All Episodes
Previous Next
July 10, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
14:05
The Feminist Inquisition
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's amazing that we just can't seem to clean the shitstain of feminism from the underwear of Western society.
In an attempted move that I can only liken to the return to witch trials, New Zealand is now leading the charge back into the Dark Ages by setting up an inquisitorial system of justice under the proposals.
What they are suggesting is that if someone says you raped them, you will have to prove that you did not rape them.
They will not have to prove that you raped them.
If you cannot prove that you did not rape them, then you are guilty.
Which is, for all intents and purposes, a fucking witch trial.
The article begins.
The Labour Party's plan to destroy Western civilisation would mean that the accused in a rape case would have to prove consent to be found innocent.
A change it acknowledges as a monumental shift.
Yes, a monumental shift into absurdity.
How are you going to prove consent?
Consent is not something that leaves evidence.
Consent is in someone's head.
They agreed to it.
Oh, are you sure they agreed to it?
Well, they said they agreed to it.
We had sex.
How do I prove that?
How do you prove that?
But Labour's chief maniac, Andrew Little said that the current system is broken and in need of a major shake-up because Andrew Little is tired of witches getting away with their black magic.
He says the party favours an inquisitorial system where a judge interviewed the alleged victim after conferring with the prosecution and defence lawyers.
I think it's worth noting that an inquisitorial system does not mean an inquisition.
For example, the French legal system is an inquisitorial system.
It's a legal system where, quote, the court or part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of a case, as opposed to the adversarial system, which we use in the English-speaking world, where the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between prosecution and defence.
Why is this important?
Well, an inquisitorial system ultimately directly implies the absolute power of the state in making the decision between truth and falsehood.
The best an inquisitorial system can do is to have an utterly impartial and unbiased inquisitor who investigates the situation, fairly presents all the evidence available to all parties, and then makes a sound judgment on that.
That's the best it can do.
At worst, it will absolutely oppress a certain section of society.
For example, if you were to have an inquisitorial system in, say, I don't know, 1800s America, black people would be victimised by it.
There is no way that the inquisitor is going to spend the white inquisitor is going to spend a lot of time investigating the facts of the matter from the black side of the the argument, whereas from the white side of the argument, they're going to have a lot of evidence, and that's what they're going to present.
Therefore, justice is not going to be done.
In England and in the Anglo-Swiss societies, what we have is the adversarial system, which allows both sides of the argument to present their cases as well as they can be presented, with all the information they have.
Now, I'm no legal expert, but that just seems in principle a much better system to provide a more substantive case for a just verdict.
Even if the court is biased and rules in favour of one side despite evidence that would suggest that they shouldn't, that is exposed.
That's the difference.
That decision itself is an indictment of the court and the justice it can provide.
However, in an inquisitorial system, if these things are not brought to light in the first place, no one will know that the court was corrupt.
Anyway, the lunacy continues with, The policy would mean that in a rape case, if the Crown proved a sexual encounter in the identity of the defendant, it would be rape unless the defendant could prove something that leaves no evidence.
The crown has to prove more than just sex.
The issue of consent has to be raised by the crown, and then they have to prove the identity of the offender.
They would have to bear that burden of proof before a switch to the defence to prove consent, Mr. Little said.
That is fucking stupid.
There is no good reason to presume the guilt of every single man on earth when he has sex with his wife.
There is no reason.
The only reason is feminist hysterical paranoia.
He said the issue of proof would only apply where allegations of rape had been raised.
And I'm sure they will remain at an all-time low.
It is pretty radical to say that all sex is rape unless you prove consent.
The reality is that in 99.9% of the cases, no one is being asked to prove consent.
But they will be asked in 0.1%, and there will be no possible fucking way for them to do so.
Despite the fact that I think you're going to see accusations of rape go through the roof, it doesn't matter.
Because you are still saying that all sex is rape.
Because if they've not been asked to prove consent, that just means it's assumed that it was rape.
You fucking sick idiots.
Why is this even being entertained?
Why aren't these people being laughed out of the fucking room?
The Law Society has a strong stance on traditional principles of the legal system, including a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
It has argued strongly against inquisitorial systems in the past.
What is causing them to compromise their own moral code, their own beliefs and principles?
Mr. Little said the inquisitorial system still preserved those principles because the Crown would have to prove a number of aspects of a case before consent was explored.
The doublethink occurs.
Wherever feminism goes, doublethink goes with it.
I don't accept that it is creating an offence under which the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.
Oh, don't you?
He acknowledged the change would be a huge leap.
A huge leap to a system where creating offence the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.
When you look at the volume of sexual violence cases and the 1% of cases that result in a conviction, there is something wrong with the way we are handling sexual violation cases.
How do you know that?
Why can't you specify what the thing we are doing wrong is?
You can't be sure, otherwise you would be convicting more than 1%.
But he goes on to say that the circumstances may well justify doing something radically different.
Like implementing a fundamentally injusticed number of convictions.
Because for some reason, the number of convictions is what's important, not the actual facts of each case as individual cases.
So in such a system, a victim would not be cross-examined by a defence lawyer.
A defendant is entitled to have evidence tested, but rather than face a defence counsel, which can be humiliating, a more controlled way is for the judge to conduct the examination, with counsel conferring with the judge beforehand.
Oh, is it?
With them failing to understand that the controlled way is the problem.
That way, a complainant can be assured that the judge isn't there to do the best for one side or another, but there to get the information.
That doesn't assure that at all.
If everyone there is a feminist, you aren't going to get a non-feminist perspective, are you?
And if the defence is a non-feminist perspective, then they are fucked.
He clarified that Labour favoured the system, but its official policy to have the Law Commission complete its report into Inquisitorial Systems and then respond to that report.
Former Justice Minister Simon Powell was a supporter of Inquisitorial Systems and asked the Law Commission to investigate.
But his successor, Judith Collins, has called the system a step too far and stopped their work.
Now, you might be thinking, well that's great, at least common sense prevailed.
But I am absolutely certain this is not the last time we will see this issue raised.
I know this because we're about to start seeing feminist political parties.
If a non-feminist party is pursuing a feminist agenda, what is the agenda of these people going to be like?
We are now apparently in a fourth wave of feminism.
And it has turned young people insane.
And now it needs to attack the political establishment.
Fucking hell, I am not a fan of defending the political establishment.
The article goes on to say, My older daughters used to come home from school all grumpy about having to do feminism.
For their homework, they would want me to tick one of the multiple choice boxes explaining my exact kind of feminism.
Was I, they impatiently asked, a radical or socialist or separatist feminist?
Don't be daft, I would say, but homework is homework.
This is crazy!
This is state-sponsored brainwashing!
Explaining that it was never like that just annoyed them.
And I feel much the same when I read about the waves of feminism.
Are we on the fourth wave?
Blah blah blah.
Of course, feminism contains multitudes, bickering multitudes, I concede, of thought, ideas, and activism.
Feminism is always a process, not a finished product.
A system of ideas about gender equality that mutate and regenerate.
Well, yes, that is exactly what feminism is.
But instead of seeing that as a good thing, I would say that that means it's a fucking cancer.
She whitters on about the success of feminism, and then goes on to downplay it by saying, it almost seems like a movement.
Almost.
Oh yeah, almost, yeah, almost thousands of Argentinian women screaming trying to deface a church.
Almost, just almost a movement.
Almost.
Not quite, though.
It's only in government.
It's only in academia.
It's only in the media, but it's only almost a movement.
Harriet Harmon tours the TV studios, explaining how even at the top of politics, she has been dissed and dismissed for being a woman.
Damian McBride, Brown's former advisor, tells us that the PM was not sexist.
But obviously, men don't get to decide who is sexist or not.
Harmon is then also dismissed for narcissism and ambition.
Effectively, Harriet Harmon was dismissed for being Harriet Harmon.
Anyway, could we have a feminist party?
I'm going to guess that they think we can.
Apparently, liberal feminism is always critiqued for being too conciliatory and always compromised.
It certainly feels like that at Westminster.
Oh my goodness, is it being critiqued like that by the radical feminists?
But while the media continues to tell us that recession produces only right-wing parties, in Sweden a feminist party has risen up precisely out of anger about racism, the wage gap and male violence.
It only has one member of the European Parliament, but she is virulently anti-reactionary in taking on Sweden's wronged white men.
Yeah, fuck those wronged white men.
A feminist party flags up the failure of traditional parties to change into feminist parties.
For this fourth wave of feminism crashes against something prosaic.
There is talk of mutiny, insurrection, revolution, and it is glorious!
It's fucking insane!
They're suggesting a left-wing totalitarian government!
But we need to create some new mechanisms of change that sustain themselves.
The idea that recession produces only UKIP types is simply just not true.
You're right, it produces radicals and extremists of any stripe.
The fourth wave is firing imaginations, mine anyway.
I imagine a party where all are welcome, where sparks fly, where the shifts in culture are properly reflected.
Yeah, I'm sure that that's exactly how a feminist party's going to be.
Bring as many plus ones and bottles as you like.
It's time for my big fat feminist party.
I don't think it's necessary to point out your status as land whales.
People can already see that.
I'd like to leave you with this quote from C.S. Lewis Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep.
His cupidity at some point may be sated.
▲
Export Selection