Australia: Biggest State in Country to Adopt Orwellian “Consent” Laws

Where it started

Australia is a place where a lot of weird new agendas get tested on the population.

“Affirmative consent” is one you’re going to want to watch out for. Feminists have been pushing for this forever.

But at this point, everyone has already stopped having sex anyway, haven’t they?

Australian feminist Rachael Burgin, writing for the leftist site The Conversation, is very excited about this new way to empower women by removing responsibility from them:

New South Wales Attorney-General Mark Speakman has announced a suite of reforms to consent law, following a two-and-a-half year review by the Law Reform Commission.

The review was prompted by survivor-advocate Saxon Mullins, who endured two trials and two appeals, only to end up with no legal resolution to her rape case. Since then, Mullins has advocated for affirmative consent.

However, the final report from the commission, released in November last year, failed to recommend this standard. Despite this, Speakman has stood alongside Mullins with the promise of a bill that goes beyond the recommendations of the commission — and will make affirmative consent the law in NSW.

What is affirmative consent?

Affirmative consent means that consent is actively sought and actively communicated. This approach shifts from a “no means no” standard to “yes means yes”, in that an individual seeking to have sex with another person must obtain clear, expressed consent from them before (and while) engaging in a sexual act.

In other words, submission without active, participatory agreement is not sufficient to claim that consent was given. In practice, this could be something as simple as asking someone if they want to have sex.

This type of consent standard shifts the emphasis from the actions of the victim-survivor to those of the accused. This is important, since we know that the same rape myths and gendered stereotypes that permeate society can be brought sharply to bear in sexual assault trials.

Despite this, and international shifts towards affirmative consent, governments across Australia have been hesitant to legislate it, and Law Reform Commissions are apparently loathe to recommend it.

In addition to the NSW Commission, the Queensland Law Reform Commission earlier this year also failed to recommend affirmative consent, opting instead to recommend no substantive change to consent law. That report was heavily criticised as relying largely on research that had not been peer-reviewed, and ignoring recent Australian academic research.

The changes in New South Wales

The bill announced today changes that course. Speakman has presented reforms that go beyond the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations and, if enacted, would legislate affirmative consent in NSW.

This is because the bill requires that a person who is seeking to raise the defence of “reasonable belief in consent” must demonstrate what actions they took or what words they spoke to ensure they had consent. A failure to do or say something (that is, to “take steps”) to ascertain consent means that any belief in consent will not be reasonable.

This is affirmative consent in action – and it takes its lead from the law in Tasmania, which has operated without controversy for nearly two decades.

It is also where other jurisdictions fall down. Victoria, for example, is often heralded as a leader in affirmative consent. However, my research analysing rape trial transcripts from the County Court of Victoria shows that defence counsel continue to rely on narratives of victim resistance or “implied consent, that construct women’s ordinary, everyday behaviour as indicating consent.

This is, as I have argued, because Victoria does not require an accused person to show they did anything to ensure their potential sexual partner was consenting. If a person did take steps to ascertain consent, they are able to raise this in their defence.

However, the reasonableness of a belief in consent, in Victoria, can be built exclusively on the accused person’s perception of the victim-survivor’s conduct – whether she was drinking alcohol, wearing certain types of clothing, dancing near him or not offering enough “resistance” to his sexual advances.

The bottom line is that this section of Consent Theory means that you have to ask a woman if she wants to have sex. As that obviously isn’t going to happen in real life, as it would be a total vibe killer, any woman will be able to say that any sex was rape.

The sole agenda of feminists is to create more instances of where they can destroy a man’s life. They do this both by giving women authority and by removing responsibility from a woman. Women are presented as both all powerful, godlike beings, and as pathetic little babies.

In “affirmative consent,” the claim is that a woman is so scared of a man that she isn’t able to say “sorry no, I don’t want to have sex.”

The larger goal of the system is just to remove sex from human existence. They want men to be afraid of sex. Obviously, this is working – most men no longer even think about sex. Firstly, most women are so fat they’re out of the game. Secondly, if you find one that isn’t fat, you’re playing Russian Roulette.