Sigh…
And to all the dissenters who want a woman to prove she was raped, the burden of proof should be with you to prove she wasn’t.
Fucking hell. I mean, fucking, fucking hell! Yes, the burden of proof is with the accuser and for a bloody good reason. The burden of proof is with the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty because, in a civilised society, we have the presumption of innocence. Anything else is simply mob rule, kangaroo courts and the inevitable persecution of innocents. You make an accusation, you prove it. It is not up to the accused to prove a negative.
The case this simpleton cites is a civil contract law case that was lost due to a lack of evidence. Fairly simple really. The courts, quite rightly, do not accept testimony on its own without corroboration, yet the complaint is that the judge did not accept this lack of evidence because the complainant was a woman. That’s because it isn’t evidence without corroboration. After all, the accuser could be lying. Hence the need for corroboration. Anyone examining the evidence should, if they are doing their job properly, consider the possibility of a false accusation.
It’s pretty straightforward. Unless you are a rabid feminist who simply believes, without any evidence, that a man is a rapist.
Fucking hell!
I declare that Sara Pascoe is a witch and she put a curse on a flock of sheep. Which of the seven tests (http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-bizarre-witch-trial-tests) should we use to determine her innocence?
Unless she can otherwise prove she’s not a witch.?
After all, presumption of guilt worked so well for women in the 18th century…
Does she weigh the same as a duck? That’s all the proof you need!
But to be serious, that article is just a reminder that many feminists do not believe in equality. Many of them are simply female chauvinist pigs who promote female privilege and assume that all men are automatically guilty of everything.
The broader lesson is that treating people as individuals and judging them by the content of their character and the evidence of their actions instead of their [insert arbitrary characteristic here] has always been a radical position and in some places it still is today.
Sara Pascoe certainly gives blondes a bad name. Kesha freely signed a contract which presumably at the time she considered to be in her interest. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of her so I cannot judge how beneficial the contract has been to her, but I’m guessing that she is now sufficiently successful that she no longer wants to pay her manager as much as she was happy to when she first signed and so is looking for a way out.
According to Sara Pascoe however, being bound by a contract you freely sign is being owned, which would be true of men as well if it wasn’t utter bollocks.
How do you prove a negative?
Eventually it will be impossible to defend yourself against such allegations, that is of course the idea !
So she was drugged and raped? Did she report it to the cops and demand a DNA swab to confirm? Did she ask to be tested for intoxicants as soon as she was able? No? Well is there anything else apart from her assertion, a third party who saw or heard something maybe? Something, anything. Still no and the court said there was no case to answer? Well Quelle suprise
Fair enough Missis, but first you prove you aren’t a prostitute.
“It’s pretty straightforward. Unless you are a rabid feminist who simply believes, without any evidence, that a man is a rapist.”
Is there any other kind?
I guess that there is a possibility of those who merely believe that men and women should be treated with equal respect and dignity. Let me know when you find one….
“In a civilised society we have the presumption of innocence”. I have my doubts on both counts.