This is the submission of the New Zealand
Equality Education Foundation (NZEEF) on the Crimes (Drug
Rape) Amendment Bill, which is being considered by Parliament in conjunction
with the Crimes Amendment Bill No.2.
Introduction
This Bill
(1) creates a new offence of wilfully ... stupef(ying) ... any other
person with the intent to
commit sexual violation;
and
(2) adds one new way that a person is not deemed to be consenting,
for the purposes of defining
"sexual violation", i.e. the fact that they are prevented
from physically resisting by an
intoxicating, anaesthetic, controlled or illegal substance, or hypnotic
drug means that they are not
in fact consenting.
The NZEEF agrees with the general intent of the Bill to create the
new offence in (1) (above), but
is severely criticial of the proposed modification to the notion of
consent in (2) (above). This
criticism cannot limit itself to the actual proposal, but extends to
the current Crimes Act approach
to Sexual Violation as a whole -- and indeed to the whole ideology of
Feminism, of which this Bill
and relevant parts of the Crimes Act are logical extensions.
The word "rape" in the title of this Bill is sexist in itself,
and is a die-hard Feminist attempt to
keep men oppressed by propaganda-induced guilt. The terms "sexual
violation" and "unlawful sexual connection"
are appropriate sex-neutral alternatives. On this ground alone, the
Attorney-General should have (but probably has not)
reported to Parliament, under section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990
(BORA), that it was in breach
of section 19 of that Act, by discriminating against males -- since
rape is not something that women
can physically easily commit.
More generally, the whole sexual violation scheme of the Crimes Act
1961 is in violation of section
19 of BORA, by discriminating against males. We will explain why below.
Consent
The word "intoxicating" in clause 4(1)(c) makes it clear
that even alcohol (a mainstream party
drug), consumed voluntarily by a person, may make him/her into a victim
of a crime perpetrated
by a person who has sexual connection with that person. No doubt, in
some circles, anaesthetic,
controlled or illegal substances, or hypnotic drugs are routinely taken
voluntarily by people in the way
that alcohol commonly is.
If this Bill becomes law, it is no great leap from those facts to state
that (for example) a woman
who voluntarily goes to a social event and voluntarily takes a substantial
amount of alcohol is
knowingly both putting herself in danger of having a legally "non-consensual"
sexual connection --
and also knowingly putting some man (for example) in danger of a prison
sentence (if one other
condition is fulfilled -- see below). It is this pathological obsession
with maximising the freedom
of action of women, and this pathological ignoring of the danger it
makes men run of ending up in jail,
which are the most sexist and discriminatory aspects of this Bill, and
of the Crimes Act that it amends.
Correct me if I am wrong, but sexual connection is generally a pleasurable
activity, engaged in by
both men and women voluntarily. It is grossly sexist and oppressive
to make (overwhelmingly) men
be the ones who pay a penalty if the blurry line between lawful and
unlawful sexual connection is crossed.
The Dominion Post of 5 June 2004 ran an article by Colin Patterson,
which reported on research which
showed that women in the West (still) prefer to be chased by men, rather
than to do the chasing. The Crimes Act
only imposes penalties on the active partner. There is no threat of
legal sanction hanging over the passive partner
if he/she (usually it's she) is ambiguous, misleading, entrapping, or
has intentionally, recklessly or negligently
allowed herself to get intoxicated or drugged.
The fact that this Bill treats women as so stupid and irresponsible
that it is legally acceptable
for women to behave in this manner says a lot about the man-hating sexism
that fuels proposals such as this
Bill. Women in New Zealand today are truly irresponsible, because Feminism
-- paid for by tapayer
dollars -- has been constantly extending women's freedom to do whatever
they want to do, leaving
men, children, and unborn babies to pay the penalty imposed by women's
ever-increasing "freedom".
If women, with their small brains and weak bodies, propped up by lying
"Girls Can Do Anything"
campaigns, are really so stupid that they can't avoid sexually risky
behaviour, then they really should be kept
at home in the kitchen with the kids, where their mental capacities
won't be over-taxed !
Belief as to Consent
The other condition (referred to above) that, added to actual non-consent,
creates the offence of
rape or sexual violation is if the suspect does not believe on reasonable
grounds that the complainant is consenting.
Under this Bill, then, if a woman voluntarily gets herself intoxicated
or drugged at a social
occasion, and sexual connection with a male takes place, she is deemed
not to have consented.
Then the questions become:
a) did he believe that she had consented; and,
b) if so, did he believe that on reasonable grounds ?
The man, in order to escape jail, has to convince the court that
1) there is at least a "reasonable" possibililty that he
believed that she was consenting; and that
2) there is at least a "reasonable" possibililty that he had
grounds for that belief which the Court
considered were "reasonable" grounds.
We submit that it is grossly unfair on men to have to run the risk
of having to convince a Court of
these two matters whenever they have sex with a woman -- while a woman
typically runs no legal risk
at all. In addition, a man may not be sober enough himself to decide
whether she is drunk or drugged,
and even police officers have difficulty assessing whether people are
under the influence of drugs.
A man may, in the contect of the situation and of the personalities
involved, have good grounds for
assuming that she had consented -- but why should he have to run the
risk that a Court would not
understand him or agree with him ? Such issues have been captured by
the Feminists, who are
imposing a theology of things which they call "myths", which
we are not allowed to believe about women
-- even if they are true.
The Institute of Judicial Studies, which teaches judges what to think,
is currently undemocratically
oppressing men by teaching judges Feminist propaganda as if it were
fact. As a result, a man might
have reasonable grounds for believing a woman consented, but these could
be ruled out on Feminst
theological grounds in a courtroom.
Feminism
This pathological hostility to a male perspective on life is part and
parcel of Feminism, the State
Ideology of New Zealand. Only when we ditch Feminism and give men's
groups equal status with the
Ministry of Women's Affairs, and other forms of taxpayer-funded Feminism,
will legal oppression of men
have any prospect of ceasing.
Conclusion
This Bill, and relevant aspects of the Crimes Act itself, must be amended
to put equal
responsibility (and legal liability) onto
both active and passive partners in sexual connection to
avoid situations where a crime may appear to have been committed.
