Imagine that, on the basis of a message from a man who claims to have been robbed, the prosecution will accuse the individual he indicated as the perpetrator of the theft. Doubtless, public prosecutors would set up queues of people who would like to be considered financially injured, preferably by a millionaire. After all, he would most rapidly "return" a considerable amount of money which he "stealed," and if not, he would be inclined to amicably get out of the situation so that he would not be forced to "return" a large sum, so as not to wander around the courts and lose a good name. Of course, this situation would turn upside down the principles on which any existing law strategy is based.
What results from making words a proof?
It would mean that the evidence of individual with an apparent interest in making a specific, adverse decision for the accused would find whether to charge him or not, and then possibly a conviction. In fact, this “responsible person” would become a justice in his own case.
It would mean that prosecutorial conduct turns into something like a tv debate, after which the audience would decide who was better off – in which case it would not necessarily be better for the individual who is telling the truth, but for the individual who is more effective in influencing emotions, that is, it gives emergence to greater sympathy, curiosity or compassion. The judicial institutions would no longer aspire to be ombudsmen of what is objective, becoming an extension of the meme-twitter world. There would be a "postmodernisation of the law", that is, a situation in which what individual says is of greater value than evidence.
It would mean that this suspect would gotta prove his innocence. Not much – the top weakness of the "proof" of words becomes its top force, due to the fact that proving that it was not like individual says is as hard as proving it was. After all, what is unverified is in a sense besides undeniable.
Fingerprint was or wasn't. Surveillance footage shows the unsub or not. And the testimony? Can we believe it or not? It is not known – it is only known that akin changes in regulations would undoubtedly be introduced by their authors in order to believe in testimony.
Postmodernisation of the law
Let's abandon the presuming mode. Postmodernism is already here, carrying with it all its baggage of abstraction confronting metaphysics, the ruthlessness of what is relative, nonsubjective subjectivism. Postmodernization of the law is allowed ideology.
Its followers do so by altering the definition of rape, and specifically by introducing a provision that states that in order to talk of sexual exploitation, it is adequate that a second individual does not consent to having intercourse. What this consent would look like, it is not known – seemingly we are dealing with moving the contractual imagination of society to an intimate sphere, and the "social agreement" is to apply besides in the bedroom. We have more clarity about who will come from the cognition of agreement or deficiency of it – it must come from the alleged victim.
Article 197 of the Penal Code now reads: "Whoever leads another individual to engage in sexual violence, unlawful threats, deceit or otherwise, is subject to imprisonment from 2 to 15", that is, compared to erstwhile legislation, a passage concerning consent has been added, and the advanced limit of the threatening punishment has been increased. Paraphrasing the classic, possibly it has never meant so much before.
False Charges
What can specified “presuming of rape” lead to?
Adanna Esemon – Miss Black Arizona – was arrested for fraud and theft by extortion (theft by execution) on the well-known baseball player Trevor Bauer. Bauer was suspended for seasons in the American league for imaginary sexual harassment charges.
Even actor Kevin Spacey had a trial. In his case, we had a suspicion of homosexual rape. 1 man claimed that the actor groped his crotch at the bar in 2016. The suit has been dismissed, but the origin presented by 1 of the left-wing newspapers is characteristic, as we can read: “The suit was dismissed for deficiency of evidence”. So, he's most likely guilty, but they were just looking wrong.
American celebrity Andy Signore was charged with rape by a woman. He had to stay silent for a long time, due to the fact that the case was classified. erstwhile the files could yet see the light of day, the fact turned out to be as follows (as quoted in the weekly “Politics”): “The materials show that the affair took place, but by common consent, there was no “coach to the hotel under the pretext of the Screen Junkies” event, just a clear date for the evening of the 2 of us. There was no rape, either. On the next day, O’Donnell regretted in her message to Signore that he was besides shy to make “any move”. The critic didn't force her to strip her, either. – April sent him her bare pictures herself.”
Similar cases may be multiplied.
Of course, a supporter of the fresh regulations will say false accusations seldom occur. It's not even about going to a cell where a man is talking and telling him not to worry due to the fact that he's just an exception. announcement the force on judges by lobbying groups for specified government – or that convictions, on the basis of which it is announced that "the majority of those accused of rape was guilty", are not the consequence of force to uncritically trust the evidence of the women submitting themselves? This is the conclusion of iron logic – it is not a conspiracy theory.
Nihilism
Ideologies behind specified and akin (although the penalisation of “hate speech”) changes in government are two.
The first, the kid of the “bedroom left”, fills the condensed fumes of Marxism and Freudism with an admixture of Nietzscheanism. And, add, from the chronicle of duty, the fumes of absurdity. So, since the ideas of the twentieth-century left were ending with Gulag, it does not mean that they were fatal, but only that "something didn't work out", the performers did not and the circumstances were not favorable. As it is known that a man who does not know how to swim should not drown, he must simply be moved to a shallower lake.
The thesis about “accidents at work” is resisted by British philosopher Roger Scruton in his book Benefits of Pessimism and the Danger of False Hope, writing that the basis of the left-wing worldview is – among another things – nihilism and the "false stereotype of zero sum", that is, the thought that with the amount of happiness and life success in society is about as much as with items in a magazine, that is, they are limited and if individual gets something, it is not adequate for individual else. Both the "false stereotype of zero sum" and nihilism are logical developments in Marxist concept of "class struggle".
This leads to reasoning about society (if at all this word is in left-wing terminology) as a arena of group or sex struggles, confrontations of particularisms arising in addition from factors which are determined by birth itself (hence the left-wing conflict with biology).
It is simply a paradox, due to the fact that the treatment of a man as individual determined by what he was born is consistent with the assumptions of worldviews, which left-wingers present as the most hostile from their point of view (although racism). Of course, from this description of reality the left draws another conclusions – the rule of collective work derived from it remains unflinched. This "collective thinking" suggests that many leftist people accept their view not due to any extraordinary sensitivity (as they would most likely like to convince) due to the fact that they can be delicate to another people, but not to the full group – their motor of action is revolutionary.
Roger Scruton writes about left-wing parities that are "group rights that a given individual has due to the fact that he is simply a woman, a homosexual, a typical of an cultural number and so on." The British investigator develops: “This is evident in disputes about «firmative action». 2 people, John and Mary, are moving for admission to college. John has better qualifications, but Mary is Indian, and for that reason she is accepted. In specified cases, liberals argue that Mary has the right to this preference through a group to which she belongs – formerly oppressed group whose position in society can only be improved through specified privileged treatment."
Of course, a akin policy of the left besides tries to lead towards women or homosexuals. past is in parallel stories the exploitation of blacks by whites, the humiliating of homosexuals by the Church, or the oppression of women by a “Patriarchal culture”. Here we are dealing with a kind of utopia flashback, in which the fates of historical figures are described by the prism of motivation, which were unknown to them, but fit the concept of parts of modern people.
In addition, the view that describes past and society as fields of clashing groups and is supported by the "false zero-sum stereotype" is accompanied by this nihilism – in order for the "right" group to win, it must deprive the group with which it fights, sometimes even take distant its right to exist. In view of the fact that the perfect world, any kind of earthly paradise, has never been and cannot be created, the “avanguard of the revolution” reacts in 2 ways—first, it blames the “exploiting” group, demanding an always more intense depriving of its expected privileges, and second, it suffers its resentiment, that is, the grief of those who are not at all hindered by the existing order and can be happy, surviving within it (for example, the outrage of feminists against women who do not feel discriminated against by the “Patriarchical culture”).
Nihilism becomes both a consequence to frustration and the only solution to the inability to make the perfect world.
According to Roger Scruton (in this case on the 1968 leftist activists): “They built their utopia exclusively on negation, and this is, in my opinion, the nature of utopia in all its forms. Ideally built to destruct the real.”
Nihilism is even stronger due to the nature and ego of left-wing ideologists. They are not conservatives, among another things, due to the fact that conservatism would greatly limit their role, leaving small area for “rethinking the world” and simply ordering them to perceive to it. Leftist ideologists very frequently are not truly about the “repair of the world” but about themselves. Well, it's worth society, well, there are worthy people who, with their lives, completely deny the concepts of the large heads...
To sum up, as regards the relation between the left-wing worldview and reality, we can talk more about work accidents than about the occupation of causing accidents. The very essence of this ideology makes its influence always destructive.
The very change in the definition of rape is another effect of seeing a planet in which a man is not a partner or friend to a woman, but a threat. It may wonder, however, how the leftist combine the designation of sex as something "liquid" or comparative to the designation of man as an aggressor as absolute truth.
It is also, by the way, in the native version of images of Poles presented in texts from the border of sociology and pashquil, in which she specialized “Gazeta Wyborcza”. “Painting schemes” were usually 2 – the first is the 1 about the Pole-Catholic who drinks and beats his wife all week, and on Sunday he bows to his neighbors in the church, and the second is the 1 in which the Polish man perceives as the work of his female to have sexual intercourse with him whenever he wants. The features of pathology in each nation have been raised to the rank of national characteristics of Poles (who, of course, have negative national characteristics, unlike all another nations, to whom reminiscing this "xenophobia").
Changing the definition of rape is yet another effect of longing for an perfect that only exists in books and ideas, which – according to this ideology – can be achieved by changing the laws. The longing for perfect is connected with the deficiency of knowing that – although it may sound brutal – medical errors happen (in the case of women who, according to leftist ideologists, would live if they had abortions) and there are degenerates (in the case of perpetrators of repugnant crimes on women), as in the case of death from lightning strikes, but they happen rarely, and whether they would happen even little often, we have a very small influence.
By trying to increase this impact, sooner than to improve the situation of anyone, we will lead to a circumstantial transfer of harm – in this case to men unjustly accused by vengeful partners of rape (about this in a moment).
Freudism
While the neo-Marxist character of the "bedroom left" is evident in the perception of society as a arena of conflict between groups, the influence of Freudism is evidenced by the importance attached to matters related to human sexuality. In the light of left-wing ideology, 1 of the fundamental aims of human life is to release impulses, and everything that these urges suppress, including culture or society, deserves demolition or, at best, a complete transformation.
Let us not be misled by 1 of the basic phrases utilized by the left-wingers: “No 1 will look in my bedroom” (the phrase occurs in various varieties, even though “no 1 will tell me what to do with my body”). Left loves to look in this bedroom, seeing a man as circumstantial homo sexualis – individual who is most afraid about sex change if, of course, he is not reasoning about having an abortion or taking a ‘day after’ tablet. The "bedroom left" displaced the "kitchen left" – after all, issues concerning sex change affect people more frequently than deficiency of food in the fridge.
Let us not be confused by the stream of slogans that, according to the left, people with a different than heterosexual sexual orientation are "people like everyone else." The Left describes at least these "liberated" people solely by the prism of their sexuality. If the opposing organization had looked alike, it would have created “clubs for heterosexuals”.
No average individual claims that rapists do not deserve the harshest possible punishment. No 1 underestimates the trauma experienced by the victims (i do not usage the word “victim”). As a scandalously low, a large part of the court sentences imposed on rape offenders should be assessed. However, it is in seeing the right scale of the phenomenon. What is different is the request for advanced punishments from degenerates, and what is different is the search for manifestations of a "rape culture" in a man who says he likes it. In left-wing thinking, the scale of the phenomenon is tremendous and overwhelming. Including common sense.
The solution to the problem is to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement, to rise awareness of the full right to study its harm, to assist victims and to increase the penalties actually imposed on perpetrators, alternatively than to increase the number of possible suspects.
Perhaps the leftists fall into a thought trap consisting of attributing to others, and sometimes and to the full society, their own qualities—their optics, placing the sexuality of a man in the center, leads to them being likewise inclined to view others.
Nietzscheanism
As you know, philosopher Frederick Nietzsche declared the death of God. Of these two, only he died. As a sick man and on the border of insanity, who has issued a war on Christianity, he is rather a symbol of the native left, represented by Martha Lempart ( judging by her expression, sooner than Nietzsche read the inscriptions on the walls, so he is inspired alternatively unconsciously) or – to a lesser extent, due to the fact that Lempart is unique – a minister from reeducation, "some Novacka".
Of course, Nietzsche wanted to replace the division into good and evil with a discrimination on the strong and the weak, so to the left proclaiming "freedom, equality, brotherhood" (not necessarily afraid about the fact that free men prosecute in completely different directions, which in itself excludes equality and brotherhood) theoretically fits on average. Theoretically, for "freedom, equality, brotherhood," this left-wing left-wing left-wing left-wing-to-be-desert, as the object of eternal pursuits, is all the more tempting that, as it has been said, unattainable. There is so a force that allows us to “fix the world”, including changing the definition of rape or censoring another views in the name of combating “the speech of hatred”.
The amendments to the legal strategy proposed and introduced by the left change the function of the legal system. The legal order is not to prevent aggression from 1 against another or to surrender cultural conditions, but besides to the general effect of education and common sense – the norms felt by most people of the country.
Legal order is to be the weapon of 1 group against another, and sometimes and against the full society. In another words, man is to plan the legal strategy "in his image and likeness."
It is besides awesome to believe that by changing the words in the bill, you can plan all part of this planet as you please. In the utmost version this leads to the effect shown in the movie Joshua Project – presented a program that created algorithms indicating who and under what circumstances would commit a crime, which helped halt people from doing the alleged act. Of course, as usual, the planet has not grown up to ideas of "wise heads" and innocent people have been detained. Well, it's crucial that individual was stopped.
Europeism
The second ideology underlying specified changes in law is “Europeanism”. It is an ideology of lazy followers, on the 1 hand mentally overpowered by the complex of Europe (imposed with the European Union), and on the another hand – not very inclined to make something of their own, corresponding to Polish cultural conditions.
The argument "all over Europe so" is that they consider all discussion to be overwhelming, reluctant to consider whether it would be good to have an immigration policy like this "whole Europe" policy.
Since “all over Europe” is simply a regulation that is completely disregarding the rule of presumption of innocence, we should besides introduce it.
The logic or value strategy must kneel before “all Europe”. It's a method of school lazy, which records the full content of the test from a nerd. but he got a different kind of test.
While the above-mentioned left loves to scope out for arguments referring to emotions, the full dispute about changing the definition of rape would lead to a conflict between "women's rights defenders" and "rapists defenders", so the "Europeans" enjoy "aesthetisation". The opponents of specified changes in law are representatives of the "patriarchate" and the "dark garden". The empty or unlimited volume of specified vocabulary hinders discussion with those reaching for it.
"Europeans" are, and of course, promoters of "progress" and love to scope for a intellectual calculus consisting of identifying method improvement with "progress" of culture, which is nothing but an ideology with which they identify. Smarter ones have found themselves an efficient way of manipulating, little intelligent ones have been utilized to accept “on faith” that since homosexuals can adopt children in a given country and this country besides has fresh highways, it is surely right to let homosexuals to adopt.
The European, as Fyodor Dostoevsky put it, shares “the views of our next generation and is an enemy of all superstitions.” The superiority he feels due to education and declared cognition does not necessarily go hand in hand with the ability to base his argument on this knowledge. The declaration of cognition serves the “esthetic” request to self-present a “light” and “modern” man. The thing, as usual, is about the specifics. I mean, it's not about being educated, it's about portraying an adversary as a "dark garden". For example, let's effort to ask the leftist what kind of discipline the claim about man is that there is simply a "cultural gender". He won't say – but with a large deal of probability he'll blame us for deficiency of knowledge.
The "Europeans" are besides driven by any kind of cynicism and political calculating. It is known that they will not be able to liberalize the existing abortion bill, so they do what they can, even if any of the supporters of the “bedroom left” are considered sincere.
He can only wonder if specified a change is so dangerous or just – as he would possibly like a part of the cynics, aiming mainly for support – senseless. I mean – whether prosecutors and courts will take into account only the evidence of persons claiming and presenting themselves as victims, or whether their declaration that they did not consent to the relationship, will verify by checking another evidence. In the first case, we will deal with the situation described earlier by analogy with the alleged thief, and in the second case, in fact, the declaration of agreement or its absence will be of very average importance, being only 1 of respective evidence taken into account.
Population and Real Consequences
However, the change in the definition of rape was besides supported by a large proportion of Law and Justice organization politicians. 1 can get the impression that the analysis of the concrete effects of the changes made to politicians replace visions – products of various ideologies, established thought patterns, and even pop cultured carbons. As in the case of the left, this is simply a imagination of women who are oppressed by men, in the case of the "Europeans" it is simply a imagination of "modernity" to which we should aim, so in the case of "right-winged" it is simply a imagination of a "real man" who stands up for a woman.
The fact that many truly injured women, out of fear of the torturer, will simply not proceed to study rapes, and that a door will open to women who make false accusations, even to extort money, is besides mundane arguments compared to vision.
This is simply a kind of populism that tells you to turn your head off, promising support in return. specified populism wants to “operate” the legal strategy erstwhile in a while as a consequence of listening to emotional comments after a crime that sparks extremist social opposition, without considering that the law is not from expressing one's emotions. He does not want to take into account that the change in law should be decided not by our attitude towards the perpetrator, but by our reasoning about the law system. Emotions are behind the thought of a “road killing” without considering that in order to be attributable to a individual the work for any act, we request to consider the intentions that led him, not whether we feel hatred for him and whether we would “pile him.”
Emotions and populism are guided by a ‘rule of 1 scenario’, as if the planet consisted of only behaviour patterns. Of course, accepting the repetition of the situation better justifies a certain consequence to it. Problem is, only any situations are repetitive.
The past of the woman, cited by supporters of changes in regulations, is dramatic, and no 1 questions that she was raped due to the fact that she was incapable to protest as a consequence of the shock resulting from the rape.
Of course, he wonders who the witnesses testifying in this case (if they were) – it takes quite a few bad will, stupidity or money to not see the degree of specified a situation.
The point is that referring to 1 circumstantial situation – how dramatic and compassionate it would be – is akin to the work to test yourself with a breathalyzer before entering the road by each driver, due to the fact that 1 driver caused an accident there under the influence of alcohol.
No, life brings much more than 1 scenario. A man talking about rape has a chance to last a trauma in prison that he will remember for the remainder of his life.
Do we accept the price of ideology?
Jacek Tomczak
