Political prosecutions often say a lot about who wields power in a country, and they are often pursued on dubious grounds. An 80-year-old Australian man is currently facing prosecution for allegedly raping his wife nearly 50 years ago, despite the fact that the crime of “spousal rape” did not exist at the time (such laws were first introduced in the West in the 1970s).
In the United States, such prosecutions are precluded by the Constitution, which expressly forbids ex post facto laws. In Europe, only the UK’s parliament (under parliamentary sovereignty) reserves to the right to pass ex post facto laws, but this is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory nation. Even Iran prohibits such laws — virtually the entire civilized world holds the practice of retroactive prosecution in abhorrence.
Australian courts, however, are under no such restriction, and feminist-driven prosecution has taken advantage of this to pursue its agenda. Given that spousal rape claims are notoriously difficult to prosecute, as sex is a given in marriage, it’s fairly likely that any attempt to make a prosecution on an old spousal rape charge, in which evidence has been lost and memory faded, is based on political motives.
Whether the man is prosecuted or not, the case will have a chilling effect in Australia regarding human rights. That such an attempt at prosecution has even made it to the high court should give us all pause, as cultures and customs change, as what is perfectly legal at one point could be used to punish us at some later date. Say, for example, that animal testing were banned in the future as cruel and inhumane. Could scientists then be punished for having taken part in research decades in the past? Under Australian law, apparently so.
However, in most cases reasonable people would decline prosecution even if they were able. What this particular case demonstrates is that feminists are not reasonable people. They do not care about the principles that uphold civilization, but rather only concern themselves with power. This is a truly dangerous precedent, and it should give us a clear idea of why feminism should not be taken lightly.
