The Problem With Anonymity for the Accused

by W.F. Price on December 8, 2010

Despite their involvement in an international scandal and their accusations against a man that could send him to prison, the two women who accused Julian Assange of rape, molestation or whatever it is, have been granted anonymity by the Swedish court and have not been named by most of the Western media outlets around the world. Although it was easy enough to find their identity, given the open flow of information through the internet (a flow that some evidently want to stanch), The Spearhead was one of the few sites that mentioned accusers Anna Ardinn (AKA Ann Bernardin) and Sofia Wilen by name. This resulted in the most traffic we’ve ever had in any one day of the site’s existence.

What this indicates is that most media outlets – even in the United States – toed the line, despite the serious questions raised by the case, and despite the fact that accusers in criminal cases are never granted anonymity in the United States due to fundamental Constitutional law. The practice of not printing women’s names in rape cases is entirely voluntary in the US, but it is still observed by most of the old media.

However, the rules are different in Europe. In many European countries a woman can accuse a man of rape with the guarantee that her name will not be made public, and anyone who does expose her would presumably be open to criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits. The old logic behind not publishing the name of the accuser was that rape was deeply shaming, because women’s chastity used to be considered an integral part of their honor and reputation. Today, because chastity has essentially become meaningless and held to be without any value, the argument is often made that a woman would be open to attacks on her character, which would unfairly benefit the defense.

Recently, there have been calls in Britain to extend anonymity in rape cases to the accused as well as the accuser. This seems fair, given that accusers already have anonymity, but we ought to look at the bigger picture: this is simply a step closer to secret trials. There is a reason that a public trial is a Constitutional guarantee in the US. When aspects of prosecution become secret, there is no possibility for adequate public scrutiny.

In ancient Hebrew law, only a public charge could result in a finding of rape; it was required that the woman cry out and draw attention to the outrage. If she did not immediately and publicly object to being violated, it was assumed that there had been no rape unless the woman was “in the field” and unable to be heard. In fact, the public nature of the accusation is what the woman relied upon to obtain justice and to protect her honor:

Deuteronomy 22:23-27

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 for he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

When prosecution is removed from the public eye the very scope of justice is considerably narrowed. Law, crime and punishment are matters that rightly pertain to all citizens, and therefore all should be participants in the process to some degree. If it were only the courts and their officers who had access to the facts and influence on proceedings, egregious corruption would quickly take hold, because people always act in their own interests. Judges would pardon their associates, police would arrest their enemies or creditors, innocent people would be railroaded all the time simply for convenience’s sake, and many other evils would occur on a daily basis.

Also, importantly, innocent people arrested and charged with a crime would have fewer people to defend them, because the public would be in the dark. Say, for example, that a man you knew, some casual neighborhood acquaintance, simply disappeared one day. Later, you hear he’d been arrested, but you don’t know why. You don’t know what he’s been charged with, you don’t know anything about the alleged crime, and you hear from neither detectives nor his attorney.

Now let’s say that this man had been accused of rape, and he and his attorney are trying to put together a defense. You know the woman who accused him, who also lives nearby, but you know nothing of the accusation. As it turns out, the woman told police that she was raped by this man at a specific time in a specific place: a Sunday evening at 10PM in his car in a park some twenty minutes’ drive away from the neighborhood. On that Sunday evening, at 10 PM, you were walking to a local convenience store and saw the woman walk out of her front door, get in her car and drive away.

You thought nothing of it, you never mentioned it to anyone, and you’d pretty much forgotten about it. Unfortunately for the accused man, nobody on his defense has a clue that you were there, and the detectives have no idea either. But if you heard that this man you knew had been accused of raping that woman at exactly that time in a different place, in his own car, you’d be able to call the police and tell them what you saw and testify in court. It might save him a decade in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. But anonymity would prevent that. Anonymity in criminal prosecutions severely limits public participation in resolving criminal cases, and as any detective will tell you the public is a huge source of information.

On the other hand, if you knew something that could convict a man, and knew nothing of his case, a guilty man could well go free.

What secrecy in criminal proceedings does is concentrate power and “truth” into the hands of the few. It elevates officers of the court to omnipotent status and assures that they answer to no one, where in a free society their correct position is as arbiter of the public will. At times, I suspect that this is why feminism and feminist family law have been received with such warmth by courts — the institutions have created a mutually-empowering relationship by methodically removing accountability from each other. Courts have granted women license to freely accuse for their own gain, and feminists have granted courts license to seize assets and coerce men free from the confines of the Constitution. It is a power that has proven too tempting to resist.

In the meanwhile, we men may have few tools at our disposal to match the weaponry of the state, but information and knowledge are absolutely crucial to any effort we make restore a more free and just society. Therefore, we should never encourage secrecy in the courts, because, like the maiden who is ravished in the city, sometimes our only defense is in crying out to the public.

{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }

Epoche* December 8, 2010 at 15:39

What we need is more satire to make fun of how absurd rape charges can be, so once again it is time for my video on the duke rape case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwk1wzBqYnY

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Will S. December 8, 2010 at 15:58

(Doesn’t look like you closed the bold tag, and only part of the Scripture quote is indented. Just so you know, so you can fix it.)

In Canada, it is like in Britain and Europe; the identity of the accusers is protected, while the accused gets no such protection. While I had been inclined to the view of granting anonymity to both, as you mention Britain is considering – because of how lives are ruined by false accusations; reputations destroyed, jobs lost, even after an acquittal, men’s lives are never the same – your arguments in favour of instead not having the accusers’ identities protected, are sound and raise good points. Think I’ll have to wrestle with my thoughts on this.

Good, thought-provoking piece, Welmer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Will S. December 8, 2010 at 15:59

(Never mind, I see it’s fixed now.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price December 8, 2010 at 16:02

(Never mind, I see it’s fixed now.)

-Will S.

Yeah, got lazy and didn’t hit Preview.

Lara December 8, 2010 at 16:10

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 38
Lara December 8, 2010 at 16:13

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 38
Epoche* December 8, 2010 at 16:27

Lara, there was a rape case in NYC in the last year, I believe it was at Adelphi University where an 18 year old had to recant her story about being raped after she was caught being gang-banged on camera. They refused to release her name even after the charges were dropped.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price December 8, 2010 at 16:36

They refused to release her name even after the charges were dropped.

-Epoche

But anyone could go down to the courthouse and request the records, so although it might be a hassle, she could still be identified.

The news outlets are censoring the info themselves — not the courts.

Epoche* December 8, 2010 at 16:48

Well Welmer that is a distinction that is important to make, but I guess I was pointing out that there have been instances of chivalry even being extended to women outed as liars who engaged in group sex.

In a somewhat unrelated topic, I found this interesting story entitled:
UN official: Rape needn’t be consequence of war
Now apparently we are to believe that international organizations powerless to stop war have the moral authority to rule on how it is to be engaged. I am very unhappy about such a declaration but I am unable to declare exactly why.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Lara December 8, 2010 at 17:12

Epoche,
If I was truly raped and wanted to press charges I don’t know why I would be ashamed to have my name be made public. I would be an innocent victim.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 26
Max Stirner December 8, 2010 at 17:13

The Problem With Anonymity…
http://www.inmalafide.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Lara December 8, 2010 at 17:15

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 42
Gx1080 December 8, 2010 at 17:25

@Lara

Sure, because the rules for the few men to the top apply to every one, right?

And, to make stuff interesting:

http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/12/08/anna-ardin-sofia-wilens-contact-information-and-addresses/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
NWOslave December 8, 2010 at 17:36

I have a Wikileaks exclusive…Women lie.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
rend December 8, 2010 at 17:57

The Spearhead’s one of the only publications even worth reading any more. Keep up the good work Welmer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Keyster December 8, 2010 at 18:31

OT
“Men are the new ball and chain.” – Hanna Rosin…again.

She is truly a despicable human.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Bambino December 8, 2010 at 18:35

C’mon now, fellas, not ALL women are like that.

I’m sure there are at least some babes left that would try to take your $$$ & stuff before ruining your future and RAPING your reputation with one of these false accusations.

Geez…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Protagonist December 8, 2010 at 18:53

Putting an end to absurd double standards and the collective ignorance of the entitled starts with opening your mouth and expressing dissent. Did anyone think keeping quiet would magically work?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Rebel December 8, 2010 at 18:57

“In Canada, it is like in Britain and Europe; the identity of the accusers is protected, while the accused gets no such protection.”

It may be province-related. Or cultural, who knows. In Quebec, the identity of the accuser and the accused are published.

Not publishing the accuser’s name is illogical: it leads people to disbelieve the accuser.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
zzz December 8, 2010 at 19:05

Excellent article. I really enjoyed it.

Ardin and Wilen deserve to be known to other European men as potential legal risks due to their history of false accusations.

European men would do well to avoid these two women like the plague. Who in their right mind would want to marry a woman capable of attempting to see a man imprisoned for decades for something he didn’t do? They deserve to be shunned socially, and I hope thats what they get.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Richard December 8, 2010 at 19:46

@Epoche*

“What we need is more satire to make fun of how absurd rape charges can be…”

I am working on a new piece aimed at those two women (satire).

in the meantime, enjoy this piece (also satire):

Feminists Concerned by Low Rape Rates: Start Raping Themselves!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
3DShooter December 8, 2010 at 19:55

@Welmer

A bit off topic, but I can’t resist pointing out the irony:

There is a reason that a public trial is a Constitutional guarantee in the US. When aspects of prosecution become secret, there is no possibility for adequate public scrutiny.

Sounds an awful lot like family court to me. The Constitution has been a dead letter there for decades and it has degenerated into a complete kangaroo court.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price December 8, 2010 at 20:00

Sounds an awful lot like family court to me. The Constitution has been a dead letter there for decades and it has degenerated into a complete kangaroo court.

-3DShooter

Exactly.

Pierce Harlan December 8, 2010 at 20:27

Of course there are problems with anonymity. Your piece, as I expected, is among the very few well-reasoned oppositions to anonymity I’ve seen in quite some time.

The British recently killed a plan for limited anonymity for reasons grounded in irrationality — the leaders kowtowed to the hateful sexual grievance industry. My take on it:

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-men-accused-of-rape-should-be.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Gx1080 December 8, 2010 at 20:40

@3d Shooter

You nailed it. A cuntry where all the courts are lie family courts is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Pierce Harlan December 8, 2010 at 21:01
continent December 8, 2010 at 22:03

W.F. Price
Could you take a look at these links and analyse this?
While this organization worked with NBC Dateline trying to catch predators by using decoy’s, were some gullible individuals also entrapped?
http://www.rickross.com/groups/perverted_justice.html
NBC Dateline Del the decoy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11170126/ns/dateline_nbc/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eric J Schlegel December 8, 2010 at 22:12

Keyster, from the article you linked:

“As America continues to shift from a manufacturing to a service and information economy, Rosin noted, women are better positioned to thrive, since jobs require skills other than physical strength.”

in other words, as the value-adding sector of the economy gives way to that area that picks at the remains, women begin to dominate. Female rule and decline go hand in hand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Peter December 8, 2010 at 23:26

In the meanwhile, we men may have few tools at our disposal to match the weaponry of the state, but information and knowledge are absolutely crucial to any effort we make restore a more free and just society.

True, information is very powerful. I know someone who has a lot of information at their disposal: the State. It’s been said that 99% of intelligence in the world is public, but just needs to be analyzed. Yesterday, it was CNN, and today it was the internet, and they both make that 99% of knowledge available. But it`s that remaining 1%, the control of those little vital pieces of information, that gives the state its power. Julian Assange can find no safe quarter because he is in the business of making freely available that 1%, and that threatens the information advantage of the state.

Which brings me to my point. Publicizing the name of the accused allows witnesses to come forward, true. But what about all the other information held back by police and prosecutors? During reviews of the cases of the wrongfully convicted, we hear years later of exonerating evidence hidden by police. You want to go to war with the State with information as your weapon? The State already HAS an information advantage.

The identity of those accused in sex crimes is another information advantage. Look at Assange; he’s very likely not guilty of anything more than cadding about and pissing some women off. He won’t get convicted, but it doesn’t matter. The accusation itself is the weapon – in this case it’s about getting him in a British cell from which he can be extradited to the U.S. It’s also a deterrent to other would-be Wikileakers. Maybe if you publish a batch of state secrets, you get stopped in an airport and the police “find” a bunch of illegal pornography on your computer. It wouldn’t be hard to plant. And either way, it doesn’t have to stand up in court, as long as the spectre of your front page mugshot with the words “porn ringleader” are enough to deter you from crossing the State.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
thehermit December 8, 2010 at 23:32

http://www.pestiside.hu/20070601/police-rapists-should-be-assumed-guilty-until-proven-innocent
Things go different in hungary.
This girl could not prove evidence, so she was sued for about 5000$ at the end.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Robert December 8, 2010 at 23:35

OT;

Helen Mirren Slams Hollywood For Its Young Male Fixation
Posted on 12/08/2010 by Steve Ramos

“I resent in my life the survival of some very mediocre male actors and the professional demise of some very brilliant female ones,” Mirren said at the “Hollywood Reporter’s” Women in Entertainment breakfast. “However, with all due respect to you many brilliant and successful women in this room, really not too much has changed in the canon of Hollywood filmmaking that continues to worship at the altar of the 18 to 25-year-old male and his penis. Quite small, I always think.”

http://www.moviejungle.com/Articles/Helen_Mirren_Slams_Hollywood_For_Its_Young_Male_Fixation.html

Who is she kidding?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Jim December 9, 2010 at 00:10

I just wanted to say THANK YOU to the spearhead for having the guts to do what is right and name these women.

Rape shield laws are such BS.

It just gives women a free pass to ruin someone’s life with absolutely zero risk.

To give you an idea of how insane this is getting my local news refused to name a woman who was ALLEGEDLY flashed by a guy in the park.

So the mere sight of a naked man deserves anonymity.

And there are so many double standards.

If I was the victim of all sorts of brutal crime like if I was shot, stabbed, burned, tortured, mutilated, or whatever I would be named.

Even John Bobbitt was named. And guys that had their penis set on fire or glued to their leg or were severely burned with boiling water while they slept were named.

But if a woman even SEES a man naked she is seen as being a victim of a horrific crime…much more horrific than being shot, stabbed, or mutilated and is allowed to remain anonymous.

Thanks again and keep naming then…you are doing what it right…it’s about time this stuff ends.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
rend December 9, 2010 at 00:29

“Helen Mirren Slams Hollywood For Its Young Male Fixation
Posted on 12/08/2010 by Steve Ramos”

What the hell is she even talking about? Which “18 to 25-year-old” males?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
sharpc December 9, 2010 at 00:46

Great article Welmer.

I just wanted to throw this out there: Pierce Harlan from False Rape Society should have some guest pieces on The Spearhead, or at least cross post some of the articles he writes there. He’s the worlds foremost authority on false rape (yes, the worlds), and he also writes some great stuff about feminism. He frequently lands a barrage of punishing knockout punches. His articles need more exposure.

I’ve been following the Spearhead for awhile so I’m aware there was a small dust-up in the past, but eh, time to move on. He would be a great addition. Just a suggestion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Pierce Harlan December 9, 2010 at 04:46

I did NOT pay sharpc to say that, but I thank him.

I agree that this is a great article. Ultimately, however, I must respectfully disagree with it. I will give you an example of why I have come to that conclusion.

I’ve written what is essentially a small book on the Hofstra false rape case here — http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/p/lamb-to-slaughter-hofstra-false-rape.html The news media’s rush to judgment in that case was chilling, infuriating, and, sadly, all too common of a thousand other recent false rape cases. Under the sub-heading, “All the News That’s Fit to Fear,” I describe how the media slipped into hysterical overdrive at the mere accusation of rape. The names of the suspects, and their photos, were splashed across the pages of some of America’s most widely read papers. Journalists became little more than stenographers for police. The headline for one of the New York Post’s stories on the alleged rape read as follows: “Nightmare gang rape at Hofstra.” The first two sentences left little doubt for readers that a rape certainly occurred: “An 18-year-old Hofstra University co-ed was gang-raped by five men on campus, cops said last night. The shocking attack took place Sunday at around 3 a.m.”

The television news media coverage was even worse. TV reporters described the supposed event with a frightening gravitas. In my post, I reprint the transcript of one particularly horrid news report and link to the You Tube video so you can see for yourself: not only did the reporter parrot what police told her, not only did she apparently fail to do her own independent investigation about the alleged crime, she did not even bother to make it clear that the “evidence” for the alleged rape consisted of nothing more than the word of an 18-year-old woman, which, as we soon learned, was full of holes from the outset, versus the consistent narratives of four young men who flatly contradicted the accuser’s tale. Yet HER version was credited as the truth, and HER identity was guarded with all the tenacity that Clark Kent uses to guard Superman’s. The innocent young men were branded as rapists, and their names, faces, and the “story” of how they raped a poor young woman was splashed across the world’s newspapers to titillate readers.

Hofstra is a microcosm of how the American news media covers these stories. Rarely are rape claims afforded as much coverage as Hofstra, but even one story in the local paper is enough to destroy an innocent young man. If the American news media was interested in covering rape allegations with fairness and objectivity instead of fomenting Chicken Little, lock-the-doors-and-hide-the-daughters rape hysteria to jack up ratings and readership, I would agree that anonymity is a very, very bad idea. But the news media has no such interest, and it has destroyed the good names of innocent men in many, many cases far less “high profile” than Hofstra. Accordingly, it seems clear that the harm to innocent men in having their names reported outweighs the other interests, important as they are, favoring reporting.

As one of the 19-year-old accused men at Hofstra astutely observed: “Anytime anyone Googles my name, rape is going to be right there beside it. My name is forever tarnished. What if I am applying for a job or whatever in the future? I feel like I am always going to have to offer some explanation.”

Good luck with that explanation, sir. The stench of even false rape claims sticks like skunk odor, and lasts a lot longer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Pierce Harlan December 9, 2010 at 05:04

P.S. There never was a “dust-up” between me and the owner of this blog. Through no fault of his, an article written by someone else criticizing FRS appeared here, and some readers were offended by those comments. The owner of this blog was not responsible for those comments, and made that very clear to me. While I may not always agree with the owner of this blog, I admire his acumen and writing skills, and wish more writers in this field would exercise such care in expressing themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence December 9, 2010 at 05:31

Yesterday, a very pretty young librarian was quite taken with me. Stopped dead in her tracks in the hallway when she saw me. Later on, nearly had drool coming out of the corner of her mouth in her efforts to make subtle flirty eyes. To be honest, I was interested. But was I going to talk to her? Hell no. A romp in the hay, and then the claws come out. Forget it.

I’m almost tempted to carry around articles like the above to show to women saying “THIS is why men like me don’t want to have anything to do with women.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
namae nanka December 9, 2010 at 06:04

Helen Mirren got the role of Prospero in Tempest movie… Irony.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Firepower December 9, 2010 at 10:07

so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Not only has the west turned its collective back on wise Hebrew laws, we now subsidize EVIL with welfare and SSI checks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7
Lara December 9, 2010 at 10:18

We definitely subsidize laziness, stupidity and immorality with welfare and SSI checks.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 19
Robert December 9, 2010 at 10:29

IMHO, the accused should be afforded the same right to anonymity as the accuser. In this day and age, even an arrest record poses problems for the accused (even if they are discovered to be innocent or, a jury of their “peers” finds then not guilty. Imagine a background check possibly overseen by a female/feminist HRO or a female/feminist member of management. There could be the metanarrative/opinion; ” He MUST have done something”! Just as feminist members of academia can use anything as an excuse to refuse non feminist men tenure, feminist employers can use anything as an excuse to refuse to hire men.

It is past time to break the stranglehold feminists and their enablers/supporters have on us men!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Robert December 9, 2010 at 10:31

An arrest record is considered by mant in our feminized society, the equivalent to a criminal record/proof of criminality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Robert December 9, 2010 at 10:31

mant should be many

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lavazza December 9, 2010 at 13:53

Traditionally Swedish media never published the name of anybody accused until it was clear that the judgment would not be appealed, but over time the name of the accused has become “an overriding public interest” in more and more cases. Most of the time people who are not already well known still will not be named in Swedish media even in high profile cases, even when everybody can read the name in foreign media or in Swedish blogs and internet forums or Swedish language internet media outlets based abroad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
continent December 9, 2010 at 18:25

Pierce Harlan
I had seen links and stories about False Rape Society but didn’t know who would have the courage to defend what some consider indefensible.
On TV it was commented that over 700,000 people are on sex offender registry. Stories on this site cite that 600.000 are listed due to this organization. How accurate the figures are, I don’t know, but it sure keeps probation officers busy.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverted_justice/perverted_justice30.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger December 10, 2010 at 06:46

But if you heard that this man you knew had been accused of raping that woman at exactly that time in a different place, in his own car, you’d be able to call the police and tell them what you saw and testify in court.

Bad idea. Find out who the man’s lawyer is and speak to him. If you report it to the cops the DA may just change the complaint “to fit” while if there’s a trial this witness can be called to testify and doesn’t even have to be on the witness list that the DA has from the defence. After the defence cross examines the accusing female he can call tihs witness as a rebutal witness and completely ruin the DA’s case :o )

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Una Salus Victus December 10, 2010 at 08:47

This is certainly an interesting point of view. I believe that I included this as one of the possibilities when I wrote my term paper (found here) favoring anonymity for the accused upon that which time he is found guilty, however, I never fully hashed out the other side of the argument.

Bill has a great point that secret trials will undo many more men than they already do. In fact, it stands to reason that the amount of false rape claims will increase as a result of anonymity afforded to the accused.

That brings me to my point. As volatile as my paper has proven to be around my university, the one thing it was designed to do is exactly what it does: it makes people debate/argue the overall issue at hand. From time to time, when the opportunity arises, if these debates take place, then more and more men will become aware of the problem that lies inherent within a certain segment (women) of our society. They have been afforded protection from their “in the heat of the moment” actions and, as a result, have inadvertedly been encouraged to act as such. Im not sure why, but men need to have serious anger issues (or be extremely sadistic) to come up with a minute amount of what women will do if even trivially slighted by another person.

Women behave emotionally and negatively with ease and, as mentioned above, are given an exemption from such behavior. This is precisely what creates the society we live in and until this fundamental issue is sorted out, there may be nothing that men can do to afford themselves more protection under the law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Peter December 10, 2010 at 09:05

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/10/julian-assange-lawyers-us-charges

The US may be about to press charges against Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, one of his lawyers said today.

Jennifer Robinson said an indictment of her client under the US’s Espionage Act was imminent. She said her team had heard from “several different US lawyers rumours that an indictment was on its way or had happened already, but we don’t know”.

The accusation is the weapon, like I said.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MsExceptiontotheRule December 10, 2010 at 09:56

I think that a major issue is how soon the media decides to put a news piece about an accusation of rape on their channel or in their publication – sure they want to be the first to break the story, but a lot of the time it turns out that they jumped the gun reporting what proved to be a situation involving false accusations. With how many times it’s gone that route, it’s a mystery to me why they haven’t been able to connect the damage collectively done to media credibility with the fact that they continue bringing unnecessary and false information to the public with these kinds of stories. Maybe it’s just that they don’t really care about their credibility/integrity, or they feel that the possible risk to the public is more important than waiting for law enforcement and the district attorney to complete the investigation and determine whether or not to file charges, or perhaps the ratings from breaking the news first/getting exclusive access to key people makes them all rabid – who knows.

Then there’s the problem of legitimate evidence that doesn’t have the taint of contamination, whether at the scene or somewhere in the chain of custody, or manufacturing to ‘fix’ the case. And if the justice system was working properly, criminal proceedings wouldn’t ‘crucify’ one side or the other by the time they concluded, I won’t even go into the fact that “Lady Justice” is supposed to be blind to what might lead to decisions influenced by bias’ (she does have a blindfold on after all…but symbolic depictions be damned).

Lastly, today’s adult women are in large, failing to teach girls to respect themselves and others, the value of honesty, etc. Women have ended up with a majority of this responsibility on their shoulders because social change has resulted in fewer families remaining intact – without their father around, even if their mother does pick up the slack caused by her own choices in life, daughters tend to make poor decisions when it comes to their interactions with the opposite sex and elsewhere. To blame men for something that noticeably began occurring after women had chased them away – to the chorus of the sisterhood all shouting about not needing the patriarchs’ help – is simply an attempt to ‘pass the buck’, allowing this gender’s majority to get back to living their self-absorbed lives at the expense of everyone else both presently and in the future. It is not “funny”, “justifiable”, “acceptable”, or “oh well” – lying about rape or abuse is despicable, and we women have to accept that it is our job to not just teach our sisters and daughters this lesson but we must enforce it throughout our gender’s ranks if it’s going to have a shot at making a permanent change in attitude/policy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
Lara December 10, 2010 at 13:41

Good point Miss Exception to the Rule. I find so many of the news shows in this country so sensationalistic I don’t really enjoy watching them. I think BBC news is much more restrained and adult.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10
Frank in Seattle December 10, 2010 at 14:20

I used to think that mangina feminist enablers like Biden, just kept passing VAWA and all the other gynocentric laws and entitlements out of misplaced chivalry and perceived “white knight” role on their part.

But, with the recent Assange arrest without bail based on the alleged Swedish broken condom offense, it seems pretty clear now that it was the “gubbermint” that has encouraged these increased laws, to have in their back pocket when needed to bend the rights of men.

Check this out:

http://familysurvivalsecurity.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/when-big-brother-and-a-modern-feminist-whore-conspire-to-bring-down-a-good-man/

“What a loaded word “rape” has become. Sure, most people, regardless of gender, religion or culture are equally appalled at the idea of a girl or woman being raped. It is not at all acceptable, and rightly so.
But the slippery slope of feminism, socialism, relativism, opportunism and the steady growth of the “government” have expanded the commonly agreeded upon definition of “rape” to be just a cover for an attack on an innocent man. Spousal rape? Date rape? Sleeping? Drunk (oh must have been roofies, right)? Did she mouth “no” but moan “yes”?
And now, the condom broke? “

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Alphabeta Supe December 10, 2010 at 23:57

Lara December 8, 2010 at 16:10

I think the idea of ruining a woman’s reputation [is] pretty ridiculous in this day and age.

Agreed. Women have the reputation of being pretty ridiculous these days. The greater and more ruinous fact is that the average woman couldn’t care less.

Lara December 8, 2010 at 16:13

With the internet is seems like it’s almost impossible nowadays for the woman to have anonymity anyway.

The average woman can’t ‘suffer’ unless the whole world suffers with her. C’est fait accompli.

Lara December 8, 2010 at 17:12

If I was truly raped and wanted to press charges I don’t know why I would be ashamed to have my name be made public. I would be an innocent victim.

There is no such thing as ‘truly raped’ – rape is rape. That the two words need to be used together means there’s no innocence left in victimhood. Is it possible to keep a straight face when this prancing poodle lifts her tail when the wind blows then yelps about shame?

Lara December 9, 2010 at 10:18

We definitely subsidize laziness, stupidity and immorality with welfare and SSI checks.

“We”?? Poodles don’t pay – they purloin the public purse then prance about as they poop on the patriarchal proletariat, who pays to watch with seven years of his life.

Lara December 10, 2010 at 13:41

I think BBC news is much more restrained and adult.

The day when the phrase “BBC news” becomes ‘the local pooping poodle’, I’ll inform the media immediately that a multiverse does, in fact, exist and that all my Xmases have come at once.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Peter December 11, 2010 at 02:52

Good point Miss Exception to the Rule. I find so many of the news shows in this country so sensationalistic I don’t really enjoy watching them. I think BBC news is much more restrained and adult.

Fair enough, American news shows (left or right wing) do tend to be over-sensationalized. The BBC, from what I’ve seen, is more “restrained” because it doesn’t have to attract as much of an audience to survive; it’s heavily government-subsidized, and because of that subsidy, also tends to skew left-wing almost exclusively.

I used to think that mangina feminist enablers like Biden, just kept passing VAWA and all the other gynocentric laws and entitlements out of misplaced chivalry and perceived “white knight” role on their part.

But, with the recent Assange arrest without bail based on the alleged Swedish broken condom offense, it seems pretty clear now that it was the “gubbermint” that has encouraged these increased laws, to have in their back pocket when needed to bend the rights of men.

It’ll be quite interesting to see what the Feminists have to say about all this, if Assange ends up extradited to the US after this accusation. It’s not that feminists give a shit about the rights and freedoms of men; not at all. But already there seems to be a split going on, as some of the feminists seem to realize the warrant and arrest is merely a tool to discredit the guy and get him in a jail cell. And that noone at Interpol all of a sudden cares about their bullshit “rape culture” and their ever-expanding definitions of sexual assault enough to issue to an international arrest warrant.

Maybe in some corner of their minds, when their rationalization hamsters punch out the clock from an overtime shift on the wheel, they will realize that, rather than being in opposition to the powerful (men), they are instead their pawns and useful idiots. Oh the irony – she is so sweet, n’est-ce pas?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Robert in Arabia December 12, 2010 at 08:06
Jean December 14, 2010 at 07:42

What secrecy in criminal proceedings does is concentrate power and “truth” into the hands of the few. It elevates officers of the court to omnipotent status and assures that they answer to no one, where in a free society their correct position is as arbiter of the public will.

I have to disagree with how you say this. By how this is worded, you say the police are “arbiter of the public will,” which is, by definition, an anarchic society. It’s mob rule.
“The public will, as expressed in the law,” that I’d give you. But unless there is more than an arbitrary standard (what the mob wants now) to define or codify the public will, this is a lawless society you are advocating, which is essentially what our society is now in these matters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: