Lady can't have her hairy balls waxed [mod notes/warnings in post #1]

Calina

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Again what are you trying to say, we just believe a woman because she's a woman. Men are rapey. I'm not liking the way women have turned here on the legal right to defend yourself from false alligations.

This was last week, not only did she accuse just one man she accused 12 of rape.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/30/uk-teenager-detained-in-cyprus

Still a hell of a lot more women get raped and never see their rapist charged. And you did not respond to my comment regarding how much more relevant previous convictions are in a rape trial than a woman's social media activity.

Many men don't defend their behaviour. Their sole defence is to discredit the woman they raped and exploit reasonable doubt about consent.

But whatever. I hope you never wind up on the jury of a rape trial.

Wibbs

Calina wrote: »

But whatever. I hope you never wind up on the jury of a rape trial.

Funny enough C, as far as stats go and this is across the western world including in Ireland, the more men on a rape case jury the far more likely a guilty verdict will be passed.

Many studies suggest women are more likely to judge female rape complainants harshly and to acquit men accused of rape. In 2009, Irish academics who studied 108 rape trials found that male-dominated juries had the highest conviction rate. There was not a single conviction in the 17 cases which had female-dominated juries.

drunkmonkey

Calina wrote: »

Still a hell of a lot more women get raped and never see their rapist charged. And you did not respond to my comment regarding how much more relevant previous convictions are in a rape trial than a woman's social media activity.

Many men don't defend their behaviour. Their sole defence is to discredit the woman they raped and exploit reasonable doubt about consent.

But whatever. I hope you never wind up on the jury of a rape trial.

I didn't see that comment, but previous has to be taken into account but your suggesting just because it's a man we have to presume the woman is telling the truth. I know plenty who haven't.
If the woman's phone, social media etc could be relevant to the defence they should be allowed go for discovery on it.

Calina

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I didn't see that comment, but previous has to be taken into account but your suggesting just because it's a man we have to presume the woman is telling the truth. I know plenty who haven't.
If the woman's phone, social media etc could be relevant to the defence they should be allowed go for discovery on it.

Previous convictions of a defendent are usually not allowed to be taken into account in a criminal case. This is why I raised it. Men's previous behaviour is protected. But a woman's previous life is fair game for a defendant to target in a rape trial.

Also please note, given the thread, I made no assumption about your sex or gender.

I think I am done with you.

hatrickpatrick

Thread needs to be split between a gender identity debate and a rape trial / evidence / etc debate IMO...

drunkmonkey

Calina wrote: »

Previous convictions of a defendent are usually not allowed to be taken into account in a criminal case. This is why I raised it. Men's previous behaviour is protected. But a woman's previous life is fair game for a defendant to target in a rape trial.

Also please note, given the thread, I made no assumption about your sex or gender.

I think I am done with you.

Because I'm a man and naturally rapey? Men's previous behaviour isn't protected if you have previous convictions they'll be brought up.

It's not about being fair game, it's called discovery and it's about establishing all the facts. They may help the defence or prosecution.

This is how our court system works thankfully.

A woman just needs to claim rape and that's it the man is guilty that's a nuts outlook to have of men.

drunkmonkey

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Thread needs to be split between a gender identity debate and a rape trial / evidence / etc debate IMO...

Or one on new wave feminists and their attitude to men in general. Guilty without question.

Calina

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Because I'm a man and naturally rapey? Men's previous behaviour isn't protected if you have previous convictions they'll be brought up.

It's not about being fair game, it's called discovery and it's about establishing all the facts. They may help the defence or prosecution.

This is how our court system works thankfully.

A woman just needs to claim rape and that's it the man is guilty that's a nuts outlook to have of men.

As far as I am aware, in a criminal case, except in highly exceptional serial cases, prior convictions are inadmissible in case they unduly influence a jury. If this has changed, point me at the legislation.

BTW, women don't report rapes because of attitudes like yours. But false reports are 2% of reported rapes and reported rapes are estimated to be about 10% of actual rape rates.

And I want to point out - again - that I did not make any assumptions about your sex or gender or whether you are rapey or not. I made a case for not harassing women for evidence which broadly not relevant. And I pointed out your assumptions implied there was a standard response to being raped such that a woman who did not comply with it probably hadn't been raped. You could have accepted that but have not.

In the meantime, I also raised the point that a key outcome of how rape victims are treated means male victims are far less likely to report. So there are rapists running around and you care more about the vanishingly smaller risk of false reports.

drunkmonkey

You made an assumption that all men are guilty and men should not be allowed to seek evidence that may prove their innocence. Women should just be believed is your mantra. That is inherently wrong.

To bring this back on topic not all transwomen are rapists and pedeophiles, not the ones I know personally anyway. I don't agree with them being fully classed as women and assuming the same rights but I will defend them against feminists logic that all men are sexual predators and should be charged without discovery being allowed.

Calina

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You made an assumption that all men are guilty and men should not be allowed to seek evidence that may prove their innocence. Women should just be believed is your mantra. That is inherently wrong.

This is a gross misrepresentation of my posts. I made no such assumption.

drunkmonkey

Calina wrote: »

This is a gross misrepresentation of my posts. I made no such assumption.

So what are you saying, discover shouldn't be allowed when it's men on trial? Women should be believed without question? Your not being very clear.

Calina

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So what are you saying, discover shouldn't be allowed when it's men on trial? Women should be believed without question? Your not being very clear.

I have also decided not to engage with you and will close by saying Irish court practice generally leans in favour of the defendent's right to a fair trial but this does not allow for fishing expeditions. I don't believe you made a case for unlimited discovery in a victim's social media or address book but you did make it clear you had assumptions about how a rape victim should or should not behave.

Goodbye.

One eyed Jack

Calina wrote: »

God you are clueless. A woman having consensual sex with any other man is not relevant evidence in a rape case. Nor is her address nook, recent calls list or facebook password.

I wouldn’t say that, and I’m not going to insult you either, but you’re just wrong in making such a definitive claim. It’s not up to the alleged victim to decide what evidence is or isn’t relevant when they make a complaint to the authorities. It’s up to the authorities to decide what evidence is or isn’t relevant to their investigation. It’s up to the prosecution to decide what evidence is or isn’t relevant to their case, it’s up to the defence to decide what evidence is or isn’t relevant to their case, and where the admissibility of evidence is in dispute, or the defence considers the witnesses previous sexual history relevant to their case, they can make a Section 3 application to have said evidence introduced. It’s then at the discretion of the Judge presiding over the case to decide what evidence is relevant or irrelevant or might prejudice the jury against the defendant and violate the defendants right to the presumption of innocence and their right to a fair trial.

It’s the dangerous line of thinking that runs contrary to that which tries to put us in a position where if someone says they’re a woman, that even if we don’t believe they are, we are compelled to act as though we do.

Fortunately it’s also built into the Gender Recognition Act 2015 that the Minister for Justice may also revoke a gender recognition certificate under certain circumstances, such as if they became aware that the person sought a gender recognition certificate for the purposes of engaging in criminal activities like hosting topless pool parties for 12 year old children or entering areas designated for women only, to violate their privacy -

14. (1) The Minister may revoke a gender recognition certificate if he or she is satisfied that he or she would not have issued the certificate under section 8(3)(a) had he or she been aware of information or facts before deciding to issue the certificate which since that issue have been brought to his or her notice.


Gender Recognition Act 2015

drunkmonkey

Calina wrote: »

I have also decided not to engage with you and will close by saying Irish court practice generally leans in favour of the defendent's right to a fair trial but this does not allow for fishing expeditions. I don't believe you made a case for unlimited discovery in a victim's social media or address book but you did make it clear you had assumptions about how a rape victim should or should not behave.

Goodbye.

It's not a fishing expedition it's called discovery. I'm not making a case for unlimited discovery. If there is something that could be of relevance it's allowed to be sought.
I don't have to make a case it's the law.
Your picking it up as I'm suggesting that if she's seen to meets guys or something it can be used against her to suggest she's a bit slutty, that's not what I'm on about but if she's back in the saddle a few hours after a rape, partying at the weekend and bombarding Instagram with happy selfies I'd be a little suspicious of her motives. I wouldn't consider that normal behaviour after a life changing experience.

Glass fused light

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

This is a gross misrepresentation of my posts. I made no such assumption.

So what are you saying, discover shouldn't be allowed when it's men on trial? Women should be believed without question? Your not being very clear.

Discovery is made only once charges are brought. The accused would have the right to inspect all exhibits mentioned in the list of exhibits even the ones not used during the case.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/disclosure_in_criminal_cases.html

There is no way I would allow even the possibility of my contact list to be passed to a person who sexually assaulted me.

My contact list contains the contact details of all the children in my family, and other relations etc

If I had to hand over details how could I know what that person would do with it

There is nothing stopping the police looking for a court order nor asking after, if the initial investigation raised questions

In the  "L i a m   A l l e n " case of the false claim proved by texts, the police had the data and did not look at it.

The new policy by the UK removes the court and jury as the case stops without a datadump or if the data did not show the victim as sympathetic
So a victim has to be proven [] believable in a single element of the case.

Crown Prosecution Service may end up having to defend individial cases in court.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/cps-rape-victims-legal-action


The litigant used information she had on one lady and the lady had to say she was leaving the country.

If you watched the last utube clip she is clearly using the testimony of the lady and the ladies personal  circumstances to minipulate the watcher

Glass fused light

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough
 ......
Many studies suggest women are more likely to judge female rape complainants harshly and to acquit men accused of rape.  female-dominated juries.

I would not be supprised at that result.  Women are taught to risk assess on barrier prevention methods
Dont get drunk, be alone, let him feel led on. Etc
I remember watching a programme set in the US and the trans woman (very attractive physicaly and in dress) describing how she would meet someone in a club.
She would come in with friend meet a man also with friends and they would chat each other up during the night.
She described that the most dangerous point in the night is at closing when the fella had expectations.
Watching it I was saying it was when she realised the fella was chatting her up 'with the intent' of sex

drunkmonkey

I've seen it happen, a woman's phone was taken off her in court even though she was the plaintiff in an assault case and the dpp's main witness. That phone contained pictures, texts, contacts etc all highly personal.
It wasn't passed to the defence but the Gardaí dropped all charges once the phone was downloaded as then it proved they were lying about being assaulted. The defence used a Facebook post she made to request the phone was searched.
The bar is beyond reasonable doubt, in what your refer to above your looking for the case to proceed when there is reasonable doubt. If you lie in any part of your prosecution case expect to be discredited.

Glass fused light

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Thread needs to be split between a gender identity debate and a rape trial / evidence / etc debate IMO...

I think that it inclusion emphasis the differences in approaches to valuing and including evidence.

Glass fused light

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fortunately it’s also built into the Gender Recognition Act 2015 that the Minister for Justice may also revoke a gender recognition certificate under certain circumstances, ..

14. (1) The Minister may revoke a gender recognition certificate if he or she is satisfied that he or she would not have issued the certificate under section 8(3)(a) had he or she been aware of information or facts before deciding to issue the certificate which since that issue have been brought to his or her notice.


Gender Recognition Act 2015

The evidence would have to prove that that was the sole intent of the applicant at the time of the application.

The changing rooms would be allowed but the pool party would iMO not be allowed as it was clearly after the cert was given.

One eyed Jack

Glass fused light wrote: »

The evidence would have to prove that that was the sole intent of the applicant at the time of the application.

The changing rooms would be allowed but the pool party would iMO not be allowed as it was clearly after the cert was given.

The Minister wouldn’t have to prove anything. It would be the person who was issued with the gender recognition certificate would have to provide evidence that it was not their intent to use the certificate for nefarious means in an appeal of the Ministers decision to revoke the certificate which gives legal recognition of a persons gender identity.

The pool party and the invasion of women’s privacy were just examples that could be used as information that came to light after the gender recognition certificate was issued, because they’re the examples that were relevant to the JY case. Had they been known at the time, it’s unlikely a gender recognition certificate would be issued to the person to have their gender recognised in law.

Glass fused light

Waxers can refuse
But the litigant has a womans body


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jessica-yanivs-fight-for-trans-rights-misses-the-very-point-of-that/

Glass fused light

One eyed Jack wrote: »

]
The Minister wouldn’t have to prove anything
.

Someone/something has to provide the Minister with an objection. Section 14 is reactive

"if he or she is satisfied that he or she would not have issued"

The acts / information have to have happened before the Minister issues the GRC

While it can be argued that it shows an escalation in behaviour.
The pool party and the litigation would have to be exculded as being passed the ' cut off ' date

"had he or she been aware of information or facts before deciding to issue "


I do hope the Minister is not going to do random checks after the GRC is issued

One eyed Jack

Glass fused light wrote: »

Someone/something has to provide the Minister with an objection. Section 14 is reactive

"if he or she is satisfied that he or she would not have issued"

The acts / information have to have happened before the Minister issues the GRC

While it can be argued that it shows an escalation in behaviour.
The pool party and the litigation would have to be exculded as being passed the ' cut off ' date

"had he or she been aware of information or facts before deciding to issue "


I do hope the Minister is not going to do random checks after the GRC is issued

The Minister doesn’t have to do random checks at all. Each case would be dependent upon the circumstances, so for example if a person obtained a GRC and then went about harassing women under the pretext that they are entitled to be treated as their legally recognised gender, the Minister may revoke the persons GRC in those circumstances, rendering their legal recognition void, and thereby nullifying any claim they have of discrimination on the basis of gender.

It’s similar to the way in which if you made a complaint of sexual assault to the authorities, you wouldn’t have the right to tell them how to conduct their investigation, and you wouldn’t have the right to withhold evidence by refusing to give them your phone or impeding their access to your social media accounts. You’d just be doing yourself no favours under those circumstances and could find yourself being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Of course I understand your wish to protect your privacy, and that’s where Calina was correct at least that one of the reasons why alleged victims of sexual assault and rape don’t make a complaint to the authorities - because they’re opening themselves up to being questioned as opposed to being automatically believed, and the person or persons they accuse of wrongdoing being automatically presumed guilty and denied their right to a fair trial. It’s understandable that a person wouldn’t want to put themselves through that, but one of the consequences of their decision is that the person or persons who committed wrongdoing is not held accountable for their actions.

In the same way, it’s easy to see why JY specifically targeted the people they did, because they assumed that those people would find themselves between a rock and a hard place - do something which violates their dignity, or face being exposed to public scrutiny. Their intent was clearly to make those women feel powerless to defend themselves against an attack on their identity and their dignity, and that was never the intent of anti-discrimination legislation.

The author of the article you linked to is correct in pointing out that this particular case has wider implications than just whether or not a person can be forced to perform intimate grooming acts on another person, but what they attempt to downplay as “culturally rooted stigma” is the very basis upon which we acknowledge and balance every persons human right to be treated with dignity and respect -


The case is about broader issues than just genital-waxing services, though. It’s about whether we tolerate culturally rooted stigma; whether we allow businesses to refuse service to anyone because of sexual, racial, gender or religious identities; and whether we expect Canadian businesses to adhere to our laws as intended and without exception.


Violating a persons dignity by forcing them to wax your scrotum was never the intent of anti-discriminaton legislation, and attempting to compel someone to act in violation of their conscience is a violation of the very principles upon which human rights law is based.

skybox2014

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Violating a persons dignity by forcing them to wax your scrotum was never the intent of anti-discriminaton legislation, and attempting to compel someone to act in violation of their conscience is a violation of the very principles upon which human rights law is based.

Benjamin Boyce did (another) excellent interview, this time with one of the defense lawyers, John Carpay, and it is well worth a watch in terms of how it teases out the details of the cases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VrmECWK2iQ

(and the clips from the Mark Hughes' full interview with Yaniv are like watching a car crash in slow mo. https://youtu.be/47MT26u_L4M )

Also worth catching are Rose of Dawn's (Trans woman) many commentary videos. Rose make a point of calling out Yaniv and the many trans activists who do not help the trans cause.

Glass fused light

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The author of the article you linked to is correct in pointing out that this particular case has wider implications than just whether or not a person can be forced to perform intimate grooming acts on another person, but what they attempt to downplay as “culturally rooted stigma” is the very basis upon which we acknowledge and balance every persons human right to be treated with dignity and respect -


The case is about broader issues than just genital-waxing services, though. It’s about whether we tolerate culturally rooted stigma; whether we allow businesses to refuse service to anyone because of sexual, racial, gender or religious identities; and whether we expect Canadian businesses to adhere to our laws as intended and without exception.


Violating a persons dignity by forcing them to wax your scrotum was never the intent of anti-discriminaton legislation, and attempting to compel someone to act in violation of their conscience is a violation of the very principles upon which human rights law is based.

The author is fully in favour of women being forced to wax scrotum, it being the same as the care given by nurses and carers.

The article IMO is trying to white wash prior statements al a "I did not have "sexual relations" with that woman. It's spinning while quietly looking for the emergency exit.

She had spent 20 odd years fighting to defund single sex provision in women's rape crisis centres. Not 20 years to have them renamed 'men and women's 'centres nor looking for male only provision, as that would (imo) invalidate her personal identity of self ID.

>>> Off to watch the linkie ^

Glass fused light

skybox2014 wrote: »

Benjamin Boyce did (another) excellent interview, this time with one of the defense lawyers, John Carpay, and it is well worth a watch in terms of how it teases out the details of the cases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VrmECWK2iQ

(and the clips from the Mark Hughes' full interview with Yaniv are like watching a car crash in slow mo. https://youtu.be/47MT26u_L4M )

Also worth catching are Rose of Dawn's (Trans woman) many commentary videos. Rose make a point of calling out Yaniv and the many trans activists who do not help the trans cause.

As I have pointed out in the thread it's not just the trans cause that is being hit with the flack because this is linked into the LGB community and as a movement people are seeing LGBT as a single group.

When a LGB movement supports a males right to seek to have sex with a lesbian as if she was a heterosexual woman something has gone very wrong within the movement.

vladmydad

Interesting take on these issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WtHP8ippvA&app=desktop

klaaaz

vladmydad wrote: »

Interesting take on these issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WtHP8ippvA&app=desktop

No way i'm clicking that anonymous link without any forewarning of the content or the source of that content. It's like getting rickrolled.

Airyfairy12

I completed a beautician course and worked as a beautician for about two years, beauticians generally dont learn how to wax male parts, the wax used can cause serious injury if you dont know what youre doing, you can literally rip off skin and cause 3rd degree burns. Also beauticians arent under any obligations to give a treatment theyre not comfortable with doing and dont have to treat a client if they dont want to. Ive seen lots of beuticians refuse to do certain treatments and work on certain clients, its pretty common, usually down to lack of experience and safety reasons. Its crazy that those woman are out of work because of this, surely thats against their rights?

vladmydad

klaaaz wrote: »

No way i'm clicking that anonymous link without any forewarning of the content or the source of that content. It's like getting rickrolled.

Perfectly safe, it’s Steven Crowder and he nails the current push towards child sexualization