Granting anonymity removes feminist power, so they’ll kick and scream all the way to this being done, and the weak and cowardly males who can grant it will cave in, and cower. Grant anonymity AND remove compensation and claims and allegations will plunge. They ended compensation in Germany recently, and allegations of rape did just that.
The feminists, their “Useful Idiots”, and the governmental and legal entities who support them aren’t in the least bit concerned about ending false accusations: their actions have shown that baseless and false accusations are their tool for keeping their power and remaining in control of intersexual social communication, as well as ensuring the perpetuation of their female-based political religion of “Victimology”.
This measure would remove any suggestion that the #MeToo movement is about an anti-male witch hunt, a popular hysteria, or a few faded actresses trying to get attention. #MeToo should be all for it.
The fact that they are vehemently against it speaks volumes.
Eivind Berge, like me, opposes anonymity for the accused. A key requirement of a democracy is free speech and an open and transparent justice system. Anonymity violates that principle, making it harder to expose injustices. Anonymity for male defendants will not make their plight better, it will make feminism even worse and more powerful. You are jumping off a cliff like a lemming in supporting anonymity.
My view is that neither defendants nor accusers should be granted anonymity. If both defendants and accusers are granted anonymity then no one will be able to reveal that a trial collapsed due to CPS/police negligence and so the only men we will hear of are men who have been convicted, and as they will be being anally raped in prison it will be far harder for them to expose the injustice. Take Mark Pearson, he’s been fantastic in joining the Men’s movement and spreading the word on the absurdity of his trial, but if he had been convicted would he be able to do that? Even when released from prison he’d be subject to the draconian sex offender register and the poor employment prospects that came as a result of a sex crime conviction (due to employers outrageous discrimination against sex criminals). True, he wasn’t convicted on that occasion, but if we had anonymity, I wonder whether he would have dared to show his face? My point being, those not convicted would take their anonymity and be afraid to show their face, and those convicted would be simply unable to stand up for themselves, they would be too impoverished, have too many injuries from their assaults in prison and be too old by the time they got out. So no one could prove that women lie about rape. A chilling prospect.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I agree. Anonymity for both till trial. Afterwards name the blameworthy party. In the case of an acquittal that will be the accuser.
LikeLike
Granting anonymity removes feminist power, so they’ll kick and scream all the way to this being done, and the weak and cowardly males who can grant it will cave in, and cower. Grant anonymity AND remove compensation and claims and allegations will plunge. They ended compensation in Germany recently, and allegations of rape did just that.
LikeLike
The feminists, their “Useful Idiots”, and the governmental and legal entities who support them aren’t in the least bit concerned about ending false accusations: their actions have shown that baseless and false accusations are their tool for keeping their power and remaining in control of intersexual social communication, as well as ensuring the perpetuation of their female-based political religion of “Victimology”.
LikeLike
This measure would remove any suggestion that the #MeToo movement is about an anti-male witch hunt, a popular hysteria, or a few faded actresses trying to get attention. #MeToo should be all for it.
The fact that they are vehemently against it speaks volumes.
LikeLike
Eivind Berge, like me, opposes anonymity for the accused. A key requirement of a democracy is free speech and an open and transparent justice system. Anonymity violates that principle, making it harder to expose injustices. Anonymity for male defendants will not make their plight better, it will make feminism even worse and more powerful. You are jumping off a cliff like a lemming in supporting anonymity.
My view is that neither defendants nor accusers should be granted anonymity. If both defendants and accusers are granted anonymity then no one will be able to reveal that a trial collapsed due to CPS/police negligence and so the only men we will hear of are men who have been convicted, and as they will be being anally raped in prison it will be far harder for them to expose the injustice. Take Mark Pearson, he’s been fantastic in joining the Men’s movement and spreading the word on the absurdity of his trial, but if he had been convicted would he be able to do that? Even when released from prison he’d be subject to the draconian sex offender register and the poor employment prospects that came as a result of a sex crime conviction (due to employers outrageous discrimination against sex criminals). True, he wasn’t convicted on that occasion, but if we had anonymity, I wonder whether he would have dared to show his face? My point being, those not convicted would take their anonymity and be afraid to show their face, and those convicted would be simply unable to stand up for themselves, they would be too impoverished, have too many injuries from their assaults in prison and be too old by the time they got out. So no one could prove that women lie about rape. A chilling prospect.
LikeLike