back in the 80's learning that 1 in 4 fathers will rape their daughters. This originated back in the 70's.
Militant feminist garbage, without even a grain of truth to it, and we shouldn't stand for it.
Back in the 90's during the spate of college date rape cases in the US, law makers attempted to make it law that the male had to prove consent in rape cases. That is absolutely criminal, and militant feminists would just love to see it happen. The way things are going, and the disturbing ease at which some men in our society would like to see other men labeled as a rapist, is worrying.
Militant feminists will say, that if a couple have sex, and the woman is drunk then SHE couldn't have consented and it was rape.
They will conveniently ignore the example when its the man that's drunk and has sex with a sober woman. In their twisted little world, in that example they no doubt reckon it was just his lucky day.
There is no sense of fairness in militant feminism, they see the whole world though the prism of gender bias, it's just a shame our governments actually listen to them when they only represent a fringe minority of men and women.