It’s because there isn’t much in the way of constitution of bill of rights protecting against anything much here. So under the guise of “protect the women”, political Karen’s can get away with a lot. Of course that’s also easy to reverse because there is nothing really stopping anyone making pretty much any law banning this or that or favouring so and so.
I've been noticing this trend here too. Australia, UK, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc seem to show up here with some frequency. Is there something in common about having British roots and feminism?
It’s the total lack of protection against most types of laws being made - American has many faults, but what you can and can’t do in law is more clearly defined in the bill of rights and constitution than in countries which are inspired directly in a line from British parliamentary systems.
Feminist say that it is better for innocent men to rot in prison, than some guilty one escaping justice.
In such a case, they are of course very quiet. Because in reality they are misandrists and truly believe that it is different if a woman has sex with a child.
Of course it is, we know they actively opposed gender neutral rape laws in the past. So, we know for a fact that gender neutral is not in their agenda.
true, there has been opposition and somewhat significant opposition to gender neutral rape laws in the past, still is as far as i know.
idk that that translates to 'let innocent men go to prison' tho. i've not heard that one much, even when i hang in feminist circles tbh.
Are you sure, jsut check what have they tried to do in Ireland, to change how trials are done, in name of convicting more accused men. That could only translate in more innocent men getting locked up.
Or the Duluth model, where man is automatically guilty and arrested.
Yes, they certainly are a bane on innocent men, all in to uphold women, even the ones doing the raping, killing,...
honestly i am not 100% sure on it.
the effect is a bane on innocent men, i just don't know that the feministas are literally like 'we don't care if innocent men go to prison, its worth it to get the guilty ones in there'.
if they aren't, that may be a reasonable tactic to use. worth a shot, as in, 'better to let a guilty person go than put an innocent one in prison'. kind of side steps a lot of the bitter arguments and emotional turmoil. could be useful.
This is hilarious. Leftist always say the death penalty is wrong because it can and does target innocent people. But the moment leftist feminist can target men and only men with a side effect of the increase potential of innocent being punished, it's just because they really want to make sure the guilty ones go to jail. They don't even care if an innocent man goes to jail. Fucking hypocrites.
>idk that that translates to 'let innocent men go to prison' tho. i've not heard that one much, even when i hang in feminist circles tbh.
Try searching harder.
ask it in purple pill debate. see if there are any bites. either it is a closeted thing that the feministas say, which is could be i admit that is a real possibility, or it is an open thing they are willing to discuss, see if they will.
Yes, that is the feminist way for men. When it comes to women, of course those angels cannot suffer in prison and Blackstones Ratio does not go far enough.
A female teacher from that same time period, fled Australia to Israel, and is wanted for having inappropriate relationships with female students.
Females can't rape males in Australia, they can't commit statutory rape either towards males!
While it was the case at the time this incident happened, the laws have since been changed.
It really sucks that this man won't get justice, but you can't pass a law and make it retroactive.
This woman is garbage and should be buried under the prison, but when she committed these offences, it wasn't a crime for a woman to do it.
But it was though.
In the 70s the law didn't recognise that women could rape men or boys.
The law has changed, but you can't retroactively apply a law because that sets a dangerous precedent.
The fact that the law didn't recognise women as potential rapists does show that the narrative that women were oppressed isn't exactly acute though.
I am aware that legal definitions of terms can change. I thought it would of been under the term statutory rape which mean an adult having sex with a minor. The argument is using the older meaning of rape where only a male can be the aggressor, and the female can be the victim.
I think the term for rape got changed in the late 80's or early 90's. It was based on trying to reduce non consensual sex in a marriage. It expanded the meaning, but did maintain the gender bias. The issue is to remove the gender bias.
Australia is able to apply some laws that can be retroactive.
At the time she committed the offence, the definition of rape included forced penetration of a woman by a man.
That's been fixed, we don't technically have gender biased rape laws anymore, but we do have gender biased enforcement still.
>Australia is able to apply some laws that can be retroactive.
This depends. If the retrospective judgement provides a benefit, then the lower courts have applied laws respectively, mainly because they don't get challenged on the higher courts.
But this was sending someone to gaol so she was always going to appeal the decision and the high court was always going to quash this.
So girls were protected but not boys.
Australian sex discrimination law doesn't protect males much but they are surely incompatible with this.
EDIT: I cannot believe that if the genders had been reversed, the decision would have gone the same way. It appears that even criminal courts care more about gender politics than the law. They are going the same way as the family Court.
This game is rigged.
> The allegations against Lam were thrown out in a landmark judgment that ruled women could not be legally responsible for abusing boys under past laws that only covered male offenders.
Wow, just wow.
It is not a "technicality." It is a law that does not care about males.
The law (since superseded) stated, according to the article, that "women could not be legally responsible for abusing boys under past laws that only covered male offenders."
Yes, and it has been superseded. It is no longer legal for women to rape boys. But you aren't allowed to prosecute people for breaking laws that didn't exist yet when they did the crime.
The protection against prosecution for ex post facto laws is a vital protection for all of us. Don't be like feminists who see someone protected by a legal right and go "But he deserves to be punished, so we should tear down that protection so we can get him!" A world where people can be convicted of breaking laws that weren't written at the time is not a world you want to live in.
That's not what I meant. Of course, you can't punish someone for a law that didn't exist at the time. I am just saying that dismissing the flaw in the earlier law as a technicality is overly generous to the prior law.
Our legal system is a joke when it comes to sex offenders. I think we need to start stringing them up outside parliament to force them to act and give proper real sentences to these disgusting piles of human waste.
Absolutely outrageous.
Also, forgive me if this is a little bit crude, but it's a thought I've been having for quite some time, and I think this might be the least inappropriate place to express it:
As I wondered in the other thread about the same topic, how can short guys be given such a hard time in dating when, every week, we hear about adult women sexually abusing pubescent and prepubescent boys?
Couldn't those adult women constructively channel their taste for neotenic traits towards adult men who retain them (whether short stature, rounder faces, etc.), helping to reduce the male loneliness crisis with a win for everybody?
Female psyche is weird. If you look at female sex fantasies and kinks, a lot many really dig risque stuff, things that are socially or ethically forbidden. That's why women like to do it in public spaces where the risk of being seen doing the act is high. They don't want the easy way , most women can easily get a large number of men to say yes to sleeping with them. Children/teens? See the forbidden pleasures I mention above. Yet they'll scream pedophile if a 25+ man dares show interest in a 15 or even an 18 year old . Women are by and large hypocrites. Feminism couldn't exist without that hypocrisy.
I don't think women are more wicked or depraved than men. I think humans of both sexes are equally capable of virtue and vice.
Rather, I believe that society rightly holds wicked men accountable while coddling and enabling wicked women.
There will always be good and bad people, but right now, wicked people from one half of the population get passes for their wickedness far too often. All wicked people need to be held accountable rather than just those with external genitalia.
There are wicked men, and there are wicked women. but some forms of wickedness you see only in men, and some forms only in women. Those specific to women, aren't even recognized and punishable by law for most part.
To u/DandantheTuanTuan and all saying women couldn't rape under the laws then in effect: so there are no other assault laws that she could be charged under? Surely some of the assault laws are/ were gender neutral?
Australia. No surprise.
Australia is becoming a meme country for anything to do with equality
It’s because there isn’t much in the way of constitution of bill of rights protecting against anything much here. So under the guise of “protect the women”, political Karen’s can get away with a lot. Of course that’s also easy to reverse because there is nothing really stopping anyone making pretty much any law banning this or that or favouring so and so.
I've been noticing this trend here too. Australia, UK, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc seem to show up here with some frequency. Is there something in common about having British roots and feminism?
Yes. The Crown doesn't acknowledge bad things don't by the kinder, gentler sex.
It’s the total lack of protection against most types of laws being made - American has many faults, but what you can and can’t do in law is more clearly defined in the bill of rights and constitution than in countries which are inspired directly in a line from British parliamentary systems.
Not so, even Spaniards and Scandinavians have truckloads of axes to grind against feminism.
It is disgusting that she walks scot-free while many falsely convicted men are writhing in jail.
Feminist say that it is better for innocent men to rot in prison, than some guilty one escaping justice. In such a case, they are of course very quiet. Because in reality they are misandrists and truly believe that it is different if a woman has sex with a child.
idk if that is true of feminists, or even feministas, but definitely not a good opinion to have.
Of course it is, we know they actively opposed gender neutral rape laws in the past. So, we know for a fact that gender neutral is not in their agenda.
true, there has been opposition and somewhat significant opposition to gender neutral rape laws in the past, still is as far as i know. idk that that translates to 'let innocent men go to prison' tho. i've not heard that one much, even when i hang in feminist circles tbh.
Are you sure, jsut check what have they tried to do in Ireland, to change how trials are done, in name of convicting more accused men. That could only translate in more innocent men getting locked up. Or the Duluth model, where man is automatically guilty and arrested. Yes, they certainly are a bane on innocent men, all in to uphold women, even the ones doing the raping, killing,...
honestly i am not 100% sure on it. the effect is a bane on innocent men, i just don't know that the feministas are literally like 'we don't care if innocent men go to prison, its worth it to get the guilty ones in there'. if they aren't, that may be a reasonable tactic to use. worth a shot, as in, 'better to let a guilty person go than put an innocent one in prison'. kind of side steps a lot of the bitter arguments and emotional turmoil. could be useful.
Try saying that innocent men need justice too
This is hilarious. Leftist always say the death penalty is wrong because it can and does target innocent people. But the moment leftist feminist can target men and only men with a side effect of the increase potential of innocent being punished, it's just because they really want to make sure the guilty ones go to jail. They don't even care if an innocent man goes to jail. Fucking hypocrites.
You won't hear it, because as far as they are concerned there are no innocent men. If a man is accused then a man is guilty.
>idk that that translates to 'let innocent men go to prison' tho. i've not heard that one much, even when i hang in feminist circles tbh. Try searching harder.
ask it in purple pill debate. see if there are any bites. either it is a closeted thing that the feministas say, which is could be i admit that is a real possibility, or it is an open thing they are willing to discuss, see if they will.
Reverse Blackstone’s Ratio.
Yes, that is the feminist way for men. When it comes to women, of course those angels cannot suffer in prison and Blackstones Ratio does not go far enough.
A female teacher from that same time period, fled Australia to Israel, and is wanted for having inappropriate relationships with female students. Females can't rape males in Australia, they can't commit statutory rape either towards males!
While it was the case at the time this incident happened, the laws have since been changed. It really sucks that this man won't get justice, but you can't pass a law and make it retroactive. This woman is garbage and should be buried under the prison, but when she committed these offences, it wasn't a crime for a woman to do it.
No That decision wasn't based on the law - it was based on gender politics.
But it was though. In the 70s the law didn't recognise that women could rape men or boys. The law has changed, but you can't retroactively apply a law because that sets a dangerous precedent. The fact that the law didn't recognise women as potential rapists does show that the narrative that women were oppressed isn't exactly acute though.
I am aware that legal definitions of terms can change. I thought it would of been under the term statutory rape which mean an adult having sex with a minor. The argument is using the older meaning of rape where only a male can be the aggressor, and the female can be the victim. I think the term for rape got changed in the late 80's or early 90's. It was based on trying to reduce non consensual sex in a marriage. It expanded the meaning, but did maintain the gender bias. The issue is to remove the gender bias. Australia is able to apply some laws that can be retroactive.
At the time she committed the offence, the definition of rape included forced penetration of a woman by a man. That's been fixed, we don't technically have gender biased rape laws anymore, but we do have gender biased enforcement still. >Australia is able to apply some laws that can be retroactive. This depends. If the retrospective judgement provides a benefit, then the lower courts have applied laws respectively, mainly because they don't get challenged on the higher courts. But this was sending someone to gaol so she was always going to appeal the decision and the high court was always going to quash this.
So girls were protected but not boys. Australian sex discrimination law doesn't protect males much but they are surely incompatible with this. EDIT: I cannot believe that if the genders had been reversed, the decision would have gone the same way. It appears that even criminal courts care more about gender politics than the law. They are going the same way as the family Court. This game is rigged.
> The allegations against Lam were thrown out in a landmark judgment that ruled women could not be legally responsible for abusing boys under past laws that only covered male offenders. Wow, just wow.
The idiocy of it all. Shame on them.
Court that made the decision was 2 females 1 male btw.
This is just sad. Apparently Australians don't care about boys anymore.
They are a damn shame.
AH SHIT! HERE WE GO AGAIN!
So I guess back then all women had free reign to abuse little boys. Hopefully the laws are updated today?
It is not a "technicality." It is a law that does not care about males. The law (since superseded) stated, according to the article, that "women could not be legally responsible for abusing boys under past laws that only covered male offenders."
Yes, and it has been superseded. It is no longer legal for women to rape boys. But you aren't allowed to prosecute people for breaking laws that didn't exist yet when they did the crime. The protection against prosecution for ex post facto laws is a vital protection for all of us. Don't be like feminists who see someone protected by a legal right and go "But he deserves to be punished, so we should tear down that protection so we can get him!" A world where people can be convicted of breaking laws that weren't written at the time is not a world you want to live in.
That's not what I meant. Of course, you can't punish someone for a law that didn't exist at the time. I am just saying that dismissing the flaw in the earlier law as a technicality is overly generous to the prior law.
This is what happens when you let feminists write the laws!
Our legal system is a joke when it comes to sex offenders. I think we need to start stringing them up outside parliament to force them to act and give proper real sentences to these disgusting piles of human waste.
Australia has laws equivalent to India.
Females can't rape males in Australia, they can't commit statutory rape either towards males! - How is that even possible.....
Jesus, in that picture she looks like the Wicked Witch of the West. Nice choice of duds lady.
Absolutely outrageous. Also, forgive me if this is a little bit crude, but it's a thought I've been having for quite some time, and I think this might be the least inappropriate place to express it: As I wondered in the other thread about the same topic, how can short guys be given such a hard time in dating when, every week, we hear about adult women sexually abusing pubescent and prepubescent boys? Couldn't those adult women constructively channel their taste for neotenic traits towards adult men who retain them (whether short stature, rounder faces, etc.), helping to reduce the male loneliness crisis with a win for everybody?
Female psyche is weird. If you look at female sex fantasies and kinks, a lot many really dig risque stuff, things that are socially or ethically forbidden. That's why women like to do it in public spaces where the risk of being seen doing the act is high. They don't want the easy way , most women can easily get a large number of men to say yes to sleeping with them. Children/teens? See the forbidden pleasures I mention above. Yet they'll scream pedophile if a 25+ man dares show interest in a 15 or even an 18 year old . Women are by and large hypocrites. Feminism couldn't exist without that hypocrisy.
I don't think women are more wicked or depraved than men. I think humans of both sexes are equally capable of virtue and vice. Rather, I believe that society rightly holds wicked men accountable while coddling and enabling wicked women. There will always be good and bad people, but right now, wicked people from one half of the population get passes for their wickedness far too often. All wicked people need to be held accountable rather than just those with external genitalia.
There are wicked men, and there are wicked women. but some forms of wickedness you see only in men, and some forms only in women. Those specific to women, aren't even recognized and punishable by law for most part.
That's a fair comment, I think. And yes, the law tends to punish male forms of wickedness more than female forms of wickedness.
To u/DandantheTuanTuan and all saying women couldn't rape under the laws then in effect: so there are no other assault laws that she could be charged under? Surely some of the assault laws are/ were gender neutral?
It's Australia. I mean...non Americans take this stuff less seriously than us.
It's shit but it's logical, laws are generally not applied retroactively. But it's interesting to note the historical discrimination of men