By It has recently been highlighted extensively on AVfM that Bill Cosby is being tried in the court of public opinion. This is significant to the USA, but over here in the UK, we have a different showtrial going on. Prince Andrew has been named by Virginia Roberts as a rapist.Once again, this case highlights how men are tried in the court of public opinion. Prince Andrew has not been afforded any right to privacy. His identity and the allegations are fully public, no matter how unproven: no evidence has been presented and no conviction has been handed down.
Proof is what Men’s Rights Activists want. We are not ‘pro rape.’ If Prince Andrew raped Miss Roberts, he should go to jail. But again, the point is that Prince Andrew is being treated as guilty until proven innocent, which flies in the face of all principles of democratic justice. The allegations have not been proven, but the public are still encouraged to pass judgement through news articles and the internet.
Once again, this highlights issues of a man’s innocence and some women’s predisposition to lie about rape, for money and fame. Even if everything Virginia Roberts has claimed is true, it STILL does not show Andrew is guilty of any misconduct, or worthy of legal trial.
Lets examine Virginia Robert’s claims.
Firstly, the age issue. The media has connected Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts through convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. Much has been made of Virginia’s age. It has been widely reported that she was 17, and that Prince Andrew knew it. However, what the media doesn’t mention is that this doesn’t matter. The age of consent in the UK is 16. In New York at the time of the alleged sexual encounters, the age of consent was 17. Prince Andrew’s awareness of her age shows he was aware that, if he had sex with her, then he was doing nothing wrong. Not the opposite.
Secondly, there is the issue of Prince Andrew’s awareness in general. Virginia claims Jeffrey Epstein paid her £10,000 to ensure, “Whatever Prince Andrew wanted, I was to make sure he got. I didn’t dare say no.” Again, this may be true. But even if it is, it doesn’t show that Andrew was even remotely aware that she had been paid. The photos of Virginia and Andrew together look naturally happy. Andrew is a Prince, and a Prince is considered highly desirable to women. They don’t need to rape. But even if Virginia was paid, who is to say Andrew wasn’t flattered by what he thought was genuine attention from a star struck young woman? Virginia says she just called the Prince ‘Andy.’ Her choice of words seems intimate and familiar, not oppressive and forced. It doesn’t show he knew she was paid, and the photo of them together is not sexual. It does not show rape took place, or that sex took place.
Money is a big issue here. Many, many famous people have had allegations of rape for huge payouts. Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, etc. It seems to be a pattern. These people may indeed have been rapists, but it has never been proven in court. Any woman wanting to make money and fame can do so with a false rape allegation. However unlikely it is for women to lie about rape for money, the rich and famous will attract them. Because they have money, the likelihood of a false allegation increases exponentially. Criminal charges are often not filed. The trial plays out in civil court, where the burden of proof is lower, and cash payouts replace jail time. The victim’s fame is assured through the fame of the accused.
If Virginia was paid £10,000 to have sex, as she claims, I can’t imagine that upset her. Being paid is not ‘slavery’ as she claims. Having sex with desirable men for huge payouts is hardly a difficult decision for many women, of a certain type. Perhaps she’s spent it all, and now wants more. With opinion alone, we are encouraged to publicly try Andrew for what he’s suspected of. So, why isn’t she on trial in the court of public opinion, for being suspected of getting so used to clawing money from the rich and famous that she is only continuing to do what she knows best? False rape allegations for money would be a logical next step after payments for actual sex had dried up. She holds the power. This version is no less likely than her claims of victimhood.
All the while, the pressure is on the publicly shamed defendant. In this case, Virginia has stated “If a judge wants me to present my information in more detail, including more specific descriptions of the sexual activities with the men Epstein sent me to, I could do so.” To me, that sounds like a threat based on society’s shaming of male sexuality. An exact description of the sex is not required. The circumstances of the consent is what’s required. But the public will lap up sexual descriptions for their public humiliation factor.
Prince Andrew has been asked to comment time and time again. He refuses to do so. This does not make me suspicious. The burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the accused. He should no more be on trial than her.
That brings us to the last consideration. PROOF. Proof, proof, proof.
If Virginia wants Andrew to go to jail, (rather than a big payout,) she needs proof. As usual, if what she’s saying is true, then there IS proof.
As with any crime, proof is not always available. As a security guard I know this well. You can’t catch them all, but you can certainly catch a lot of them. Virginia Roberts says Andrew’s security team left them in the bedroom. Have the security team been questioned? She says she was paid £10,000. Can she show bank statements? Receipts of what she spent the money on? She claims the orgies were filmed. Have copies been found by police?
There seems to be an assumption in the media that if she was paid, Andrew is guilty. However, receiving £10,000 doesn’t necessarily mean you are a victim, or that Andrew is guilty. Are there records of communication between Andrew and Epstein? Do they show Andrew was actually aware that Virginia was paid? Is there proof that she was paid against her will? If she was not paid against her will, she wasn’t a slave by any definition. Anything is possible. But without proof, Andrew is innocent.
Feminism has a lot to answer for, and this is another case in point. The media has publicised Virginia’s claim that she will not be “bullied back into silence.” She uses the language of feminism. The only bullying so far seems to be from her. The allegations are splashed all over the news. That’s not silence. I’m sure Andrew doesn’t want the articles there, but he can’t stop them. Feminism encourages women to make suspect allegations as loudly as possible and shames people with ‘don’t bully me into silence.’ Feminism has demonized men and male sexuality. These presumptions are written into the language of the allegations. We assume that sex makes her a victim. We assume that she is a victim if she was paid. We assume she was a victim if she was 17. But why?
Why do we take these implications from what has been said? The demonization of men and male sexuality has created the power of suggestion that allows us to assume all accused rapists are actual rapists, because of the revulsion we feel about men and sex in general. Why do we assume anything about Andrew? Virginia hasn’t said he bullied her or paid her, so why do we assume guilt can be referred onto him? Even if they did have sex, why would we assume he’s a rapist? Why does her age matter? Why does the photo of them together matter?
Even if everything she says is true, what is Prince Andrew guilty of? Just having sex?
Andrew’s guilt is based on feminist power of suggestion. Its not based on evidence, and it has to stop.
References:
-Swear on oath you’re innocent, lawyers for ‘sex slave’ tell Prince
-Disgraced Dominic Strauss-Kahn returns to French parliament two years after rape allegations
-Prince Andrew sex claims: Fresh documents filed in US court
-Virginia Roberts sex claims
-Prince Andrew may have been secretly filmed with underage girl he is alleged to have abused
No comments:
Post a Comment