Posts by Emma Hart
-
This is an important issue! I've noticed that lots of women's handbags have cellphone pockets that seem to be designed for a li'l Nokia, circa 2003.
Those pockets aren't for lighters? Okay.
-
If a someone makes a complaint, surely that's enough? Doesn't that complaint require investigation?
Investigation, yes. And there was investigation. But I think, and Graeme can correct me if I've cocked this, that there's a level of probability required to make it through a depositions hearing to go to trial, and then a much higher level (beyond reasonable doubt) to secure a conviction. I think it's a bit unfair to get down on Graeme for pointing out what is necessary under the law. So we have to be clear on which stage of the process we're talking about.
It is always going to be hellishly difficult to secure a rape conviction, because of the lack of independent witnesses. There are small changes that can be made which will make it a little easier, but that basic problem is never going to go away. And it's important to get it right, because of the massive stigma that comes with even being accused of a sex crime.
There's a separate but related problem in that these men spent six months remanded in custody. That's ghastly if they're innocent, but it's not wonderful if they're guilty either, because that's half a year of limbo for the victim as well.
-
This topic should not be used for the purposes of ignorant rantings and opinion based arguments, and I know Emma and co have the best intentions, but sometimes, and I would argue this is one of those times, the audience is just simply not up to it.
Jack, you don't have an email link on your profile. If you drop me an email, I'll give you some backgrounder that might help.
When I read about this, a number of different questions came to my mind, which given my interests were mostly about what the implications of this might be for people's future on-line behaviour. I can imagine, now, some of the stuff I've written being done to me, against my will, and my writing used as a justification for that. It doesn't need to be legally viable for someone to decide that this decision means they can get clean away with that stuff. I was also unimpressed that this hadn't received more publicity.
Given this case involved non-vanilla sex (in the fantasy, not the alleged rape) and tech, I was going to write on it. Once Angus started in, the choices were either to reply to him, or let what he was saying go unchallenged. I felt the first option to be the least damaging.
I think by now, however, Angus's argument has been pretty well demolished. (Still haven't answered those direct questions, Angus. Any time.) He's come very close to, but not stepped over the line, where I felt I would have to delete his comments for being too damaging to rape victims. Also there's been no thread bleed, so you could still ignore Angus and participate on any other PAS thread.
My partner asked me the other night why I do this, in general, argue with people who are never going to change their minds. And I said it's not about that person, the one who thinks they're progressing an argument by rewording a statement. It's about the silent people reading along who have thought, "You know, that's a good question, maybe that guy's got a point." Those people, you might be able to reach.
And for people like Megan and Danielle and Jackie and I, it's become about supporting each other. (That doesn't mean we agree about everything, or shut up when we don't agree, or any of those hive-mind things.) I know that if someone says something I find really hurtful, and it upsets me to a point where I can't reply, I feel better when I see someone else speak up.
-
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
The SST are, I think, skim readers.
-
how do we properly accomodate the world's shades of grey?
Well I think from reading those articles and comments there are two different things going on there.
1/ People don't consider it to be rape, because the woman consented to sex. She did NOT consent to him having sex with her while she was unconscious, and if she made the rape complaint, obviously then it was something she objected to. So I don't see that argument holding up at all.
2/ It wasn't as bad as some other rapes, so... something. That's what sentencing is for. We don't not charge people with assault because that particular assault wasn't as bad as another assault.
And really, is "Don't have sex with someone who's unconscious" such a terrible restriction?
-
This case provides some further interesting (perturbing?) questions about 'consent'.
Roger, who brought the rape complaint in that case? Was it the woman in question? Because if it was, that 'she probably would have said yes if she was still conscious' argument does start to sound a little unlikely.
Also, a warning, those links of Roger's aren't pleasant.
-
Wow - reductio ad absurdum. Yes, Emma "witnesses" are people.
Angus, you made this thread about honesty and integrity. On the internet, even. And then you made a false statement about what you'd said. Do you not get that at all? Really? Or are you just not capable of admitting it?
So, you stand by your assertion that prosecution witnesses should not be allowed to not mention things they have forgotten?
These are direct questions. Like about half a dozen others back through this thread, it would be good if you actually answered them. You haven't been. That doesn't speak of integrity to me, to avoid direct questioning. For instance:
Why was she obliged to connect a consensual wish with a non-consensual assault?
Or
No, I mean she should not lie about her fantasies. She should inform the police/prosecution.
Uh ... okay. And I presume you believe all rape victims should be required to do this. That'd certainly change things.
And if not, why not?
Basically, you're conducting this discussion by repeated your initial assertion that she's a dirty lying whore, albeit rephrased, but not responding to any criticism of that position. After a while, it starts to look like you're not because you can't.
-
Apropos of nothing, but bearing in mind PAS's deep love of neologism, a couple of days ago, I said on Twitter:
There needs to be a word for that thing that happens on the net where, in attempting to disagree with you, someone proves your point for you
My friend Fitz was wonderful enough to provide the perfect answer. It's called a pwn goal.
-
And even if I were arrested for a knife crime, I wouldn't dream of mentioning it to them - it wouldn't be relevant (unless I did have someone in the boudoir, and tripped over while holding a knife in my hand).
I... have actually accidentally stabbed someone in the bedroom. I've also written sexual fiction involving cutting. Perhaps I should email everything I can think of to Angus, so he can turn it over to the police should I ever be charged with a crime. Oh, no, wait. Should I ever claim to be the victim of a crime.
I didn't say people, I said the prosecution, the state
No you didn't, Angus. Do yourself a favour and don't try to lie about things you said in print on the same page you said them. What you said was:
you are in favour of prosecution witnesses being allowed to omit relevant facts because they forgot or don't want to say and I am not.
Witnesses are, I believe, people. And this, I believe, makes you a liar and fundamentally unreliable.
-
you are in favour of prosecution witnesses being allowed to omit relevant facts because they forgot
You are, let me get this straight, not in favour of people not mentioning things they don't remember?
Yes, yes it was.