Betsy DeVos to rescind Title IX sexual assault guidelines

Betsy DeVos, the Education Secretary, announced on September 7th that her department would review the Title IX sexual assault guidelines set in place by the Obama administration.

The administration created the guidelines following the campus rape hysteria drummed up by feminists. Feminist cited a study that claimed 1 in 5 women in college experience sexual violence. Later studies showed that the rate was grossly inflated and place the actual rate at about 1 in 52.

The major issue with the guidelines is that it requires colleges to lower the standard of proof in sexual assault cases. I highlighted this in a post from 2014. The standard was lower to a preponderance of evidence, which is the same standard used in civil court. This standard only requires a more likely than not finding in order to rule in favor of the complainant. One can see the immediate problem when applying this to a criminal offense. It is entirely possible for an innocent person to appear guilty based on limited or circumstantial evidence.

However, the new guidelines make matters much worse. As I noted in another post, accused students are not afforded council, not allowed to the see the evidence against them, not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, not allowed to present witnesses, and often are not informed of the complaints until the process is well underway. This forces the accused to prove their innocence, something that is a clear violation of constitutional law. Continue reading

Advertisements

Girls walk out on Clementine Ford after she refused to answer boys’ questions

Back in May, I wrote about an incident at an Australian school where feminist blogger Clementine Ford spoke. The school invited Ford to speak about women’s issues, and several boys in the audience challenged her views. Rather than address the boys’ questions, Ford left and later took to Twitter to bash the boys.This prompted a response from the school, which inexplicably took Ford’s side in attacking their male students.

New information, however, reveals that the situation was much worse for Ford than initially reported: Continue reading

Stop excusing women who lie about rape

Whenever a false rape allegation case makes the news, a number of people rush to defend the women (and occasionally men) who lied about the assault. These people will quote statistics about the “rarity” of false allegations, mention the difficulty of reporting sex offenses, and repeatedly remind others that some false accusers suffer from mental issues.

These people do this to obscure a basic truth about false allegations: they are incredibly believable.

Let us take the recent case of Jemma Beale. Beale, who is a lesbian, claimed that 15 different men sexually assaulted or raped her over the course of three years. She made numerous complaints to the polices, often giving names of the men she accused: Continue reading

Bulletin Board v306

Addressing the Lack of Research on Male Childhood Sexual Abuse — On Thursday July 20, fans across the world mourned the loss of Chester Bennington, the lead vocalist for the world-renowned band, Linkin Park. Bennington’s suicide by hanging at the age of 41 stunned fans, but it also brought to light a rarely discussed topic: male childhood sexual abuse. One in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 16—yet the issue remains underreported, undertreated, and highly stigmatized.

Court: Juvenile sex crimes can be basis of civil commitment — Civil commitment of offenders who have been designated as sexually violent predators can be indefinitely extended for those whose crimes occurred when they were juveniles, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday.

Fear of being called racist ‘stopping people from raising child abuse concerns’ — Potential cases of child abuse are not being raised because people fear being labelled racist, a Labour frontbencher has argued. There is a need to acknowledge that the “majority of perpetrators have been British-Pakistani” in the towns and cities where grooming gangs have targeted girls, Sarah Champion has said. Continue reading

Woman who raped student sues him for “defamation”

It is rare that any case of women sexually abusing boys leaves me at a loss for words. I have read about the most ridiculous situations, from women claiming the boys raped them to women suing their victims for child support. However, the most recent case left me stunned.

A woman convicted of sexually abusing one of her 16-year-old students filed a lawsuit against the boy for “defamation”:

The former Arroyo Grande High School teacher convicted earlier this year of having sex with a 16-year-old student has responded to a lawsuit from that student’s family by filing a counterclaim, alleging the victim has defamed her “to various classmates, family and other members of the community.”

I will quote it again just in case the multiple face palms prevented you from reading it in full: Continue reading

Jody Allard reveals feminism’s true abusive colors

Jody Allard is back. For those who do not recall, Allard wrote an article in 2016 titled My teen boys are blind to rape culture. Allard argued in the article that despite all her efforts as a good feminist single mother, her two teenage sons are riddled with misogyny. Instead of taking heed of Allard’s demands that they check their privilege, stop their internalized misogyny, and challenge their friends who deal in “rape culture”, the boys laughed her off.

Any reasonable parent would look at that response and reflect on their own behavior. They would ask themselves why this approach did not work. They would ask why their children reject the very foundation of their parent’s identity and political beliefs.

Allard, however, is not a reasonable parent. She is a narcissistic, passive-aggressive, sociopathic ideologue, and so she does what anyone so mentally deranged would do: blame and publicly humiliate her sons. Again. For the fourth time. Here is the title of her most recent article:

I’m Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons)

Think of what type of person you must be to write something so vicious about your own sons. Think about how warped your mind must be to in one breath say that your sons are good and in the next accuse them of being rapists. Because that is what Allard did. You need not take my word for it. Take Allard’s: Continue reading

Canadian Supreme Court finds it’s not rape if the boy looks older

Oh Canada. It seems that every few months I come across another head-slapping instance of utter stupidity. The most recent case deals with the acquittal of a woman accused of raping a 14-year-old boy. Barbara George knew the victim through her son. She assumed the victim was older because he looked and acted “mature”.

According to an article:

Their sexual activity took place after the complainant entered George’s bedroom, along with George’s 14-year-old daughter, during a teenage party involving drinking at her home. The daughter eventually left, but the complainant and George, who were both not drinking, spoke alone for several hours. The trial judge found as a fact that the complainant initiated their first kiss and the sexual intercourse that followed. He also found as a fact that George, although “reluctant at first,” was a willing participant in the sexual intercourse that followed the kissing.

The appellant did not find out the boy’s age until months later when she asked her son.

If that sounds very convenient that is because it likely is something the woman concocted as a defense. Granted, it is entirely possible that she did not know the boy’s age. However, Canadian law is pretty clear on that matter:

Mistake of age

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was 16 years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.

Based on George’s statements, she made no attempt to confirm the boy’s age until well after the incident. So this should be a moot point.

But of course, this is a woman in Canada and the Canadian government is abjectly against prosecuting and convicting women of abusing children no matter what the law states. So of course the judge acquitted George based on the claim that George did not know the boy’s age:

The Crown argued at the Supreme Court that the trial judge misinterpreted s. 150.1(4). “Instead of considering whether the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the boy’s age, the trial judge focused on whether there was an objective basis for her belief the boy was old enough to have sex with,” the Crown argued in its factum.

“Instead of asking whether she had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the boy’s age, the trial judge listed reasons why a person might think the boy was 16 years or older at the time of the encounter even when some of those reasons would not have been apparent to any person at the time of the sexual encounter. Moreover, the trial judge erred by relying on evidence that was not probative or relevant to the legal test enunciated in s. 150.1(4).”

This is despite the unquestionable clarity of the law. There is really no other way to interpret it. Assuming a child’s age does not absolve one of responsibility. Even if the child lies about their age a person is still subject to prosecution if they fail to verify it.

The Crown managed to appeal the acquittal to the Supreme Court, yet the Court upheld the judge’s ruling. The members of the five-panel court released an explanation of their May decision. It is a thing to behold:

Today the Supreme Court reasoned that, “the more reasonable an accused’s perception of the complainant’s age, the fewer steps reasonably required of them.”

“In some cases, it may be reasonable to ask a partner’s age. It would be an error, however, to insist that a reasonable person would ask a partner’s age in every case,” the decision reads. “Conversely, it would be an error to assert that a reasonable person would do no more than ask a partner’s age in every case, given the commonly recognized motivation for young people to misrepresent their age.”

In short, it is perfectly okay for someone to just assume a child is of the age of consent because no reasonable person would ask the child’s age in every instance. Yet in the very next sentence they argue that simply taking the child’s word is not enough.

The explanation makes zero sense. Either a reasonable person would ask or they would not. In this particular circumstance, there was no reason for George not ask. Most parents ask questions about their children’s friends, particularly those they do not know well.

Likewise, based on her actions one could infer that she suspected the boy was not over 16. The reason George ended up in court is because she attempted to become a mounty and had to answer a question regarding sex with someone under 16. George asked her son the boy’s age and reported the answer on the application.

If George honestly believed that the boy was of legal age, her actions make no sense. She would have answered in the negative and been done with it. It seems more likely that she either suspected or knew the boy was younger.

But all of that is a moot point now. George gets away with violating the law by using an excuse the law was specifically written to address. And let us not pretend that this would have worked if the accused had been male. There are dozens of cases of men meeting underage girls in clubs and bars who still faced conviction despite having every reason to assume the girls were of age.

Yet when the perpetrator is female, any and every excuse is acceptable.