Member log in

Labour’s policy to make you prove consent if you have sex

The Herald reports:

The  Party’s plan to reform the criminal justice system would mean that the accused in a  case would have to prove consent to be found innocent — a change it acknowledges as a monumental shift.

Every New Zealander needs to know about this insane policy of Labour's.

The policy would mean that in a rape case, if the Crown proved a sexual encounter and the identity of the defendant, it would be rape unless the defendant could prove it was consensual.

This could lead to a huge increase in people videotaping their encounters, as it is the only way to prove consent.

Think about all the times you have had sex with someone, and how often could you *prove* consent. Bear in mind that even if you are married to them, that is not proof. If you split with your ex, then all they have to do is head to the cops and say the sex you had six weeks ago was not consensual. Now you then have to *prove* there was consent. Proof is not just casting doubt on the allegation – it is proof that you had consent. Now think about how could you prove you had consent. Doubt is not enough. If it is what you say vs what they say, you will lose.

I’m not sure there is a (western) country in the world that requires you to prove consent when it comes to allegations of sexual assault. There’s a reason for that.

“The Crown has to prove more than just sex; the issue of consent has to be raised by the Crown, they have to prove the identity of the offender. They would have to bear that burden of proof before a switch to the defence to prove consent,” Mr Little said.

Which is a barrier in stranger rape allegations. But no barrier to the large number of cases when the issue is consent, not identity.

He said the issue of proof would only apply where allegations of rape had been raised.

“It is pretty radical thing to say that ‘all sex is rape’ unless you prove consent. The reality is that in 99.9 per cent of cases, no one is being asked to prove consent.”

So reassuring. So long as there is no accusation.

Mr Little said the inquisitorial system still preserved those principles because the Crown would still have to prove a number of aspects of a case before consent was explored.

“I don’t accept that that is creating an offence under which the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.”

They are, once the fact of sex is established – they must then prove their innocence.

If you ever needed a reason to convince your friends and neighbours not to vote Labour, this is it. I predict Labour will be forced to abandon this policy, as more and more people become aware of it – but can you trust them not to implement it after the election regardless?

Political commentator David Farrar posts at Kiwiblog.

Comments and questions

If you weren't ashamed of being a man, Labour will make sure you are; by even proposing this policy they obviously believe you are a rapist until proven otherwise. I guess they like being in opposition. #proud to be man.

As usual Labour got it arse about face.... They want you to prove Sex if you have consent.

parliament is out of control.

We will need a new branch of the Dept. of Justice to handle the consent applications. This will cunningly combine Labours love of bureaucracy and tedious/pointless makework.

Complete Form 69/A-E14 and submit. Your consent to engage in intimate relations should arrive within 4 to 6 weeks.

No no grumpy, this policy will have been pushed through by lawyers. For obvious reasons.

Who do you think will be needed to draft and complete Form 69/A-E14?

A bit like the Government asset sales

They didn't have consent - nor did they prove they had consent

ie - they only had 48% of the vote in the 2011 elections and only 73% voted

48% support and selling 49% of assets seems a pretty good match to me. Especially when they told everyone exactly what they were going to do and 27% of the population didn't even bother to vote against them.

Alternatively using your figures, only 37.96% of the electorate actually voted for a party opposed to asset sales (52% of the 73% that voted is less than 38% of the total population) - which by derivation, means 6 out of 10 of the population did not actively oppose the asset sales and only 4 out of 10 voted against the current government.

Given the correlation between that statistic and the preferred PM statistics, you could infer that 6 out of every 10 folk may be a reasonable guide for the fact most folk either supported or did not actively oppose the asset sales policy enough to vote for another party or indeed vote at all.

You must be Irish with that logic

Seems a lot more Irish to be whinging about asset sales on a post about the presumption of innocence in rape cases. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Ah, so we've discovered who developed Labour's latest mad (not to mention bad and dangerous) policy. Good of you to out yourself.

In the new age of health and safety, i've designed a form to sort this out and also suggest video evidence is kept of all frolicking. If you would like a copy of the form, just let me know. Cheers, and hears to CRAZY CUNLIFFE and his band of losers.

Important new use for "selfies"

Smile darling !

Perhaps we need to start a club that withholds tax when stupid moral decisions are made.


If the commentary above is anything to go by, then I guess we do indeed need this legislation.

If you stop for a second to think how it is now, you'd realise the rape victim has to 1- prove sex happened, 2- prove who did it and 3-prove there was no consent.

That is why most rapists get away with it, and that is why most rape victims wouldn't even report the incident.

Some figures internationally suggest that as many as 1 in 3 women will experience some varying degree of sexual assault in their lifetime. .. 1 in 3!!!

Between your mother, sister, wife, daughter, mother in law & daughter-in law, on average, 2 of them could have been sexually assaulted at some point in their life, which keeps getting worse because the law is biased towards the accused. And you seriously have a problem with the law taking the side of a rape victim for once?!!

It would be a proud for NZ if this does pass into law.

#Proud To Be A Man,
#Embarrassed That Some Males Are Called Men

Unbelievably stupid. The essence of convicting someone of a crime is proving that person committed it. Yes, it is far easier to convict people if you don't have to prove the crime was committed at all. That has a simple name: tyranny.

Where did Max ever suggest that people can be convicted without having to prove the crime was committed at all? And where has Labour suggested the same?

Sex by itself is not a crime. All you need is to show sex happened and with who and then alleged perpetrator has to prove there was consent. So yes someone could be convicted without proof of a crime, only proof of sex.

This crime is committed only if there is no consent. If the accuser does not have to prove no consent then a conviction can be obtained without having to prove any crime was committed. Why do I have to point out the blindingly obvious?

To help you with the "blindingly obvious" Alan, if someone at present is prosecuted for rape, the victim will testify and allege no consent (which is why the prosecution has proceeded). If when, where, and who is not challenged, then the only defense is consent. And that usually comes down to one's word versus the other. Juries/the judge make their decisions according to who they believe and what backup there is for one side versus the other.

The big difference in Labour's proposals is that questioning will be undertaken by the judge after consultation with the Crown and the Defense, thus avoiding bias in questioning by either party.

What makes you think those "figures" are even true? It's been shown before that the ridiculous "1 in 5" (which became 1 in 4, now 1 in 3) was arrived at by survey questions that included such things as asking a woman if she ever felt "uncomfortable" with a situation. What you need, sir, is to be on the receiving end of a false allegation, like an awful lot of men are.

Maybe you would feel different yourself if your daughter was the victim?

Pick up a girl at the pub, both had a couple of drinks but you go back to her place and have a bit of fun together. Next morning she gets buyers remorse after talking to her friends (or her boyfriend you didn't know about finds out) and suddenly you are in court having to prove she said yes yes yes. He said she said situation and you get convicted, sounds fair to me....
Given there are already basically no consequences for a false rape allegation and claims of abuse are an alarmingly common tactic in divorce proceedings there is no way presumption of innocence should ever be compromised.

People have and are prosecuted for false rape allegations. Just a lot less than men who get away with rape.

And what sentence normally gets handed down for maliciously trying to destroy someones life?

Take a look at the sentences and you will see how seriously the matter is taken. But how interesting your concern with the small minority of cases versus the widespread cases of sexual abuse and rape. Why won't you just man up to the problem?

Oh dear Mr Farrar, you have yet again shown you are not a journalist but rather a right wing blogger on behalf of the National Party.

If you are going to rely again on the Herald, then do at least go past their incorrect headline and try to read their whole story. The issue at stake is whether in cases of rape the courts move to an inquisitorial system, where a judge interviews the alleged victim after conferring with prosecution and defence lawyers.

The penultimate para of the story says Labor's "official policy is to have the Law Commission complete its report into inquisitorial systems, and then (for Labour to) respond to that report."

The Commission's investigation of inquisitorial systems was initiated by National's previous Justice Minister Simon Power, but was stopped by Judith Collins. opposed to a shill for the Identity Politics pedlars of the Left.

David , if you could just do away with the italics , for an easier read , then I promise not to vote Labour .

What if the male, accused of rape, then accuses the women of having non-consensual sex with him, and no one can prove it happened otherwise?
Do both parties go to jail?

Excellent point which illustrates the utter stupidity and reckless danger of this proposal.

Dear oh dear boys. Silly comments. That could happen at present and wouldn't change. It simply comes down to who is believed and who has supporting evidence for what they are saying.

Hi Pam,
This proposed legislation is without precedent. I don't think any current practice can be apply to it.
If there was sex, and consent can't be proven either way, for either party, you're rapist. No weighing of the situation. No who is believed.
I think this gives all emotionally despicable people a hate and revenge weapon, regardless of gender.
Can't you see what you would be losing if all this goes ahead. Everyone in the country becomes a rapist until proven otherwise.
Surely the medicine is fouler than the terrible illness here.

1) The notion of an accused party being innocent until proven guilty must remain.
2) Harsher penalties for those proven to have been guilty of rape.
3) In the event of proof being presented that an accusation of rape was false then the false accuser should be handed the sentence that would have been borne by the party proven to have been falsely accused (regardless of gender).
4) Politically motivated peddlars of Identity Politics and Applied Critical Theory to be removed from all aspects of the process.
5) Radically enhanced albeit non-political support to be provided to true victims of the hideous crime of rape.
6) Ongoing research to be conducted by non partisan researchers as opposed to those referenced in (4).
7) 1-6 will do for starters.

Objectively Counter-Revolutionary.