Egalitarian State Rep Candidate in NH on Men's Rights (And Women's!)

RobertFisherForNH · 2012-10-02T16:41:31+00:00

I've been lurking on the Men's Rights and now the Women's Rights subreddits, and wanted to introduce myself. I'm Robert Fisher, and up in cold New Hampshire, USA, I'm running for our State's House of Representatives.

politically, that's very brave. Thank you.

1) What is your stance on the infamous "Dear Colleague Letter" that's been making the rounds on college campuses?

2) Where is consent when both male & female are intoxicated and they have sex? Are both guilty of rape? Neither?

3) What is the process for moving a complaint through the Redress of Grievance Committee?

4) Do you support a presumption of joint custody?

oneiorosgrip · 2012-10-03T02:31:52+00:00

Since you brought up issue of rape and false allegations, I'm going to address that. There are actually a lot of issues to which the factors involved in that debate apply, and I think addressing the legal tolerance and enabling of false accusers can bring about changes which will bleed over into other rights issues.

The first thing to understand about rape and false allegations is that we are never going to eliminate either the incidence of innocent people receiving jail time, or guilty people escaping the justice system, because rape cases can be subjective, lawyers can be sneaky, and mistakes can be made with any case.

What we can do is ensure that the reason innocent people sometimes go to jail is not because they were denied their right to a fair trial, and the reason guilty people sometimes get away is not because their initial conviction didn't have to be based on any real evidence and a deserved conviction was overturned because the system enabled poor effort by police and prosecutors in handling the case.

An individual should be convicted of rape when the charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The definition of term Rape should be held to as strict of a standard as the definition of the term murder. The designation of an act of homicide as first degree murder requires that the perpetrator be sane, and that prosecution can show malice aforethought (prior intent) in the evidence presented. The designation of an act of homicide as second degree murder requires intent, but not necessarily prior intent. Homicide which was not intended by the perpetrator is still treated as a crime, but is not treated as murder.

Deliberately killing someone is considered a much more heinous act than unintentionally causing someone's death. Both have equal capacity for terrible consequences to the victim - death being the obvious, but also physical and mental suffering prior to death. Both have equal capacity for terrible consequences for the victim's community, leaving behind loss and mourning. The only reason the judicial and penal systems differentiate between murder and homicides that are not murder is that there is a difference in the nature of the perpetrator based on whether the victim's suffering and death were the goals of the actions that killed him or her, or whether they were just something the perpetrator was willing to risk.

Further, there are circumstances in which an individual may cause the death of another, but not be charged with a crime. For instance, if it is demonstrated that an individual had no access to information which would have prevented the action which lead to the death, and no other reason to not perform that action, the death may be ruled as accidental rather than homicide. A driver who hits a pedestrian illegally crossing the street in the dark, wearing nothing bright enough for the driver to see, would be able to argue that 1) if the pedestrian had not illegally crossed, he would not have been in the path of the vehicle, and 2) if the pedestrian had made himself more visible, the driver would have had a chance to avoid hitting him. In this type of case, even though the victim may suffer just as much as a victim of homicide or murder, the individual whose actions caused the victim's death is not equal to the perpetrators of those crimes in that he or she neither intended to kill nor was willing to risk killing as a side effect of the actions which led to the death.

The terms of rape should be treated with equally strict standards with similar regard to other sex crime terms and standards. It is not strictly the experience of the victim which should determine the nature of the of the charge. The intent of the accused must be taken into account when determining what charge should be made. The term rape should apply if there is evidence that the act was committed with intent override the victim's right to refuse sexual advances (such as injuries from applied force, a weapon coercion/blackmail used to force compliance, or an act performed on an obviously incapacitated victim.)

If evidence does not show that level of intent, then the term rape should not apply. Even though the victim may be able to demonstrate equal consequences (emotional and physical suffering, with possibility of diseases and pregnancy) there is a difference in the nature of the perpetrator based on whether the victim's suffering and risks were the goals of the actions of the accused, or whether they were a result of lack of understanding, lack of communication, or other factors which caused the accused to fail to realize a conscious partner who declined rebuff advances was not a willing participant.

The definition of the term Rape should apply equally to both sexes. It is no less heinous or depraved to deliberately override a man's right to refuse sexual advances than it is to deliberately override a woman's right, nor does being the same sex as the victim change the wrongness of the act. The choice to do so shows the same character flaw regardless of sex. The law and the legal system should not discriminate against any sex or sexuality by failing penalize the act of violation on those bases.

The second thing to understand, the thing that those who argue in favor of compromising accused men's right to due process fail to understand, is that discussion on the issues of false allegations and due process is not a pit fight between the due process rights of the falsely accused, and the personal rights of existing or potential rape victims. Debaters often forget that the "falsely" in falsely accused refers to accused who did not commit the crime, not someone who is trying to get away with rape. Imprisoning the falsely accused does not

prevent rape
undo rape
avenge the victim
act as a substitute for handling actual perpetrators
achieve justice

Imprisoning the falsely accused does

victimize an innocent person
create the risk of additional rape
damage the community's respect and trust for the justice system
damage the community's respect and trust for the law
damage the community's sympathy and trust for rape victims

Arguments in favor of lowering the burden of proof in rape cases are based on the assumed disposability of men (the majority of the accused) in that these arguments accept the fact of potentially destroying the accused's life for the satisfaction of the accuser regardless of whether the accusation has merit.

This leads to the third thing which really must be understood. Knowingly and willfully leveling a false allegation is a heinous act with potentially terrible consequences for the accused. Those consequences can range from emotional pain and suffering to whole life-altering destruction of reputation and relationships, to wrongful imprisonment.

The law and the legal system already have set ways in which methods of false allegation (false police reports, perjury, slander) are handled. Where criminal charges would apply if the false statements made were about any other matter, they should also apply in rape cases. The same standards of severity and consequence used to determine the seriousness of those charges in other cases should be used to determine the seriousness of the charges when the lie told involves rape. The standard for proof should also be the same.

Arguments against holding knowing and deliberate (proved) false accusers responsible for their actions are based on the assumed greater value of the rights of women (the majority of accusers) over the rights of men. It is an argument that although there is an authority response and legal process for handling the victimization of women, there should not be an equal response and process for handling the victimization of men, with the reason given being that having that response and process available to men might prevent women from using it.

These things really are the bottom line:
The stated experience of the alleged victim does not define the nature of the accused. We cannot permit compassion for the alleged victim and a quest for retribution for her alleged suffering to reduce our acknowledgement of and deference to the basic human rights of the accused. The choice to fall into that trap depends on treating the human existence of men, the group most often accused, as less than that of women, the group which most often accuses.
Due process rights cannot be compromised, and laws protecting them must be enforced. If we make that compromise, fail in our standards and our efforts because of how we feel about the nature of the allegations, then we are no more righteous, no more validated, no more upstanding, and no more rational than a lynch mob.

roland3337 · 2012-10-03T01:08:39+00:00

Mr. Fischer, you've earned my respect. Wish I lived in NH. I'd campaign relentlessly for you.

deltron80 · 2012-10-02T17:47:23+00:00

Asking these questions is very off limits in mainstream circles. You are very brave for bringing up these subjects, but I think you will be eviscerated by the feminists. Just saying the word 'rape' as a man is a recipe for political annihilation. Good luck to you in your noble crusade. /salute

SpawnQuixote · 2012-10-02T18:09:29+00:00

First of all, you have to have both parties identity shielded until there is a conviction. Letting the media punish alleged sexual offenders is a punishment in itself without proof.

Secondly, women need to take responsibility for their actions more. They need to enter the adult world of personal accountability. Intoxication should not be a get out of shame card.

Thirdly, there needs to be some consistency in sentencing between the sexes. Too pretty for jail should not be anything but a joke in the eyes of the court.

Lastly, just taking a supposed victims word should not be enough to convict. Sorry. There are way too many instances of women using Rape and sexual assault as an offensive weapon to bribe/blackmail/seek revenge. It has ruined the power balance in relationships.

mythin · 2012-10-02T18:15:24+00:00

How do we eliminate the chance of innocent people receiving jail time? How do we define consent in a workable manner?

The first step is to enforce anonymity for the accuser and the accused. They both have reputations that may need protecting, and the mere accusation of rape can be enough to destroy someone's life. This gives a lot of incentive for a vindictive person to use an accusation as a weapon, even when they know it would never proceed to a conviction.

The second is just to make sure the courts maintain an "innocent until proven guilty" stance.

RobertFisherForNH · 2012-10-02T18:49:14+00:00

Two words:

Mary Kellett.

Your State is an Abomination, and you defintiely have your work cut out for you.

How do we eliminate the chance of innocent people receiving jail time?

Disbar and Prosecute corrupt Court officials with extreme prejudice. Establish male-oriented (and NOT Feminist run) organizations to study problems from a male perspective ( i believe you still have the only Mens Commission in the US?...time to fund it properly).....

How do we define consent in a workable manner?

You can't define 'consent' in a workable manner. You CAN define 'rape' in an unambiguous manner though.....maybe you should start there...

Know that Politicians, and the Political and Legal systems in general, are widely hated in this movement, and a whole lot more than 'we care' rhetoric is going to be needed before we forget the decades of abuse and neglect..

I'm just sayin'.

EDIT: Mary Kellett....Maine? Or NH? I can't remember....

Hach8 · 2012-10-02T18:14:02+00:00

It seems like posting here is political suicide, but having potential political support is awesome.

IncorrectUser · 2012-10-02T18:49:09+00:00

Good to see this! I wish you luck. I'd vote for you if I lived in that area.

Others have said it, but it bears repeating: anonymity for both accuser and accused, lifted only when proven guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is important, as well. The 'preponderance of evidence' standard is a heinous crime against morality.

Finally, I would like to say that the entire conversation revolving around 'defining' consent and 'defining' rape is a dramatic mistake. These terms have been largely the same for thousands of years; why, in the last decade, are these definitions suddenly changing to vilify more men in a variety of situations bordering on the mundane? She drank one beer, so she can't consent, so he is a rapist? Nonsense. Let's take these concepts back to their obvious and core meanings. Rape is a crime of violence, not a crime of confusing he-said she-said hearsay.

avoiceformen · 2012-10-02T23:40:38+00:00

This post is the ballsiest (and perhaps craziest) political move I have seen in a long time. Being a Democrat makes it even ballsier/crazier.

If you get anywhere near election they will try to crucify you as a misogynist, and most of the dumbed-down voters will buy it. Dangerous ground you are walking, but I assume you know that.

At any rate, your post was a breath of fresh air. I wish you luck in your efforts.

JockeVXO · 2012-10-02T23:42:47+00:00

Not from NH, or even the US for that matter, but curious. What is your opinion on infant circumcision?

Also, are rape laws egalitarian or sex-specific in NH? Can both men and women be both victims and perpetrators? And is the crime defined as penetration or does it also include envelopment?

shrodingerstherapist · 2012-10-03T04:39:48+00:00

Just want to say thanks for stopping by and asking for input - how rare is that!

RobertFisherForNH · 2012-10-02T18:39:23+00:00

Will you advocate for the right of a male to opt out of parenthood? Essentially, what it comes down to is whether you believe that a man should have the same choice as a woman to not become a parent?

AryoBarzan · 2012-10-02T19:28:46+00:00

It is about time that we got some real political allies! The larger our movement gets, the more inevitable it becomes that we are to become political. Please let us know how we can help vote you in :)

xXIJDIXx · 2012-10-02T19:53:47+00:00

As a lifelong (except for that brief stint in Maine) NH resident, thank you. I like to think that NH can be a little more progressive than most, but sometimes more dated in some respects than others.

AnthonyZarat · 2012-10-02T20:33:17+00:00

You can confirm that RobertFisherForNH is genuinely running for representative here:

http://electfisher.org/2012/10/02/hi-reddit/

How do we eliminate the chance of innocent people receiving jail time?

It is not possible to eliminate the chance of inustice. What can be done is to improve the odds of just outcomes.

Good luck, Mr. Fischer. I believe you may be the first political candidate in the history of planet Earth (any nation, any time) to openly admit that you care about the rights of men and boys. That takes a great deal of courage and conviction.

EpicJ · 2012-10-02T17:18:06+00:00

TIL /r/Womens_Rights rights exists and it isn't the SRS ran one

AnnArchist · 2012-10-02T18:31:16+00:00

Mentioning rape on reddit is abit like saying the dark lords name out loud.

VoodooIdol · 2012-10-02T18:44:24+00:00

I believe NH children have right to access to the full and complete (age appropriate) body of information on any given subject, and trust them to choose what they believe when presented with this information.

Smells like a creationist, but I would like to hear from you what you mean by this.

rightsbot · 2012-10-02T16:28:17+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Title	Egalitarian State Rep Candidate in NH on Men's Rights (And Women's!)
Author	RobertFisherForNH
Upvotes	83
Comments	118
Date	October 2, 2012 4:27 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10tmns/egalitarian_state_rep_candidate_in_nh_on_mens/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/egalitarian-state-rep-candidate-in-nh-on-mens.1012230 https://theredarchive.com/post/1012230

Comments