This morning, the first thing I read was an article about a woman who had faked her own kidnapping, stabbing, abduction and rape, in order to falsely accuse her husband, and send him to jail for the rest of his natural life.
The article quoted an investigating officer who pointed out that although the fraudster Christine Capurso only faced a misdemeanour charge, the allegations she had made were very serious. If her intended victim, the falsely accused husband had been found guilty, he would have faced a 25 year prison term.
Does anybody else notice the obvious disconnect here? How is it that the allegations proven fraudulent can be described as “very serious” in the same statement noting that her offence was so insignificant it merited only a misdemeanour charge?
If, by fabricating an outrageous story about her own stabbing (she stabbed herself) abduction and multiple rape she was attempting to imprison her victim for a quarter century, why is the legal consequence so minor it doesn’t even merit classification as a major crime, or felony? Is it unreasonable to expect that maliciously perpetrated fraud, attempting by deception of police to imprison a man, should result in his potential incarceration being served by the false accuser, on discovery of that fraud?
Just as I am not the only person to ask this question, Christine Capurso’s intended victim is not the only person targeted for personal destruction through false allegations.
“Her ex-husband could have faced up to 25 years or greater in prison if found guilty of these false allegations,” [Westchester County police Capt. Christopher] Calabrese said. “We felt it was important to be fully investigated and proved to be false so that it would not happen again, as it has happened numerous times in the past.
Numerous times in the past, as well as the present. AVfM contributor Jonathan Taylor recently wrote an article identifying the trend among social justice warriors of using false accusation to silence and remove anyone who might not agree with their particular brand of intolerant enlightenment.
And although gender ideologues like Karen Smith, the executive director of Sexual Assault Voices of Edmonton like to claim “it just doesn’t happen,” enabling or excusing proxy violence by the state for their own profit, people who prefer to mitigate violence and human harm, like police officers or MRAs, are increasingly alert to the prevalence of the use of false criminal allegations by the social caste for whom such proxy initiation of violence against their victims seldom carries a significant social or legal penalty.
And the phenomenon, while not new, is also not going away. In fact, it appears to be increasingly popular. So popular now that it can’t even be ignored by those whose principal role in society is the protection of the leisure caste.
Police prefer to focus on the damage to the credibility of potential victim women, rather than stating the obvious fact that maliciously false allegations are crimes often worse for victims and extended families than the phony claimed rapes in such fabricated attacks would have been, were they real.
When a false rape accuser is publicly outed, the police response is invariably some tut-tutting about how this is very rare, and terribly unfortunate, because it diminishes the willingness of true victims to step forward.
That of course is the standard public statement, and in whatever form it appears, it is craven. What we never see is the public relations or media officer of a police force saying anything like the following :
“This happens so much that the working officers of this police force are all deeply exasperated and exhausted by the apparent willingness of average women to tell such an outrageous and destructive lie for such trivial reasons. It makes us all want to go on killing sprees, and we all have to be drilled by our departments to not talk about any of it in public.”
Steven Berkimer and Pierce Harlan have maintained a series of blogs, including False Rape Society, and Community of the Wrongly Accused, cataloging fraudulent rape accusations reported from around the world in mainstream media.
Mainstream media continues to supply new news stories in which women, for reasons ranging from boredom to sexual frustration, level false rape accusations against men. In a majority of these cases, the falsehood of the accusation comes to light soon afterward, and although the falsely accused have been arrested, fired from their jobs, blacklisted, severed from their kids, assaulted, driven out of communities and had their lives generally ruined, the false accusers usually skate away with little consequence.
And nobody can really ignore it anymore.
Nearly 6 years ago, I began predicting that in a culture where the law protected one demographic, but did not govern that group, and where it governed another demographic, without protecting that demographic, a society would adapt. The members of a social caste governed but not protected by law, would begin to seek redress of grievance through other means, such as the use of retributive violence.
Aside from the apparent rise in the use of false accusations of rape by members of our culture’s leisure caste, we also have established and elite gender ideological academicians driving changes to criminal law in Canada, towards the legalization of spousal murder by women.
The Community Organized Compassion and Kindness organization in Canada continues to document and expose the pro-murder legal advocacy of Elizabeth Sheehy and her fellow ideologues. Sheehy’s recent book, Defending Battered Women on Trial, is effectively a manual for female killers and their lawyers on how to get away with the convenient killing of an inconvenient male partner.
The eradication of due process for male college students accused of sexual misconduct is another move towards the law governing, but not protecting one group, and protecting another and providing no legal accountability for that group’s members. In previous discussions of the sexually-selective elimination of due process, I have made what some might call the hyperbolic claim that gender ideologues advocating the erasure of due process actively want women to be killed.
If, in a society in which law has previously been applied equally, protecting and governing everybody, what happens when the application of law changes? What will happen to the function of a culture in which the law selectively governs one group, while not protecting that group from criminal victimization? And the law selectively protects another group, while affording no accountability or redress of grievances for those not within the protected group?
The answer seems obvious: a social caste who are governed by law but not protected by law will begin to seek redress of grievance through less modern methods than the nonviolent conflict resolution afforded by equal courts and laws. Grievances will be redressed by retributive violence.
Now, having explained what should be painfully obvious, I’m going to have to state one more fact which shouldn’t need explaining. A great many gender ideologues read this site, so this is for them. Yes, I think retributive violence is a bad outcome. I oppose it, in fact, much of my work as a writer has been to never have to say, about my 6 year ago predictions, that “I Told You So”.
So, to amoral, sleazy slanderers for hire pretending that predictions of societal violence are actually endorsement of such, at least thanks for the additional exposure and traffic you give us.
Returning to current events, now in the news is a Queen’s University student, allegedly assaulted by an unknown man who, according to the “victim” knew her name; Danielle d’Entremont.
The Mainstream reporting of this event is presently drawing conclusions that d’Entremont’s activism as a campus feminist, and her efforts to silence academic speakers on men’s human rights issues, may be related to her alleged assault. Apparently, d’Entremont’s participation in a campus feminist effort to shut down a men’s human rights issues awareness group may also be a contributing factor.
The Huffpo reporting on the story even includes, almost like a bonus a throw-away comment about allegations of sexual assault, made against members of the men’s hockey team. There might even be an actual sexual assault in there somewhere. Unfortunately, in the climate enthusiastic consent, yes-means-no if she changed her mind later, and of a-rapist-in-every-closet-and-under-every-bed, it’s hard read about on-campus rape accusations and take them seriously.
But if some pea-brain fancying himself a champion of men’s human rights indeed was responsible for her chipped tooth and allegedly punched face, that hypothetical amateur pugilist will see the entire Men’s Rights Movement turn against him. I’ll be one of them.
However, most men’s human rights activists paying attention to this case believe that If Danielle d’Entremont was actually assaulted, it was almost certainly somebody with a history of her antagonism and abuse, and straightforward intolerant bigotry by d’Entremont driving their assault. Maybe Danielle’s participation in campus though policing and censorship contributed, maybe not.
But what if something else is happening?
What if our society has begun, under the smog of sex-selective feminist jurisprudence and justice to seek redress of grievance by avenues not within the law? If the law has ceased to provide reliable justice based on social caste, then eventually, groups held in contempt by law, treated as unworthy of protection from victimization will address grievances by other means.
However, if this is finally happening, it will not be Men’s Human Rights Activists participating in such vigilantism. Rather, it will almost certainly be members of what we often call the “blue pill” public, who, unaware of this movement, wake up in feminism’s version of Orwell’s nightmare and react without a philosophical understanding of how our culture came to it’s present state. They will react without realizing how such a rise in violence will feed into feminism’s threat narrative. It will be the under-educated, and the financially and socially marginalized realizing that feminist influenced courts and laws provide “equitable” dispute resolution to only the leisure caste and only violence, theft of income and property, and indifference for anyone else.
And grievances by women or injuries committed by women will be addressed by the blue pill public, including men, with direct force.
The reaction from gender ideologues will, of course be to demand, and be gifted with ever more totalitarian measures from governments and other groups whose business is stealing and stamping out inconvenient human rights like free expression or the right to not be killed, arbitrarily imprisoned, brutalized or enslaved. A casual reading of almost any college’s code of acceptable conduct will provide examples of this process for anyone skeptical of this forecast. If the prediction isn’t evident on a first reading, swapping male and female pronouns generally makes the apartheid visible.
This, by the way, is what feminists want, because it will give urgency and apparent vindication to the feminist threat narrative. That women are a class of perpetual victims. Thus, enabling and allowing greater violence and more violent eradication of basic human rights in service of the “protection” of women. And that will make the problem worse still. Lots of men will be injured and killed as well, obviously, but who cares about that? Men have always been, and will always be the majority of the population weathering society’s violence. The story of a beaten up man don’t help Huffpo or any other commercialized channel sell much advertising
But is that what we’re seeing the beginning of? Maybe. I truly hope not.
I don’t want to say I told you so.
Again.
Please note: AVfM is in the middle of its Spring Fundraiser. Please help us continue to spread the message. Click here to contribute.
