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