On Wednesday, the chief prosecutor of England and Wales, Alison Saunders, released Orwellian-sounding “toolkits” to prosecutors in rape cases. Rather than distributing a pair of pliers for pulling out the teeth of the accused, these kits contain instructions to prosecutors trying to disprove consent. Saunders, properly titled Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”), announced the policy like a brass-necked Stalinist:
Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area—in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely.
As the Ched Evans case shows, the laws governing consent to sexual intercourse in Britain are as clear as mud. How else can a slag, to use the regional dialect, be found to have consented to sex with one man, and incapable a few minutes later of consenting to sex with another man?
The new shapes and sizes of the rape card
The new edict pinpoints two situations where a woman reporting a rape would be unable to consent. One is the familiar “too intoxicated to consent” of the Ched Evans case. The second consent-that-isn’t is “where consent could not reasonably be considered to have been given freely due to the unequal relationship of the parties involved.” The example is the “suspect held a position of power over the potential victim” followed by a list of such positions, including “an employer.”
Police will have to investigate if a woman really had the capacity consent if she was “financially or otherwise dependent on their alleged rapist.” Men charged with rape will be grilled in court on how exactly they knew the woman had freely consented. Alison Saunders is on a known crusade to raise conviction rates for rape. Like the prosecutors of the Soviet show trials, she likes to start with the desired result and work her way backwards.
A modern-day Vishinsky
So who is this Saunders character? A career lawyer who rose up the ranks of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) to take the top spot. She handled the second trial in the case of Stephen Lawrence, a black man killed by racist white men in south-east London.
The initial trial collapsed due to police incompetence and resulted in the Macpherson Report on police “institutional racism,” full of cultural Marxist gems like the woefully subjective definition of a “racist incident” as one “perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”
Saunders launched the second trial on the back of Macpherson’s demands that double jeopardy, the rule that once a defendant has been tried for a crime and acquitted they shouldn’t be tried again, be scrapped. A legal principle of 800 years’ standing was thrown out to give the public their guilty verdict. Saunders then pulled the Spectator magazine up on contempt of court charges after Rod Liddle wrote that the suspects had no chance of a fair trial.
The war on common sense
Saunders is willing to set aside principle to get a politically correct result and will do the same to fix her pet problem of “low” conviction rates. In a speech given while she was still in charge of CPS London in 2012, she came out with a list of “Rape Myths,” one being, “If She Didn’t Scream, Fight or Get Injured, It Wasn’t Rape.” Rape victims, goes the argument, are afraid of death or injury, co-operate with the rapist and specifically “become physically paralyzed with terror or shock.” That scenario is now invoked to require men to justify how they knew a woman was consenting freely.
“Women Cry Rape When They Regret Having Sex or Want Revenge” is another purported myth which Saunders says “reinforces stereotypes” of lying and vindictive women and “re-victimises and stigmatises” the accuser. The implication is that you should believe women, since they always tell the truth. False rape accusations are nothing to worry about, since, “only 2 per cent of all reported rapes are false!”
Idiotic left-speak aside, the agenda is given away by an absence of thought for possible consequences. Meddling in the justice system is a zero sum game. Changes made to increase conviction rates will result in more accused men.
For Saunders, however, you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Spinning as a fact that “many rape victims freeze rather than fight as a protective and coping mechanism,” Saunders is creating a legal minefield where any sexual encounter can become rape—just because she appeared to go along with it, doesn’t mean she consented!
The Procrustean bed of the jury room
Even worse, if the jury thinks the woman is crying rape out of regret or revenge, they are now responsible for stigmatising and stereotyping her. It’s that classic SJW plea: “don’t judge!” Fortunately the job of juries is exactly that—to judge a witness on their credibility, applying their instincts and life experience. This includes stereotyping, which is essentially an product of empirical observation. Feminist conceit, again, shows itself as limitless,
Feminists ordering juries to unconditionally believe everything a woman says is reframed as a benevolent “education of juries” about “sterotypes of women as untruthful.” Like the passers-by of the Greek myth of Procrustes, independent-minded citizens will be stretched or mutilated until their views fit progressive GoodThink.
The other scenrio which the CPS is trying to propagandize, the unequal relationship rape case, is a potential black hole of rape accusations by women with a vendetta. Lawsuits for sex discrimination and harassment against male former bosses seem to have become routine for women in high-testosterone environments who get sacked (see here, here, here, here, here and here).
An accusation of rape might soon be added to that list. A woman freely and consensually shagging her way up the greasy pole becomes an oppressed victim of rape through the Marxist analysis of the “unequal relationship.”
Risks and limitations of the new order
The good news is that Saunders does not make law. This guidance is for police asking questions in the interrogation room, and for trial prosecutors who will be expected to brainwash juries about “rape myths” (such as the offensive idea that women lie about rape). Jurors are still free and very likely to ignore lawyers telling them to set aside their own judgment in favour of fuzzy, feminist ‘myth-busting.”
The bad news is an eventual increase in rape charges, whether they get to trial or not. In the UK, the accused get no anonymity, while accusers do. More men will be charged with rape only to have their cases quietly closed later. It happened to MP Nigel Evans, who reported going “through 11 months of hell.”
As an oppressed homosexual, he had more sympathy than Ben Sullivan, ex-president of the Oxford Union who was accused of rape. The 22 year-old white heterosexual was hounded by Oxford University feminists after having consensual sex with a girl who then regretted it because she was “supposed to be in a relationship.”
Turning the justice system on its head
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, is a public sector pole-climber willing not only to throw men under the bus to achieve her political objectives, but also to compromise trial by jury, a cornerstone of English justice since the time of the Viking occupation.
With all other crimes, lawyers take it as a given that the jury is trustworthy to deliver fair judgments. In rape trials, feminists want us to believe that juries become subnormal bigots who can’t even be trusted not to be influenced by “stereotypes,” which are presumed to be a product of human malice rather than collective, shared empirical observation. Something doesn’t quite add up.
As feminists push to make making rape accusations easier and more consequence-free for women to make, British men should ensure they take basic precautions, such as those outlined at the end of this article.
I agree with Athlone McGinnnis on which consideration should come ahead of all the practical stuff, avoiding drunk women, knowing Game, and saving all electronic communications—become aware that false rape accusations are very real. And Alison Saunders would put away on one just to buff up her CV.
Read More: All Public Rape Accusations Are False