Up Front: All Together Now
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
It seems a bit remiss to me that this has got to page six and no one, that I can see, has linked to the support services in case a reader needs some genuine help, instead of this indiscriminant blather.
The man (?) makes a point.
Which is why I drafted that comment three times before posting it, because I couldn't decide if I could be bothered continuing to go around in circles. Turns out I was too annoyed not to.
-
Which is why I drafted that comment three times before posting it, because I couldn't decide if I could be bothered continuing to go around in circles. Turns out I was too annoyed not to.
Don't worry Megan, and yes it's Jack still, but for some reason reading this thread yesterday filled me with such rage and indignation it made me want to leave PAS altogether, so l cleaned my avatar and sat fuming in front of the tennis. And then I woke to more of the same, and I thought 'shit, what if someone is actually wanting some answers about this stuff'.
This topic should not be used for the purposes of ignorant rantings and opinion based arguments, and I know Emma and co have the best intentions, but sometimes, and I would argue this is one of those times, the audience is just simply not up to it.
Emma, my apologies for the intrusion, but if it is honesty you want from us, then this is me being honest. Wishing you all the very best.
-
The question is not "Did she deep down want this sexual encounter?", it is "Did she provide consent for this sexual encounter?"
No. The question is "is it reasonably possible that she provided consent for this sexual encounter?" It is a decidedly different question.
-
Jack, you can't possibly be blaming Emma ('and co'! I want to be part of 'and co'!) because Angus' argument is crappy. It... sort of sounds that way, though...? I am confused.
talking about something you might, hypothetically, want to do doesn't give people license to do whatever the hell they like to you
This.
-
No. The question is "is it reasonably possible that she provided consent for this sexual encounter?" It is a decidedly different question.
That would be the question for deciding whether to find the defendant guilty, no? Surely "it is likely she didn't consent" would be more than enough to send a case to trial?
-
Jack, you can't possibly be blaming Emma ('and co'! I want to be part of 'and co'!) because Angus' argument is crappy. It... sort of sounds that way, though...? I am confused.
No Danielle, I am certainly not blaming any of the PAS core for Angus' arguments. He is solely responsible, although I haven't seen him taking responsibility yet. I'm sorry (again) if that was the inference.
It would be nice if there was a mechanism for shutting down this thread killing nonsense before it turns into a slug fest, but that is the nature of the beast I suppose. And my over reaction (as I'm sure you're all thinking) was because in only a month I've seen half a dozen threads go down this track, and when it is started on a discussion about gang rape, well that's where I decided to draw the line. I'm sure it matters little in any case what I think, and here I am getting into a discussion I swore I wouldn't.
So if you'll indulge me for a moment longer, here's what I went off to play on my guitar this morning after getting my little tirade off my chest.
-
Emma, I trust you've got your rage on now. I'm not sure how any of you think this is going to help, or constitutes 'doing your bit', but carry on.
Recordari: Allow me to dissent, but believe you me -- this is not Emma (or Danielle or Megan or Isabel or anyone else) "getting the rage on". More like, "rather irritable and gradually losing her patience at having to state the obvious to the wilfully obtuse".
I'd also like to make the proposal: Sometimes an argument is so creepy, so internally inconsistent and unreasonable, you've got to put a peg on your nose, drag on the elbow length rubber gloves and pull the shit apart on the record. To get all Gandalf-y for a moment, some things must not pass.
Nobody here is naive enough to think Angus is going to have a road to Damascus moment and see the error of his ways. But it's still useful to thoroughly de-construct the "lying bitch asked for it" mindset wherever it occurs.
-
This topic should not be used for the purposes of ignorant rantings and opinion based arguments, and I know Emma and co have the best intentions, but sometimes, and I would argue this is one of those times, the audience is just simply not up to it.
Jack, you don't have an email link on your profile. If you drop me an email, I'll give you some backgrounder that might help.
When I read about this, a number of different questions came to my mind, which given my interests were mostly about what the implications of this might be for people's future on-line behaviour. I can imagine, now, some of the stuff I've written being done to me, against my will, and my writing used as a justification for that. It doesn't need to be legally viable for someone to decide that this decision means they can get clean away with that stuff. I was also unimpressed that this hadn't received more publicity.
Given this case involved non-vanilla sex (in the fantasy, not the alleged rape) and tech, I was going to write on it. Once Angus started in, the choices were either to reply to him, or let what he was saying go unchallenged. I felt the first option to be the least damaging.
I think by now, however, Angus's argument has been pretty well demolished. (Still haven't answered those direct questions, Angus. Any time.) He's come very close to, but not stepped over the line, where I felt I would have to delete his comments for being too damaging to rape victims. Also there's been no thread bleed, so you could still ignore Angus and participate on any other PAS thread.
My partner asked me the other night why I do this, in general, argue with people who are never going to change their minds. And I said it's not about that person, the one who thinks they're progressing an argument by rewording a statement. It's about the silent people reading along who have thought, "You know, that's a good question, maybe that guy's got a point." Those people, you might be able to reach.
And for people like Megan and Danielle and Jackie and I, it's become about supporting each other. (That doesn't mean we agree about everything, or shut up when we don't agree, or any of those hive-mind things.) I know that if someone says something I find really hurtful, and it upsets me to a point where I can't reply, I feel better when I see someone else speak up.
-
"rather irritable and gradually losing her patience at having to state the obvious to the wilfully obtuse".
Thank you Craig, for articulating what I couldn't.
It's true, you wouldn't like me when i'm angry.
-
And for people like Megan and Danielle and Jackie and I, it's become about supporting each other. (That doesn't mean we agree about everything, or shut up when we don't agree, or any of those hive-mind things.)
It might also be worth noting that you and Tess have rather sharply disagreed on all kinds of matters, so when you two are on the same page Angus is really out there.
-
And for people like Megan and Danielle and Jackie and I, it's become about supporting each other. (That doesn't mean we agree about everything, or shut up when we don't agree, or any of those hive-mind things.) I know that if someone says something I find really hurtful, and it upsets me to a point where I can't reply, I feel better when I see someone else speak up.
Oh, I'm way to scared of Emma to ever disagree with her.
But seriously, when I went and had my afternoon in the sun yesterday, I left knowing that one of the ladies would still be here fighting the good fight.
And then I went and called my mother and had a fight with her about it.
-
My partner asked me the other night why I do this, in general, argue with people who are never going to change their minds. And I said it's not about that person, the one who thinks they're progressing an argument by rewording a statement. It's about the silent people reading along who have thought, "You know, that's a good question, maybe that guy's got a point." Those people, you might be able to reach.
And this was my hope also
as I watched the thread unfold,
and then it went on,
and I lost hope,
but you have just restored it,
and now I'm feeling stupid,
and I'll send you that email,
because there is background also
which might help explain things.And for some reason I felt like writing that as a poem.
-
3410,
E., perhaps you need a sign on the front saying,
"You must have this much appreciation of simple logic to ride this thread". -
The question is not "Did she deep down want this sexual encounter?", it is "Did she provide consent for this sexual encounter?"
No. The question is "is it reasonably possible that she provided consent for this sexual encounter?" It is a decidedly different question.
Differently worded, but not really that different, Graeme.
There has been a great deal of discussion about Angus and his obtuse refusal to engage in real arguments, and this legal argument made by Graeme has been allowed to pass without comment.
I'm grateful to Emma for raising this, and to everyone else for pulling on the rubber gloves (as Craig so accurately puts it), required to argue with Angus. It is necessary if infuriating to fight with Angus and his type of the lunatic fringe.
But this point of legal weasel crap above...
how does this piece of legal phrasing differ from Angus's argument?If a someone makes a complaint, surely that's enough? Doesn't that complaint require investigation? How could anything suggest that is was "reasonably possible that she gave her consent" despite her assertions to the contrary?
Surely a legal argument that can be framed this way is exactly the same argument - given real power and used in a judicial process - that is presented by idiots like Angus?
-
Emma Hart:
I know that if someone says something I find really hurtful, and it upsets me to a point where I can't reply, I feel better when I see someone else speak up.
Word.
Dyan Campbell:
If a someone makes a complaint, surely that's enough? Doesn't that complaint require investigation? How could anything suggest that is was "reasonably possible that she gave her consent" despite her assertions to the contrary?
Probably displaying ignorance of legal stuff here but, perhaps something to do with the possibility of a false/spurious complaint?
One thing that makes me kinda sick/sad (and again probably demonstrating ignorance of legal stuff) is that at no point has anyone considered that the defence lawyer(s) could say "No, we won't introduce that chatroom log; it's irrelevant and/or unethical." We all just expect the worst from them. Depressing.
-
If a someone makes a complaint, surely that's enough? Doesn't that complaint require investigation?
Investigation, yes. And there was investigation. But I think, and Graeme can correct me if I've cocked this, that there's a level of probability required to make it through a depositions hearing to go to trial, and then a much higher level (beyond reasonable doubt) to secure a conviction. I think it's a bit unfair to get down on Graeme for pointing out what is necessary under the law. So we have to be clear on which stage of the process we're talking about.
It is always going to be hellishly difficult to secure a rape conviction, because of the lack of independent witnesses. There are small changes that can be made which will make it a little easier, but that basic problem is never going to go away. And it's important to get it right, because of the massive stigma that comes with even being accused of a sex crime.
There's a separate but related problem in that these men spent six months remanded in custody. That's ghastly if they're innocent, but it's not wonderful if they're guilty either, because that's half a year of limbo for the victim as well.
-
Surely a legal argument that can be framed this way is exactly the same argument - given real power and used in a judicial process - that is presented by idiots like Angus?
But apart from "it didn't happen at all", "there was consent" is pretty much the defence to a rape charge. Are you really saying a defence can't ever make that argument?
-
But I think, and Graeme can correct me if I've cocked this, that there's a level of probability required to make it through a depositions hearing to go to trial, and then a much higher level (beyond reasonable doubt) to secure a conviction.
For a matter to go to trial the question is basically: "having looked at all the evidence the crown intends to offer, could a reasonable jury properly convict the defendant?"
This is a question for the judge, but also a question for the prosecutor - if the prosecutor looks at the evidence they now have and thinks "we have evidence, but it would be wrong for any jury to decide that that evidence precluded the reasonable possibility that there was consent", then the prosecutor is under an obligation to stop the case.
As to what happened in this case, I have no idea. My basic idea is that there must be more than meets the eye, because I really don't see that a prosecutor would drop a case based only on prior statements made on-line of this nature. Anyone who has ever been involved in a court case that has been reported in the media knows that the media rarely get it right. I have no real idea what's gone on in this case, but I do anticipate that it is likely there's more going on than has been reported.
-
No. The question is "is it reasonably possible that she provided consent for this sexual encounter?" It is a decidedly different question.
Fair enough. Although I'm unsure of how date rape, or rape within a relationship could ever get prosecuted then.
The whole thing give me the heeby jeebies because it shows me how vulnerable rape victims are to the attitudes of others.
-
I have no real idea what's gone on in this case, but I do anticipate that it is likely there's more going on than has been reported.
I hope you're right, but still the media reporting gives us the message that we can't share sexual fantasies online because it provides consent for a future sexual encounter that we may not actually want.
-
Fair enough. Although I'm unsure of how date rape, or rape within a relationship could ever get prosecuted then.
Indeed, Tess. Rapists are generally so disobliging to prosecutors -- they will keep forgetting to violate their victims in well-lit public spaces with comprehensive CCTV monitoring and dozens of witnesses.
-
No. The question is "is it reasonably possible that she provided consent for this sexual encounter?" It is a decidedly different question.
Fair enough. Although I'm unsure of how date rape, or rape within a relationship could ever get prosecuted then.
The whole thing give me the heeby jeebies because it shows me how vulnerable rape victims are to the attitudes of others.This is exactly what I was trying to express, thank you Tess.
As to what happened in this case, I have no idea. My basic idea is that there must be more than meets the eye, because I really don't see that a prosecutor would drop a case based only on prior statements made on-line of this nature.
You are probably correct Graeme, and I do hope so.
Having said that, I can recall some pretty outrageous decisions in rape cases. A friend of mine (in Canada) was the courtroom artist for BCTV, so she sat through many cases... there was one rapist who was acquitted - despite having 10 different complainants, who gave eyewitness accounts - because it was impossible to believe a handsome, young man (accompanied in court by his beautiful wife and cute toddler daughter) would have raped 10 older, less attractive women.
This was in the days before any DNA evidence. This guy used to climb (sometimes 12 -15 stories) high-rise apartments and let himself in open balcony doors.
-
Always get a good Lawyer, could be one lesson learnt from this. As with many situations in a courtroom, the Judge will on many, many occasions be left advising this on a first appearance. An outing to the local Courthouse may benefit those for an understanding of the way it grinds.
We see more and more the reality behind proving guilt. One piece of information may be enough to turn your situation against you,doesn't always seem fair, but (having lost before) when I weight up the odds, the Adversary System ain't the worst. -
Always get a good Lawyer,
Lest we forget Tony Vietch who broke a woman's back, wasn't sent to prison (because he could afford to break a women's back), but we can for a moment simply overlook the blatant ideological corruption our own justice system has become predisposed to and focus on another country's. What country's justice system is isn't in some way ideologically corrupt? Why do we care so little about our own that we watch gross miscarriages of justice occur on our own doorstep and satisfy our misgivings nattering away online. Not to be harsh, merely to be contextual.
lest we forget that rugby player with name supression
or that prominent entertainer
or that olympian
or that comedian
or david bain
etc etc etc.Simply, you guys are New Zealanders right? That's the country we're last year a guy avoided prison in part because he paid the victim off?
How many of us could afford to break someone's back?
Can we do more than talk? -
Not that I don't enjoy talking, merely that given the times we live in, is it really that much of an outrage?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.