I think in principle rape law should typically hinge on consent. However, the following make me wonder what other details this legislation also includes:
“This bill introduces a de facto presumption of guilt, a presumption of guilt that every person accused of rape will have to prove that he or she is not a criminal,”
“I am absolutely on the side of women”. Said one politician backing the law. That doesn’t sound very gender neutral to me.
Not for any intimate/romantic interaction between men and women. The problem (as feminists saw it) was that some accusations did not result in conviction, so they "fixed" this flaw to make sure conviction is the default outcome and extremely difficult to overcome, because proving a negative (aka innocence) is often impossible.
Welcome to the democratic socialist Europe. Such laws have been the norm in Scandinavia for a while now.
And although I in principle agree that sex without consent is rape, and therefore the law should reflect this in a gender neutral fashion, the guilty until proven innocent is very concerning. Unfortunately the European human rights court has the same track record as the us supreme court’s, when it comes to legislating from the bench against human rights.
We had a massive case in Spain. La Manada. All you read online and in media is a lie. You just need to read the disagreement vote from one of the judges and the final sentencing to understand they were declared guilty without anything against them, not even the "victim" declaration, who backtracked her statements.
It will make a great movie when the truth can be told.
It was even worse than that Simpsons episode.
Yes. It is even worse than that. We have decades of experience.
At the beginning they just demanded that the victim's declaration made sense and didn't contradict itself or any evidence present. Now it does not matter, they omit the lying bits from the declaration and sentence with what cannot be proven false.
That is just a prediction from the conservative party, this law brings Poland up to date with the rest of the west on the issue, and would also open the door for women to be charged for rape, something beyond rare in Poland.
Well, that’s what’s unclear from the article. How, under the law will it be determined whether or not consent was given?
I’m kind of between the two extremes. Consent doesn’t always consist of a verbal question and verbal response. It’s reasonable that someone who doesn’t consent and objects will in some way express their objection.
> It’s reasonable that someone who doesn’t consent and objects will in some way express their objection.
That was how it used to be. Now it's "vigorous 'OMG YES PLS!!!' means...maybe...for now...check back." Basically every intimate/romantic interaction involving a man and woman is presumed to be predatory if not criminal.
Why not just use Hitchen's Razor
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
Problem is that those clown politicians have lived in a world where women had morals, totally different from women from today and they legislate with this "women can only be victims" mentality.
>“This bill introduces a de facto presumption of guilt, a presumption of guilt that every person accused of rape will have to prove that he or she is not a criminal,”
The politician who made this comment is a member of the Confederation, a party infamous for being very far right and... not very sane. Their founder and former leader has once claimed that all sex is partially rape, and men just need to not rape *too much*. Every other party in the Polish parliament, including most right-wingers, approved of the new legistlation.
As far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with the law, and certainly nothing that implies "presumption of guilt". It was obviously written with women rather than men in mind, as most legistlation which pertains to sexual assault, but the text itself is gender-neutral and more sensible than the old, obviously flawed law.
Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation or good summary of in English? The cited article gives reactions on both sides but doesn’t say what specifically in the legislation they are reacting to.
There's no need for a summary, the law in question is literally just a single sentence.
>Art. 197, § 1. Kto doprowadza inną osobę do obcowania płciowego przemocą, groźbą bezprawną, podstępem lub w inny sposób mimo braku jej zgody, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od lat 2 do 15.
Which, to the best of my abilities as a translator, can be best rendered as
>Article 197, § 1. Whoever makes another person take part in a sexual intercourse through violence, unlawful threats, deceit or any other way despite that person's lack of consent, is liable to imprisonment of 2 to 15 years.
The change comes from specifying that the lack of consent is the core issue. Under the old law, you could technically be charged with rape just for "deceit" even if your partner consented, or get away with rape if you used some method not covered by the text. It was really old legistlation that really had no upsides for anyone and that's why almost everyone voted for it to be changed. Confederation is just nuts.
The two statements are not actually based on facts stated in the new bill or anything. This time its really just far right people being delusional. I think the New addition of this criterium is absolutely justified, especially regarding cases of rape like it was shown in the article.
They say it to prove, or try to prove that they’re not biased (which is not logically possible), the law was made to support a justifiable cause however it does not seem to protect affected parties from false allegations. Anyways, we’ll see how they so when people realize they can take certain liberties with the stablished law.
That doesn't mean it will be enforced equally. A male accusing another male of rape may be enforced like this but if a boy in school or other male raped by a female may not be enforced. Rember laws are ink on paper or pixels on a screen.
This is to erode 'due process' as due process is seem as constructed by the patriarchy to oppress women.
This is also why i think feminists argue male victims dont suffer as much. (Who tf are they to decide?!) But thry know the law for rape are unequal and they need it to be held that way to make out women dont commit sex crimes.
In the united kingdom and lots of other parts in the world there are two statures one sexual assault without penetration and one sexual assault with penetration . In uk sexual assault with penetration has max sentencing of life imprisonment , with sexual assault without penetration maxing out on 10 years . This is in my opinion generally done because sexual assault with penetration generally can have more physical damage than without . Though this law is still a bit flawed and like many countries it should be replaced by sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault ( one which have great physical harm alongside sexual assault ) . Nonetheless unless you are in India and some other countries or states , sexual assault done on you is illegal with the new uk law on flashing genitals through digital media being completely gender neutral .
Consent is not a problem. The problem is, even if you have written consent she can always say she changed her mind between 3rd and 4th trhust, and if you finished the thrust- you raped her. Extreme example but in general this is the danger here.
Imagine your tinder profile that literally says: looking for a female partner for casual sex, and you meet through tinder and later she says she didn't consent. WTF will the judge say?
>she can always say she changed her mind between 3rd and 4th trhust, and if you finished the thrust- you raped her. Extreme example but in general this is the danger here.
Not very extreme. Look at the Kevin Ibbs case in Australia.
https://wiki4men.com/wiki/Kevin_Ibbs
>Consent is not a problem. The problem is, even if you have written consent she can always say she changed her mind between 3rd and 4th trhust, and if you finished the thrust- you raped her. Extreme example but in general this is the danger here.
An even bigger problem is that many women play along, and some even fake it for whatever reason. Even if she genuinely did not consent, some fake it so well that there was no way for you to know she was not consenting. Yet she will claim to the judge and try to score sympathy points
I've dealt with girls like that online. It sucks
Consent is absolutely required.
Men should carry cards with elements to be completed - date, name, address, date of birth, consent, amount of alcohol consumed, signature and whether the woman wants some kind of kink. And should audio record their sex.
There is no other way to protect yourself and it may still not be enough.
Happily in the UK, the police do seem to be seriously investigating accusations and there have been some high profile cases where the women have been arrested.
The laws are much too lax but anyone can accuse anyone else of anything to the police and it is the responsibility of the police to investigate. Sex is no different in that respect, but a presumption of guilt removes the concept of innocent before proven guilty and has been abused
> women have been arrested
They're arrested in the US as well...and then the charges are dismissed, reduced, plead down to a slap on the wrist, acquitted, pardoned, or paroled. Which is one of many reasons why 95% of US inmates are men.
Honestly there are some moments when I'm thinking that maybe we should have our phones recording audio all the time and the idea of "proving that you are not guilty" makes it pretty hard to not consider that dystopian idea
I'll be honest. If I were single and having random sex, I would have a camera or two with audio in my place. I wouldn't be posting shit or watching it back. But it would all be on a hard drive just in case.
La Manada provided VIDEO of the supposed rape and were convicted anyway. One judge produced a disagreement vote stating that was obviously not rape.
It was an abomination of a case.
Waiting for articles about how such a law could put many confident women in trouble, because true rape is done by men and they're not supposed to turn a woman down
Here's the problem with any such law based around consent.
* A fair justice system will enshrine the presumption of innocence of an accused. That means that the burden of proof must fall on the prosecution. If this is not true, ipso facto the system is not fair or impartial; nothing more than a kangaroo court.
* With the burden of proof upon the prosecution, they now are in the ridiculous situation of having to prove a negative; that is the absence of consent. All the defense needs to do is refute it.
Unless there is forensic evidence or witness testimony, conviction becomes a tall order without compromising an accused's presumption of innocence.
Then the law will change to make any recording made without consent by both parties inadmissible in court.
Women are presiding over the largest potential movement of men avoiding women: is this really what women want?
this looks like a bad, but i am somewhat uncertain.
it sounds like they've adopted a 'yes means yes' doctrine, which is just puritanical nonsense as to what constitutes consent, rather than just holding that consent is the ignoring of a no.
but i am unsure because it really depends on how polish law defines 'consent' which the article doesn't specify.
the law as portrayed in the article says 'lacking consent' is the new criteria, instead of the use of force which is the old criteria, but how is consent defined in polish law?
In practice, consent is that your actions are in line with the girl's hallucinations at the time. If she thinks you are going to marry her but you have sex without any intention of marriage, you raped her.
I think in principle rape law should typically hinge on consent. However, the following make me wonder what other details this legislation also includes: “This bill introduces a de facto presumption of guilt, a presumption of guilt that every person accused of rape will have to prove that he or she is not a criminal,” “I am absolutely on the side of women”. Said one politician backing the law. That doesn’t sound very gender neutral to me.
So innocent until proven guilty, but not for rape?
Not for any intimate/romantic interaction between men and women. The problem (as feminists saw it) was that some accusations did not result in conviction, so they "fixed" this flaw to make sure conviction is the default outcome and extremely difficult to overcome, because proving a negative (aka innocence) is often impossible.
The justice system that allows such an ordeal to be passed into itself should not be called a justice system. What the actual fuck?
Welcome to the democratic socialist Europe. Such laws have been the norm in Scandinavia for a while now. And although I in principle agree that sex without consent is rape, and therefore the law should reflect this in a gender neutral fashion, the guilty until proven innocent is very concerning. Unfortunately the European human rights court has the same track record as the us supreme court’s, when it comes to legislating from the bench against human rights.
We had a massive case in Spain. La Manada. All you read online and in media is a lie. You just need to read the disagreement vote from one of the judges and the final sentencing to understand they were declared guilty without anything against them, not even the "victim" declaration, who backtracked her statements. It will make a great movie when the truth can be told. It was even worse than that Simpsons episode.
That would depend on how the polish legal system is set up. This may be normal in Poland, but I have zero knowledge of the polish legal system
Yes. It is even worse than that. We have decades of experience. At the beginning they just demanded that the victim's declaration made sense and didn't contradict itself or any evidence present. Now it does not matter, they omit the lying bits from the declaration and sentence with what cannot be proven false.
That is just a prediction from the conservative party, this law brings Poland up to date with the rest of the west on the issue, and would also open the door for women to be charged for rape, something beyond rare in Poland.
Ya, and what would they want? Written consent? Do you need a recording ?
Well, that’s what’s unclear from the article. How, under the law will it be determined whether or not consent was given? I’m kind of between the two extremes. Consent doesn’t always consist of a verbal question and verbal response. It’s reasonable that someone who doesn’t consent and objects will in some way express their objection.
> It’s reasonable that someone who doesn’t consent and objects will in some way express their objection. That was how it used to be. Now it's "vigorous 'OMG YES PLS!!!' means...maybe...for now...check back." Basically every intimate/romantic interaction involving a man and woman is presumed to be predatory if not criminal.
"I don't remember if I gave consent, I was very afraid". Consent doesn't really matter with these laws.
All she needs is a few words out of her mouth to ruin the man’s life
Why not just use Hitchen's Razor "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
Problem is that those clown politicians have lived in a world where women had morals, totally different from women from today and they legislate with this "women can only be victims" mentality.
>“This bill introduces a de facto presumption of guilt, a presumption of guilt that every person accused of rape will have to prove that he or she is not a criminal,” The politician who made this comment is a member of the Confederation, a party infamous for being very far right and... not very sane. Their founder and former leader has once claimed that all sex is partially rape, and men just need to not rape *too much*. Every other party in the Polish parliament, including most right-wingers, approved of the new legistlation. As far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with the law, and certainly nothing that implies "presumption of guilt". It was obviously written with women rather than men in mind, as most legistlation which pertains to sexual assault, but the text itself is gender-neutral and more sensible than the old, obviously flawed law.
Do you have a link to the actual text of the legislation or good summary of in English? The cited article gives reactions on both sides but doesn’t say what specifically in the legislation they are reacting to.
There's no need for a summary, the law in question is literally just a single sentence. >Art. 197, § 1. Kto doprowadza inną osobę do obcowania płciowego przemocą, groźbą bezprawną, podstępem lub w inny sposób mimo braku jej zgody, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od lat 2 do 15. Which, to the best of my abilities as a translator, can be best rendered as >Article 197, § 1. Whoever makes another person take part in a sexual intercourse through violence, unlawful threats, deceit or any other way despite that person's lack of consent, is liable to imprisonment of 2 to 15 years. The change comes from specifying that the lack of consent is the core issue. Under the old law, you could technically be charged with rape just for "deceit" even if your partner consented, or get away with rape if you used some method not covered by the text. It was really old legistlation that really had no upsides for anyone and that's why almost everyone voted for it to be changed. Confederation is just nuts.
The two statements are not actually based on facts stated in the new bill or anything. This time its really just far right people being delusional. I think the New addition of this criterium is absolutely justified, especially regarding cases of rape like it was shown in the article.
They say it to prove, or try to prove that they’re not biased (which is not logically possible), the law was made to support a justifiable cause however it does not seem to protect affected parties from false allegations. Anyways, we’ll see how they so when people realize they can take certain liberties with the stablished law.
That's not actually in the bill, that was a debate that a conservative party member made.
Does it include the consent of men?
Yeah brother , even in 1932 poland had apparently their rape law defined as gender neutral .
That doesn't mean it will be enforced equally. A male accusing another male of rape may be enforced like this but if a boy in school or other male raped by a female may not be enforced. Rember laws are ink on paper or pixels on a screen. This is to erode 'due process' as due process is seem as constructed by the patriarchy to oppress women.
Yes absolutely true this should not be the case enforcement of a crime should be similar , the victim is suffering the exact same ( male or female )
This is also why i think feminists argue male victims dont suffer as much. (Who tf are they to decide?!) But thry know the law for rape are unequal and they need it to be held that way to make out women dont commit sex crimes.
In the united kingdom and lots of other parts in the world there are two statures one sexual assault without penetration and one sexual assault with penetration . In uk sexual assault with penetration has max sentencing of life imprisonment , with sexual assault without penetration maxing out on 10 years . This is in my opinion generally done because sexual assault with penetration generally can have more physical damage than without . Though this law is still a bit flawed and like many countries it should be replaced by sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault ( one which have great physical harm alongside sexual assault ) . Nonetheless unless you are in India and some other countries or states , sexual assault done on you is illegal with the new uk law on flashing genitals through digital media being completely gender neutral .
My respect for Poland 📈📈📈📈📈
Consent is not a problem. The problem is, even if you have written consent she can always say she changed her mind between 3rd and 4th trhust, and if you finished the thrust- you raped her. Extreme example but in general this is the danger here. Imagine your tinder profile that literally says: looking for a female partner for casual sex, and you meet through tinder and later she says she didn't consent. WTF will the judge say?
>she can always say she changed her mind between 3rd and 4th trhust, and if you finished the thrust- you raped her. Extreme example but in general this is the danger here. Not very extreme. Look at the Kevin Ibbs case in Australia. https://wiki4men.com/wiki/Kevin_Ibbs
Jesus F8cking Christ...
>Consent is not a problem. The problem is, even if you have written consent she can always say she changed her mind between 3rd and 4th trhust, and if you finished the thrust- you raped her. Extreme example but in general this is the danger here. An even bigger problem is that many women play along, and some even fake it for whatever reason. Even if she genuinely did not consent, some fake it so well that there was no way for you to know she was not consenting. Yet she will claim to the judge and try to score sympathy points I've dealt with girls like that online. It sucks
Consent is absolutely required. Men should carry cards with elements to be completed - date, name, address, date of birth, consent, amount of alcohol consumed, signature and whether the woman wants some kind of kink. And should audio record their sex. There is no other way to protect yourself and it may still not be enough. Happily in the UK, the police do seem to be seriously investigating accusations and there have been some high profile cases where the women have been arrested. The laws are much too lax but anyone can accuse anyone else of anything to the police and it is the responsibility of the police to investigate. Sex is no different in that respect, but a presumption of guilt removes the concept of innocent before proven guilty and has been abused
> women have been arrested They're arrested in the US as well...and then the charges are dismissed, reduced, plead down to a slap on the wrist, acquitted, pardoned, or paroled. Which is one of many reasons why 95% of US inmates are men.
False allegations should carry whatever penalty the person being accused would have received.
You forgot the form must be notarized by a neutral 3rd party
Honestly there are some moments when I'm thinking that maybe we should have our phones recording audio all the time and the idea of "proving that you are not guilty" makes it pretty hard to not consider that dystopian idea
I'll be honest. If I were single and having random sex, I would have a camera or two with audio in my place. I wouldn't be posting shit or watching it back. But it would all be on a hard drive just in case.
La Manada provided VIDEO of the supposed rape and were convicted anyway. One judge produced a disagreement vote stating that was obviously not rape. It was an abomination of a case.
Can I rape myself? What if I masturbate and later decide I wasn't into it?
Can you prove you didn't do it?
Well I usually film it, but I wouldn't put it past me to delete the footage. Then it's just a "me-said-me-said" situation in which case, I'm toast.
Waiting for articles about how such a law could put many confident women in trouble, because true rape is done by men and they're not supposed to turn a woman down
Here's the problem with any such law based around consent. * A fair justice system will enshrine the presumption of innocence of an accused. That means that the burden of proof must fall on the prosecution. If this is not true, ipso facto the system is not fair or impartial; nothing more than a kangaroo court. * With the burden of proof upon the prosecution, they now are in the ridiculous situation of having to prove a negative; that is the absence of consent. All the defense needs to do is refute it. Unless there is forensic evidence or witness testimony, conviction becomes a tall order without compromising an accused's presumption of innocence.
Sooo since women virtually never ask for consent...
Time to start audio recording ourselves every time we hang out with a woman.
Then the law will change to make any recording made without consent by both parties inadmissible in court. Women are presiding over the largest potential movement of men avoiding women: is this really what women want?
this looks like a bad, but i am somewhat uncertain. it sounds like they've adopted a 'yes means yes' doctrine, which is just puritanical nonsense as to what constitutes consent, rather than just holding that consent is the ignoring of a no. but i am unsure because it really depends on how polish law defines 'consent' which the article doesn't specify. the law as portrayed in the article says 'lacking consent' is the new criteria, instead of the use of force which is the old criteria, but how is consent defined in polish law?
In practice, consent is that your actions are in line with the girl's hallucinations at the time. If she thinks you are going to marry her but you have sex without any intention of marriage, you raped her.