Up Front: All Together Now
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Not that I don't enjoy talking, merely that given the times we live in, is it really that much of an outrage?
Can I just be the first to say yes it is an outrage, and the only way to change the world in which we live is to do as Craig, Emma and others here have said, and not let injustice and ignorance stand. It is not pleasant, and not simple by any means, but it is worthwhile, and I am having a harder time forgiving myself for not getting the gloves on earlier than I am moving past the stupid things I said subsequently.
There are people trying very hard to improve the vagueness of the law, or at least it's interpretation, and we would do them a disservice to gloss over any example, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, that highlights the absolute abhorrent state of affairs for victims of sexual crime, IMhO.
Which is why, in part, I got so emotional about it all.
Can we do more than talk? Actually I realise, much to my disgrace, that for many this is doing more than talk. And as I am constantly reminded, we must not forget the silent reader.
-
Emma,
In answer to your argument, a step I jumped earlier, i hope this answers all your questions:
A fantasy is a fantasy, everybody has them. This lady has had a fantasy of being a "dirty whore", it is not uncommon. And she has had fantasy about having sex with six men, which is perhaps less common but still a fantasy. And everyone to a reasonable measure can divorce fantasy from reality. I can, you can and probably all people reading this can - a jury could, a judge could, the prosecution could, the police could, even the defence probably could in their heart of hearts. Everybody recognises there is a massive difference. Agreed?
Isn't one of the criteria of being determined insane that a person CANNOT divorce reality from fantasy? Every sane person can make a distinction.
Let's now assume that a rape took place in this instance, the 6 accused men raped the woman (some people here have probably done that already, but I haven't so I have to make it clear that in this instance I am).
The rapists got off, because the victim was found to be a non-credible witness.
Emma, your contention is that she was found non-credible, because she had a fantasy. But that is surely impossible to be what happened, because everyone can differentiate between fantasy and reality. I think any argument is absurd if it relies upon the judge and the prosecution not being able to tell the difference fantasy and reality, them both being in fact insane.
So I after rejected your argument, I went in search of another. She wrote down a fantasy of consensual sex with six men (it was just a fantasy, she had no intention of carrying it out), but since the defence will portray her as having consensual sex with the six rapists the fantasy became highly relevent to the trial. Yet the prosecution were not aware of this fantasy having been published by the victim and the only way that's possible was if she had not told them. I believe it was the concealing of info that was going to be highly relevent to the trial from the prosecution that made her appear non-credible.
Now based upon our two differing interpretations of what has occured here we come up with two different recommendations of what a rape victim should inform to the police and the prosecution.
Emma says the victim should omit any relevent fantasy they may have written down or given voice, because the police & prosecution lack basic mental attributes of being able to distinguish fantasy as fantasy. I think they should trust the police and prosecution as normal functioning rational human beings able to distinguish harmless fantasy from reality and therefore make some mention of relevent (published) fantasies.
I know I don't have a lot of friends here, but I really strongly recommend that no one ever takes Emma's advice on this. I would beg that victims consider the police and the prosecution and the judge and eventually the jury able to recognise a difference between fantasy and reality.
-
Angus, when you say
Emma says the victim should omit any relevent fantasy they may have written down or given voice, because the police & prosecution lack basic mental attributes of being able to distinguish fantasy as fantasy. I think they should trust the police and prosecution as normal functioning rational human beings able to distinguish harmless fantasy from reality and therefore make some mention of relevent (published) fantasies
please remember Emma's blog said
Rather than give in to Victim Blame Bingo, however, perhaps a more entertaining strategy would be to make disclosure of sexual fantasy so commonplace (and as it normally is, rather trite and dull) that no-one would ever think to imply anything about your actual behaviour from it.
I agree that the distinction between fantasy and reality should have been clear for the defence to articulate and the jury accept but clearly the defence counsel did not have confidence it would, that they may make errors of judgement, not necessarily be insane, and in my unqualified opinion made a gross error of judgement by undermining and withdrawing any defence of the person they were representing. The defence failed in their role from the error. The jury wasn't given the opportunity to display their sense or otherwise.
-
Was it any worse than This?
This, as far as I am concerned, is the closest we have seen in this country to pure evil. -
The defence failed in their role from the error.
This!
I'd just add, never give up the fight. As Louise Nicholas persevered, that be the lesson also. Stand up for your human right.
Plus I am sure Tim means her defence -
In answer to your argument, a step I jumped earlier, i hope this answers all your questions:
No Angus, in fact that spiel, while yet again repeating what you've said before, doesn't answer any of the questions you've been asked.
It also doesn't address the fact that you've twice asserted that people should be obliged to mention things they don't remember, a position which makes, let's be clear, no sense at all.
This lady has had a fantasy of being a "dirty whore"
Back that up.
it relies upon the judge and the prosecution not being able to tell the difference fantasy and reality, them both being in fact insane
It's based on the comments they both voluntarily made to the media. Are you calling them liars?
Also... I am aware that this thread, and Angus's constant hammering of it, are causing some distress to people. I can lock the thread off should people feel it necessary.
Plus I am sure Tim means her defence
The Prosecution. Again, hard to remember, but this woman was never on trial.
And Tim, now now, I'm sure Angus is a much greater expert on what I said than I am.
-
Steve Barnes - depends how you feel about dogs, and, especially, a heap of pitbull-crosses, two of which have just killed your family pet...
I like dogs: there's a few in the family. Some are valued family companions. Some are working dogs.
The action of 2 blokes shooting 33 dogs, including very young puppies,
is bad, stupid, and the way they went about it, thankfully criminal (because they can be prosecuted.)"Pure evil" it aint. It's not even close to "pure evil." While a lot of dogs are valued for being, there's been enough really vile & tragic incidences of pitbull-type dogs attacking people, especially kids, for most ANZers to shrug and think "Bloody bad way to do it, but - good job."
The people to blame are the people who continue to have these dogs without full control of the animals. And the politicians, who wont yet bite the bullet and legislate, 'These paticular breeds shall not be bred anymore; no more shall be imported, and any remaining animals will be rendered impotent." End of story.
-
Rather than give in to Victim Blame Bingo, however, perhaps a more entertaining strategy would be to make disclosure of sexual fantasy so commonplace (and as it normally is, rather trite and dull) that no-one would ever think to imply anything about your actual behaviour from it.
I contend that the "Victim Blame Bingo" is misinterpretation Emma has cooked up and induces unecessary fear of supposed consequences arising from admitting relevent fantasies to the police or prosecution.
I agree that the distinction between fantasy and reality should have been clear for the defence to articulate and the jury accept but clearly the defence counsel did not have confidence it would.
You mean the prosecution, I presume. The prosecution operate under different rules, they cannot present non-credible witnesses. They will have had difficulty presenting testimony from someone who authored the prime defence exhibits, but neglected to inform them of her authorship. Or (and this is purely speculation) who lied about ever having had such fantasies if she was ever questioned along such lines.
-
Also... I am aware that this thread, and Angus's constant hammering of it, are causing some distress to people. I can lock the thread off should people feel it necessary.
Well I can only speak for myself Emma, but I'm extremely grateful to you for both bringing this up and arguing it out, point by point. Any distress I feel is at my inability to frame a coherent argument because I'm quietly chewing my desk blotter...
Having said that, Angus, I don't think you are a troll, and much as I think your argument is a steaming pile of... disputable opinions, I do respect you coming here, arguing your point and being pretty civil. Considering what kind of argument you're making anyway.
But that is the appeal of PAS I think - and however heated the arguments get, the exchange of ideas is the whole point.
-
Again, hard to remember, but this woman was never on trial.
Then perhaps I should have said in her defence, even that she wasn't defending, she was still on a trial about her, you still gotta represent, kinda thinking perhaps that was what Tim had meant, by the time I post this , I may be corrected. Hey, some don't really want to argue, and some of us have dealt with the Police and Justice systems of this country. Some of us get hard about systems because of this. This lady's situation doesn't seem fair. That is life. Sorry, but some things just are not fair. I don't have the answer cos I don't know. Guess that is why I shouldn't now . As you were.
-
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?WTF are you on about? You've made a wild assertion about the "blatant ideological corruption [of] our own justice system" and then reeled off a string of cases whose only common attribute is that they've come to your attention via trial-by-media.
You've conflated cases of interim name suppression, suppression to protect the identity of the victim, suppression at the request of the victim and a successful appeal to the Privy Council and a jury of New Zealanders. This is the sort of nonsense I prefer we avoid here.
-
@islander
Only humans can be evil...
[redacted] Godwin told me to do it. -
It's based on the comments they both voluntarily made to the media. Are you calling them liars?
No, I am calling you mistaken in jumping to the conclusion that they lack the basic human faculty of being able to recognise the difference between fantasy and reality. I think your reasoning to be sub par and very selective of the infomation presented. I think your conclusion sensationalist and likely to induce fear that the police/prosecution/judiciary are unable to have a sympathetic ear if the victim outlines the whole relevent truth.
-
Steve Barnes - ever read about Pom and Passion?
Check out Jane van Lawick Goodall.I actually think, on evidence, there is a good case for some other primates to be called guilty of evil actions.
Dogs? Not so ( though you wouldnt've turned your back on one of my late & much loved Uncle Bill's pig dogs, a kelpie/blue heeler cross called Menace. We were warned as kids to NEVER go in the dog yard if he was there loose. U. Bill finally shot Menace after he'd turned aside *from a pig hunt* to savage my uncle's led horse.)
-
Bad people make bad dogs, they can also make bad people. Do not blame the messenger, a dog is the reflection of its owner.
-
turned aside *from a pig hunt* to savage my uncle's led horse.)
Now ,it's proof that helps here. Noboby writes about proof of any of those dogs doing anything, just that paper signed, shot.
-
It also doesn't address the fact that you've twice asserted that people should be obliged to mention things they don't remember, a position which makes, let's be clear, no sense at all.
It makes sense if the people are speaking in court. We all want trials to be honest and get at the truth. Therefore we want all people in the court to tell the truth, the whole truth.
People don't always tell the truth, because they either lie or they forget. We can't tell the difference between lying and honest forgetfulness. So when someone is forgetful on something it can be proved they should have known about then it is treated the same as a lie. And we cannot allow the court to be lied to, so the credibility given to the witness is reduced.
-
Forgive me Angus but can I just re-word that a little?.
It makes sense if the people are speaking in court. We all want trials to be honest and get at the truth. Therefore we want all people in the court to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
People can't always tell the truth, because they either feel the need to lie because the truth does not put them in a good light or they cannot honestly remember. We can't tell the difference between lying and honest forgetfulness. So when someone is forgetful on something that can be proved that they should reasonably have known about then it is treated as a lie. We cannot allow the court to be lied to. The credibility given to the witness is paramount.
OK?
-
Angus, I just realised that any reply I could make here would involve something I said back on page 3.
Given that circularity, I'm pretty sure I'm done. Your comments about me can be read in the light of your other comments on this thread, and previous ones, and I'm confident in whom they reflect on the most.
-
Uncle Bill owned over a hundred dogs in his life - Menace* was the exception.
Dogs can be born nasty, and Menace clearly was.
Sof' - there's a dead terrier around-*Not his real name incidentally. If I wrote that, odds on some person from North Otago would remember him, still- he was a bugger of a dog, and had a hunger to kill (cats/chooks/other dogs, all of which he had done before my uncle took him on. )My uncle believed all dogs were basically good. Menace was his one failure. And just incidentally, he loved Staffies (and there's a fair component of Staffies in pitbulls.)
-
pitbull-type dogs
Sorry for the derail, but this is one of my 'things': there is an eight year old 'pitbull-type dog' lying snoring on my bed right now. The fact that she has always had a lovely temperament is actually irrelevant, because she lives behind a six foot fence we paid ten thousand dollars to have built, and is spayed and registered, and she doesn't go out without being on a lead. Breed bans will not solve asshole owner irresponsibility, because those douchebags will just move on to the next trend in dog badassery. (In the 90s they all had Rottweilers and we were supposed to be scared of them, as I recall. In the 80s it was... Dobermanns...? Anyway.)
-
Islander, before Stella, we had Missy, ( a pure pitbull). T'other half thought she was not nice.I said individual. She was 3 months old when she got into the neighbours backyard. I looked out the window and Missy turned, looked up, and said ""good-bye". gone. First heat. Eight weeks later, xmas, up north, Stella was born. :)
-
In the 80s it was... Dobermanns...?
Dobermanns. (Dobermenn?) You remember Zeus and Apollo from Magnum PI, right Danielle? I know you do...
-
Meh
(for Angus' bullshit, to be clear..)
-
In the 80s it was... Dobermanns...?
Madam's right Sir. :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.