Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Sven Longshanks
Daily Stormer
January 29, 2015
In a desperate bid to try and justify their claims that all men are potential rapists, feminists in Britain have forced through a change in the law that now means a man must be able to prove that a woman said yes, or else he can be convicted of rape.
How this could actually be proved apart from presenting a marriage contract to the court they have neglected to say, and I doubt very much if they were intending on encouraging marriage with this.
Date rape suspects will now need to prove that a woman consented as part of tough new rules on the way sex offence cases are investigated.
The Crown Prosecution Service said the time has come to move beyond the idea of ‘no means no’ when it comes to identifying situations where women may have been unable to give consent.
As part of the major overhaul, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, said she wanted police to ask suspects how they knew the alleged victim was saying yes, and was doing so ‘freely and knowingly’.
The CPS wants to tighten the law against offenders who target people incapacitated through drink or drugs, or where the alleged rapist holds a position of power over the victim.
Questions on consent should also be raised where the complainant has mental health problems or learning difficulties, it was said.
The rules also aims to stop suspects using social media to construct ‘false narratives’ to help cover their tracks.
Numbers of rape cases coming to court in the past two years have risen by 30 per cent but police remain concerned that as many as three quarters of victims do not come forward.
Mrs Saunders said: ‘For too long society has blamed rape victims for confusing the issue of consent – by drinking or dressing provocatively for example.
‘But it is not they who are confused, it is society itself and we must challenge that. Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area – in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely.
‘It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex through drink.
‘It is now well established that many rape victims freeze rather than fight as a protective and coping mechanism.’
I could understand this if it was just for non-Whites in our countries, but its not. Its for all men and as such it is an odious law that assumes all men are guilty, on the say so of a woman. This is blatant anti-male discrimination and I doubt very much whether it will even work in the courts, for the reasons stated earlier.
