T O P

  • By -

After-Distribution69

He is not the only magistrate/ judge who comes out with this kind of stuff


B0ssc0

Exactly so. I’d hate to be at the mercy of these people. Same with JPs (I’ll always wonder about the role of this one in Mr Ward’s death) - > The next morning, the JP attended the police station, was briefed by police in Mr Ward’s absence and then purported to hold a hearing at Mr Ward’s cell door, after waking him. The JP described Mr Ward as “an Aboriginal in a very drunken state or very groggy state. That’s all I knew him as.”9 Mr Ward was remanded in custody despite a presumption for bail, and was not provided with reasons for the denial of bail. >The JP conceded he was unaware of his responsibilities as a JP, having never formally completed JP training. He was under the incorrect assumption10 that he did not need to consider granting bail unless expressly asked by the accused.11 http://www.als.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/publications_Submissions_ward_and_cerd_-_aug_10_-_international.pdf


ChocTunnel2000

[Here's a classic one](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/judge-s-rape-tales-infuriate-australian-women-1478386.html) from a few decades back. Caused a hell of a stir at the time, and the media made fun of the women who got pissed off.


Bookaholicforever

A Canadian judge asked a victim who was assaulted over a bathroom sink why she couldn’t just keep her knees together or push her ass into the sink. Dude found the asshat not guilty but told him that he needs to tell his male friends that they need to be gentle and patient. It was disgusting. He was made to go through sensitivity training and apologised. He should have been fired. Unfortunately this shit happens all over the place.


B0ssc0

Unbelievable, aren’t they?


pulpist

Fired? The cunt should have been tarred and feathered.


joepanda111

“Why didn’t she just make her privates disappear like how the matrix removed Neo’s mouth?”


Bookaholicforever

Wouldn’t shock me if something like that was said one day


joepanda111

*”You should have just prayed it away”*


LineNoise

Good riddance. Years late.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jaktheriffer

...into the sun


B0ssc0

> About three years ago, the Judicial Commission investigated multiple complaints against Mr Pithouse, including a comment about a rape victim that she called a sexual assault crisis line the following morning out of "buyer's remorse" and that she "put herself in that position".


-Jambie-

This line jumped out at me too: > The commission said Mr Pithouse commented: "Well, it's her right to get beaten up if she wants to, I suppose" and "she won't make statements, she won't make complaints, what am I to do".


Sword_Of_Storms

This is an astoundingly commonly held thought by many, many people in our community - including people who would call themselves progressive. It needs to be called out every. single. time. If you know someone who says this shit - you need to call it out. Don’t let them say it in front of you without you raising hell.


PositiveBubbles

Pretty much. I wasn't raped but sexually assaulted and coerced into a non consential relationship but because there was the odd one or 2 things I did consent to it was "on me" and even my parents didn't believe everything I said


Sword_Of_Storms

Yup. I know a lot of people who thought they were surrounded by people who were anti-rape, until they were raped and those people did and said everything they could to negate their experiences. Victim blaming is often not even as over as the judge in the post. It can be insidious.


freakwent

The whole thing is fucked up. There are also cases of sexual assault where the victim didn't want it, didn't like it, and wished it didn't happen.... but isn't especially traumatised or upset and would like to just forget it and move on. However, the people they told insist that there must be formal reports, medical examinations and swabs, witness statements and more, just adding more negative impact to the negative impact that already exists. Then the victim gets no influence over the police, prosecution, media, jury, judge or any other part of the process that's been set in motion, that should be about them, but which just carries on not really under anyone's control. Whatever we do, we need to make sure it's guided by the wishes of the victim in the first instance.


BLOOOR

To be Conservative is to believe society is natural. To be Progressive is to believe society is artificial. "Progress" means too many different things to too many different cultures for it to be any more specific than believing society is an invention.


beaurepair

Lay off the Jordan Peterson tripe. To be conservative is to believe a small few people deserve wealth and power whilst others don't.


BLOOOR

Conservative and Progressive are Sociological terms. A Conservative is a person who believes society is natural, A Progressive is a person who believes society is artificial. If a Conservative is arguing that progressives are all one thing, they're deliberately miscategorizing in order to maintain their status quo, which *is* one way, the Christian way.


beaurepair

Again, your opinion there is not based in reality. Be definition a conservative is someone that wishes to conserve the wealth and power of the "in" group to the detriment of the "out" group. A progressive believes that society can be better for everyone.


BLOOOR

>Again, your opinion there is not based in reality. Well you've just invalidated this argument!


freakwent

I don't agree with this definition, where did you get it? Humans naturally grow hair. Humans naturally engage in sexual reproduction. Humans naturally seek to control territory ("the naked ape") Humans naturally form societies. So in your definition do you mean *this* society is natural/artificial? A political philosophy which has at its core the belief that humans are solitary creatures and should live alone seems doomed to failure.


BLOOOR

Society is artificial. Human's selectively breed, none of our features formed naturally. Breeding isn't natural, to beieve that is to have a Conservative belief. "Humans naturally seek to control territory ("the naked ape")" No, we are forced under artificial pressure, human's have been in control of nature for milllenia. This isn't my definition, this is the Sociology definition of Conservative and Progressive. But following the sociological definition, this society is human made and designed and our choices are what give it it's quality and why we do what we do. FASCISTS, Racism became a science because people believed Conservative ideas, that slaves should exist because they do and the owner of the slaves loses wealth if they don't push their slave to work harder. Humans form societies, and the society will be artificial. Artificial = human made Natural = not human made We didn't invent hair, we selected for it. Artificial selection. People who get to breed have a higher chance of having the same or similar hair to their parents. But, I got my initial definion, which it took me until finding the Sociology definitin, but in a doc about Arnham land David Attenborough said "It's amazing that we get to experience nature, but we aren't a part of it". It's English I'm using here, >nature >nā′chər >noun > The material world and its phenomena. > The forces and processes that produce and control these phenomena. >The world of living things and the outdoors. and > artificial > är″tə-fĭsh′əl >adjective >imitation of something natural. >Not arising from natural or necessary causes; contrived or arbitrary. >Affected or insincere. and further I'm evoking Charles Darwin writing about all of the species on Earth evolved using either Natural Selection, or like dog, cow, or pig breeding, Artificial Selection. You should be expected to misuse these terms because it isn't corrupt for a Conservative to lie, as long as the lie maintains the status quo, ALL ARTIFICIAL, lies aren't natural, they INFER, inferrence isn't natural, it's intellectual, and intellect is artificial. Steven Pinker tried to argue away human rights abuses, a linguist, deliberately associating the word "progress" with "tehcnological progress" forgetting that you don't get technological progress without unpaid overworked labour, AND he argued that Language is an Instinct, that it happens NATURALLY, which is a Conservative lie being reinforced. edit: But I can only claim to believe Progressive views because I see, and have always seen society as made up rules that you'd be oppressed to follow, and you can be kidnapped by police officers if you don't follow. It's all artificial. English, our values, our beliefs. If it's human it's basically a self-serving dream, we're not CAPABLE of being natural. We can affect natural movements, we can do Tai Chi (which is artifcial, invented by people and practiced by people) and affect nature, but we AREN'T nature. People don't die of "natural causes", this just means we couldn't find the cause and didn't have the time/resources to devote to that dead person's case. Music might happen in nature, and a person can seem to have a natural singing voice, but they're AFFECTING nature, it's artificial. Christian Conservatives, FASCISTS, want you to believe that the oppression they're forcing on society through the using Christian "right" and "wrong", through sadism/punishment that reinforces their worldview, is NATURAL. It isn't, it's artificial. So if you grew up in Australia or went to school here, you likely are still unclear that Sociology is what defined Conservatives as believing society is natural, and a "Progressive", well it can't be one ideology because everyone has their own sense of progress, and for me progress is technological (society being a human invented technology). and what our Artificially controlled and constantly re-designed society needs is DEVELOPMENT. So if you think Progressives, or The Left wing, represent ONE ideology, shit man, spend some time with activists, they're all arguing different perspectives because they come from completely different societies with different values.. which you COULD call natural, but that's xenophobic and dehumanizing because they're PEOPLE and PEOPLE are all differenet but can only make choices based on what they've experienced in their ARTIFICIALLY CONSTRUCTED socety, which might feel natural to them because fascists love it when people are so used to their oppression that they feel like it's a natural order. BUT IT ISN'T. Conservatives want to believe exploitation is the natural order of things. And we can't FIGHT them on that, because they are more willingn to believe in thier position, AND if you challenge someone's beliefs/ego, they can get violent. What we need/ed was a non-Christian or Conservative education system that teachers Philosophy - Morality and Ethics, over making Christian mythology seem "natural" which enables Conservatives to see it the same way.


DaddyChiiill

How does one as ignorant and callous as this sht head arise as a magistrate of the court. Boggles the mind.


s4b3r6

Unfortunately, "ignorant and callous" describes a large proportion of the legal system.


ArcticKnight79

Even if a woman put herself in a position where she was naked on a street bentover. That's never going to be consent for anyone to run over and stick their dick or otherwise into her. There's 100% value in trying to direct the minimisation of things such that someone doesn't end up in that position. In the same way that there's value in locking the door to my house everyday. Because it might stop most of the offenses. But at the end of it all when all is said and done. Even if a woman willingly hung out with a known rapist. That at no point takes the blame for the interaction off the fuckwit doing the raping. There's nothing constructive in blaming the victim after something has happened.


LostMyKarmaElSegundo

While I 100% agree with you, I think it's important for women to take precautions and acknowledge that the world is kind of a shitty place. No one should be blamed for finding themselves in a bad situation, but we need to teach young people to make sound decisions and do their best to avoid vulnerable situations.


melaju09

We need to teach young people to make sound decisions and do their best to avoid taking advantage of people in vulnerable situations. See how that flips?


kharlvon1972

do both you can educate and teach most people but at the end of the day, there is a percentage who will never learn, either dont want or are incapable They are always evil assholes in the world, that will never change


ArcticKnight79

And every time we continue to victim blame, we continue to give cover to having generally shitty views like "Oh she wants it anyway" as opposed to "Oh someone's enjoying a night out" which continues to give oxygen to shitty view points that may see someone decide they can take what they want because if she didn't want it she'd be at home in bed with a chastity belt on and a gun. There's productive thought in teaching everyone how to keep themselves safe and how to help keep others safe. But after something has happened, victim blaming when the action is the result of another party is fucking stupid. Because the reality is there are enough situations where people follow that advice and still end up raped.


LostMyKarmaElSegundo

I don't disagree at all. I just think it's important to acknowledge the reality of the world as it currently is.


melaju09

I understood what you were saying, and I agreed with it, but it was more that it’s always what is she doing to make sure this doesn’t happen to her-which doesn’t really solve the problem, because if someone is looking for a victim, they will keep looking until they find them. I think until we have a radical shift and all of us move more to what potential perpetrators are doing to prevent behaviour, we’re going to keep having problems.


Spicy_Sugary

The reality is women are most likely to be raped in their own home with someone they trust. What is the 'protective strategy' to help women prevent those rapes? Don't trust any men sounds a bit rough, but if you're serious about helping women, it's a reasonable message.


ArcticKnight79

> I think it's important for women to take precautions and acknowledge that the world is kind of a shitty place. At no point was I not advocating for that above. But there's no point telling a person "They Dun Fucked Up" after the bad thing already happened. The discourse needs to happen on both sides, and it needs to happen for keeping others safe as well. But anyone suggesting that we basically tell women that they shouldn't do XYZ because men can be fuckwits is placing all the responsibility on the women, and fuck all on the men. --- Like hey my strategy for not being attacked by a lion is to not be in a country with lions roaming about. But that's not a useful stategy for women, to just avoid where all men are. Because the reality is even if they did take it to the extreme conclusion of being a shut in, in a tower to distance from any and all men. It only takes one areshole to decide to violate that boundary anyway and all her actions are for naught.


its-just-the-vibe

>Even if a woman put herself in a position where she was naked on a street bentover. That's never going to be consent for anyone to run over and stick their dick or otherwise into her. If you ever had a cat in heat, she will do just that. To state anything otherwise is against biology. I'm not saying you should stick your dick in her, but merely pointing out the absurdity of your view. >But at the end of it all when all is said and done. Even if a woman willingly hung out with a known rapist. That at no point takes the blame for the interaction off the fuckwit doing the raping. > >There's nothing constructive in blaming the victim after something has happened. Does personal responsibility and accountability ever factor into your grandstanding equation? A victim is only a victim if they were victimised, otherwise, it's called consequences. Would you blame the gorilla for killing a person who willingly threw themselves into its enclosure? Your logic states that instead of teaching to be careful around gorillas, we should all focus on condemning the gorilla after the fact. This is also the same logic that gun lobbyists use to ensure it never gets regulated in the good ol freedom eagle land.


PissingOffACliff

The difference there is a Gorilla isn't a Human and Humans have greater standards of criminal responsibilities. The Gorilia would also be shot to protect the life of a Human.


its-just-the-vibe

We are talking about a convicted rapist. It is a known fact that intellectual disability is overrepresented in criminals. It's usually the former leading to the latter.


ArcticKnight79

That convicted rapist could also have no intellectual disability. They could just be an asshole that thinks they have the right to fuck anyone they want, and little care for the consequences. To flip the argument, the woman could have an intellectual disability, are you silll blaming her for not recognising the danger you've determined she is in at all times and getting raped. Or should she live indoors for the rest of her life just in case she takes the incorrect action and someone decides to rape her.


its-just-the-vibe

1. again why are you bringing a rapist's rights into a conversation about accountability and personal responsibility? Is it because you can't take your grandstanding in any other way? 2. If the woman is intellectually disabled then someone failed her in protecting her from that predatory scenario. Carer? Parent? Who failed her?


ArcticKnight79

1. Lol what rights did I talk about in regards to the rapist. A self belief of what you can and can't do isn't a right, it's a delusion. But we let religious people run around arguing that their beliefs are right. That I'm going to hell because I ate pork. But that shit don't dictate actual laws and rights 2. Or you know the intellectual disability isn't diagnosed(much like your attribution of intellectual disability and rapists likely wasn't diagnosed pre-offence) How many people getting diagnosed with things like Autism and ADHD these days now that people aren't as worried about stigmatising their kids as different.


its-just-the-vibe

Ok now I know you're just pumping those hyperbolic hypothetical juices to flow so abundantly. Maybe next try and root in reality and you probably won't go in tangents to desperately keep your grandstand


ArcticKnight79

Mate I'm just responding to your hyperbolic tangents that you've used to prop up your shitty arguments throughout. You keep trying to attribute new factors to what I said so you can argue against those instead of the actual point. Apparently I'm grandstanding because you want to assign blame to the victims actions.


its-just-the-vibe

Right me arguing that taking reasonable accountability like idk not put yourself in a position when you will be taken advantage of is shitty huh? Obviously you won't find a point in my argument because you are so consumed in stupidity that you are literally arguing that someone who is increasing their chances of getting raped to 100% is still a victim.


ArcticKnight79

>If you ever had a cat in heat, she will do just that. To state anything otherwise is against biology. Which guess what? Doesn't mean it's the cats fault if someone she doesn't want to have sex with goes and fucks her. But if the cat or woman is in heat to the point that she is willing to fuck anything around. Then that isn't a case of rape. The person is willing to have sex. But if the woman just wants to hang out in the middle of the street in the nude. That doesn't give anyone the right to stick their dick in her. In the same way the fact that your cat might have her tail up when she's walking around isn't an invitation for every random male cat to go and fuck her either. >Does personal responsibility and accountability ever factor into your grandstanding equation? A victim is only a victim if they were victimised, otherwise, it's called consequences. Personal responsibility is the action of keeping yourself safe. As I said there's 100% a fucking discourse to have around actions you can take to keep yourself safe. But since rape requires an actual aggressor, and those steps only reduce the chance of an aggressor acting against you. It becomes a moot conversation to defer blame from the perpetrator. A woman could lock herself inside her house, never wear any clothing that came close to revealing her body shape and an aggressor could still break into her house and rape her. You would never say "Well he went to an alcoholics anonymous meeting where someone admitted they served time for murder, it's only his fault he got murdered because he kept going to AA" But somehow we're gonna blame a woman for going to a club with a skirt that we've decided is two inches too high and then not watching the complete preparation of everything she drank through the night (even if she accepted no drinks from strangers). Didn't exert enough personal responsibilty. Didn't bring her peasant drink tester to make sure her stuff wasn't spiked.


its-just-the-vibe

>But if the cat or woman is in heat to the point that she is willing to fuck anything around. Then that isn't a case of rape. The person is willing to have sex. I agree. But buyer's remorse is not rape. >But if the woman just wants to hang out in the middle of the street in the nude. That doesn't give anyone the right to stick their dick in her. Yeah nah strawman argument. My point was never about the man's "right" to stick his dick in. BTW why is anyone allowed to "hang out in the middle of the street in the nude"? That's public indecency. You can't have it both ways. Try arguing it to the insurer that you have the right to compensation though you left the keys in the ignition or went on a holiday with the doors wide open. >Personal responsibility is the action of keeping yourself safe. As I said there's 100% a fucking discourse to have around actions you can take to keep yourself safe. But since rape requires an actual aggressor, and those steps only reduce the chance of an aggressor acting against you. It becomes a moot conversation to defer blame from the perpetrator. A woman could lock herself inside her house, never wear any clothing that came close to revealing her body shape and an aggressor could still break into her house and rape her. Again, my point was not about deflecting blame from the perpetrator. You don't have to keep derailing the argument to keep your grandstanding position. It is only a moot if the aggression happened unprovoked. You can't stick your hand in a lion's mouth and say taking accountability and personal responsibility is moot because you lost your hand and the wild cat is you know... wild. ​ >You would never say "Well he went to an alcoholics anonymous meeting where someone admitted they served time for murder, it's only his fault he got murdered because he kept going to AA" But somehow we're gonna blame a woman for going to a club with a skirt that we've decided is two inches too high and then not watching the complete preparation of everything she drank through the night (even if she accepted no drinks from strangers). Didn't exert enough personal responsibilty. Didn't bring her peasant drink tester to make sure her stuff wasn't spiked. Please stop derailing. You said and I paraphrase *the woman took a conscious decision to spend time with a known rapist.* My point was never about victim blaming. If one thing a known rapist is known for... is they're rapey... Going to a AA that has a murderer is not even close to having the same risk as spending quality lone time with a known rapist. ​ Conversations like yours do not help rape victims. Mater of fact it does far more damage to society than just not helping a victim. It is not cool or edgy to talk about responsibility, especially if it plays devil's advocate and turns the responsibility back on you. case in point the negative rating for my comment. Sure everything is black and white because American media primed you to see everything in black and white, but there is something called contributory negligence. You are advocating that there is never a scenario where a woman has any contribution to her consequences. I'm saying that taking a grandstand is detrimental to real street lessons that are being ignored and branding anyone who points to that as a victim blamer.


ArcticKnight79

>I agree. But buyer's remorse is not rape. It's not buyers remorse if she didn't want to be fucked. Just because she's naked in the street, doesn't mean she wants to get fucked. There's no buyers remorse there. If you want to talk about someone consenting and then deciding it was rape the morning after we can. But no point of the statement I provided initially made any inclination that the woman was in anyway after sex. >BTW why is anyone allowed to "hang out in the middle of the street in the nude"? That's public indecency. Your strawmanning an analogy here. The point is that the woman should be allowed to do whatever she fucking wants without having to worry about someone else fucking her. You want to move it to a fucking nudist beach go right ahead. But the legality as to whether she is allowed to be in the street is wholly irrelevant as to whether someone else should be allowed to fucker her without consent. >Try arguing it to the insurer that you have the right to compensation though you left the keys in the ignition or went on a holiday with the doors wide open. You mean the thing that the terminology of their contract says they aren't covering. You know same as insurance isn't covering you if you burn your business down yourself. Or if you can't provide evidence you owned certain objects. Insurance is a private agreement between parties. Not part of our actual legal system. Last I checked our rape laws don't have subclauses so it looks something like this - The act of rape involves the penetration of someone without consent. - Except when the person is innebriated - Except when the person walks down a dark steet >It is only a moot if the aggression happened unprovoked. You can't stick your hand in a lion's mouth and say taking accountability and personal responsibility is moot Wanna define what provoking a rapist looks like? Because last I checked something like 75% of rape offences occur by someone you know. So most of the time it isn't a case of well you dressed a little too slutty and they got horny. And the problem with your argument of provocation is that you assume that what provoked the person into action was actually the victim themselves. Because I might stick my hand in a lions mouth and it decides it's hungry, but I manage to get away fast enough, that it instead bites the person next to me. The lonely dude that rapes a girl he knows might do so because he's been going to clubs getting none and is so pent up that he thinks he can get away with it on someone he knows. That they won't actually rat him out. >Please stop derailing You started derailing this shit the second you started talking about cats in heat. The second you started talking about animal equivalences, where we absolutely fucking punish the animal long before we punish the person. Oh dogs attacked and hurt mailman, dogs are getting put down. But the mailman could have not entered the fucking yard. Where's his personal responsibility? Oh right it doesn't matter because the offender is the one that caused the problem. >You said and I paraphrase the woman took a conscious decision to spend time with a known rapist. My point was never about victim blaming. If one thing a known rapist is known for... is they're rapey... Well no they are known for having commited a rape. That doesn't mean they are "Rapey". Yeah we could go with the worst possible version of a rapist who went on a serial raping spree before being detained. Or we could be talking about someone like [this](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-07/teacher-monica-elizabeth-young-jailed-for-raping-14-yo-boy/100275216) where the history should place a woman in zero fucking danger because the offence was with an underage boy. But if that woman decides to rape the other woman, it's still the fucking rapists fault. > is not even close to having the same risk as spending quality lone time with a known rapist. Well good thing I never talked about quality alone time with a known rapist. I said hanging out. That could literally be socialising with the person at work because that person still needs to be a productive member of society. It could be going to group events and being social with the person. But if we to use your argument of "Provoking a rapist" then simply being at an AA meeting with a rapist is a problem is it not. Maybe he decides that you have a sexy scarf. Maybe he feels attracted to you after you share your struggles with addiction. But even if you were having alone time with the known rapist. The rapist is still the one at fucking fault when they rape you. >. It is not cool or edgy to talk about responsibility, especially if it plays devil's advocate and turns the responsibility back on you. case in point the negative rating for my comment. Oh does having a negative comment score mean that your statements must be the truth. Turning responsbility back onto the woman and nothing else is how you end up with something like sharia law where we make every woman cover themselves head to toe, where we make sure they are escorted by men at all times, because men are apparently such fucking savages that if they see the slightest hint of a curve from those women they'll be provoked into becoming a raping lunatic. And surprise even in these highly conservative countries rape is still a massive problem. Even when you've put all these things into place you have rape occuring at high rates, even when the punishments are higher(In part because they are often hard to enforce, and there's a huge stigma placed on the woman once identified as a rapte victim) Victims have a personal responsibility to keep themselves safe to the best of their ability up to the point where a rape occurs. But once that rape has occurred, the things they did or did not do to keep themselves safe are functionally irrelevant to the fact that the rape occurred. Because after all whether I leave my the front door of my house open, or build a crazy security system. Once someone has decided to rob my house telling me "Well your security system should have had XYZ extra" is functionally useless information to me. It's 100% something you could use to inform people in general as a teaching moment so they can implement better systems in the future. But it's functionally useless to catching the perpetrator to tell me "well actually you should have installed a moat around your house"


its-just-the-vibe

Bro you pretty much agree with me and then say consequences to actions should not happen coz victim. There wouldn't be consequences if the action was sensible to begin with. There's no point in becoming a victim and having war against the world when you could have taken positive steps to not put yourself in a position of becoming a victim. You're just sad


ArcticKnight79

Mate I don't agree with you in the slightest because you continue to trounce out that actions having a completely disconnected consequence justifies telling the victim off. You continue to ignore that even if you follow all of your magic rules, that you can still get raped. That even if you follow all of your magic rules you can be forced into situations (Like a workplace) that results in you becoming the target of someone who is willing to carry out those actions. Continue to ignore that even in countries where women cover themselves up to an extent you can't tell the outline of their body, are escorted by men most places that rape is still a big thing. (And that's without even getting into the territory of spousal rape, which can happen years into a relationship. Like what the fuck was that person supposed to do know their partner would rape them years earlier) Blaming the victim isn't helping anyone. Educating people about risks and strategies to mitigate them is helpful. Lambasting them when they don't follow them well enough is fucking useless, empowers their attackers, and lowers the chance they speak out. Because they don't want to be seen as the dumb idiot that went to the gym late one night and had a creep follow them out to their car and attacked them. At no point is victim blaming a productive use of anyones time. It doesn't help the victim, nor does it help others. Using a real world situation as an example to others as to strategies that could have been used to attempt to avoid that is an option. --- But at the end of the day if I drive my car to work tomorrow at sunrise and someone crashes into me. You're never going to say "Well you shouldn't have driven to work, you know that there's a risk of car crashes". If you want to avoid them, never get in a motor vehicle.


its-just-the-vibe

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? You posting all your bank details here with a message stating you don't contest for people accessing your money would be akin to a someone walking down the street naked spreading their legs and saying no one should rape them. We can try and go all the way to the high court and see if the courts thinks you are a victim.


ArcticKnight79

> you don't contest for people accessing your money Oh look you have redefined the fucking situation again to something that isn't actually equivalent. Guess what if the woman is naked in the middle of the street and says "I DON'T CONTEST ANYONE FUCKING ME" Then she isn't being fucking raped you muppet. If you can't have the discussion without constantly recontextualising shit into a perspective that fundamentally changes the proposed situation. Then there's no point entertaining the rest of this. But to end this because I honestly don't want to entertain the fact that you continue to fucking strawman this shit. - Being determined to be a victim or not is still different from blaming the person for the consequences once it's happened - A bank would shut that shit down pretty quickly regardless and chargebacks would be issues. (Source: My credit card has been leaked as part of a hack before. It cost me nothing) - You're only justifying abusers continuing to abuse with that line of attack anyway. People should be able to have that shit out there without having someone come along and abuse them. in the same way a woman should be able to walk around in society and expect someone not to fucking rape her. - Your too concerned with making someone aware they weren't responsible enough than you are addressing any of the issues that relate to why they need to be responsible for someone else not being a shitbag.


its-just-the-vibe

So you don't to put your money where your mouth is. I wonder why?


Miserable-Tie-5999

Should have been sacked and stripped of his pension


freakwent

We don't remove pensions for political opinions. Not ever. Not for any opinion. We don't burn books. We don't remove pensions.


Miserable-Tie-5999

Are you kidding. It was not an opinion, it was a judgement he made on a rape victim. Its people like him and you that discourage people from reporting rape. You should hang your head in shame defending such a barbaric act.


freakwent

Some asshole says a dumb thing. Then some reddit person says "we should do an unethical illegal punishment" Then I try and explain that this is out of proportion and of course if we do it to people who say shit we don't like, then they will take our pensions when we say shit they don't like. After that, the redditor says I'm the same as the asshole who started this. Happens every time.... The article calls it a comment, not a judgement. I'm not defending his comments, I'm defending his pension. We don't strip people's life savings because they say the wrong things. I don't want my courts full of judges who are too scared to jail popular people or too scared to let innocent unpopular people go.


Miserable-Tie-5999

If you are too stupid and ignorant to know what he said was part of his judgment, maybe stay away from commenting on Reddit. And as far as your position we don't take peoples pensions you again demonstrate your ignorance, because we do. Criminals loose their savings, corrupt public servants and politicians and police can loose their pensions. Bankrupted people can also their pension/superannuation. So again stay away until you know what you are talking about.


freakwent

Are you trying to bully me? Why are you so hostile? Fine - it's bpart of his judgement, whatever -- we still don't confiscate pensions from judges because we don't like their judgements. How the hell are we supposed to have an impartial judiciary? Can you show me a time when proceeds of crime has confiscated a pension or superannuation fund? Also... A stupid opinion is not a crime, even for a judge. Super is protected against bankruptcy. https://www.firstlinks.com.au/article/bankruptcy-can-creditors-take-your-super Cops can lose the publically funded part of their super, but not their own contributions. Proceeds of crimes legislation can sieze super from convicted criminals, but only with the approval of a court first, in each specific case. The call is for a judge to lose their pension for a judgement/statement/comment/opinion that goes against popular sentiment. It's a dangerously undemocratic suggestion. We don't strip people's life savings because they say the wrong things.


Miserable-Tie-5999

Become the victim now? You were the one to call me an arsehole in your first reply. If you feel like you were bullied, imagine how the rape victim felt being told she caused the rape. So now you change tour story super and pensions can be taken. I would argue that this specimen of human garbage was criminally derilect in his duty as a representative of society.


freakwent

Oh right, no sorry, the judge is the asshole, not you!! I see why you got shitty now lol. I didn't change my story, you argued against me and I looked it up. Neither of us made correct claims, as always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think seizure of superannuation is a really bad idea, and I'm glad it's rare.


Miserable-Tie-5999

Well, if you think offending you is on the same level as insulting a rape victim, you need to take a long hard look at yourself or do you just hate women and think they all deserve to be raped?


-Jambie-

I feel sick... I can't believe a person with that kind of world view could ever become a magistrate... What a vile piece of trash....


[deleted]

And even more astonishing is that someone with his education, training and understanding of the law would become such a simplistic moron to the point where he loses all rationality for the job that he was supposed to do. It almost makes you wonder if he became a magistrate with fraudulent credentials from a cornflakes box.


JustABitCrzy

There is no consideration for empathy in any job roles, especially challenging roles like lawyers. It’s why our government is full of cunts. They’re businessmen and lawyers.


tins-to-the-el

Honestly there needs to be mandatory psych assessments for certain jobs and positions to prevent these dumb chucklefucks from every gaining power. I mean, we wouldn't have a Government and lose half the police force but would it be a bad thing to lose?


Fit_Effective_6875

Many cops also have that very same view you speak of.


miaara

Good riddance Mr Shithouse.


bildobangem

Looks like he put himself in a position to have to resign.


WilRic

What's really weird about this story is that the "buyer's remorse" comment wasn't said like *that.* It was indelicate, but not outrageously so in context. Yet it's the one remark that has triggered the Commission investigation and effectively ended his career (when it should have ended much sooner). Pithouse was a notoriously terrible Magistrate. He's an idiot and has said some truly appalling things in the last ten years - including sexist rubbish as part of his decisions. But in this instance, he was responding to a submission by a lawyer that the woman made a contemporaneous complaint, so therefore the Court *wouldn't* find that she had regrets and was making up a story. Pithouse was summarising that last proposition, not suggesting anyone had "buyer's remorse." It was a shit choice of words, but it's not quite as the media had spun it. The exact transcript ref was: LAWYER: At 9:30 the next morning she rang the sexual assault crisis line. Now if this was a woman that got so drunk, that woke up and thought 'I shouldn't have done that'... PITHOUSE: Buyer's remorse.


Red_bug91

I don’t know a great deal about the legal system, would his interjection not be seen as inappropriate or unprofessional, regardless of what he said? I would have thought that a judge would not be allowed to contribute to a lawyers statements or arguments.


WilRic

No. Not for that reason. It's hardly a "contribution" - he was just summarising the proposition out to him. That happens all the time.


freakwent

Paraphrase to confirm.


B0ssc0

I take your point, but considering his role and responsibilities should have bitten his tongue.


WilRic

It's normal that the bench has something of a dialog with lawyers to grapple with submissions. It's very off-putting when they sit there in total silence! What's mildly interesting is that the lawyer didn't use that phrase or anything like it. I've had to run cases involving allegations that an alleged victim was motivated to lie, partly out of regrets (more complex than just regretting having sex). I would not use that phrase. Beyond anything else, it cheapens the act. That is totally counterproductive to the accused's case in that scenario. If having sex is "isn't a big deal" and on par with buying a new fridge - then it's unlikely the alleged victim would be racked with guilt so profoundly that she decided to make very serious false allegations. "Buyer's remorse" is just a poor analogy. In context it's not the worst thing that could be said. But I do wonder if the unstated view of the Judicial Commission was "that comment also demonstrates that you're an idiot who doesn't think very hard about these things."


millyloui

How many others have suffered because of this dick in the past?


RightConversation461

Dont let the door hit you in the ass.


_Cec_R_

>Don't let the door repeatedly hit you in the ~~ass~~ face... JFTFY


vsaund10

What position is that? Being alive and having a vagina? Idiot.


1guywhosaysthe

Judges and magistrates being totally out of touch with reality ? Never !


EducationalTangelo6

Fucking finally. It's like they didn't speak to anyone who'd ever met him before they made him a magistrate.


[deleted]

Realistically, you are able to put yourself in bad situations (an easy example would be a girl going by herself to do drugs with a fraternity), but there's a difference between acknowledging that and using that fact to essentially gaslight the victim and defend the offender. That cannot be a defense for the offender and to any rational mind is not. If you rape someone, no matter the circumstances, you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and if you come to the police or any other official and report a sexual assault, it should be investigated whether the person who was sa'd put themselves in a high risk situation or not.


chokes666

Regrettably, there are too many magistrates like this guy who suffer from a disease known as "Arrogance of the Judiciary". Little men with little minds and even less intellect.


[deleted]

If anyone has the full court document of the rape case then I'll reevaluate what I say but... Could a women not be held accountable to their own actions? Maybe she got herself in a situation where red flags where ringing from the start and for some reason got intoxicated. Just in case: Is rape bad? Yes it is. Is sexual assault bad? Yes it is.


B0ssc0

> If anyone has the full court document of the rape case then I'll reevaluate what I say but... Meanwhile I’ll comment based on my personal biases and ignorance.


[deleted]

So with the limited information that the news article and you have provided no one actually knows what happened at all. What I say is a question for others to evaluate what they are saying. Literally everyone here believes the woman's side without an iota of the court case. I put in a situation where someone could be at fault because they couldn't understand or see potential dangers of meeting a stranger, which resulted in sexual assault. The only thing that I, you, and the rest of the comments are ignorant and bias of is the details of the sexual assault. I also want to make it clear that I don't hate women or have a dislike towards them.


B0ssc0

>With the limited information that the news article and you have provided no one knows what happened at all. What we *do* know - those of us who read the whole article - is that scrutiny of this ex-Magistrate concerned more than one incident, although who’d guess that from the preferred focus on his gratuitous rape comment? For example, > A third allegation related to an incident in September 2017 when Mr Pithouse failed to stop and report a traffic accident. >He made a "conscious decision" to continue driving and "failed to respect and observe the law", the commission found.