Feminists Put Boot Into Police
The feminist hard left used International Women's Day, yesterday to kick the crap out of the NZ police force.
Reeling after continuous bad publicity over the failed Rickard, Shipton, Schollum rape and indecent assault trials, the police are vulnerable and the anarchist/socialist/feminist left showed no mercy.
Around 250 protestors marched through downtown Auckland.
Addressing the crowd at one stage was Leonie Morris of the Auckland Womens Centre. Morris is a leading radical feminist and former member of the Workers Communist League.
Around 400 marched, shouted abuse and vandalised buildings and cars in Wellington.
From Indymedia
About 400 people gathered at Civic Square at 5:30 for a rally in support of rape survivors, and for women wanting to vent their rage at the verdict in the trials of Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum.
After several speeches and performances of 'One more thursday in black' and 'reclaim the night,' people marched to the local cop shop. There, a woman disclosed her own history of abuse and attempted to present this to police. The police line (comprised almost entirely of women) violently stopped her from entering the police station and pushed the crowd of women from the steps.
The march then proceeded to the High Court where a lovely women sprayed 'Justice for rape survivors' on the front of the court and then burned an effigy of clint rickards. Hundreds of women left messages throughout the streets of Wellington.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
3/09/2007 01:41:00 AM
13 Comments:
Gotta love Trev's research skills - reading Indymedia! We stand in awe. Also in awe of his "once a communist, always a communist" logic - if someone who was a Maoist at university joined ACT or the Libz tomorrow, would Trev's brain totally explode?
There are several ex Marxists in ACT. Many more came from the moderate left. People do change as they mature.
There are no signs that Leonie Morris has done either
As the photographer responsible for the auckland photos could you remove them from your site. If you wrote in support of the rape survivors the march was in support of I would consider letting you use them.
Sad cows.
Couple of points John.
Proof of identity required.
I have written in support of the "rape survivors" in the past and again in my latest post-online 15 minutes now.
Please remove the photos. Your post did not support the women the march was in support of.
Good on the feminists for putting the boot into the police. The police are there for defence of private property and social control.
No selfresrecting libertatian can have anything but contempt for the police.
We don't need the police to wait in the wings to come and wipe our botties.
As Trev said on a fairly recent post in response to some wet behind the ears pro union type:
"I 'LL BE A MAN AND REPRESENT MYSELF'
Freedom now-clearly we have different definitions of the word "libertarian".
Indeed the police are there to protect private property. They're also there to protect me, my wife and my kids.
As a self respecting libertarian, I have great respect for the concept of police.
I pay taxes so that they may protect me and mine from people who don't respect life or property.
Doesn't mean that the police don't need major reform, or that individuals shouldn't have far more options for self defence.
I've posted on those subjects before.
Police, properly constrained, are essential to maintsaining a free society.
Listen to the man.
"The police, properly constrained"
Now who is going to rush up and do the tight arsed thing here?
ACT?
God?
To Trevor its like the police are a sort of big domesticated wild dog, so one unknown will "properly constrain" them and then they will go out and do whatever to the tribes he doesn't belong to.
Trevor, if you are really worried about your patch go and get a gun.
Hey, do you think Helen Cark will say hey here come Trevor Loudouns taxes, lets make sure a proportion of the goes to defend him and his, HA HA HA she will. Your dutifully paid taxes will go right down her throat in the form of Chardonay you cannot afford. Get Real mate. time is running out . get a gun.
Freedom now-get treatment.
Feminists view the problems that police have in procuring rape convictions as part of a macho culture that systematically protects its own.
What a crock!
Unless actually someone observed the rape in progress or there is compelling forensic evidence well beyond simply the presence of the accused's semen about the person of the accuser, a rape prosecution almost always comes down to one person's word against another's.
Feminists tell us that women don't lie, they wouldn't want to go through the ordeal of a police investigation if a rape didn't happen, and therefore we must always believe the "victim."
That turns the Westminster system of justice ("innocent until proven guilty") on its ear. If we already know who the victim is then why bother having a trial? The whole purpose of a trial is to determine who has actually been victimised.
A number of studies in various western countries has established that false rape complaints make up between 40 - 60 percent of all rape complaints. By "false" I don't mean "unsubstantiated" but rated entirely bogus according to a rigorous set of criteria.
Why would a woman lie about having been raped? The researchers found that false allegations were typically "instrumental."
They allowed women who'd had affairs to tell husbands who'd discovered the liason "I didn't cheat on you, I was raped."
They allowed teenage girls who'd been caught out by their parents to say "I didn't set out to have sex, I was raped."
They allowed young women in the military or universities to tell their friends "I didn't get drunk and act like a slut last night, I was raped."
They allowed young women who'd casually slept with guys who said they'd call later and didn't to claim they'd been raped, because they 'felt raped' when it was clear their fuck buddy didn't want a return engagement.
Each of these situations is one in which forensic evidence would disclose that the accused had ejaculated inside the accuser, though the sex at the time he dropped his load happened to be consensual.
This could happen to any one of us, guys!
There was one notable Australian conviction for "marital rape," which led to numerous quips about
"Three Minute Rapists" and the like, in which the husband started out having consential sexual intercourse with his wife, who while the act was being consummated "withdrew consent" because the husband had somehow annoyed her.
The poor bastard insisted on finishing things off, and later found himself in the dock for "raping" his wife.
A man who has been falsely accused of rape is someone accused of being one of life's most despicable persons. Even if he is found innocent, there will always be people who would say no smoke without fire.
His children may be afraid to hug him. He may have lost his job while in jail and defending police charges. He be obliged to move elsewhere to escape the taint of his "past."
In my view a woman making a demonstrably false rape complaint should suffer the same penalty as the man she'd wrongfuly accused would have been slapped with if found guilty.
And when it comes down to one person's word against anothers about what happened last night (let alone what happened 20 years ago) a jury must find a rape accusation unproven beyond reasonable doubt and vote for acquittal.
Basing an assessment of "guilt" on "credibility" and the female ability to produce crocodile tears at will invariably leads to innocent men being banged (often literally) in jail for something they haven't done.
Anon, good to see you too think Indymedia is a crock. Good one! :)
Some excellent points there anon
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home