ACCforum: Political Issues for Sensitive Claimants - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Political Issues for Sensitive Claimants

#1 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 29 September 2008 - 08:20 AM

Hi All,

For many years now various Interest Groups have been claiming a mandate for their existence by claiming that they support Sexual Abuse Victims. Yet as a rule Sexual Abuse Victims are a silent group. Apparently (according to figures from various groups) 90% of victims do not address their issues in a formal manner so this leads me to wonder how organisations can claim to working for the majority of victims. With this in mind I would like to encourage some input from those who are impacted by the issue and put to the test the notion that any who claim to represent victims have victims best interests at heart.

Here are some issues as I see them:

1) The Public have a limit to how much goodwill they will provide in any issue. For instance we dont talk about starving children when eating out. Therefore when every man and his dog claims to be acting on behalf of victims then that finite pool of goodwill is consumed accordingly.

2) Juries are made up of members of the public.

3) Every group in society has a political face and if this is not managed well, then political failure is sure to follow.

4) What issue in the world has ever been addressed in a meaningful way when hysteria is allowed to dominate the process?

5) How would Militant Feminists and Moralists push their issues, gain media attention and Government funding if they weren't using the plight of Sexual Abuse Victims to do so?

6) Does the use of Sexual Abuse Victims issues in the manner described in 5 bring good outcomes for victims or does it just feed the groups who claim they represent victims?

I would be very interested to know how people thought on this matter. All opinions count!

Lupine
0

#2 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 29 September 2008 - 12:08 PM

Hi All,

It has been pointed out to me that discussion on this matter will likely be inhibited by peoples desire for Privacy. With this in mind please feel free to email me directly. I promise that all communications will be not be published by me in the open forum and Privacy will be respected. Just to clarify:

1) Past backgrounds and personal details are not required or desired.

2) All that is wanted is your opinion on the topic presented.


Kind Regards

Lupine
0

#3 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 29 September 2008 - 03:10 PM

View Postmaungataniwha, on Sep 29 2008, 01:18 PM, said:



Hello,

The issues I am trying to examine are:

How do we know that victims are being represented in a way that brings meaningful results for victims? The evidence seems to suggest that various groupings in society are fuelling their political and financial agendas by exploiting the emotive reaction around sexual abuse. To obtain what they require they need to generate the strongest emotive reaction possible. This reaction comes with consequences and it is the victims who bear the brunt of this reaction for no real gain for the victim. Yet these groups and activists can not claim a mandate, they are policed by no one and the measure of their success is based on formulas created and policed by themselves. If this was any other organisation there would be such a conflict of interest and an offense to basic ethical practice that it would not recieve any credence at all. Having spoken to a reasonable number of people with abused backgrounds off line I have acertained that not one of the people I asked supported the current model of dealing with sexual abuse. It is for this reason they are part of the 90% who dont respond in an official process. If a person writes a to a Politician on issues of abuse that politician will not reply. People ranging from employers to family will often avoid a victim who speaks out. Juries are convicting at a very low rate. Essentially sexual abuse victims become like the starving children no one talks about at dinner. People do not want to know and it is not because they dont care for the most part it is more to do with the fact that the limited resources and goodwill available are being consumed by people who are getting Government money and or media recognition while serving their own agendas. Yet the overwhelming majority of victims do not buy into what is happening and are very upset that their issues are being used to fuel others while leaving the victims in the social cold.
0

#4 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 02 October 2008 - 02:06 PM

Quote

People do not want to know and it is not because they dont care for the most part it is more to do with the fact that the limited resources and goodwill available are being consumed by people who are getting Government money and or media recognition while serving their own agendas. Yet the overwhelming majority of victims do not buy into what is happening and are very upset that their issues are being used to fuel others while leaving the victims in the social cold.


I agree. People do have limits (to me they seem wrapped up in their own life - but it's so much more than that! The bottom line IME is NOBODY CARES!! For most of them the only similar situation is having sex. Didn't hurt them - so what is the difference?

Ouch. A horrible realisation isn't it? But there it is.... and I am* a social lepper no one understands or wants around.

BTW politicians won't reply for most issues.

Juries should be educated on the effects of rape and how victims are likely to respond. We could do this by educating the public (ACC are you listening??). I am thinking of that Sunday programme with Cameron Bennet when he asked a gang rape victim (the shipton, scholum, rickards crap again) if she was telling the truth, why wouldn't she appear on camera?

Duh. Then later I hear another one is threatened by the Sunday STimes reported that her name will be published.

What is wrong is the public perception. We must change this.
0

#5 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 02 October 2008 - 08:55 PM

Very few of us do. *hug* It's draining to even think about.
0

#6 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 03 October 2008 - 09:45 AM

Thank you for the comments and input into this issue.

The observations that few have the energy to add input into the wider issues surrounding the politics of Sexual Abuse are very relevant and support the view that victims are not represented in an honest manner as the overwhelming majority cannot and will not speak out for whatever reason. This leads to the question that if the majority are silent how can those who use victims issues claim to be representing any more than a vocal minority? Yet it is this vocal minority that the public see and therefore are the public face of sexual abuse victims. Yet let anyone raise a dissenting voice and they risk having a hysterical wave of umbrage visited upon their heads. This is a serious issue as Politicians are forced to tow the extremist line and therefore change cannot occur.

What victims need is their dignity and an ability to function in wider society without the stereotypes that are foisted upon them yet how is this possible in this political climate? Some examples:

2001: Denise Ritchie Militant Feminist and Moralist gets up in the papers and states that Fathers Day should be a day of shame. This caused a massive backlash which of course impacts on all victims.

2007: After the aquittal of Clint Rickards protesters march on a Police Station with the obvious intention of taking on male Police Officers (despite the fact the Police actually prosecuted Rickards) but were thwarted when Police used only female Police Officers at the cordon. Protesters were heard to yell "where are the male cops?!" One protester practically foaming at the mouth waved around her documented rape history in front of the cameras in an obvious media stunt. This action firmly placed the perception in the public mind that victims are rabid and unstable.

2008: Denise Ritchie leads a protest march during the Boobs on Bikes Parade waving banners claiming Porn fuels Rape to the jeers of many of the 100000 people who wanted to see the actual parade. Those jeers would not have stopped with Denise Ritchie they wash over to include the people Ritchie claims to be representing, Sexual Abuse Victims.

2008: A committee looking in to how more convictions be achieved in court have come up with the idea that men will have to prove that they had the woman's consent when the event took place. How in the name of God this is to be achieved in reality defies belief. Should there be a written contract (which would then be dismissed as gained under duress?) How about a video? Or should there be independent witnesses to document the given consent?

The public do care at a certain level but they are basing their reasoning on what they see in the media. The public do not want to make sexual abuse the dynamic that drives their lives. They do not want to see sexual relationships as something evil and they do not want to be overly exposed to the misery that comes with sexual abuse any more than the well fed want to contemplate the situation of the starving when they sit down to a meal. This is human nature and like it or not human nature and politics will always be a major factor.

It is bad enough to be a victim of sexual abuse without the added odium of being seen as a social leper because people like Denise Ritchie want to shape the world in their own image. These people are not the friends of victims they are exploiters using peoples issues to serve their own agendas and in doing so using up the limited good will of a tired and emotionally drained public. They create an environment where legal process and political process are captive to moralists and Militant Feminists who would not recieve funding or gain traction for their own issues without the exploitation of those who cannot speak for themselves.

It is true that sexual deviants cause harm to thousands of women and children every year. Yet it is moralists who keep women behind bamboo screens, clad in burquas, deprived of education and the ability to make decisions that impact their own lives. It is moralists who have circumcised women in their millions all in the name of keeping women safe from sexual deviancy. With friends like that who needs enemies?
0

#7 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 03 October 2008 - 10:04 AM

Just one question are you allowed to publicly advertise porn.

One needs to remind our selves who benefit with law changes. Is it the person making the law change or the whole community.

How much doers the sex industry pay in ACC levies. this is including promoters and every one that uses the industry.

Isn't there a large number from the sex industry now receiving some benefit from ACC. if so what is ACC doing to remove the sex industry from NZ as a long term employment opportunity.
0

#8 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 03 October 2008 - 02:46 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on Oct 3 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

Just one question are you allowed to publicly advertise porn.

One needs to remind our selves who benefit with law changes. Is it the person making the law change or the whole community.

How much doers the sex industry pay in ACC levies. this is including promoters and every one that uses the industry.

Isn't there a large number from the sex industry now receiving some benefit from ACC. if so what is ACC doing to remove the sex industry from NZ as a long term employment opportunity.


Hi Dopplelganger,

Just to clarify I mentioned Boobs on Bikes as an obvious example of Denise Ritchie using victims for her own agenda in the public forum regardless of the fact she has no mandate and that her actions bring negativity to those she claims to represent. The rights and wrongs of peoples sexual behavior outside of the demarcation line provided by the crimes act have no relevance to the issues I am raising here.

In answer to your questions:

Yes the Porn Industry is allowed to advertise and does so through promotions and catalogues and the Internet quite extensively. Boobs on Bikes promotes an Erotica Expo which is not defined as Pornographic. With this in mind it is safe to say that there is no mainstream advertising of Porn as this would bring nothing but trouble to the industry amongst other things.

Law changes are supposed to benefit but sometimes serve the few and it is this dynamic I am discussing here in terms of Political Issues and Sex Abuse Victims.

Brothels would pay ACC Levies as a Business and the Levies will be determined by Actuaries in a manner that sees Levies matched according to risk. ACC is an Insurer not WINZ. ACC is like the TAB it pays out but it never loses. Individual Sex Workers will be treated as Self Employed and predetermined Levies apply. If the Sex Worker is ducking tax and not registered with ACC if something happens they will not have an income to declare. No income no Weekly Comp. As for the people who pay for services there is no cover for them because the legislation only covers the obvious risks that sex brings for workers not customers. Customer falls off bed and hits head he gets cover. Condom breaks and he gets HIV then he gets nothing. Also ACC is a no fault system. This leads to a situation where Motorcylists pay higher Road Levies because other people drive into them for example. That is simply legislative consequence.

I have heard nothing to indicate that the Sex Industry is having a large financial impact on ACC. Even if it was my reasoning above applies. Whatever the amount the Sex Industry consumes it pales into insignificance compared to the cost of Rugby and Alcohol. ACC is not in a position to remove cover for the sex industry. If ACC could determine cover on Morality issues then I would say it would be better off starting its purge with Drunk Drivers.
0

#9 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 03 October 2008 - 09:19 PM

DG - I remember a recent case where a sex babe injured herself on the job, which happened to be in a car. Result = covered. (From memory I think it was some kind of back injury).
0

#10 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 03 October 2008 - 09:30 PM

Quote

...Condom breaks and he gets HIV then he gets nothing. [snip]...

...I have heard nothing to indicate that the Sex Industry is having a large financial impact on ACC. Even if it was my reasoning above applies. Whatever the amount the Sex Industry consumes it pales into insignificance compared to the cost of Rugby and Alcohol. ACC is not in a position to remove cover for the sex industry. If ACC could determine cover on Morality issues then I would say it would be better off starting its purge with Drunk Drivers.


Yea, the perception that sex workers in NZ have higher rates of HIV is incorrect. I'd quote the NZ Aids Foundation website but it is undergoing construction....

I haven't seen anything to suggest a disproportionate number of people in the sex industry recieve ongoing ACC payments, although given that 9/10 sex workers have been sexually abused this would be HUGE (assuming they get their entitlement or course).
0

#11 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 03 October 2008 - 09:46 PM

2001: Denise Ritchie Militant Feminist ...states that Fathers Day should be a day of shame. This caused a massive backlash which of course impacts on all victims.

I heard nothing about this until now!! Possibly because I consider Father's Day entirely commercial. I get that Denise is passionate about this issue.

2007: After the aquittal of Clint Rickards protesters march on a Police Station with the obvious intention of taking on male Police Officers (despite the fact the Police actually prosecuted Rickards) but were thwarted when Police used only female Police Officers at the cordon. Protesters were heard to yell "where are the male cops?!" One protester practically foaming at the mouth waved around her documented rape history in front of the cameras in an obvious media stunt. This action firmly placed the perception in the public mind that victims are rabid and unstable.

Twice you have used the word "obvious".....I can't be certain what their exact motivations were, except that in the media release it stated that the protest would be a show of support. Isn't that what happened? As for sex abuse victims being percieved as rabid and unstable....according to whom? How do you establish what the public mind is thinking?

2008: Denise Ritchie leads a protest march during the Boobs on Bikes Parade waving banners claiming Porn fuels Rape to the jeers of many of the 100000 people who wanted to see the actual parade. Those jeers would not have stopped with Denise Ritchie they wash over to include the people Ritchie claims to be representing, Sexual Abuse Victims.

Yea, freaky. I mainly remember the Family First people more than anything, a Christian group.

2008: A committee looking in to how more convictions be achieved in court have come up with the idea that men will have to prove that they had the woman's consent when the event took place. How in the name of God this is to be achieved in reality defies belief. Should there be a written contract (which would then be dismissed as gained under duress?) How about a video? Or should there be independent witnesses to document the given consent?

Committees often talk crap, I'm sure it won't become law. I would love to be involved by making submissions to this. How?
0

#12 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 03 October 2008 - 09:49 PM

View Postmaungataniwha, on Oct 2 2008, 09:07 PM, said:

It was bad enough living with the PTSS, looking over my shoulder for years, lest the perp (a PI) should carry out his threats to, "waste" me and/or my whanau. Living a half life, in fear of the stalker, not doing all the things I could've in my youth, avoiding opportunities socially & otherwise, for fear of gun-lover coming for us. He'd already bugged my phone & as a PI ready access to resources & information. I could've done so much with my life but it was not until I nearly died from medical misadventure that I got counselling & the courage to speak out. It's exhausting keeping secrets, esp life-threatening ones.

But due to the constant stress from Mr PI's coercions, the physical health has now crumpled under medical mayhem as well & so I am disabled & ill, due to medical injuries. So I don't have the energy, not even to push ACC for my heating appliances, VR & physical rehab entitlements.

I hope the PI's appendage drops off.


Must be hell doing anything. I hope you recieved at least some kind of financial compensation for this, although I know there is no way in hell it can compensate you for the loss of potiental, the loss of time.

Ditto the appendage.
0

#13 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 04 October 2008 - 08:14 PM

View Postredsquare74ucys, on Oct 3 2008, 10:46 PM, said:

2001: Denise Ritchie Militant Feminist ...states that Fathers Day should be a day of shame. This caused a massive backlash which of course impacts on all victims.

I heard nothing about this until now!! Possibly because I consider Father's Day entirely commercial. I get that Denise is passionate about this issue.

2007: After the aquittal of Clint Rickards protesters march on a Police Station with the obvious intention of taking on male Police Officers (despite the fact the Police actually prosecuted Rickards) but were thwarted when Police used only female Police Officers at the cordon. Protesters were heard to yell "where are the male cops?!" One protester practically foaming at the mouth waved around her documented rape history in front of the cameras in an obvious media stunt. This action firmly placed the perception in the public mind that victims are rabid and unstable.

Twice you have used the word "obvious".....I can't be certain what their exact motivations were, except that in the media release it stated that the protest would be a show of support. Isn't that what happened? As for sex abuse victims being percieved as rabid and unstable....according to whom? How do you establish what the public mind is thinking?

2008: Denise Ritchie leads a protest march during the Boobs on Bikes Parade waving banners claiming Porn fuels Rape to the jeers of many of the 100000 people who wanted to see the actual parade. Those jeers would not have stopped with Denise Ritchie they wash over to include the people Ritchie claims to be representing, Sexual Abuse Victims.

Yea, freaky. I mainly remember the Family First people more than anything, a Christian group.

2008: A committee looking in to how more convictions be achieved in court have come up with the idea that men will have to prove that they had the woman's consent when the event took place. How in the name of God this is to be achieved in reality defies belief. Should there be a written contract (which would then be dismissed as gained under duress?) How about a video? Or should there be independent witnesses to document the given consent?

Committees often talk crap, I'm sure it won't become law. I would love to be involved by making submissions to this. How?


Hi Redsquare,

Focusing on the issues you raised

1) Yes Denise is very enthusastic but her enthusiasm comes at a price for victims. The Fathers Day Statement and the backlash that followed occurred in conjunction with a legal firm mailing every house in New Zealand offering to do Sensitive Claims work and telling people they could be eligible for up to $150000. ACT turned it into a political issue to try and gain votes and the public were going mental in the Newspapers. Great stuff all round. I also believe if memory serves that Denise Ritchie also managed to go on so much that the Americans put NZ in a global report stating the NZ had a problem with child trafficking and Prostitution much to the chagrin of the Government cause we don't actually have a major child trafficking issue in NZ. I dont think that any of this added to the level of public support in NZ.

2) It was obvious because the Protestors were screaming out "where are the male cops?", the fact that the Police anticipated the situtation by using female cops and the actions and behaviours observed on TV. The public do think that Sex Abuse victims are rabid because that is what they see and I know this for true for I have discussed the situation with many, heard comments being made, watched the conviction rate slide and studied the sites of "Justice Campaigners"
who have all sorts of things to say.

3) Yes Family First were there with Denise leading the pack and it was freaky indeed.

4) I checked and it is the Justice Ministry and its scarier than you think. www.stuff.co.nz/4661892a6479.html Go here and see.
0

#14 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 06 October 2008 - 04:44 PM

View Postredsquare74ucys, on Oct 3 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

Yea, the perception that sex workers in NZ have higher rates of HIV is incorrect. I'd quote the NZ Aids Foundation website but it is undergoing construction....

I haven't seen anything to suggest a disproportionate number of people in the sex industry recieve ongoing ACC payments, although given that 9/10 sex workers have been sexually abused this would be HUGE (assuming they get their entitlement or course).


Just to clarify I only used the HIV example as a type of claim which could be laid by a sex worker in the context of claiming off ACC. There is not a high rate of infection HIV in the Sex Industry due to the safe sex practices widely adopted.
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10629
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 October 2008 - 05:39 PM

Has the ACC and the Sensitive Claims Unit inadvertently created a sexual abuser/counselling industry which is driven by "best practices" philosophy which effectively creates a statistical model by which so long as everybody ticks the boxes everybody gets paid.

The problem is there is no true identification of who are real victims and who are faking it and that the reality is there is no treatment offered given that only the very lowest qualified therapist is funded by the ACC.

The political issue I see is to the effect that the tail is wagging the dog with the result being that too much money is being spent without results.
0

#16 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 06 October 2008 - 06:22 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Oct 6 2008, 05:39 PM, said:

Has the ACC and the Sensitive Claims Unit inadvertently created a sexual abuser/counselling industry which is driven by "best practices" philosophy which effectively creates a statistical model by which so long as everybody ticks the boxes everybody gets paid.

The problem is there is no true identification of who are real victims and who are faking it and that the reality is there is no treatment offered given that only the very lowest qualified therapist is funded by the ACC.

The political issue I see is to the effect that the tail is wagging the dog with the result being that too much money is being spent without results.

Supposition, inuendo and opinions that are not based on fact. ACC has tightened the criteria for counsellors and many now have formal academic qualifications in psychology/psychiatric practises even to doctorate levels.

Try being repeatedly and systematically abused and then going into a world of "Doubting Thomas's" who re-traumatise by offering postings such as yours that are at best ill-founded, or I wonder why you who claim a Sensitive Claim make such wild claims.

The reason for an exponential rise in Claims is that people are becoming more aware of and are able to talk about abuse now. It used to be brushed under the carpet and the victim told to get over it, or it may take a "triggering event" to kick in to start the whole traumatisation process.

You want to know who's genuine? look for the self-harm, the anorexia/bulemic, the suicidals who have no other way to escape the dreams, flashes and memoties that haunt them.

It seems to me that you have an aversion to Sensitive Claims, are you in denial or where are you coming from?
0

#17 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 06 October 2008 - 06:25 PM

interactive box tickers eh wot?
0

#18 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 06 October 2008 - 08:41 PM

View Postflowers, on Oct 6 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

interactive box tickers eh wot?

If you go through the process of filing for a Sensitive Claim and reliving the trauma, then having to go through it step by step and relearn strategies to cope, maybe you will understand, until then, maybe you should go back to your "being nice thread" and revisit a few things.

Nobody denigrates the Chemically Sensitive, the Bad Backs, the OOS people etc. so why pick on Sensitive Claimants, other than they are vulnerable and easily hurt.
0

#19 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 06 October 2008 - 09:52 PM

LINK AS GIVEN ABOVE

Quote

Law may make rape suspects prove consent
BEN FAWKES - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Email a Friend | Printable View
Related Links
Subscribe to Archivestuff
Comment on this story

Accused rapists who plan to argue that sex with their victims was consensual may have to prove in court what measures they took to gain consent.


The proposal is one of three changes to sexual violence legislation being put forward by the Justice Ministry.

"Changing the law would send an important message about community standards and about what the law expects," ministry documents say.

"In particular, there would be a reminder that consent has to be obtained on each separate occasion."

Under the proposal, if a defendant claimed sex was consensual the courts would have to look at what steps had been taken to find out that consent had been given.

Other changes being considered are including creating a legal definition of consent to remove ambiguity and banning questioning complainants about their sexual history with the alleged attacker.

The ministry has issued a discussion paper on the proposals and is calling for public submissions.

Nineteen per cent of women and 5 per cent of men would be subjected to sexual violence at some point in their lives, but it was thought about 90 per cent of sexual offending went unreported, the ministry said.

"Victims and the public need to see that sexual violence is taken seriously, that justice is being done, and that this behaviour is not tolerated in our society."

The discussion document only relates to issues affecting sexual violence between adults.

Sexual offending against children is being addressed by a separate ministry task force.

Bill Hodge, Auckland University associate professor of law, said though he was "not one to stick up for criminals", caution was needed when making changes to legislation.

Requiring a higher standard of proof of consent from defendants would lessen the burden on the Crown to prove an offence.

"So just because it is hard to get convictions we do away with the standards? A drunk consent is still consent," Dr Hodge said.

Helen Sullivan, Wellington Sexual Abuse Help Foundation general manager, said the changes would be an important first step in improving attitudes to sex crimes and creating clearer guidelines about acceptable behaviour.

"Society perceives that there is a whole bunch of vindictive women out there waiting to get back at guys."

Balancing the rights of both the accused and the victim was a "tricky area" but more needed to be done to strengthen victims' rights, Ms Sullivan said.

Justice Minister Annette King said that though legislation changes on their own would not automatically lead to an increase in convictions, they were an "important first step".

The aim of the document was to create discussion within the community about how to deal with sexual violence.

The document raised questions about sexual violence, Ms King said. "What are the boundaries of acceptable sexual conduct in law, and what aspects of the current law may act as barriers to cases proceeding through the justice system or inhibit successful convictions?"


Comment from same link:

Quote

Did the journalist or editors even read the document? It clearly states that reversing the burden of proof has not been proposed. So the headline "Law may make rape suspects prove consent" is completely wrong.

The actual document can be found heDid the journalist or editors even read the document? It clearly states that reversing the burden of proof has not been proposed. So the headline "Law may make rape suspects prove consent" is completely wrong.

The actual document can be found here:


http://www.justice.govt.nz/discussion/sexu...ents.html"" target="_blank">http://www.justice.govt.nz/discussion/sexu...rovements.htmlr
0

#20 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 07 October 2008 - 05:42 AM

What the hell are you talking about neddy there is no denigation of claimants in my comment,
I was refering to the process operators and their insensitivity and the process that requires them to tick boxes and the fact that they are very insensitive to the realities of a persons sensibilities in the process of ticking their boxes and in some cases shoving them in inappropriate boxes in the needs of filling in box that puts clients responses in a straight jacket.
And I have through both friends and family have had some experience of the insensitivity inherent in the process.........
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users