Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'rape' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: rape

Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Rape case about to collapse

As I have suggested here at the Sandpit before there are big problems with proving any accusation of rape and the immanent  collapse of this very high profile case is a very good example of just why that is the case.

click for source

Now I have watched various feminist orientated blogs go to town about this particular incident , working on the assumption that the woman making the accusation must be a paragon of virtue and veracity, because well she is a woman and women never lie about being raped now do they?

As I tried to suggest here the problem with  accusations of rape is that the legal  bone of contention is almost always one of consent and that it becomes a “she said /he said ” dichotomy which boils down to who is more credible about what happened?

Now if it turns out that this case does collapse where does that leave Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

Buggered politically and his professional life ruined as far as I can see.

Will the legal system give him justice for an accusation that is false?

Hmm sadly I think not, the man is ruined and he will live the rest of his life under a cloud while his accuser remains anonymous…

Is that justice?

Cheers Comrades


Name the poison

Sadly Pat is right  on the money here.

Cheers Comrades

#Slutwalk,#fashion, personal responsibility and safety on the streets after dark

Lets  consider just how earnest but confused the organisers of those little pieces of street theatre actually are shall we?

click for source

John Lydon says:

You never listen to word that I said
You only seen me
For the clothes that I wear
Or did the interest go so much deeper
It must have been
The colour of my hair.


When it comes to women who are sexually assaulted after going out getting pissed and then staggering around our cities (the sort of scenario that the Canadian policeman who inspired all of this feminist outrage was talking about)  well then   I think that think that the Mountie was wrong, it is not the way that a woman is dressed that makes her vulnerable in that situation it is being pissed and isolated that does it. In the animal kingdom most predators are total opportunists and to honest I think that the same thing applies to those men who would  take advantage of drunken women in the wee small hours in our cities. Now its all well and good to emphasise e that the all women should be safe on the streets after dark but it is most imprudent to assume that wishing for something is going to make it so. As individuals we all have to take responsibility for our own safety as we go about our work or as we seek our pleasures and this applies equally to men and women who go out on the town.

I’m going to upset a few people here but I think that there are a lot of women who are confused when it comes to the message that they send to the world with their public image. Human beings are after all like so many animals they communicate  to their fellows in the way that they present themselves to the world. In fact there are lots of birds and animals that put huge amounts of effort into display to demonstrate that they are available and worthy of mating. In many of these species it is often the males who are the dedicated followers of fashion but in our society it is generally women who put on the the display, they are told that they are validated by  how attractive they look and there is a huge industry that exists to make their validation happen.

There is however a sort of schizophrenic aspect to the feminists who wan to insist that women should have the right to make overtly sexual displays and at the same time they denounce we poor humble blokes for noticing  the size of the breasts, a well shaped bottom that is emphasised by particular items of clothing , or even just  what we may find hits all the right notes of our personal  tune. You can’t have it both ways. If you make a personal display that emphasises your sexuality then don’t be surprised if men notice you for that  reason and make judgements accordingly. That is just the way that we are biologically programmed to respond to sexual display.  By the same token though it is NEVER acceptable for anyone to assume that a sexual display means that there is some sort of implicit  general consent to sexual activity. The thing is no matter what the current fashions happen to be men and women make judgements about their sexual availability and they may even seek to do more than just look. The problem lays I think in the way that we are constantly told that we have to maintain a sexual display. I say we here to be inclusive of both men and women because the fashion industry has long realised that  men and women can be induced into parting with large amounts of cash to maintain a sexual display as a matter of course even when the need is less than urgent once that pair bond has been already been established.

We are all in the thrall of a fashion industry that tells us that we are only validated by having the newest and “most beautiful plumage” that money can buy. Frankly I think that it would do the cause of women (and men) far more good if those young idealistic feminists  who are running the Slutwalk street theatre  were to turn their attentions to the fashion industry in general and consider just who the players that lead and dictate what is socially acceptable in terms of personal  presentation. If history teaches us anything about the nature of “Fashion” it is that it seems to bounce between being very overt to very modest in the amount of flesh that is on display and as the industry has managed to make the obsolescence cycle shorter and shorter to boost sales I think that it has got to the stage where there is absolutely no good sense at all, and even less appreciation of just what messages any particular type individual display makes to the world.

So my message for Slutwalkers everywhere is this; wear whatever you like, display as little or as much flesh as you please that is your right, with you 110% on you having the right to do as you please, but it is unrealistic to think that having a “right” to personal safety will ever guarantee your safety,  because there is no way that we will ever have a society without some (hopefully very few)  nasty people and  violent crime. I am reminded of the advice that a good friend once gave me on the occasion of my first  ever visit to Sydney as a young man ” always walk the streets with a sense of purpose and as if you own them, even if you are lost, them and you will have no trouble”  There is a message in that advice for young women*  too.

And a final quote from that song to ponder:

Public Image you got what you wanted
The Public Image belongs to me
It’s my entrance
My own creation
My grand finale
My goodbye


Cheers Comrades

* although I tend to think that teetering on 4 inch heels in a short dress while pissed makes this rather difficult.

I just love this clip

Cheers Comrades

Should the slate for convicted molesters and rapists be entirely wiped clean by the courts?

Some people will argue most vociferously that once a rapist or kiddie fiddler has done their time they deserve to be able to return to a normal life and that their past misdeeds should not continue to haunt them at every turn. That they should have a clean slate upon which they can write the script for a new and hopefully sin free life. Superficially this is a most attractive notion but the sad reality is that both kiddie fiddlers and rapists tend to be repeat offenders and most of us really don’t want it to be our children or our family members whose bodies and souls are put in harms way so that the theoretical notion that every criminal scum-bag can be redeemed can be tested.


Derryn Hinch with his wife Chanel outside court. Source: Herald Sun

“It’s about open courts, it’s about the transparency of our courts … it’s about the public interest.”

“The basic thing is our system of democracy and our Constitution was meant to say our courts will be open, they will be fair, they will be transparent.

“Right now, they are not and it’s shrinking.
“In the state of Victoria they are throwing these suppression orders out like confetti.

“I hope it shows that victims get at least equal treatment with criminals, which I don’t think has been happening in our courts of late.”

Hinch faces five charges of breaching suppression orders by naming the two sex offenders on the steps of the Victorian Parliament.

They had been released from jail on extended supervision orders with their names suppressed.

Hinch said there were at least 24 other sex offenders enjoying similar protection in Victoria.

The well-known radio host, who was jailed for 12 days in 1987 for naming a paedophile priest, said he wasn’t sorry over his latest brush with the law.

“I think morally what I did was totally right,” he said.

Opening the case for Hinch, barrister David Bennett, QC, argued the relevant Victorian legislation was invalid and violated constitutional requirements that courts be open.

Mr Bennett said there were circumstances where courts could legitimately suppress material from publication, including cases relating to life and death, national security, blackmail and commercial matters.

But they should not include protecting a criminal’s privacy.


I really do appreciate the desire of the courts and correctional services to give offenders a chance but its unlikely ever to  be the children of the Judges who grant the suppression orders who will be violated if they have given a convicted molester anonymity while they are on parole. It is just as unlikely that their daughters or sons will be the victims of a rapist released. If the judges who grant suppression orders are so happy about letting those who have been convicted of crimes that we consider the most vile and detestable out into the community under a veil of anonymity then how about those judges take personal responsibility for the scum bags? Put them up in their own homes, introduce them to their families, maybe even get them to mind their grand kids (if they have them) maybe the thought of this might make them more understanding of just why the public are less than sanguine about the ongoing risk that this class of offender presents to the public and maybe then they will understand why someone like Derryn Hinch is willing to go to jail to oppose the suppressing of the names of  convicted sex offenders by the Victorian courts.

Cheers Comrades

Relax, it’s just sex (or missogony or rape, take your pick)

I'm buying one for Laura

The T-shirt that shocked Queensland

Some people want to ban this T-shirt showing a woman bound & and gagged with the slogan: “Relax it’s just sex.”

They say it promotes violence against women.

But there are some pretty mixed views  (and mixed-up ones too) about this garment.

Let’s take a look and see who is right and whether this Tshirt is all bad, neither here nor there or f*cken great!

Queensland’s Minister for Women, Karen Struthers, wants shops to stop selling it: 

“There’s nothing good here. It’s not erotic, it’s not pornography, it’s just absolute violence,”

But Matt Rooke the Oz distributor says it’s just for people who like kinky sex. Max reckons Ms Struthers is just being a prude and “ridiculous” by demanding shops remove his best seller. He says politicians should not tell people what they can wear (obviously he’s never heard of Cory Bernardi the Liberal MP who wants to publically derobe Muslim women):

“We don’t advocate any sort of violence against women, or anybody for that matter,” Max said. “It’s a bondage T-shirt, which is just certain people’s own interpretation of sex.”

Back to Ms Struthers:

“… we’ve got to actually draw a line here about what becomes violence and what portrays women in a way that says violence against women is acceptable. And that’s what this does.”

“The evidence shows that the more women continue to be portrayed in the media and advertising as objects of sexual gratification, as objects for physical violation, the more that produces attitudes in young boys, young men, older men that it’s OK to physically violate and sexually violate women. The evidence is very clear.”

And feminist academic Catharine Lumby of UNSW is “concerned” (but confused!):

“I’m concerned about any sort of T-shirt or banner or poster or any public form of expression that is encouraging people to view women as sexual objects, or as objects to be attacked,” she said.

But Professor Lumby says it is a mistake to think that banning T-shirts can stop sexual assaults.”Do I think that those things cause sexual assault? No.”

“What causes sexual assault are attitudes and they might be reinforced by T-shirts or banners, but they start much younger,” she said.

“It doesn’t matter what the woman’s wearing. It doesn’t matter what the man is wearing or what videos he’s watching. What matters is behaviour and attitudes towards women – they are the things we need to change. What matters is getting very good education into schools about sexual ethics.”

Huh? So does she want them banned or not? This is chicken & egg stuff – I think we just have to make up our own minds. I dunno if you can ban Tshirts but I guess if you ban Burqas like Cory wants to then you have crossed that line into the fashion fascists police and we will be having our cops going round ripping clothes off people in public and exposing their breasts instead of handing out speeding fines and raiding bikie gangs like they should be doing.

I would not wear this Tshirt and I reckon any bloke who does is kindar making a statement about one thing or the other. I mean, if you went to the pub wearing one you are not going to have much luck with most chicks you try to chat up. Its a bit of a giveaway that you are either a rapist a missoginist or a sexual deveant.

Well At least you’d know that any chick who likes your fashion style is your kind of gal. And if one actually chats you up Ii reckon you would know shes ready and willing to popbackhome for a bit of hardcore S&M. It pays to advertise.

But if you wore it down the local supermarket you might as well carry a sign that says ‘out of my way – I am a sicko’.  on the plus side you are gunna be given a pretty wide berth in the isles and not have to fight your way past old ladies and mums with their screaming snottienosed kids.

Then there is the issue of is this another example of the pornification of society that is desensatising the minds of males and teaching young kids and old farts too that its okay to portrait women this way as sex objects?

The antiporn arguments have been attacked and shot down by some bloggers who say its an “anything goes” world of porn. They say censorship of any kind is bad but porn is good and does not hurt nobody. But some of those same bloggers also say we should not demeen women as sex slaves to the lusty desires of men so they would be contradicting themselves if they say this Tshirt is okay and people have a right to sell it and a right to wear it.

And then there is the argument put forward above by the minster and the feminist academic that it is not pornographhy but violence against women that the T shirt is portraiting and encouraging as an acceptable norm. It depends on your perspextive I suppose. We see a lot of violence on TV and on computer iphone games too. Chopping off peoples heads and kicking the shit out of them is everywhere. 

Its a very vexed question and I dunno about this Tshirt and what to make of it. But I might by one for Laura – she likes to being tied up.

Half a million page views at the Sandpit

I know that statistical miles stones are really meaningless but that does not stop you feeling pretty good when you reach them. Well if you keep an eye on the hit counter at the bottom of the page some time today I expect that you will see the counter tick over t0 the magical “500,000” mark . That is pretty good for a modest blog written as a bit of fun .

Thanks very much to all of those who take the time to read what I and my friends put up  here and a special thanks to all of those who take the time to comment and argue with what is on this web-page. Commentary and argument is the life blood of blogging and long may it keep pumping at the Sandpit.

Cheers Comrades

The rise of the Greens its support for paedophiles compared to the abuse of children by Catholic priests.

Craigy has for a very long time, chided me for being rather quiet on the issue of Priests who have used their office to to abuse either their vulnerable parishioners and the young children of their congregation. He has taken particular offence at the hierarchy that has done its darnedest to avoid scandals by moving offenders from place to place rather than to surrender them to secular justice and expel them from their priestly office. Mea Culpa I have let this issue through to the keeper for a couple of reasons mainly though it has been because my attention has been focused elsewhere.Regular readers will realise that my tolerance for any kind of abuser is very low indeed and my desire for justice for such crimes has lead me to advocate the most severe sanctions for such crimes. I will however concede that I have expressed reservations about any allegations of misconduct that are many years old, mainly because proving such allegations becomes very difficult. The Catholic church clearly does deserve some censure for the way that it has failed to address the legitimate complaints. Likewise I have been concerned by the way that present day activists want to see vile practices of the past as if they were happening now because that denies that the crimes that we now think to be the most vile were not always seen as such in the past.

Critics of the church really have no choice but to concede that there is no liturgical justification for the vile practices of the deviant priests. Nowhere in the Christian scriptures is there the sort of example that one finds in Islam (that the Prophet Mohammed married a child ) so while we can clearly criticise the very poor response from the powers that be in the church it can not justifiably be claimed that any offender is fulfilling the tenants of the faith when they have abused children.

But when it comes to the religious abusing children the Greens are not actually paragons of virtue either.

The Greens are not of course a vast monolithic international organisation but as far as I understand it they do follow the template and the iconography of the original Green party that began in Germany in the late sixties. Just as the communists kept the dogmatism of the religion that they had rejected in favour Marx the Greens, many of whom are ex-communists who think that they have evolved (or at least found a new way to continue their beef with capitalism), like to think that they hold the copyright on moral virtue but when you get back into the embryonic  German Green party you find some rather unsavoury attempts to do social  experiments on their own children

The Greens were not long immune to the argument that the government should not limit the sexuality of children. At its convention in Lüdenscheid in 1985, the Greens’ state organization in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia argued that “nonviolent sexuality” between children and adults should generally be allowed, without any age restrictions. “Consensual sexual relations between adults and children must be decriminalized,” the “Children and Youth” task force of the Green Party in the southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg wrote in a position paper at about the same time. Public protests forced the party to remove the statement from the document.

During this time, no other newspaper offered paedophiles quite as much a forum as the alternative, left-leaning Tageszeitung, which shows how socially acceptable this violation of taboos had become in the leftist community. In several series, including one titled “I Love Boys,” and in lengthy interviews, men were given the opportunity to describe how beautiful and liberating sex with preadolescent boys supposedly was. “There was a great deal of uncertainty as to how far people could go,” says Gitti Hentschel, the co-founder and, from 1979 to 1985, editor of Tageszeitung. Those who, like Hentschel, were openly opposed to promoting paedophilia were described as “prudish” — as opposed to freedom of expression. “There is no such thing as censorship in the Tageszeitung,” was the response.

Of course there has subsequently been a lot of efforts made to refine their social agenda and to distance themselves from this early and grossly misplaced excuse making for sexual abuse that allowed the prototype Green Party to become the number one choice for paedophiles. Good on them for learning from their early mistakes But as mistakes go those of the prototype  Greens don’t get much more gross.

I do have  a point to make here and that is no matter how noble an organisation may set out to be it can by hijacked by those with a vile and self-serving agenda but what matters is that they make the best possible efforts to repudiate such evil and to  ensure that it does not happen further. Its the same with the Catholic church. The abuse of children was incredibly vile and those responsible deserve the most severe sanctions that are available in the jurisdictions where the crimes were committed but just as I a would not expect Craigy to call for the dissolution of the Greens on the basis of the abuses committed in the past one should not expect or call for the the dissolution of the Church  either.

Both organisations seek to make a better world  and both want to honour the creator as their ideology moves them to do. Neither has a monopoly on virtue nor do  either have clean hands when it comes to the issue of child abuse. Frankly I think that there would not be an organisation, group or class of people on the planet  who have not at sometime had a vile predator  lurking among their ranks  waiting for the opportunity to exploit  a vulnerable person or child. This fact  should not be a reason for paranoia but its should  be an inspiration for vigilance, support for the victims of abuse, and the delivery of real justice to the individuals who abuse children.

Cheers Comrades

%d bloggers like this: