The new Sex Offences Bill - a danger to civil liberties
Adrian Davies QC | 14.04.2003 16:05
The feminists, homosexuals and the unjust politicisation of the New Sexual Offences Bill
A concerned member explains the disgraceful new Sexual Offences Bill, which makes unprecedented concessions to homosexuals and has been meddled with by feminists.
The government began publicising its new Sexual Offences Bill shortly before the war overshadowed the news coverage. The new bill, which promises to "equalise" (sic) the law for hetrosexuals and homosexuals and introduce dangerous new rules covering rape, has been predictably welcomed by all the usual suspects. However, certain elements of this new bill, aimed to "bring our Victorian-era sexual offences legislation into the 21st century", have riled even some of the old-gang politicians, and there have been dissenting voices.
The positive parts of the new bill are:
- Children under 13 should be deemed incapable of consenting to any sexual activity, and sexual intercourse with a child under 13 will now be deemed as rape, carrying a maximum life sentence.
- A new offence of adult sexual activity with a child - which will include behaviour such as inducing youngsters to take their clothes off.
- New offence of sexual "grooming" designed to catch adults who meet a child with the intention of committing a sex offence before any activity takes place.
- It will be possible for a civil order to be made by the courts in respect of an adult deemed to be acting in a way that presents a risk of sexual harm to the child.
- A new offence of commercial sexual exploitation of a child, which includes child prostitution and pimping the child for prostitution or pornography.
- Three new offences to give extra protection to those with a learning disability or mental disorder from sexual abuse.
- Causing or encouraging men or women to enter into prostitution and controlling their activities.
- A new offence of trafficking people for commercial sexual exploitation.
- A new order to make convicted sex offenders from overseas register when they come to the UK, whether or not they have committed a crime here.
- Sex offenders on the register to confirm their details in person each year and to provide National Insurance details.
- Sex offenders to notify the police of name or address change in three days, rather than 14.
- Sex Offender Orders and Sex Offender Restraining Orders to be available for anyone convicted of a violent offence where there is evidence they present a risk of causing serious sexual harm.
- Flashing, or indecent exposure, with intent to shock will be a new offence, carrying a maximum penalty of two years jail. (already illegal)
- Voyeurism - a new offence capturing those who watch others without their knowledge for sexual gratification.
- Bestiality - a new offence will criminalise those who perform sex acts on animals. (already illegal)
- New offence covering sexual interference with human remains. (already illegal)
Feminist Onslaught
However, with any piece of government legislation, the devil is in the detail. Far from the new bill being some sort of "moral rebirth", under the cover of all these new and obviously positive laws (many of which existed in various forms anyway) is hidden several less moral and some rather dangerous relaxations of the laws, or indeed extentions of laws which do not need extending:
- The law on rape will be changed, so rather than rape being forced sexual intercourse, either through physical force, drugging and other blatently illegal acts, it will simply become "non consensual sex". On first reading this may seem fair enough, however, what is actually being proposed is the trivialising of the offence of rape to include sex where the woman didn't expressly request it. The majority of people across the world would define rape as forced sexual intercourse, not drunk sexual intercourse and the woman waking up the next day and thinking "I shouldn't have done that". Rape should be viewed as a serious offence not a "catch-all" offence for anyone who's slept with someone they regret or if they didn't expressly say they wanted to.
- Men innocent of the crime of rape, have, for many decades, been able to use the defence that they genuinely believed that the woman wanted to have sexual intercourse. After all, most people's natural defence would be this. This is now going to be removed, and instead they must prove that the woman had expressly consented. Essentially, this shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused, something which is completely contrary to the principles of English Law (which is used in the majority of Anglo-Saxon countries). Fancy having to proove consent? The idea of consent forms in condom packets has been banded around, and no, it wasn't a joke.
Essentially, the changes to the law on rape constitute a feminist onslaught. I do not say this lightly, the law runs completely contrary to all principles of justice and redefines the serious crime of rape into something that most Britons would not identify. The feminists have long defined rape as "any sex that wasn't wanted, either before, during or after the event". They have suggested that any sexual intercourse which the woman herself did not initiate is rape and even if she decides the morning after that she did not want to have it, it is rape. The new bill enshrines this alien concept in law for the first time in this country, trivialises rape and represents a dangerous weapon against all heterosexual men.
One of the reasons behind the change in the rape law, the redefinition of rape, was an unholy alliance of feminists and liberals who suggested that the reduction in the rates of conviction for rape from 25% in 1985 to 7% in 2000. While on the face of it these figures seem disappointing, the only just way to increase conviction rates is for the police to improve their procedures for handling DNA evidence, not changing the law so drastically as to remove the traditional rights of defendants. The reason why rape is difficult to proove is because it is a complex and serious offence, and society views it with abhorrance. Innocent men should not be imprisoned for failing to get a signature on a consent form. One reason for the reduction in conviction rates is down to the fact that many more women make malicious rape claims as it is as easy as a trip to Tescos and works wonders at destroying the life of a man they may feel bitter towards for all number of reasons unrelated to any actual criminal offence. It is worth noting that many genuine rape victims are too scared to ever come forward. Essentially, rape is rape not drunken sexual intercourse and morning-after regrets!
I am completely in favour of toughening the penalties for rapists, genuine rapists, to far harsher sentences than at present. However, the new law will propose that the new definition of rape extend to a new crime of "date rape" which carries a lesser sentence, trivialising rape. I'm of the view that our existing laws are perfectly adequate, and the Law Society also has reservations about some of the implications of the new laws.
Moral Decay and attacks on the family
As if things weren't bad enough already for the institution of the family, the building block of civilised societies, the government has yet again weakened our safeguards against homosexual indecency.
Many readers will be aware that Britain has, for centuries, had legislation against the activities of the small minority of rather sad individuals who practice homosexuality. Some of it was repealed in the 1960s, to allow homosexuals to practice sodomy in private if both homosexuals were consenting. The rest of the law was retained, and covers homosexual cottaging (hanging around in public toilets and committing acts of indecency there), soliciting homosexual intercourse, homosexual group sex, various laws against homosexual pornography and homosexual acts in public. The government now terms these spartan and often unenforced safeguards, which failed to prevent homosexual activity being aired on TV shortly after the watershead, homosexual programmes on ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, some of which would make even Ron Davies blush, and disgusting displays of indecency at "gay" Mardi Gras events in London and Brighton, "discriminatory". It appears that the current spin doctors of the liberal intelligentsia see the remaining laws to protect children, the family and ensure decent behaviour in public are "bigotted". As a result, these laws will now be repealed by the new sexual offences bill.
Homosexuality and deviancy have been with man for centuries, and since the very first beginnings of law and civilisation, there have been laws and penalties for these offences. Even early man could understand that homosexual and deviant practices were harmful to the development of the civilisation. The majority of people, even today, feel a quite justified level of disgust when they have homosexuality rammed down their throats on the TV, in the newspapers and magazines or even in public. When the few laws we have left are repealed, homosexuals will have the right to
hang around in public toilets, bugger eachother in these facilities ("provided the cubicle door is
closed" - Hillary Benn, Home Office), solicit sex in public, kiss and grope in public and film videos of homosexual orgies and make these available for sale in shops. If anyone dares complain then they will be branded "homophobic". How would you like to be forced to run a gaunlet of dodgy characters next time you want to use the toilet at your local park? And reporting it to the police would probably earn you a conviction for "hate crime".
It wasn't so long ago that the police employed vice squads to deal with blatent homosexual indecency, and homosexuals were prosecuted and put on the sex offenders register for these acts. The laws on cottaging were enforced and homosexuals feared the law would catch-up with their dirty activities. How things have changed in the past 10 years! Nowadays homosexuals regularly get away with intimidating people in toilets, parks, woodlands, anywhere where they congregate, and don't seem to care who sees them or their activities. "Gay" websites openly declare which areas homosexuals should go to, without any fear of prosecution or reaction from the local residents. Recently, when police were passing a homosexual cottaging area, rather than arresting those involved, one of the policeman present was disciplined after making a joke about the homosexuals. It appears that those who want to protect morality and the family against those who have an utter hatred of it are the ones that are punished, and those who despise the family and want to propagate and force others to watch their abhorrent activities are given a pat on the back and a "liason officer".
Look forward to a future where your children come home with booklets instructing them to experiment with homosexuality, containing graphic illustrations and descriptions, and being branded "homophobic" for daring to oppose this brainwashing. Section 28 looks as though it will be abolished in England and Wales soon, despite the valiant and dedicated opposition organised in the last bastion of British tradition and sensibility - The House of Lords.
In conclusion, the government has yet again proven that it is in bed with the homosexuals and feminists rather than standing up for the concerns of ordinary Britons. While the toughing of the laws on some offences is welcome, the reality is the feminists have been granted a knife with which to emasculate heterosexual males, while the homosexuals have been let loose to indulge in any disgusting behaviour they wish, while undermining and attacking the family at every turn. So much for protecting children, when a group that is 23 times (The Sexual Dead-End, Stephen Green, Broadview 1992) more likely to be child molestors is given free reign!
Some interesting quotes
"I have never come across anyone with 'innate homosexuality.' That notion has been a long-proclaimed gay-activist political position, intended to promote the acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy, fully equal, alternative expression of human sexuality. It has zero scientific foundation though its promoters latch on to even the flimsiest shreds of atrocious research in their attempts to justify the notion."
Toronto Professor of Psychiatry, Joseph Berger (Letter, Globe and Mail, Feb 26, 1992).
"Several of my friends - homosexual and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was a conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."
Peter Tatchell, homosexual "rights" activist.
"There is no place, however, for homosexuals or lesbians in our armed forces. This country has become inflicted with the prominence of the foul and disgusting sexual orientation of so-called 'Gay Rights' groups. Physical homosexuality is sodomy and those who practise such acts are sodomites, and should be called as such. Those serving in the armed forces must be set apart from those in civilian employment. Homosexuals in the forces arouse the violent hostility of their comrades in arms and undermine authority. The situation becomes intolerable when homosexuals are given authority over the objects of their attentions."
General Sir Walter Walker, KCB, CBE, DSO**, PMN, PSNB (Former NATO Commander-in-Chief), Right Now, October - December 1999, p8.
"The new '90's homosexual does not confine him/herself to silence in the shadows, they are no longer quiet, tolerated, 'consenting adults in private' but loud, vociferous 'alternative' adult, very much revelling-in and demanding the public limelight. An old saying springs to mind: "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"."
Tina Wingfield in "Pink Politics"
"Calder... notes that men in prison for sex offences often complain bitterly of [homosexual molestation] in youth and say that is what perverted them."
J. West, "Homosexuality" (Chicago Aldine, 1968)
"[One] case involved a 27-year-old, HIV-positive convicted sodomite named Troy Rivara. Rivara had frequently loitered in the school-yard at Intermediate School 44 on West 77th Street, regaling male students with comments like, 'Can I have your butt?' The police had been called at least twice because neighbours were concerned about his many young male visitors. Then last July he was arrested for the abduction and rape of an 11-year-old boy who attended IS 44"
James MacGuire, "No Sex, No Violence," June 21, 1993.
"The first sexual experience of the vast majority of homosexual men... was with a much OLDER homosexual. Even liberal Denmark has steadfastly refused homosexual adoption rights for this reason."
William Gairdner, "Speaking Out," Vol. 1, Issue 5.
It's time to speak-up and shove these degenerate scumbags back into the closet!
Links
http://members.odinsrage.com/britnation/articles.htm
Excellent source of articles.
http://www.christian.org.uk/section2810303.htm
Information on which MP's voted in favour and against Section 28 recently.
A concerned member explains the disgraceful new Sexual Offences Bill, which makes unprecedented concessions to homosexuals and has been meddled with by feminists.
The government began publicising its new Sexual Offences Bill shortly before the war overshadowed the news coverage. The new bill, which promises to "equalise" (sic) the law for hetrosexuals and homosexuals and introduce dangerous new rules covering rape, has been predictably welcomed by all the usual suspects. However, certain elements of this new bill, aimed to "bring our Victorian-era sexual offences legislation into the 21st century", have riled even some of the old-gang politicians, and there have been dissenting voices.
The positive parts of the new bill are:
- Children under 13 should be deemed incapable of consenting to any sexual activity, and sexual intercourse with a child under 13 will now be deemed as rape, carrying a maximum life sentence.
- A new offence of adult sexual activity with a child - which will include behaviour such as inducing youngsters to take their clothes off.
- New offence of sexual "grooming" designed to catch adults who meet a child with the intention of committing a sex offence before any activity takes place.
- It will be possible for a civil order to be made by the courts in respect of an adult deemed to be acting in a way that presents a risk of sexual harm to the child.
- A new offence of commercial sexual exploitation of a child, which includes child prostitution and pimping the child for prostitution or pornography.
- Three new offences to give extra protection to those with a learning disability or mental disorder from sexual abuse.
- Causing or encouraging men or women to enter into prostitution and controlling their activities.
- A new offence of trafficking people for commercial sexual exploitation.
- A new order to make convicted sex offenders from overseas register when they come to the UK, whether or not they have committed a crime here.
- Sex offenders on the register to confirm their details in person each year and to provide National Insurance details.
- Sex offenders to notify the police of name or address change in three days, rather than 14.
- Sex Offender Orders and Sex Offender Restraining Orders to be available for anyone convicted of a violent offence where there is evidence they present a risk of causing serious sexual harm.
- Flashing, or indecent exposure, with intent to shock will be a new offence, carrying a maximum penalty of two years jail. (already illegal)
- Voyeurism - a new offence capturing those who watch others without their knowledge for sexual gratification.
- Bestiality - a new offence will criminalise those who perform sex acts on animals. (already illegal)
- New offence covering sexual interference with human remains. (already illegal)
Feminist Onslaught
However, with any piece of government legislation, the devil is in the detail. Far from the new bill being some sort of "moral rebirth", under the cover of all these new and obviously positive laws (many of which existed in various forms anyway) is hidden several less moral and some rather dangerous relaxations of the laws, or indeed extentions of laws which do not need extending:
- The law on rape will be changed, so rather than rape being forced sexual intercourse, either through physical force, drugging and other blatently illegal acts, it will simply become "non consensual sex". On first reading this may seem fair enough, however, what is actually being proposed is the trivialising of the offence of rape to include sex where the woman didn't expressly request it. The majority of people across the world would define rape as forced sexual intercourse, not drunk sexual intercourse and the woman waking up the next day and thinking "I shouldn't have done that". Rape should be viewed as a serious offence not a "catch-all" offence for anyone who's slept with someone they regret or if they didn't expressly say they wanted to.
- Men innocent of the crime of rape, have, for many decades, been able to use the defence that they genuinely believed that the woman wanted to have sexual intercourse. After all, most people's natural defence would be this. This is now going to be removed, and instead they must prove that the woman had expressly consented. Essentially, this shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused, something which is completely contrary to the principles of English Law (which is used in the majority of Anglo-Saxon countries). Fancy having to proove consent? The idea of consent forms in condom packets has been banded around, and no, it wasn't a joke.
Essentially, the changes to the law on rape constitute a feminist onslaught. I do not say this lightly, the law runs completely contrary to all principles of justice and redefines the serious crime of rape into something that most Britons would not identify. The feminists have long defined rape as "any sex that wasn't wanted, either before, during or after the event". They have suggested that any sexual intercourse which the woman herself did not initiate is rape and even if she decides the morning after that she did not want to have it, it is rape. The new bill enshrines this alien concept in law for the first time in this country, trivialises rape and represents a dangerous weapon against all heterosexual men.
One of the reasons behind the change in the rape law, the redefinition of rape, was an unholy alliance of feminists and liberals who suggested that the reduction in the rates of conviction for rape from 25% in 1985 to 7% in 2000. While on the face of it these figures seem disappointing, the only just way to increase conviction rates is for the police to improve their procedures for handling DNA evidence, not changing the law so drastically as to remove the traditional rights of defendants. The reason why rape is difficult to proove is because it is a complex and serious offence, and society views it with abhorrance. Innocent men should not be imprisoned for failing to get a signature on a consent form. One reason for the reduction in conviction rates is down to the fact that many more women make malicious rape claims as it is as easy as a trip to Tescos and works wonders at destroying the life of a man they may feel bitter towards for all number of reasons unrelated to any actual criminal offence. It is worth noting that many genuine rape victims are too scared to ever come forward. Essentially, rape is rape not drunken sexual intercourse and morning-after regrets!
I am completely in favour of toughening the penalties for rapists, genuine rapists, to far harsher sentences than at present. However, the new law will propose that the new definition of rape extend to a new crime of "date rape" which carries a lesser sentence, trivialising rape. I'm of the view that our existing laws are perfectly adequate, and the Law Society also has reservations about some of the implications of the new laws.
Moral Decay and attacks on the family
As if things weren't bad enough already for the institution of the family, the building block of civilised societies, the government has yet again weakened our safeguards against homosexual indecency.
Many readers will be aware that Britain has, for centuries, had legislation against the activities of the small minority of rather sad individuals who practice homosexuality. Some of it was repealed in the 1960s, to allow homosexuals to practice sodomy in private if both homosexuals were consenting. The rest of the law was retained, and covers homosexual cottaging (hanging around in public toilets and committing acts of indecency there), soliciting homosexual intercourse, homosexual group sex, various laws against homosexual pornography and homosexual acts in public. The government now terms these spartan and often unenforced safeguards, which failed to prevent homosexual activity being aired on TV shortly after the watershead, homosexual programmes on ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, some of which would make even Ron Davies blush, and disgusting displays of indecency at "gay" Mardi Gras events in London and Brighton, "discriminatory". It appears that the current spin doctors of the liberal intelligentsia see the remaining laws to protect children, the family and ensure decent behaviour in public are "bigotted". As a result, these laws will now be repealed by the new sexual offences bill.
Homosexuality and deviancy have been with man for centuries, and since the very first beginnings of law and civilisation, there have been laws and penalties for these offences. Even early man could understand that homosexual and deviant practices were harmful to the development of the civilisation. The majority of people, even today, feel a quite justified level of disgust when they have homosexuality rammed down their throats on the TV, in the newspapers and magazines or even in public. When the few laws we have left are repealed, homosexuals will have the right to
hang around in public toilets, bugger eachother in these facilities ("provided the cubicle door is
closed" - Hillary Benn, Home Office), solicit sex in public, kiss and grope in public and film videos of homosexual orgies and make these available for sale in shops. If anyone dares complain then they will be branded "homophobic". How would you like to be forced to run a gaunlet of dodgy characters next time you want to use the toilet at your local park? And reporting it to the police would probably earn you a conviction for "hate crime".
It wasn't so long ago that the police employed vice squads to deal with blatent homosexual indecency, and homosexuals were prosecuted and put on the sex offenders register for these acts. The laws on cottaging were enforced and homosexuals feared the law would catch-up with their dirty activities. How things have changed in the past 10 years! Nowadays homosexuals regularly get away with intimidating people in toilets, parks, woodlands, anywhere where they congregate, and don't seem to care who sees them or their activities. "Gay" websites openly declare which areas homosexuals should go to, without any fear of prosecution or reaction from the local residents. Recently, when police were passing a homosexual cottaging area, rather than arresting those involved, one of the policeman present was disciplined after making a joke about the homosexuals. It appears that those who want to protect morality and the family against those who have an utter hatred of it are the ones that are punished, and those who despise the family and want to propagate and force others to watch their abhorrent activities are given a pat on the back and a "liason officer".
Look forward to a future where your children come home with booklets instructing them to experiment with homosexuality, containing graphic illustrations and descriptions, and being branded "homophobic" for daring to oppose this brainwashing. Section 28 looks as though it will be abolished in England and Wales soon, despite the valiant and dedicated opposition organised in the last bastion of British tradition and sensibility - The House of Lords.
In conclusion, the government has yet again proven that it is in bed with the homosexuals and feminists rather than standing up for the concerns of ordinary Britons. While the toughing of the laws on some offences is welcome, the reality is the feminists have been granted a knife with which to emasculate heterosexual males, while the homosexuals have been let loose to indulge in any disgusting behaviour they wish, while undermining and attacking the family at every turn. So much for protecting children, when a group that is 23 times (The Sexual Dead-End, Stephen Green, Broadview 1992) more likely to be child molestors is given free reign!
Some interesting quotes
"I have never come across anyone with 'innate homosexuality.' That notion has been a long-proclaimed gay-activist political position, intended to promote the acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy, fully equal, alternative expression of human sexuality. It has zero scientific foundation though its promoters latch on to even the flimsiest shreds of atrocious research in their attempts to justify the notion."
Toronto Professor of Psychiatry, Joseph Berger (Letter, Globe and Mail, Feb 26, 1992).
"Several of my friends - homosexual and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was a conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."
Peter Tatchell, homosexual "rights" activist.
"There is no place, however, for homosexuals or lesbians in our armed forces. This country has become inflicted with the prominence of the foul and disgusting sexual orientation of so-called 'Gay Rights' groups. Physical homosexuality is sodomy and those who practise such acts are sodomites, and should be called as such. Those serving in the armed forces must be set apart from those in civilian employment. Homosexuals in the forces arouse the violent hostility of their comrades in arms and undermine authority. The situation becomes intolerable when homosexuals are given authority over the objects of their attentions."
General Sir Walter Walker, KCB, CBE, DSO**, PMN, PSNB (Former NATO Commander-in-Chief), Right Now, October - December 1999, p8.
"The new '90's homosexual does not confine him/herself to silence in the shadows, they are no longer quiet, tolerated, 'consenting adults in private' but loud, vociferous 'alternative' adult, very much revelling-in and demanding the public limelight. An old saying springs to mind: "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"."
Tina Wingfield in "Pink Politics"
"Calder... notes that men in prison for sex offences often complain bitterly of [homosexual molestation] in youth and say that is what perverted them."
J. West, "Homosexuality" (Chicago Aldine, 1968)
"[One] case involved a 27-year-old, HIV-positive convicted sodomite named Troy Rivara. Rivara had frequently loitered in the school-yard at Intermediate School 44 on West 77th Street, regaling male students with comments like, 'Can I have your butt?' The police had been called at least twice because neighbours were concerned about his many young male visitors. Then last July he was arrested for the abduction and rape of an 11-year-old boy who attended IS 44"
James MacGuire, "No Sex, No Violence," June 21, 1993.
"The first sexual experience of the vast majority of homosexual men... was with a much OLDER homosexual. Even liberal Denmark has steadfastly refused homosexual adoption rights for this reason."
William Gairdner, "Speaking Out," Vol. 1, Issue 5.
It's time to speak-up and shove these degenerate scumbags back into the closet!
Links
http://members.odinsrage.com/britnation/articles.htm Excellent source of articles.
http://www.christian.org.uk/section2810303.htm Information on which MP's voted in favour and against Section 28 recently.
Adrian Davies QC
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Adrian Davies
14.04.2003 16:24
for those who don't know, Adrian Davies is a Nazi barrister who runs the Freedom Party. He isn't a QC, except in his dreams.
the Freedom Party is actually the BNP, in everything but name and the individuals who run it. it has policies that are identical to the BNP except their rhetoric is less racist even though their real policies are Nazi ones.
The freedom party started when a few people in the BNP fell out with Nick Griffin. They want to repatriate ethnic minorities "voluntarily" just like the BNP does, and return Britain to how it was in the 1950s.
dont be surprised by this little diatribe, they're a nazi party with nazi views on blacks, gays, women etc, misogynistic, racist, homophobes...
same old same old.
oh yeah, and Adrian Davies "QC" defended holocaust denial writer and ardent Nazi David Irving. nice guy eh.
err?
I don't care who he is.....
14.04.2003 17:42
I don't take anyone's word on these things. I shall now research it myself to see whether there is indeed cause for concern.
I suggest other males do likewise if this seems bad to them.
In a mature, free society we should be personally judging issues, not taking positions on the basis of personalities. We should neither automatically reject or automatically accept anything simply on the basis of who puts it forward.
That is the stupidity of sheep.
freddie