How annoying to be a judge and not be allowed to speak out against stupidity which makes people vulnerable to crime. Like women who drink themselves silly, put themselves in harm’s way and end up being raped.
In March this year British judge Lindsey Kushner, in her final case before retiring, let loose with a statement saying women were entitled to “drink themselves into the ground” but their disinhibited behaviour could put them in danger.
During her sentencing of a rapist in Manchester, Lindsey Kushner said there was “absolutely no excuse” for sex attacks, but that men gravitated towards vulnerable women. Drunk girls and women were “less likely to fight a man with evil intentions off” and were also less likely to report an attack because they may not be able to remember what happened or “if push comes to shove, a girl who has been drunk is less likely to be believed than one who is sober at the time. I beg girls and women to have this in mind.”
Naturally, the media lined up feminists to attack her, including Police Commissioner Vera Baird who accused Lindsey Kushner, predictably, of blaming the victim.
Kushner was simply the latest of a series of exploding British judges. In that country every year or so judicial tolerance for feminist-controlled groupthink reaches its tether and common sense bursts forth:
- Like last year one of the country’s top judges Mr Justice Gilbart labelled as “foolish” a young woman who drank so much in a public place that she was unable to take any action to protect herself when dragged off and raped by a Muslim
- The previous year Mr Justice Males described as “extremely foolish” an 18-year-old girl who’d drunk herself silly at a nightclub and “thrown herself” at two men who then raped her.
It’s not that these judges weren’t taking rape very seriously – they all spoke out in the process of sentencing these men to many years’ gaol time. But at least they had the courage to speak out whilst our own judiciary has been thoroughly muzzled.
As have our drug and alcohol authorities who aren’t even allowed to keep data on alcohol use by victims of sexual assault yet they readily produce international evidence of that connection. The popular belief that rape victims have been slipped “date rape” drugs is false, accounting to a 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study undertaken by the US Department of Justice. “Most sexual assaults occur after voluntary consumption of alcohol by the victim and assailant,” the report stated, lamenting how rarely sexual assault prevention programmes address the risks for intoxicated women.
I’ve been recently having a look at our own prevention programs introduced recently in most Australian universities – even as the much promoted “campus rape crisis” proved to be fake news when the Human Rights Commission survey found a mercifully low incident of campus sexual assault and the major problem turned out to be unwanted staring.
Students across Australia now are being required to complete online sexual consent courses which invariably promote the idea that all sexual activity involving an intoxicated woman is sexual assault because she cannot give consent. So even if a young man and woman are both so drunk they barely know what they are doing, she’s told it is reasonable to charge that man with rape.
She’s always the victim, never required to take any responsibility for her own behaviour. What’s weird is we’re quite happy to encourage female responsibility in other aspects of life. We’ve managed to educate most young women that drink driving isn’t a good idea. They know they’ll face the consequences if they get plastered, drive and kill a pedestrian. Being drunk isn’t an excuse if they stab a homeless man to death, or molest a child. Where’s the logic in women being absolved of all responsibility if they get drunk and make stupid decisions exposing themselves to sexual harm?
Of course, I am not denying the seriousness of sexual assault. Rape is rightly a very serious criminal offence. Yet most sexual assault cases involving university students are actually regret-sex cases involving contradictory he-says, she-says evidence which rarely results in convictions in criminal court – which is why the feminists are so keen on persuading the universities to get involved in these matters.
It’s the most extraordinary thing that our universities have been bullied into promoting these bizarre courses which expound a simple narrative of men as perpetrators and women victims – rather than encouraging women to take proper ownership of the decision-making process that leads to a yes or a no, let alone encouraging them to express those wishes clearly rather than keep men guessing.
I’ve just made a YouTube video – How not to get raped? — on this whole crazy business. My suggestion is that along with teaching ‘don’t rape’ to men, it surely makes sense to teach ‘don’t get raped’ to young women. I am hoping those of you with good university connections might help me get that message across. Or at the very least promote my video so we can get up the feminists’ noses.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.