Lower age of consent to 13. Yes! Barbara Hewson, lone voice of reason

      Barbara Hewson has the courage to make such suggestions in today’s sex hysterical climate. Unfortunately, she is alone, against the hysterical masses, the mainstream press and loud feminists and so called child protection agencies.

      the most remarkable facet of the Savile scandal is how adult complainants are invited to act like children. Hence we have witnessed the strange spectacle of mature adults calling a children’s charity to complain about the distant past.

      The acute problems of proof which stale allegations entail also generates a demand that criminal courts should afford accusers therapy, by giving them ‘a voice’. This function is far removed from the courts’ traditional role, in which the state must prove defendants guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

      Constitutional rights to due process have been abolished for men.

      What this infantilising of adult complainants ultimately requires is that we re-model our criminal-justice system on child-welfare courts. These courts (as I have written in spiked previously) have for some decades now applied a model of therapeutic jurisprudence, in which ‘the best interests of the child’ are paramount.

      It is depressing, but true, that many reforms introduced in the name of child protection involve sweeping attacks on fundamental Anglo-American legal rights and safeguards, such as the presumption of innocence. This has ominous consequences for the rule of law, as US judge Arthur Christean pointed out: ‘Therapeutic jurisprudence marks a major and in many ways a truly radical shift in the historic function of courts of law and the basic purpose for which they have been established under our form of government. It also marks a fundamental shift in judges’ loyalty away from principles of due process and toward particular social policies. These policies are less concerned with judicial impartiality and fair hearings and more concerned with achieving particular results…

      The therapeutic model has certain analogies with a Soviet-style conception of justice, which emphasizes outcomes over processes.    Yewtree is destroying the rule of law

      Courageous words for a famous lawyer

      Ms. Hewson is regularly ranked as a Leading Junior by The Legal 500 in the fields of public and administrative law, human rights and civil liberties, and professional discipline and regulatory law, according to her chambers’ website.

      She has won cases in the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court and High Court of the Republic of Ireland. [telegraph]

      Feminist’s confounding serious crimes and small transgressions

      Touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt, are not remotely comparable to the horrors of the Ealing Vicarage assaults and gang rape, or the Fordingbridge gang rape and murders, both dating from 1986. Anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality.

      This is in  line with feminist language manipulation of words like *child, *rape, harassment, child porn (Copine scale).

      Ordinarily, Hall’s misdemeanors would not be prosecuted, and certainly not decades after the event. What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal-justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle.

      Before modern teenage sex  hysteria, in the 1970ies, nobody was obsessed with the trauma of light groping, or sex one year under the age of consent, which was considered a relict from old repressive Victorian times.

      It’s interesting that two complainants who waived anonymity have told how they rebuffed Hall’s advances.

      Feminism considers women fragile beings that can not say no, that need to be protected from slightly offensive words through a huge harassment industry. Of course, adolescents and children would be even more sensitive and in need of protection. Anyone who ever tried to feed spinach to an infant will know that even babies are very capable of dissent.

      That is, they dealt with it at the time. Re-framing such experiences, as one solicitor did, as a ‘horrible personal tragedy’ is ironic, given that tragedia means the fall of an honourable, worthy and important protagonist.

      In the child sex trauma myth we have, repeatedly, described how child sex is not traumatic when it happens, but only later when the victim learns that it ought to have been traumatized. Often the trauma is compounded because the victim feels extra guilty for NOT having felt trauma.

      It’s time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest. Adults and law-enforcement agencies must stop fetishising victimhood. Instead, we should focus on arming today’s youngsters with the savoir-faire and social skills to avoid drifting into compromising situations, and prosecute modern crime. As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are: remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13. Yewtree is destroying the rule of law

      Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

      Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

      5 thoughts on “Lower age of consent to 13. Yes! Barbara Hewson, lone voice of reason”

      1. Hmm…
        Besides the experience factor -which does make sense, surely it should fall on the more experienced partner to make sure things are safe and consensual – I can think of one other legitimate argument for AOC laws (or some much more humane variation thereof).

        Girls who get pregnant before the age of 15 are at heightened risk of a troubled or dangerous(to them) pregnancy.

        Of course maybe all this does is show that laws making impregnating really young teenagers a crime might be justified, not the AOC laws we currently have.

        1. Sure. it is not advisable to get pregnant too early. It might be better to penalize impregnating someone.

          Now with Romeo and Juliet clauses, the 15 year old girl can have sex with an inexperienced 15 year old boy. Don’t you think a more experienced partner will be better able to do the necessary birth control? At least there is no reason to believe that he will be worse, and that she can consent to a 15 year old and not to a 35 year old.

          They had to intoduce Romeo and Juliet clauses, or else 20% of minors would become felons.

          Good sex education helps to avoid the negative problems of sex, be they unwanted pregnancy or STD

      2. Jewamongyou:
        I would actually go further than that: I would do away with sex-specific laws like rape and abuse and prosecute them under existing laws covering things like assault and battery. Adding a sexual component to a crime as an aggravating circumstance is only to make sex appear ‘shady’ or quasi-legal in the public mind.

        That being said, doing away with AOC laws altogether is probably not a good idea since sex before the age of puberty can cause physical damage.

        1. It seems that nature is very wise. Horny and abusive males that want to have sex with everything that moves seem to be a constant evolutionary fact.

          So evolution created the necessary defenses. Most young children would not want to engage in sex, even more so if under the watchful eyes of a functioning family.

          I myself was shocked and surprised when I read that some very young children voluntarily engaged in true penetrative sex at ages as young as 8 or less. If you follow the above link to “child sex trauma myth”, you can read these examples.

          Note that injuring a child is a crime independent of sex laws.

          Note that we read about consensual sex, and no child in its right mind would engage in painfully damaging activities. There is no doubt that non-consensual activities are psychologically and physically damaging.

          Remember also that today’s laws don’t deal just with sex, as in the not so distant past. Anything remotely sexual, touching, grooming, etc. is considered a heinous crime.

          Wait for my next article about German people in anti-authoritarian schools during sexual liberation. Children themselves opened the caretaker’s fly to stroke his thing.


          Note also that children who engage in sexual behavior tend to come from problem families. Their later problems do not stem from the sexual experiences but from the bad family situation.

          To put things into the right context:

          Remember we have no laws against pregnant women drinking and creating a child damaged for life. Or against parents systematically feeding children wrongly to be damaged for life with obesity.

          Note also that we talk about mandatory government interference, not about recommendations that children this age ought to engage in sexual behavior.

          Parents ought to watch their children and avoid them engaging in early sex, and wrong behavior in general. Government interference is generally not urgently needed. Certainly not in the case of 17 year olds, 15 year olds, ….


      3. Maybe we should do away with any specific “age of consent” and simply deal with incidents on a case by case basis. Will the law be enforced unequally? Of course it will – but this is the situation as it stands today as well. I say, instead of letting a jury decide exactly how old the parties were at the time, let them decide whether or not abuse/rape actually occurred.

      Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

      This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.