Our thanks to James for this. The end of the piece:

Under current Swedish law, someone can be prosecuted for rape only if it is proven that they used threats or violence. Under the proposal, rape could be proven if the claimant did not give his or her explicit verbal agreement or clearly demonstrate a desire to engage in sexual activity. [J4MB: So could a man claim (truthfully or otherwise) that a woman had said something along the lines of, “Sven, my powerful love machine, I give you my explicit verbal agreement to sexual intercourse, and by playing with my exposed genitalia in an enthusiastically erotic fashion, I shall demonstrate my desire to engage in sexual activity with you, but before we proceed, can you please put on the Abba Greatest Hits CD? Silly me, I can never work out how to use the bloody CD player. Thanks!” and not be prosecuted?]

Stefan Lofven, the prime minister, said the “historic reform”, which his coalition has been preparing since taking power in 2014, aims to shift the burden of proof from the claimant in a rape or sexual assault case to the alleged attacker.

Addressing victims, he said: “Society is standing by your side.”

If the bill is approved, it would go into effect on 1 July.

The proposal is part of a series of initiatives being put forward. Others would make it illegal for Swedes to hire prostitutes abroad and increase sentences for offenders. Buying sex in Sweden is already illegal.

I predict we’ll have the Scandinavian model of criminalising male clients of prostitutes within the next five years.

An interesting piece published over a year ago. Sue Gray is the Director General, Propriety and Ethics Team, part of the Cabinet Office. It was she who led the inquiry which concluded that allegations that Damian Green had behaved inappropriately towards a young female journalist were “plausible”.

A piece by Julie Bindel in The Guardian, packed with the unsubstantiated anecdotes and absurd ‘arguments by assertion’ for which she’s long been infamous. An extract:

Why are more people not up in arms about the huge numbers of false assertions of men’s innocence; false allegations of women’s complicity; and false allegations of how women deserve or enjoy nonconsensual sex? After all, significant numbers of women, and some men, are raped, sexually assaulted, sexually harassed, and sexually violated, and we know that it is more likely that the actual rape victim will end up in prison (as a result of the damage done to her and the knock-on effects throughout her life) than her rapist. [J4MB emphasis. Oddly, there’s no link to evidence to substantiate the claim. Why might that be?]

And how about this for classic Bindel misinformation?

Bearing in mind that only 6% of rape cases end up with a rape conviction for rape in this country, [J4MB: Bindel is referring here to rape ALLEGATIONS – referring to them as ‘rape cases’ is deliberately misleading, as it implies all allegations are genuine (victims must be believed, men who deny rape must not be believed). Most allegations don’t result in trials, for a variety of reasons. In a typical year, 30-45% of men who are charged with rape end up being convicted] that would mean that 94% of women thatwho (sic) report it are lying, that would mean a vast number of women are lying. [J4MB emphasis: That may be the case, but Bindel’s statistic implies no more than that in the majority of cases of rape allegations, the police / CPS are disinclined to take the matter to trial, and even when there is a trial, in more than 50% of cases juries decide the evidence is not of a sufficient standard to convict the men. A proportion of the women in those cases will certainly be lying, possibly the majority, but we cannot know how many. After all, what incentive is there for a woman who’s made a false rape allegation, to admit she’d lied? None. Given the (very remote) possibility of the woman later being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and/or wasting police time, the strong incentive is to maintain the lie.]

After being exposed to Bindel’s writing, you may need some light relief. So it is that I recommend a short video (4:15) published two years ago by 5hadowfax, 1945: Adolf Hitler starts to question his own insanity after being exposed to Julie Bindel. Enjoy.

Our thanks to Mike P for this piece in the Telegraph (in the women’s section!) If you register, you’ll be able to read the full article for free.

Our thanks to Gary for this. He writes:

A defence for professional men looking to survive the new era of accusation equals conviction.

The Mike Pence Rule: Vice President Mike Pence does not eat dinner alone with women who are not his wife and does not go to events where alcohol is being served when his wife is not present.

I would assimilate it slightly differently: Do not ever be alone with a woman who is not your wife.  If you cannot avoid it, discreetly record the time with your phone.

Our thanks to Ian for this. An extract:

Listed for sale between £365 and £456, customers can choose either a dark or light skinned dummy provided by third-party group ESP.

While sales have been halted on Amazon’s UK site, it remains available in the US.

Nick Langford is the man behind the ExInjuria blog. He’ll be speaking at ICMI18 on the topic, ‘An exercise in utter futility: How feminism, falsehood and myth changed the landscape of family law’. Earlier today he posted some comments in response to our blog piece on the TCW article, David Kurten: Transgenderism and this insane ban on free speech, they’re reproduced here in full:

When was the last time the Westminster Parliament actually debated anything controversial – really debated? All debates now on matters such as transexualism, domestic violence, gay marriage, the family courts, etc, etc, are simply a succession of MPs parroting the PC line. Anyone who takes an opposing view – if there are still such people in Parliament – doesn’t dare express it. Gareth Bennett, who probably shares the views of many of his constituents, was either very brave or very naive.

I am coming to the view that this new totalitarianism, which seeks to impose radical ideology without putting up a single argument in its favour and uses the law rather than reasoning to propagate itself, is far more dangerous than feminism, though they are related through their Marxist ancestor.

I was having a conversation with a transgender person recently who said he (her preferred pronoun) despaired at those who pretend to identify as an alternative race or even species: it was giving transgenderism a bad name. I replied that logically I could not see any difference. Society needs to be able to debate these issues freely and express its views; the advocates of the ideology need to argue their case rationally and show the science which proves their case.

Of course, it won’t happen. Anyone who opposed gay marriage on legal grounds, or because it represents a profound failure to understand the true purpose of marriage, was dismissed as a bigot and homophobe, removing any need to argue the case.

Meanwhile, the so-called ‘Conservative’ government will continue to introduce new PC legislation for which no one has voted, and principles such as freedom of speech, democracy and due legal process will vanish into history.

An excellent piece published by TCW yesterday, by UKIP’s Education and Apprenticeships Spokesman.

A strong piece on Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s new Head of News.

A piece published by the Mail online two hours ago. The start of the piece:

Scotland Yard is to review hundreds of rape, child abuse and sexual assault cases after a second prosecution collapsed in a week due to an evidence blunder.

Isaac Itiary, who was charged with the rape of a child under 16, was told he would face no further action yesterday after his case was reviewed in the wake of last week’s scandal.

Incredibly, his prosecution involved the same officer as the Liam Allan case, which collapsed last Thursday when it emerged he had failed to disclose thousands of damning text messages.

The detective constable in question, Mark Azariah, is still working at Scotland Yard’s sexual offences unit and has not been suspended. [J4MB: Why not? Because the victims of his incompetence and/or laziness will almost always be men?]

Last night, amid mounting calls for an independent inquiry, the Metropolitan Police announced that every live case being investigated by its Child Abuse and Sexual Offences squad was now being reviewed to ensure that all digital evidence has been properly examined, documented and shared.

The flawed prosecutions have prompted fears there have been miscarriages of justice [J4MB: Fears? Certainties, more like] – but also raise the prospect that rapists and child abusers could go free if they are able to challenge disclosure of evidence at their trial. [J4MB emphasis. Can someone explain the meaning of the highlighted words?]