#MeToo — Guilty Until Proven Innocent
We live in a very dangerous time for men. If they are accused of sex assault or rape they are automatically assumed to be guilty. Whatever happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty? Out the window, but why? That‘s what we are going to talk about. We’ll examine the ways that feminists have encouraged the disruption of due process. I ran into an excellent article on this topic provided by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity titled “‘Believe the Victim:’ The Transformation of Justice”.
But wait. Before we go any farther. We know that not all accusations are true. Right? Just a quick look at these gentlemen (here and here) easily makes that point. These are all men who were falsely imprisoned for rape or sexual assault, many of whom for years. It turns out the Innocence Project has rescued 353 cases of wrongful convictions and 274 of those cases were men falsely accused of rape or sexual assault. That’s about 77% of those who have been freed. Do we see a pattern here? It’s also worth noting that less than 1% of those who were freed for wrongful convictions were women. That’s with about 18% of the jailed population being women. It seems clear that we are not as careful in convicting our men as we are with our women. And we are simply not very careful when it comes to rape.
But why? One answer is of course gynocentrism which defaults to protecting women and children at the expense of men. That is likely a part of the problem but there is obviously much more. I think that the advent of the feminist driven gynocentrism 2.0 has played a much larger role than most assume. If you want to know what I mean by gynocentrism 2.0 you can check out a video linked here.
The Center for Prosecutor Integrity paper starts by quoting Lewis Caroll and pointing to the Red Queen’s zany idea that you need to start with the sentence and worry about the verdict after. Yes the wonderful fantasy of Lewis Carroll, and Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Think about it. This Lewis Carroll crazy “world upside down” fantasy is now coming true. This is exactly what the feminists are telling us. Sentence first, verdict afterwards.
Let’s have a look.
There are lots of women me too-ing these days. And good for them to speak up about possible past trauma but there is another trauma that is running parallel that no one notices. That’s the cultural assumption that all of the men who are being accused are guilty. All of them. Simply because a woman has accused them they are thought to be guilty. The falsely accused men are alone in their awareness of this travesty. It’s a good guess that they are trapped and left to face alone a great deal of trauma, undeserved judgment, and hatred. In some ways this is standard gynocentric procedure since the emotional pain of men is taboo and the emotional pain of women is a call to action. That is, people run from male emotional pain but work to help the emotional pain of females. We see this in spades and amplified with the me too rush to judgment.
But how did it get so bad? Enter the feminists who have proven over the years to be willing to ignore the pain of men.
What did they do?
Look no farther than the violence against women feminists. The End Violence Against Women International folks have played a role in this. They wanted more rape convictions so what did they do? They wrote a manual to instruct law enforcement how to treat the accusers. Can you guess what they told them?
I bet you can.
They focused on the idea of “Start by Believing”. They basically portrayed rape and sex assault accusers as needing to be believed at all costs. Without exceptions. Involved police officers should start by believing women who claimed they were raped or sexually assaulted. Believe them no matter what. These feminists seem to be saying that the accusers didn’t need an investigator who sought the truth, no they actually need an understanding buddy and the first thing that new buddy needed to do was believe what they said. No matter what! Just like a good friend!
Hard to believe right? When I read this the first thing that popped in my mind was that this strategy didn’t work out so great with Crystal Gail Mangum and the falsely accused Duke lacrosse boys. The faculty at Duke started by believing and kept believing even though the accuser was a liar.
Have a look at the start by believing web site and what they tell law enforcement. This page has testimonials, let’s read one:
My name is Officer Don Kirk. I am a Police Officer at the University of Utah, Department of Public Safety. When someone tells me they were raped or sexually assaulted, I Start by Believing.
Get the picture? These trainings tell police that they are supposed to believe the victim NO MATTER WHAT. Just what do they think this might do to an accused man who is innocent? Wouldn’t believing the accuser necessarily make one not believe the accused? They don’t seem to care. This is the typical only see one side of the picture bully feminists.
They are not even allowed to consider that there might be a false accusation. In essence what they are asking the police to do is to become an advocate for one party, not an impartial investigator. All the while believing that women never lie.
These feminists are demanding that Sgt Friday who asked for just the facts ma’am be transformed into Mr Rogers. You know, the accuser’s best buddy. Now I liked Fred Rogers but surely even Fred knew he was not suited to be a criminal investigator. This is something the feminists don’t seem to care about. The accuser gets Fred while the accused gets Sgt Friday.
An investigator doesn’t pick sides. He gathers that data and lets the courts decide. But If he tells one party he believes them what does that do to the other? Well, the other party must be guilty!
English Jurist Sir William Blackstone famously said in 1765:
‘It’s better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted’
It seems the feminists are thinking just the opposite, it’s better to see 10 innocent men jailed than to let one guilty man free.
It’s worth noting that this hateful stuff doesn’t talk about complainants or accusers, it only talks about victims. It veers away from using typical vocabulary of investigations. Here’s what the Center for Prosecutor Integrity article has to say about this
The pro-conviction, pro-victim orientation of EVAWI’s 2006 manual and other documents is evident in EVAWI’s choice of terminology: the words “alleged,” “complainant,” or “accuser” never appear. In contrast, “victim” appears literally hundreds of times
In 2011 they started the Start by Believing Campaign funded by millions of dollars of grants, that is, taxpayer money, from the Violence Against Women folks. (DOJ) They used this campaign to do workshops and spread this philosophy to law enforcement and other professionals such as detectives, criminal investigators and even college administrators. ugh What did they train them to do? They trained them to believe the accuser, no matter what. Ooops, I mean believe the victim.
So the VAWA folks are asking us to ignore the possibility of women lying and false accusing when science has shown us clearly that women do sometimes lie.
In fact the more likely form of aggression from women is not physical violence but relational aggression and what constitutes relational aggression? Lies, gossip, false accusations, mis-directions and more. So lying is a part of the female manipulative repertoire and the police are told to start by believing? Really? For more info on relational aggression see a previous video.
Another part of their philosophy is to demand that officers carry out what they call “trauma informed investigations.” In other words, be sensitive to the state of the accuser and adjust judgment due to her having been traumatized. They go on to list many symptoms that they say are due to trauma that investigators need to overlook since they may be due to trauma. Things like memory lapses, or fragmented memories, or even appearing incoherent. Why overlook these? Well, they claim that the neuroscience of trauma explains that trauma will induce such things as memory losses, and inconsistencies of the story. You know, the sorts of things that red flag an investigator into questioning the veracity of the complainant. Those things. But now the feminists are saying that the things that might be red flags are simply symptoms of her trauma and in fact prove she was traumatized! Wow. What a system! But sadly for feminists the facts of neuroscience seem to say something else. There are studies that indicate that trauma actually improves memory! Trauma is remembered more clearly than an uneventful lunch last week. hmmmmm
If you want confirmation of the misuse of neuroscience look no further than a Harvard Feminist, Janet Halley, who is attacking this nonsense. Listen to what she says:
The remaining third of the document (and thus the entire remainder of the training) provides a sixth-grade level summary of selected neurobiological research.
What she calls a sixth grade summary others call junk science. And how do they use this junk science to get more convictions? She then goes on to explain how this is used. Remember, this is a Harvard feminist speaking:
The take-away lesson of these pages is that a victim of sexual assault may experience trauma, which in turn causes neurological changes, which in turn can result in “tonic immobility.” Tonic immobility, in turn, can cause the victim to appear incoherent and to have emotional swings, memory fragmentation, and “flat affect.” Her story “may come out fragmented or ‘sketchy,’” and she can be “[m]isinterpreted as being cavalier about [the event] or lying.” These problems, in turn, can cause police and sexual harassment investigators to dismiss serious claims, tragically because of symptoms of the trauma itself.
Can you see how devious this is? What we see is a push for the normalization of symptoms such as inconsistencies, incoherence, fragmentation, lack of memory or others as signs of having been traumatized. These claims happen to also be the very things that an investigator might use to dismiss charges. See how it works? The very things that might prove the defendant innocent are claimed to be due to trauma. What a racket!
So far we have that you must believe the victim and now that you must believe her even if she says things that indicate she is not telling the truth!
oh what could the last section be?
The third wave of this zany propaganda is that investigations need to be “victim centered.” What they mean by this is that they believe the victim needs to have more control over the investigation and have input over what needs to be discussed and when. Mind blowing idea.
Imagine it was the other way around. Believe the accused, no matter what. Ignore his inconsistencies, give the accused more say in the way the investigation unfolds. Oh boy. It’s easy to see the preposterous nature of always believeing one side when we suggest to only believe the accused. No one would buy that and all would protest loudly. But the other way and people cheer, sign on, and take the pledge. Yes, these folks have been getting law enforcement to pledge they will start by believing.
These bullies are more than happy to force investigators to become a one sided advocates to the complainant and to ignore inconsistencies while they crap on the accused.
Can you see how for years these zealots have been pushing the idea that accusers never lie and if you have the audacity to think they might be lying you are a real scumbag misogynist. They have been working the public, the police, our universities and the court system to subvert our system of justice. The most infuriating aspect of this is they are doing this with taxpayer money. Your money, my money. Where is the oversight? It is blatantly obvious that they are defying our constitution and our system of justice. Where are those who are willing to say NO to these bigots?
If we are going to give an advocate to one side of a criminal investigation it seems only fair that we do the same for the other. How many accused men could use an advocate? But that will never happen in our one sided hateful system that allows the accuser to be protected with anonymity while the accused is dangled in front of a hungry press that sells more papers by condemning and ridiculing an accused man. Wouldn’t it be more fair to give both accused and accuser anonymity? Not the way the world works now, no.
I don’t really mind family members, friends or therapists to take on the start by believing support. That is fine and needed by both the accuser and the accused but where we need to draw a firm line is when we try to influence criminal investigations with ideological propaganda. That is way out of line and in need of immediate correction.
The last word goes to Superior court justice Anne Malloy who articulately summed up this situation:
Although the slogan “Believe the victim” has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society.
Well said your honor.
And let’s not forget, men are good, as are you.