How all due process got dismantled in rape accusations. Feminst power at its best.
Feminism overrides the constitution! Amazing! Rules of due process, presumption of innocence, “innocent until proven guilty”, are fundamental or constitutional law in most countries. Feminists managed to override constitutional guarantees, as they managed to change thousand year old definitions of legal terms like “rape” and “child” (see: Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance ).
Highly recommended reading:
Domestic violence fairytales threaten constitutional protections
SPECIAL REPORT
Are Domestic Violence Policies Respecting
Our Fundamental Freedoms?
All the following content was shamelessly copied from falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-presumptively-innocent-are-given.html I could not say it any better, and shortening it is a pity.
- Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. The sexual grievance industry insisted that rape was underreported, and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape. So we kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry to solve “the problem.”
- First, we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration, which de facto served to flip the old law on its head: now, women don’t need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys are arrested based solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girl if they can’t produce corroborating evidence of their innocence.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that forbade almost any evidence of the accuser’s prior sexual history with persons other than the accused, a rule that resulted in innumerable innocent men and boys being sent to prison for alleged rapes that never occurred. - That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of force, and innocent men and boys who misunderstood the acquiescence of a woman were sent to prison.
- That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape. Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent. Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.
- That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws (in the UK and a handful of US states) that legally forbade naming rape accusers. In the US, the news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man’s name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate at the details of his humiliation.
- That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, and now, men are sometimes accused of and charged with alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred, effectively foreclosing the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence of their innocence has long disappeared.
Wait, there is more! This article continues! That still was not enough. Keep reading and click here »
Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step
» continues here »
Food porn, then, is food which has been calculatingly created and marketed to satisfy our food lusts while offering little to no benefit—and usually harm—to the body, mind and soul.