Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 21/11/18 in all areas

  1. 1 point
  2. 1 point
  3. 1 point
    when i first heard about this, i thought it must be referring to the ruling of some demented judge. (like the nutjob we had a while back suggesting a husband can use "reasonable force" to coerce sex out of his wife). however, i just found out the source of the outrage in this case is a defence lawyer, and much of the outrage is being directed at her — which is beyond stupid. a barrister's job is to make a persuasive argument, period. and, if the 'skimpy underwear is tantamount to consent' argument is actually a persuasive one in and of itself, then thats orders of magnitude more an indictment of the jury and the attitudes of the public from which it is drawn than anything else. heres a quote from the woman who started the hashtag: “Simply put, clothing is not consent. This kind of victim blaming is archaic and had no place in our court system." victim blaming? er, no. thats putting the cart before the horse. the purpose of the trial was to establish whether or not there was a victim. according to the court, there wasnt one. and i dont know the full context of how the underwear argument was raised, nor is there any way to know if it was instrumental in the verdict. people need to appreciate, that whatever the crime in question, it is often a regrettable necessity in trials dominated by hearsay and a dearth of material evidence, that all sorts of contentious peripheral details become the scraps over which the burden of proof must be contested. thereby, many aspects that ordinarily are, or should be, completely irrelevant to complicity, are rendered potentially relevant pending a jury's (or judge's) determination that they are not. so, whilst i applaud #thisisnotconsent for justifiably railing against the persistence of outmoded attitudes, and believe that stamping out these attitudes in the public at large may severely curtail their usefulness in court, i am nevertheless pissed off at the pillorying this lawyer has received, especially the hate she is getting from other women.
  4. 1 point
    I'm disappointed at the monetary policy. Really, I'd have expected that there'd have been legislation to allow Legal Tender representation by form of gold, silver, shark's teeth, ornamental shells, or Pokemon cards.
This leaderboard is set to Sydney/GMT+11:00
×