Home > Issues > Gender Equity > Allegations by Victims: Paula Bennett Contradicts Herself |
||||||||||
|
Empowering Men:fighting feminist lies |
|||||||||
Allegations by Victims: Paula Bennett Contradicts HerselfPeter Zohrab 2019 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
(Open Letter to the Deputy Leader of the National Party)
Dear Paula Bennett,
You contradicted yourself in your Newshub Nation interview on 14th September 2019. Of course, you are a woman and a former Minister of Women's Affairs, so no one can expect you to be logical! Now that women have taken over the universities, even so-called "top" universities are now churning out self-contradictions -- see my articles, "Cambridge University is a Women's Kindergarten" and "Feminist Jurisprudence Proves that a Woman's Place is in the Home".
Your self-contradiction is quite obvious and easy to state: You referred to the complainants in the Labour Party's sexual assault allegation scandal as "the victims" TWELVE TIMES, but never as "complainants", which is the term which the interviewer repeatedly used. However, you only referred to what they actually said ONCE, and then you used the word "allegations". If someone makes an "allegation" which is deliberately false or accidentally mistaken, they are not a "victim", because what they claim happened did not actually happen. It is only if their allegation is true that they are a victim -- yet you did not use any term such as "description of events," which would indicate that what they alleged was actually true. You said "allegations."
You said that you believed them, and you twice referred to a "victim-led" process, which has no legal meaning, as far as I am aware. I put it to you that, if they are lying or mistaken, then the man who they have accused was the victim of false or mistaken allegations, which might lead to criminal charges being laid agains the complainants. So he might be the victim. Would a "victim-led" process mean that you would have to treat him as the victim from the start? You have not even spoken to him -- obviously -- so you don't know his side of the story. Of course, since you are a sexist ex-Minister of Women's Affairs, you would automatically believe a woman, wouldn't you?
You don't have any legal qualifications, apparently. If you knew anything about the Law, you would know the slogan, "Audi Alteram Partem" ("Hear the other side" -- i.e. hear both sides.) That is Natural Justice, and that is presumably what the QC has been doing. Apparently you think that kangaroo courts and trials by media are preferable to that process.
You say that the so-called "victims" are intelligent. On the topic of why they hadn't gone to the Police, you said, "They wanted to keep this within the Labour Party". Well, going and blabbing to you is the exact opposite of keeping this within the Labour Party, isn't it? So why didn't they go to the Police? Neither you nor the interviewer mentioned that going to the Police would have been much less harmful to the Labour Party than going to you, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Could it be that they were lying and the Police might find that out? Could it be that they hate the Labour Party?
Women have less testosterone than men and testosterone has been shown to reduce lying in men. Therefore women probably tell more lies than men do. Maybe that includes you, too!?