Tuesday, December 7, 2010

When you assume about Assange, you make an ass of you and me

The rape charges against Julian Assange have inspired a massive flareup of pure bushittery on the net, amongst Men's Rights troglodytes and liberal bloggers alike, vilifying the accusers and dismissing their charges as politically motivated revenge schemes. The gist of it all: the charges are false, and it wasn't even real rape, and the women charging him are evil feminist harpies and might be working for the CIA.

And, as Kate Harding points out in a Salon piece that is the best thing anyone has written about any of this so far, all this speculation is based on ... a whole lot of nothing. We don't know the specifics of the accusations, and much of what little we do know of the case comes second-hand from tabloids and other unreliable sources. One thing is clear: the few new details released today indicate that he's being charged with real rape all right, so let's move on from all the indignant and uninformed talk about "sex by surprise." (Feministe has the only really intelligent discussion of the "surprise" issue I've seen.)

Harding sums it up:

The fact is, we just don't know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not.

Public evidence, as The Times noted, is scarce. So, it's heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women.

So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let's suspend our judgment about Assange's guilt or innocence. Liberals want to support Assange because, you know, he's fighting the power and shit. (Even Naomi Wolf has joined the pro-Assange chorus.) But the fact is, sometimes politically admirable people do bad shit to women. Men's Rightsers want to vilify the accusers because the primary accuser is a feminist. But the fact that someone is a feminist doesn't mean that she can't get raped.

The low point of the Men's Rights discussion of the case so far is probably this blog post by ScareCrow, who took a few moments from posting comments here to write up the strangest attack on the accusers yet. ScareCrow first demands that everyone assume that Assange is "innocent until proven guilty," conveniently forgetting that those of us not actually serving on juries are entitled to come to whatever conclusions we want on criminal cases, for whatever reasons we want. (Heck, we're allowed to disagree with jury verdicts: I have no problem calling OJ a murderer, even though he wasn't convicted as one.)

Still, in this case, given that we have no real evidence to weigh, there's no good reason to assume either guilt or innocence at this point.

It's what ScareCrow does next that's telling: after indignantly telling us not to assume Assange's guilt, he spits forth an extended series of vicious "speculations" about the accusers, based on ... what they look like in a couple of photos he's seen of them. Of one accuser, he writes:

This woman reminds me of those women - to whom - everything is a simple "chess game". Move and counter-move - guile and deceit. This type is what I like to call the "quiet" and "not so brainy" type. Smart when she was young perhaps, but upon hitting puberty, blamed her supposed "lack of attraction" on the fact that she was "no so brainy". This lead to a contempt of men. I can see that in her face. A certain bitter frustration that her encounters with men did not proceed according to the "tea parties" she used to imagine as a small child - is what I see written on her face. 

And of the other: 

Ah yes. The look on this woman's face is painful for me. Why? Simple - she looks like many women I have met - who consider themselves to be excessively attractive. Since they believe they are so attractive, they use that "feature" to hurt men. This type of woman was basically the "parasite" I encountered many times in my youth - at clubs, in college, and various other places where young men and women are supposed to "hook-up". When being approached by a man, such women would usually respond with extreme callousness and uncalled for hostility and rudeness. Looking at her face, all I see is malice and hatred of men.

Yep, that's right: she's a dirty man-hating liar because ... she reminds ScareCrow of women who turned him down turned down other dudes (who definitely weren't him) when he was in college. Absurd, to be sure, but not, in the end, all that different from liberal bloggers and Men's Rightsers who, in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case.

Go read the Harding piece.

More on the case from Jezebel and Amanda Marcotte.

EDIT: A new piece on Feministe critiquing Naomi Wolf's idiotic blog post on the case.

61 comments:

  1. Oooh,

    Look at the fish in the barrel.

    DAVID SAID: "So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let's suspend our judgment about Assange's guilt or innocence."

    THEN DAVID SAID: "ScareCrow first demands that everyone assume that Assange is "innocent until proven guilty," conveniently forgetting that those of us not actually serving on juries are entitled to come to whatever conclusions we want on criminal cases, for whatever reasons we want."

    AND THEN DAVID SAID: "Still, in this case, given that we have no real evidence to weigh, there's no good reason to assume either guilt or innocence at this point."

    So even though we're allowed to think whatever we want, David decrees that there's not enough info so don't think whatever we want till there's more info. . .okay. . .

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  2. People are entitled to think what they want -- they're not obliged to impose a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard on themselves -- but in a case like this where we have very little information it makes sense to suspend judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Scarecrow actually thought people were "innocent until proven guilty", he wouldn't go around impugning guilt--of false accusations--to Assange's purported victims based on spurious assessments of their appearance.
    Scarecrow is, of course, allowed to think whatever he wants about all the actors involved, but his analysis can be rightly critised for its inherent prejudices.

    On the other hand, the fundamental problem with Harding et al's analysis is that it's difficult to treat Assange's case as a rape or assault case when the motivations of the authorities in issuing his arrest warrant were clearly elsewhere. Whatever the verdict, either Assange or these women will have been done a real injustice by this approach.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hahaha, Bishopsinsiter.

    "Lists logically consistent statements. Reveals he cannot grasp their consistency. FISH IN A BARREL."

    That post by Scarcrow is disgusting. It is telling that he cannot bestow the women the same courtesy he requests for the man. Instead, he tries them based on their facial expressions, and finds them wanting.

    Scarcrow, can you not see that a facial expression in a press photo is not evidence? Your interpretation of this "evidence" reveals only what is already in your head: hate and mistrust of women.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The most hilarious part of Scarecrow's post to me is the blog sources he cites as if they are credible sources. The-spearhead? Seriously? lmao.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The charges were dropped once after the prosecutor admitted to a lack of evidence, then taken up again. Nothing suspicious there, nope.
    In other news - straight from the mouth of the feminist hog - the Duke students are still suspect for rape because "we weren't there" to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I thank God for the charges against Assange. Now the average lefty can see what "rape culture" theory has brought. The ease by which a couple of women can use machinations to strip a man of his freedom, shame him, have is face plastered all over the world, is revolting. I don't take the woman's word alone - ever. I look at context and character. I a couple of self absorbed groupies trying to get famous. They achieved it. They'll get book deals and money. In my opinion, they should be in prison.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have pointed it out before on this very blog: in Sweden, 99% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction, indicating a disproportionate number of false allegations there. It's pretty obvious to me that the reason for this is because in Sweden they use sex crime charges as a weapon to amplify the reach and power of the government. In this case, it would not surprise me if the U.S. selected Sweden as the jurisdiction that legally would have the best chance of securing a bogus indictment against Assange.

    Source:
    Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice
    Bureau of Justice Statistics
    September 2004, NCJ 200988
    Edited by David P. Farrington, Patrick A. Langan, and Michael Tonry
    http://www.dvstats.org/pdf/rape/farrington-langan-tonry-2004.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  10. John Dias: Just because 99% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction in Sweden, does not indicate a disproportionate number of false allegations. That's just ridiculous to assume. It could just as easily mean that there's not enough evidence, the police force is no good, et cetera.

    -Lexie Di.

    ReplyDelete
  11. LexieDi: 99 percent is an awfully high number of allegations, relative to convictions. Sweden is an advanced western nation with one of the highest living standards in the world; they are not lacking for financial resources. But Sweden is a very ideologically feminist country.

    ReplyDelete
  12. LexieDi said...
    .....It could just as easily mean that there's not enough evidence, the police force is no good, et cetera.


    It could however also mean, the punishment for false rape allegation is ridiculous lenient or even not existing (as it is often the case in Sweden)

    http://www.thelocal.se/24244/20100107/

    At least he was not charged for rape, but only for buying sex. And these 3 women were not charged for their false accusation of rape, and even not charged for theft.

    Great example of feminist justice and their liberated women after 40 year of feminism in Sweden ...

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Okay. That makes no sense. The conviction rate for rape is low in Sweden and then in this round-about way, you blame that on feminism..

    That's ridiculous. If there were OMGCRAZYFEMINISTLAW then the conviction rate would be *fanfare* higher. Only makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  15. LexieDi: The conviction rate for rape is low in Sweden and then in this round-about way, you blame that on feminism..

    I blame feminism for distorting the meaning of 'rape' to harm men. Nowadays nobody knows anymore, what is rape and what not...

    If you say YES, it might mean NO, even if you say YES before, during and after having sex... and you say good bye to the boy and after some weeks you recall your consent out of whatever reason... and this is rape?

    And now about SWEDEN:

    For a man in Sweden, the situation is not that bad I would say if you compare it with USA.

    In Sweden, of course there is almost no punishment for women fabricating false rape allegations as women have to be protected under any circumstances, even criminal women. Regardless their crime.

    Yes, true, however it should be noticed that Sweden is known to be 'relatively fair' to men in return and punishments for 'rape' of any kind are remarkable lenient, maybe the most lenient punishments in the world.

    So-called date-rape is rarely more than a fine.
    He says - she says...

    Swedish law limits jail with 10 years. Even the worst criminals, male or female does not matter, are released after serving a maximum of 10 years.

    Sweden is especially lenient in case of minors, both boys and girls regarding sex. There is no way to accuse a young child for sexual harassment, the minimum age for a crime to be kept responsible is 15 year old. Age of consent is 15.

    This is all in strong contrast with truly man-hateful feminism in USA or UK.

    It is said by foreign men who had a divorce with a Swedish woman while living in Sweden, that divorce laws and the courts are surprisingly fair to foreign men.

    In Sweden no man will be sent to jail for being jobless and unable to pay child-support.

    No young man who is still a minor, will be sentenced to 10 years in jail for oral sex with a 15 year old girl like in USA.

    No boy 8 or 10 year old will be accused for rape and facing a trial with a jury as an adult like in UK.

    And of course for pissing behind a tree in Sweden you need not to be worried to find yourself on the sex offender list.

    Nobody in Sweden will call you a pedophile, because you are 28 and the girl is 17.

    Nobody in Sweden will call you a loser if you prefer a foreign wife, there is no VAWA-IMBRA...

    Compared to the USA/UK for sure EU/Sweden is the better choice for men despite rampant feminism.

    Scandinavian feminism is dominant but all is done in a very gentle soft way towards men.

    About Assange, I think, this is a political case, similar to the Russian arms dealer who was extradicted from Thailand to USA.

    USA wants Mr. Assange behind bars, for reasons we all know.

    Mr. Assange made the mistake to have sex with a woman in a feminist country despite his controversial position.

    Mr. Assange is not known to us to be supportive to the MRM, much more the opposite if you consider his activities regarding AI, but maybe in future he will change his mind.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Sandy

    How is this: "So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let's suspend our judgment about Assange's guilt or innocence."

    And this ". . .conveniently forgetting that those of us not actually serving on juries are entitled to come to whatever conclusions we want on criminal cases, for whatever reasons we want."

    Logically consistent?

    A call to suspend judgement then noting that we can come to whatever conclusion we want which would not be suspending judgement.

    Also kindly note that he later clarified his position.

    Thanks for playing

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  17. @LexDi - Let me help you out since the application of statistics and math are clearly not your forte.
    The mainstream feminist movement advocates that individuals who press rape charges should themselves not be investigated, no matter how suspect those charges are. If a woman were to accuse a man of robbery, murder, or property damage falsely, he would have the option to seek justice within the legal system against her for his losses, both civil and criminal.
    Now, what feminism does is make it easier to press rape charges as against any given man for anything - it could be for not cuddling her afterward. The false accuser herself could know that she wouldn't get anywhere with that case, but then that's not the point. The point is to in some way harm the man, by any means necessary. Because she knows she'll be protected by rape shield laws, she accuses away, the man gets humiliated and harassed after the charges are dropped, and she walks away with a smug sense of satisfaction.
    Hence, you have a country with a 1% conviction rate because of how easy it is to falsely accuse a man of rape.

    I hope I helped clarify things for you. I know logic probably isn't your strong spot, but you can't let feminism do all your thinking for you. By the way, he wasn't arrested for rape. He was arrested for not wearing a condom.
    Stupid feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  18. LexieDi: If there were OMGCRAZYFEMINISTLAW then the conviction rate would be *fanfare* higher. Only makes sense.


    Yes in USA, but not in Sweden.

    Sweden offers still fairness, and while feminism is dominant, its execution is much friendlier and softer towards men than in USA or in UK.

    While Scandinavian women with false rape allegations or any other crimes are getting away with no or ridiculous punishments, men are also subject to remarkable low sentences for crimes, including sex-crimes.

    The maximum sentence in Sweden is 10 years, children will never be subject to a trial up to 15 years old, and minors will never be charged as adults.

    No court in Sweden will sentence a 17 year old boy to 10 years jail for oral sex with a 15 year old girl, and no man will ever be considered to be a sex-criminal for pissing behind a tree like in USA.

    Foreign men facing a divorce with a Scandinavian woman are calling the Swedish courts as surprisingly fair with a clear cut and no way to claim alimony from the ex-husband for the next 40 years like in UK.

    Nobody in Sweden will call you a pedophile if you are 28 and the girl is 17, and nobody will consider your foreign wife as a mail-order-bride calling you a loser. There is no VAWA-IMBRA restricting dating abroad like in the USA.


    Why are conviction rates low? Scandinavian men are not known to be violent and I think, this is also because of missing greedy lawyers and because of open-minded judges who often try to negotiate and to calm down the situation between the accuser and accused in case of 'he says/she says', Alcohol also plays a major role btw..

    Most of these so-called date-rapes are settled with a small fine or suspended sentences of a few months.

    Legal fees are often fixed in Scandinavia/Continental Europe and it is not possible to earn much out of commission for a lawyer in a criminal or family court.

    ----------

    Julian Assange is a very special case and not the typical way Swedish courts and Swedish women are going in general.

    I never heard about a case in Scandinavia where a man was accused for rape, because he was not using a condom while enjoying sex with a consenting woman.

    It is a political case, America wants him to stand trial in the USA for reasons we all know.

    Julian Assange is not known to be friendly towards MRAs. He was very actively supporting feminism within AI (Amnesty International).

    Maybe he will change his mind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Random Brother, I like how you still can't see how their consistent. He clarified for your sake, the rest of us could see it without the clarification.

    The statements are consistent. 1. We are free to judge him by whatever standard we want, we are not limited to beyond a reasonable doubt or held to what the jury decides. 2. We should use that freedom by suspending judgment until we hear all the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ IR: And you accuse ME of not having sttistics and mathematics skills? You have one statistic and giving only one reason for that statistic is STUPID, especially when there are a huge number of potential reasons including the one you give.

    Here, I'll help you. You have one red marble. That red marble sands for false accusation. Then you have, lets say, 20 green marbles and each one is a different possible reason for that statistic. We put all 21 marbles in a bag, shake them up, and without looking, you reach in. What are the chances you'll get the red marble? Well, simply put, it's not likely. In fact, the true reason for that statistic is probably a little bit of all the possible reasons for that statistic, including the one you mention. It only makes sense.

    Also, what you "explained" to me wasn't mathematics and statstics, it as you blabbering on about what you think goes on.

    Trust me, just because I'm a woman and a feminist does not mean I'm dumb.


    @ Yohan: Seriously. You're a funny fellow. I've never heard of an 8 year old boy going to jail for being abused by an adult woman. Could you site that for me? I think you have your cases and informaion seriously mixed up.

    You see, I'm not saying the legal system is fair when it comes to men and women. It certainly is not (at leat partially due to patriarchal beliefs that women are weak and innocent and don't do bad things, when they clearly do).

    Also, false accusation is a crime... at least in America, for men and women.

    I'm not saying that false accusations relating to rape don't happen. They do, of corse, but I have a hard time believing that 99% of rape cases in Sweden are false.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here's what I wrote:

    "I have pointed it out before on this very blog: in Sweden, 99% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction, indicating a DISPROPORTIONATE number of false allegations there."

    @LexieDi:

    "In fact, the true reason for that statistic is probably a little bit of all the possible reasons for that statistic, including the one [false allegations] you mention. It only makes sense."

    Thank you, LexieDi; your concession has been noted.

    ReplyDelete
  22. IR, to clarify, Julian Assange has four charges against him; one of which (having sex with a sleeping woman) falls under the definition of rape under most jurisdictions. The others might more properly be defined as sexual assault. The charges are listed here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLBCkkC5l0NVV0gEYkAA04x83Wrg?docId=B32488671291733403A00

    Also, an understanding of mathematics doesn't help much with understanding the low conviction rate for rape, but a knowledge of the law does. While IR suggests that laws encourages false allegations to promote the feminist agenda, the fact is that rape is an extremely difficult crime to prosecute by its nature. In all cases of irreconcilable testimony (not just rape cases), the legal system always favours the defendant. To clarify: in cases of he-said/she said, there will always be reasonable doubt, and where reasonable doubt exists, juries are instructed to acquit. (N.B. Legally, this decision is not equivalent to declaring the plaintiff's testimony false; only that there is not enough evidence to convict). This explains why in most western countries with comparable legal systems, rape conviction rates are extraordinarily low, and implies nothing whatsoever about false accusation rates in those countries. For this reason alone, it seems probable that Assange will be acquitted of his present charges.

    As to false accusation itself, it inevitable occurs and as LexieDi points out, it's a crime. A number of high profile cases recently in the UK (where I live) have brought the issue to light with increasingly severe penalties awarded to false accusers. I can't speak to other countries, but there's a motion here not to remove the rape shield law, but to extend anonymity to defendants as well as plaintiffs. Given the potentially vulnerable position of both parties, this would be the solution I would favour. It's a moot point in this case as the identity of Assange's accusers have already been revealed--which invalidates any suggestion that they might put forward a false accusation with impunity.

    ReplyDelete
  23. OK, funny enough.

    "she reminds ScareCrow of women who turned him down when he was in college"

    Read it again.

    "When being approached by a man, such women would usually respond with extreme callousness and uncalled for hostility and rudeness"

    I am talking about those women who would "stop the music" by suddenly making a scene by shouting at some poor fool who approached them - not me specifically. I witnessed spectacles like this many times in such clubs and whatnot.

    This is interesting too:

    I am assuming their guilt of lying about rape?

    Very telling indeed.

    Those two women are not accused of any crimes.

    Julian Assange is.

    Therefore, it is Julian Assange that must be thought of as innocent until proven guilty.

    The two women who are NOT charged with a crime:
    I can think anything I want to about them.

    Furthermore, if you read the next article I wrote - on DEC 7th - you'd see that what constitutes "rape" in Sweden is a total joke.

    And - you are right - you can disagree with any juries decision you want to.

    However, as an American, I think that when somebody is ACCUSED of a crime, they should be thought of as being INNOCENT.

    The two women are NOT accused of a crime.

    Julian Assange is.

    Dang, you really aren't too bright eh?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Here is a good article about one of the accusers:

    http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/

    Also, did you know that the rape charges were actually filed, and dropped - the re-filed?

    Here is a link to a Glenn Beck Video.

    http://www.youtube.com/v/WQUYfSo1i2E

    P.S. What I wrote about those two women was "pure speculation" - I clearly mention that in the post. Try READING it - and NOT taking anything out of context.

    At the end of the post I say, "Could I be wrong? Of course".

    As I said - PURE SPECULATION.

    So - you are ENTITLED to think of OJ as murdering his wife - even though you are completely ignorant of what got brought up during the trial (projecting your own issues onto the case? You are a murderer? - Do you remember saying that in your post? - here is the quote, "...in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case").

    I however, am not entitled to "SPECULATE" about two women who have accused, dropped, then re-accused a man of a crime.

    Let me guess - in your feminist mind, that makes me a hypocrite...

    Tad Re-Tahded Eh DAVEE?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Blackwell, thanks for the comment. It got caught in the spam filter, but it's up now.

    ScareCrow, you might want to reread my post before commenting again.

    Obviously your comments on the two women were speculation, and I quoted you calling them such in my post.

    The firedoglake piece you link to, which was also discussed in the Harding piece I recommend everyone read, was essentially just a rehash of a not-very-credible article in counterpunch that Harding also wrote about.

    I am sorry I suggested that women were turning you down in college. I will change my wording.

    ReplyDelete
  26. LOL - I love that cross out you did - now that is funny:

    "she reminds ScareCrow of women who turned down other dudes (who definitely weren't him)"

    OK - you got me to laugh at that one. In fairness, sometimes it was me. No secret - read my blog. However, I witnessed women making scenes at men far more often than I had them made at me - smartass (but honestly, a good smartass - it got me to laugh).

    What you failed to point out is that after my speculation - I said:

    Could I be wrong - of course.

    If you are allowed to speculate that OJ is a murderer after 12 people presented with proper evidence in a court of law found him innocent...

    Then I am allowed to speculate about the character of two women accusing a man of rape.

    Deal with it.

    And it is funny, here is a quote from your post:
    "who, in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case."

    Is that what you are doing with the OJ case? Projecting your own issues onto it?

    And Dave - I am reading plenty of articles about this Assange affair.

    I think it is unfair of you to say that "who, in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case" to start with - absence of evidence? No, the evidence includes a broken condom, twitter logs from Anna raving about how cool Assange is AFTER HE RAPED HER?!?

    The articles I have been reading do show that some foul play is afoot here.

    Am I projecting my own issues onto the case?

    No, but I will project them onto the two women accusing this man of rape.

    Again - Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Blackwell, I wanted to add a bit about rape sheild laws in the US, as you focus on the UK, which appears critically different. In the US, every person who testifies as a witness has their identity made public in court records and the defendent has a constitutional right to be free of anonymous accusation. There is no such thing as an anonymous crime victim in the US if charges are pressed or it goes to trial. Period. Trial records are public documents, available to any member of the public upon request (with specific exceptions regarding ongoing trials and, in some jurisdictions, minors who are the subject of a custody dispute) and include the names and social security numbers of the witnesses and victim. Most people honestly do not bother to go to the local courthouse or library that keeps such records, but they are available to anyone seeking them. Journalists are also not legally barred from disclosing the names of victims, though it is considered unethical within the profession to do so. Rape sheild laws in the US neither grant anonymity to victims nor make them exempt from being forced to testify at trial. What the laws do in the US is make certain parts of the victim's history presumed to be not relevant and to be more prejudical than probative (and therefore not admissible) unless the defendent can show otherwise. This means, for example, that a defendent cannot use the fact that the victim was involved in an orgy five years before to prejudice the jury. It would not, however, preclude the use of a prior conviction of the victim for perjury or falsifying evidence, because that issue is genuinely relevant to the question of the victim's credibility. Though it can have a big difference in practice, because it keeps judges and attornies in line, this in fact only forces the court to apply the general standards for determining admissibility under the federal rules of evidence-which require that in order to be admissible evidence must be relevant and may not be substantially more prejudicial than probative.

    ReplyDelete
  28. John Diaz: The word "disproportionate" in this context means a number of false accusations not proportionate to the number of actual rapes or other reasons for the statistic. You're saying that the majority of rape accusations are purely false and not followed up for any other reason than the woman or man was lying about the rape; you don't even address the plethora of other reasons the case may be dismissed.

    What I said was that false accusations in rape cases do happen. That's simply what any rational, reasonable person knows, just like false accusations of theft, and so on. Anyone with a working brain knows that false accusations will happen. I did not say that I believe a "disproportionate" number of rape cases were false accusations.

    So.. no. I didn't concede. You just don't know what you're saying.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @DarkSideCat, thanks for that explanation. I've realised that I conflated rape shield and anonymity laws in my comment, which here as in the US are separate. It's not my precise area of expertise, but I believe the anonymity laws are more stringent in the UK from what you've described as the American situation, but I do know that the right is waived if the accuser if found guilty of perjury (false allegation), so in both countries there's really no merit in the claim that women can make false allegations anonymously.

    I remain in confusion as to why the 'Men's Rights' advocates would think that women are in favour of making false claims or protecting those who do (if that's their argument). I have yet to see a discussion in the press that didn't stress the negative effect such claims have on the credibility of legitimate victims of sex crimes. False allegations are bad for women, and bad for men.

    ReplyDelete
  30. LexieDi: @ Yohan: Seriously. You're a funny fellow. I've never heard of an 8 year old boy going to jail for being abused by an adult woman. Could you site that for me? I think you have your cases and informaion seriously mixed up.

    I think you have a reading problem, this is what I said in my previous posting...

    (in Sweden) No boy 8 or 10 year old will be accused for rape and facing a trial with a jury as an adult like in UK.

    We are talking here about Sweden and why the conviction rate is so low...

    Well, Sweden has a different legal system than USA and UK, and this is partially the reason for a small number of convictions.
    Nobody younger than 15 will face a court in Sweden.

    As I explained there are also other reasons, like fines in many cases, judges in Sweden are not obsessed to send men to jail, it's not like in USA, which keeps unusually many men in prison (more than China, more than Russia..etc)

    You have to consider that feminism is not the same everywhere worldwide, and feminism is nowhere so hateful against men as it is the case in USA and UK.

    ReplyDelete
  31. LexieDi: What I said was that false accusations in rape cases do happen. That's simply what any rational, reasonable person knows, just like false accusations of theft, and so on.

    Yes, false accusations do happen and not every woman showing up reporting a crime is a liar.

    However you mentioned theft - to notice that your wallet is missing is one side of the story (it might be lost and not stolen btw.), to accuse an unknown person, that he is the thief, is another side of the story.

    While your wallet is indeed missing, you have to PROVE that it was stolen by that person you accuse, and this is often not possible because of missing evidence. You cannot prove it, and a judge cannot convict a person, if you cannot prove what you say.

    However feminists want to change that, and the accused man should be seen as guilty from beginning on in case of sex-crimes, and HE has to prove to his expenses that he did not do that crime.

    It's not acceptable, that a malicious woman is allowed by law to pick out any man and is accusing him for not-existing sex-crimes solely out of her bad mood and remains unpunished.

    What is happening now, is something like a grey zone, and every man who keeps any form of a sexual relationship with a woman is on the risk to be accused.

    A man might face - innocent - many years in prison, while his accuser remains anonymous and unpunished for creating sex-crimes out of fantasy.

    Not the way it should be, of course that's the perfect legal setup for feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ Yohan: Ah. Sorry. I skimmed your answer because I was about to go to class and your response was quite long.

    I doubt you know much about an 8 or 10 year old boy committing rape. But if someone rapes someone else, there should be punishment. Period. Of course this is all personal opinion.

    I don't know much about Sweden or Swedish law and I doubt you know very much about laws from other countries that you've not lived in for some time.

    I'm so glad you know so much about feminists and what feminists want all over the world. It's so obvious that I hate men, what with my close relationships with my father, brother, and loving boyfriend. /Sarcasm

    When someone does wrong they should be punished. Male and female. Young and old. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @ Yohan: Really? Feminists just want to be able to accuse men willy-nilly of rape? Huh. I must not have gotten the Super Secret Association of Man-Hating Feminists' super secret note, because I'm a feminist and I and all the feminists I know (and I know a lot of them) don't want to do that. And, at least I, think it's wrong to do that. However, to just ignore rape accusations is wrong too.

    Sitting there and saying that all feminists want one particular thing is idiotic and reeks of propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @LexieDi:

    If you read the actual study that I cited, published by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, you will see that there were several nations that were surveyed for their crime rates. The conviction rate for rape differed for each of those countries. For example, in the U.S., the conviction rate for rape was 15%. In Sweden, the conviction rate for rape was 1%.

    Since it is true that false allegations factor into whatever the conviction rate is, regardless of the country, then to me it seems reasonable to conclude that the number of false allegations would likely fluctuate along with the conviction rate. The proportion of false allegations in Sweden would therefore be higher compared to the other countries that were surveyed in that document.

    Incidentally, the document that I cited examines a whole range of crimes along with their conviction rates in different countries; it doesn't just cover the one crime of rape. There is an enormous amount of data there. Did you bother to read any of it? Or were you preoccupied with composing your comment in which you claimed that I didn't know what I was talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  35. John Dias: I didn't claim anything. It was obvious by your comment that I had conceded that you didn't know or didn't think of the real meaning of "disproportionate."

    And you're still just assuming you know what's going on but reasons for charges not being followed up could vary even from state to state and country to country. Anyone could make the same claim about of the factors that go into those statistics.

    I'm a college student. I can BS with the best and I know it when I see it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. LexieDi, don't make a fool of yourself. Disproportionate refers to the disproportionality of rape convictions from one country to another, and therefore the disproportionality of false allegations from one country to another. Follow?

    Please also try to understand that when you tell me that you are a college student, it doesn't impress me (or anyone) in the slightest.

    ReplyDelete
  37. John Dias:

    Your original sentence was worded to state that the low conviction rate for rape cases in Sweden meant that that must be directly linked to the number of false accusations.

    You said, "...in Sweden, 99% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction, indicating a disproportionate number of false allegations THERE." (Emphasis in caps, mine.)

    You were not talking about from one country to another, you were saying that because people were not convicted, alleged victims were lying.

    It's not my fault that you took a statistic you found and wrote some bull around it to try to make it work for you and look a certain way. (Which is what I honestly think you did, as you seem like an intelligent person, not like a person who actually believes that crap you tried to sell.)

    I'm not trying to impress anyone with my being a college student. Being a college student is no great feat; hundreds of thousands of people go to college (even women). What I was saying is that college students often BS their work, and, therefore, I am good at recognizing BS. Context clues. They're helpful.

    Trust me, I have no desire or need to impress you or anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @LexieDi:

    Compared to the other countries that were examined in the government report that I cited, Sweden does have a disproportionately low conviction rate, and therefore, in a reasonable evaluation, a disproportionately high rate of false allegations. A defendant's innocence of a crime is consistent with a more difficult prospect of convicting that defendant, since all the evidence weighs in his favor.

    When police investigate, when prosecutors examine, when cases are tried, when witnesses testify, when evidence is submitted, and when juries evaluate, and when the entire thing amounts to an extremely low one percent conviction rate -- after all this, why is it so difficult for you to accept the perfectly reasonable conclusion that the accused was innocent from the start? So do you believe that even a not-guilty jury verdict doesn't exonerate a defendant? And you're telling me in your conspiracy-laden mind that 99 percent of the time all of those citizens were dead wrong, and your ideology was right? And you accuse me of "writing some bull?"

    Lastly, it seems to me that it hasn't occurred to you that in addition to all of these third parties weighing the evidence and concluding that it was not warranted to either arrest, prosecute or convict -- in addition to their judgment -- the defendant also declared his innocence. And still, you are trying to make the case that a lower conviction rate has nothing to do with a higher rate of innocence by defendants.

    What if 1 out of 1000 were convicted? 1 in 10000? Is there any point at which you start to wonder if too many people are getting unjustly caught up in the criminal justice web?

    I'm getting tired of this uninformed conversation with you. I like to deal in facts. I look at the facts and I make a reasonable conclusion based on them, especially when the facts are reinforced by the judgment of people who have evaluated the evidence themselves, such as police, prosecutors and juries. If you have a point to make, then support your point with credible evidence, not just college-grade snark. You suggested earlier in this thread that a low conviction rate for rape in Sweden in particular may be due to inadequate law enforcement practices or resources. Do you have any evidence to support that suggestion?

    ReplyDelete
  40. John Dias:

    Did I say I thought all 99% of accused rapists were guilty? Hm. No. In fact, I didn't make ANY assumptions about anything other than I do not believe that 99% (or a "disproportionate" number) of dismissed cases are dismissed because of lying alleged victims. But thanks for speaking for me. I'll take it from here.

    The ONLY thing I'm saying is that it is not likely, just due to friggin' chances, 99% or even a "disproportionate" number of those rape cases are dismissed due only to false accusations. I don't see why you don't understand that there could be any number of reasons a case is dismissed.

    It's also extremely difficult to try a rape case as rape is a very muddled subject. So, yes, I think that some (perhaps not very many) dismissed cases had a victim who honestly feels as though he or she was raped and/or a defendant who feels he or she got away with it, just because it's so hard to have a clear picture of what happened and evidence doesn't always help much.

    You like to deal in facts so much but you go around making uninformed assumptions that you are totally okay in spewing, but when I do the same, you get all sorts of uptight.

    My conclusions are just as reasonable as yours. Either way, all of our conclusions are speculation.

    My reasons for there being a low conviction rate come from the exact same place your reason does- the statistic we have and my head. (I'm just smart enough to realize that there are lots of reasons a case may be dismissed.) And my reason is, therefore, no less true or false than yours is.

    Lets see... do YOU have any evidence other
    than speculation that there are more false accusations of rape in Sweden in particular? Do you have any evidence to support that suggestion?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "My conclusions are just as reasonable as yours. Either way, all of our conclusions are speculation."
    @LexieDi - Let me break this down into terms you can understand:
    I have ten shiny red marbles. I put those marbles into a bag with an unknown number of dull blue marbles. Each of those red marbles resembles one false rape accusation.
    Follow? Good.
    Now, the United States has a 15% rape conviction rate. Let's assume all of the convicted actually raped a woman - men are more likely to be exonerated for rape than any other crime, but we're trying to keep it simple for you. So, we have 17 of 20 dropped rape cases.
    Now, let's look at Sweden. They have about 15 times, or 255 bags of pretty, shiny red marbles.

    Now, which country, the United States or Sweden, most likely has more of those nice red marbles? No, no counting on your fingers.

    ReplyDelete
  42. IR:

    Resembles? That marble looks JUST LIKE false accusation.

    Jesus, I hope you're not a teacher.

    Sweden wouldn't have 15 times more red marbles, they'd have 15 times more marbles period. You don't know the ratio. There could be a billion blue marbles, which would mean that false accusation is extremely rare (which may or may not be true).

    All that I'm saying is that there are too many variables. You can't make a blanket statement about why cases were dropped because there is an UNKNOWN NUMBER OF BLUE MARBLES.

    Was I supposed to go "OOOH! Pretty AND shiny?!"

    ReplyDelete
  43. LexieDi said...
    @ Yohan: Really? Feminists just want to be able to accuse men willy-nilly of rape?


    This is not what I said.

    I said:

    It's not acceptable, that a malicious woman is allowed by law to pick out any man and is accusing him for not-existing sex-crimes solely out of her bad mood and remains unpunished.
    .....
    A man might face - innocent - many years in prison, while his accuser remains anonymous and unpunished for creating sex-crimes out of fantasy.


    This is a good story, link below, and if you read it you will understand what I mean and what are the concerns of the MRAs.

    We MRAs want laws to be changed that such a case, see below, cannot happen again, however feminists strongly oppose that.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287534/Innocent-Warren-Blackwell-served-3-years-false-rape-claim-fantasist.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. "All that I'm saying is that there are too many variables. You can't make a blanket statement about why cases were dropped because there is an UNKNOWN NUMBER OF BLUE MARBLES."
    This is a typical tactic feminists use to derail a legitimate conversation or question. They will, in the face of overwhelming evidence (in this case a 15:1 conviction ratio) claim that the topic has become "too complicated" for their understanding. They will proceed to project this self-imposed incompetence on everyone else.
    With a scientific background, I understand the basic laws of causality. For example, if I were to connect two different batteries to a voltmeter and one read 15x the voltage of a second one, I would understand that it is most likely the second one has less electrical potential.

    There are many different variables - the conductivity of the wires or terminals, the accuracy of the voltmeter, etc. However, I can acknowledge that in the face of all of these different factors, the most likely truth.

    Humans aren't batteries? True, and the analogy remains - two clear factors with a few minor ones leading to two clear causalities. The fact is, in something like false rape cases the number of dropped rape charges will be proportional to the number of frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately, a feminist will, out of spite or just blind ideology, attempt to bring the conversation to a halt using the methods outlined. I recommend in this case to call them out on their clearly deceptive - which they may be so well programmed or dependent on their ideology that even they do not notice - and use this to help them see the error of their ways. Other examples include David misrepresenting the Men's Rights Movement or feminists injecting emotion and irrationality (MISOGYNIST! WOMAN-HATER! GAY!) into a simple discussion. Once again, keep a level head, brush off their insults and see this as a good opportunity to give the public (or even the feminist) a case study of feminism.

    Hopefully this has been an... educational experience for anyone reading. Either way, I had a little fun.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yohan:

    I was referring to this, "However feminists want to change that, and the accused man should be seen as guilty from beginning on in case of sex-crimes, and HE has to prove to his expenses that he did not do that crime."

    Uhm. I've never heard of any feminist who wants to do that and, I, as a feminist don't want to do that.

    I understand that false accusations happen and they're horrible and anyone who makes false accusations should be thrown in jail.

    I get that you're worried about false accusations happening and people going to jail for them. However, rape and sexual harassment still happens too and you and MRAs don't seem worried about that at all.

    ReplyDelete
  46. It wasn't too complicated for me to understand, you just word things extremely badly. Seriously, take some English lessons.

    I don't know what you're trying to project onto me. All (as in the only thing) I am saying (nothing more) is that there are more reasons than just "the alleged victim is a liar" for that one statistic. Why is it so difficult for you to get that through into your brain?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "It wasn't too complicated for me to understand, you just word things extremely badly. Seriously, take some English lessons."
    Such charisma. Surely you only have my best intentions in mind, much like any feminist nitpicking a man. I'll sign up right away, and take some women's studies classes while I'm at it! Oh, and I've also been told to "go gay" by feminists, though that might be more difficult.
    "All (as in the only thing) I am saying (nothing more) is that there are more reasons than just "the alleged victim is a liar" for that one statistic. Why is it so difficult for you to get that through into your brain?"
    I acknowledged there were other factors. I also acknowledged that the most likely explanation. Obviously if there's more dropped cases in a court of law, and rape is seen as an equally vile act in the US and Sweden, and both have similar jury and investigation systems - then there must be some cause for those 14 extra dropped cases. At least some of them will be false accusations.
    Either way, any accusation with a 1% conviction rate and a heavy social stigma attached warrants some scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Compared to the other countries that were examined in the government report that I cited, Sweden does have a disproportionately low conviction rate, and therefore, in a reasonable evaluation, a disproportionately high rate of false allegations." Er, no, one does not follow from the other. Let's accept that Sweden does have a lower conviction rate compared to other countries. What exactly does that tell you? It tells you that Sweden has a lower conviction rate compared to other countries. You need actual evidence that the causal explanation you give is better than any other random explanation someone pulls out of their ass. I'm from an area where there is a disproportionately low rate of white men being convicted for assaulting a black person or stealing the black person's property. Is that, in your mind, proof that black people lie and falsely accuse others of crimes more often? After all, that's what you are asserting, isn't it? That a disproportionately low conviction rate proves the accusations are false at a higher rate? Because, as someone who knows the actual social factors involved, I will assert that black victims 'loose' far more often because it is an area with a lot of racism and juries are found based on land ownership, ensuring that virtually every jury is all white. The low conviction rate alone shows nothing in either case, because failure to get a conviction alone is not good evidence that the person was not actually a victim of a crime.

    @IR, I love how your own links are enough to refute your claim "The study identified 199 murder exonerations, 73 of them in capital cases. It also found 120 rape exonerations." Now, let me ask, in what universe is 199<120? The article you link to does not say what it you think it says, even in terms of generalities. Critical reading skills, like math, do not appear to be your strong point.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Surely you only have my best intentions in mind, much like any feminist nitpicking a man."

    LOL!! Perhaps LexieDi is just returning the favour, as clearly you only have our best intentions in mind:
    "I recommend in this case to call them out on their clearly deceptive - which they may be so well programmed or dependent on their ideology that even they do not notice - and use this to help them see the error of their ways."

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Cat - such snark. And I suppose you find the remaining 85-99% of the accused weren't exonerated as well? Either way, it seems I misread. It's alright, it wasn't exactly a world-ending mistake, and the misstatement was not far from the truth either. Regardless, I should have written "second most exonerated crime." Unlike a feminist, I can acknowledge my errata and issue a correction. My mistakes also are never happy accidents, as for feminists who claim that "1 in 4 college women are raped." Funny how their mistakes always result in the appropriation of billions in taxpayer dollars to their organizations.
    Take, for example, Gloria Steinem who claimed that "in this [America] alone, about 150,000 females die of anorexia each year." This is malicious deception - imagine if an engineer falsely claimed that a certain material was exponentially stronger than it actually was? Even if the damages were only monetary - misappropriated tax dollars in the case of Steinem - he'd have his license revoked and possibly serve jail time! Why do we tolerate this just because the source is a feminist?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Shall we also ascribe malicious intent to Christina Hoff Sommers in her own errata when repudiating the death-from-anorexia statistics that appeared in Naomi Wolf's book, "The Beauty Myth" (which was from whence Gloria Steinem obtained her information)? Why do we tolerate this just because the "feminist" source is one that MRAs commonly promote?
    Naomi Wolf has admitted her error, Christina Hoff Sommers has not.

    Sommers stated in her book, "Who Stole Feminism?", that the actual number of deaths from anorexia is "less than 100 per year." This figure is based on a count of death certificates which list anorexia as the cause of death, and does not take into account deaths which occurred due to complications arising from the pre-condition of anorexia, such as heart failure.
    If we looked at the death certificates of persons who had other diseases (AIDS, for example), we would find that very few people die from AIDS, as the actual cause of death is usually due to something else (pneumonia, for example) that was brought on or exacerbated by the pre-condition known as AIDS. So does that mean that we should take AIDS less seriously because very few people die from it?

    ReplyDelete
  52. IR:

    "Such charisma. Surely you only have my best intentions in mind, much like any feminist nitpicking a man. I'll sign up right away, and take some women's studies classes while I'm at it!"

    Trust me, I'd say that to anyone- man or woman- who wrote badly. It's not just because you're male.

    I don't expect you to take women's studies.. but hey, more power to ya.

    ReplyDelete
  53. IR said: "@Cat - such snark"

    Hilarious. Cat directly refutes an error on your part, in one of many carefully argued substantive comments she's made here, and this is the best response you can come up with?

    ReplyDelete
  54. LexieDi said...
    It wasn't too complicated for me to understand, you just word things extremely badly. Seriously, take some English lessons


    I am not sure, if this is addressed to me. There are many MRAs worldwide, who are not native English speakers.

    ReplyDelete
  55. LexieDi said...
    Yohan:
    I get that you're worried about false accusations happening and people going to jail for them. However, rape and sexual harassment still happens too and you and MRAs don't seem worried about that at all.


    There are 100s or maybe even 1000s of various feminist international and national organizations, which take care solely of the needs of women. Many of these organizations receive millions of USD out of the tax-payer's money.


    The MRM consists merely of rather small interest groups or advocacy groups, which take care of males.

    Compared to the large feminist movement, the MRM is tiny and has to pay all its expenses out of the own wallet.

    I often ask myself, why feminists are so afraid of the MRM.

    About rape and sexual harassment, we show feminists, that male victims of malicious females do exist. Who cares about male victims, often minors, of sex crimes?

    There are female paedophiles, there are malicious women accusing innocent men for sex-crimes which never took place...

    Without the MRM, such issues would be brushed under the carpet as they are not politically correct.

    There are very few publications about FEMALE sex offenders.

    http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/so/female/female-02-eng.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  56. DarkSideCat: The low conviction rate alone shows nothing in either case, because failure to get a conviction alone is not good evidence that the person was not actually a victim of a crime.

    This is a very general statement and this can be said about almost any crime.

    Most crimes are not reported anyway, for example theft.

    To be a victim of a crime is one side, however to identify and to convict the perpetrator is a totally different story.

    A failure to get a conviction is not good evidence either that the accused person was getting away unpunished. More likely he really did not do that crime.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Yohan "This is a very general statement and this can be said about almost any crime." YES!!! That was my point.

    "A failure to get a conviction is not good evidence either that the accused person was getting away unpunished." Actually, it is pretty darned good evidence of that, we don't impose criminal sentences when defendents are found not guilty. I think what you mean is that it is not good evidence in and of itself that the accused truly committed the crime. I agree with that (modified) statement, however, I do not agree with this one "More likely he really did not do that crime." For the reason you claim to understand at the beginning of your comment, but cleary do not.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Well said. But I'm disappointed to see you linking to Marcotte's piece, which is problematic in its characterization of Assange and Wikileaks. Here's a piece I wrote addressing her post.

    http://mattcornell.org/blog/2010/12/wikileaks-is-a-feminist-issue/

    ReplyDelete
  59. Yohan:

    I don't know if you've noticed, but I've never gendered the victim or the accused rapist in my statements. I do that for a reason- because I am aware that men and women are raped and men and women can rape.

    Feminism is a very established movement that, at it's core (though there are some radicals, just like in any movement) wants equality and betterment of society.

    All I've seen of MRAs is sexism, racism, homophobia and violence. This may not be true for individuals, but that has been my experience with them. Also, men have never been a group that has been hated on very much. There is some, and that's what you should be fighting against, in my opinion. Men are not idiots, men are equally good at parenting, et cetera. Perhaps with a goal of broadening the view of what being a man is and some time, men's rights can be established.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Gee David, it's interesting that you would use Amanda Marcotte as a reference for not jumping to conclusions about criminal charges. Did you forget that Amanda Marcotte herself assumed that the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty from the outset rather than waiting for the trial? Not only that, but rather than defend her position when attention was called to it, she simply deleted it and then made up some bullshit story about it disappearing due to computer issues.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Er, minor error on my part, she said that AFTER the charges were thrown out, i.e. AFTER the legal process had already declared them to not be rapists. That makes what she said even vile. If you're not a total hypocrite you will add Amanda Marcotte to your enemies list.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis