all sides of an argument should be given a fair opportunity to be heard
before a decision is made;
the decision maker must not have predetermined
the matter (my emphasis) or be perceived as having predetermined
the matter (according to an Australian Good Governance Guide).
3.Freedom of Expression: This term is self-explanatory,
and it is a right which is set out in Article 10 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Law).
The political event which has triggered the return of the Inquisition to
Spain involved a member of your Parliament’s “Equality”
Commission (la Comisión de Igualdad del Congreso de los Deputados),
Marta Gonzalez Vazquez.
Since this Commission is composed almost entirely of females, it obviously
does not even understand the word “equality”;
Obviously, the reason it thinks that achieving “equality”
requires a mainly-female Commission is that it believes in Feminist ideology
– in other words, it has predetermined that men are privileged and
that women are disadvantaged;
Because no Feminist has ever studied the disadvantages of men in society,
the Feminist claim that Feminism is about equality is a lie;1
You will reply that most positions of power are held by men, and that
this proves that women are disadvantaged – but of course it does
not.You are a man, it was men voted to give women the vote, and now you
want to imprison men for saying things that women do not like!Why aren’t
you privileging men and oppressing women, in the way that the Feminists
imply that men do!?
Natural Justice requires that the decision maker must not have predetermined
the matter, but you have predetermined this matter by simply assuming
the Feminist dogma that men are privileged and that women are disadvantaged;
Natural Justice requires that all sides of an argument should be given
a fair opportunity to be heard before a decision is made, but you have
Feminist advisers, such as Marta Gonzalez Vazquez, and no Masculist (Men’s
Rights) advisers.You treat Masculists as the enemy!
3.Freedom of Expression
I see that you don’t tolerate freedom of expression, and are returning
Spain to the days of the Inquisition – or at least to the days of
because your spokeswoman, Marta Gonzalez Vazquez, says she wants to imprison
men who say things that she disagrees with.
“Algunas asociaciones de padres presuntamente separados escriben
que las denuncias en España son falsas [un 0,020%, según
la Fiscalía del Estado] y que las mujeres
denuncian para quedarse con todo. Esos grupos alimentaron a Toni Cantó,
que trasladó sus argumentos sin contrastarlos. Con la enmienda,
inspiradores como ellos podrán ser sancionados,”
which means that you want to imprison men who say that many accusations
made by women against men are false.
I would not say that most allegations made by women against men are
false; what I would say is that I do not know how many allegations made
by women against men are false.
I would also say that you do not know how many allegations made by
women against men are false, Marta Gonzalez Vazquez does not know how
many allegations made by women against men are false, and the “Fiscalía
del Estado” also does not know how many allegations made
by women against men are false – for the following reasons:
Mr. Gustavo Revilla Olave2
has researched the figures, and he reports as follows (slightly edited):
“The Courts for Violence against Women, ("Juzgados
de Violencia sobre la Mujer” (JVM)), from June 2005 to June
2012, received 963,471 allegations of crimes (delitos), and 71,142 allegations
of misdemeanors (faltas), hence a total of 1,034,613 allegations of gender
violence. And as the document “Datos Estadísticos
Judiciales en Aplicación de la L.O. 1/2004 -- resumen de los 7
años” (Judicial Statistical Data about the Application of
the Organic Law 1/2004 -- summary of the last seven years) from
the CGPJ (Consejo General del Poder Judicial or General
Council of the Judicial Power) indicates, in the table on page
eleven, entitled: “Sentencias penales dictadas en
los órganos jurisdiccionales especializados en violencia sobre
la mujer”, ("Penal sentences in the judicial bodies specialising
in violence against women"), the total of 1,034,613 allegations
produced 328,045 verdicts, 20,997 guilty verdicts (20.10%) and 120.048
acquittals (11.6%), by the Courts for Violence against
Women (Juzgados de Violencia sobre la Mujer), Criminal
Courts (Juzgados de lo Penal) and Provincial Courts
(Audiencias Provinciales), leaving 706,568 cases (68.29%) that
never even reached judgment. Adding the cases where the accused was acquitted,
we get to 79.89%, i.e. a total of 826,616 exculpations, which represents
a substantial possibility of false or unfair allegations. This makes the
CGPJ’s famous 0.01% figure for false allegations in cases of gender
violence unbelievable, so that it resembles much more a defense of the
myth that false allegations don´t exist than an honest attempt to
discover their true number.”
As Mr. Gustavo Revilla Olave also points out, the CGPJ’s definition
of a false allegation is the most restrictive it could possibly be. The
CGPJ requires that a separate investigation was carried out and that it
determined that the allegation was false, before it will include that
in its statistics as a false allegation.
Bear in mind the fact that, if this policy was applied to rapes, and
no investigations into alleged rapes was ever carried out, the
CGPI would (by this logic) conclude that there had never been any rapes!
So who would carry out such an investigation, in what circumstances,
and at what cost?Most men who were victims of false allegations would
not have the money or the desire to undertake private investigations which
would prove that the allegations had been false, and the police would
never carry out such an investigation at their own initiative if they
had managed to get a man convicted in court, of course!3
Judging by New Zealand media reports, the police mostly investigate false
allegations when they think that a false allegation has made them waste
a lot of time and money.
Unless the Spanish police routinely investigated all 826,616 exculpations,
to see if the allegations had been false (which is very unlikely), then
the CGPJ is guilty of publishing the statistic of 0.01% figure for false
allegations in cases of gender violence, while knowing
that this figure is itself grossly misleading!
The article Rumney, Philip N. S. (2006): "False Allegations of
Rape," Cambridge Law Journal 65(1), March 2006, pp. 128-158 lists
(in Table 1) 24 different figures which researchers have produced, as
an estimate of the percentage of allegations of rape which were false.
These figures range from a low of 1.5% to a high of 90% -- and, of course,
they differ as to how they define a false allegation.
One of the studies which Rumney et al. includes, Kanin, Eugene (1994):
"False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol 23,No.1:
81-92, reports that 41% of rape allegations in one place over a certain
period of time were admitted to have been false!
I suggest that it is the CGPJ which should be thrown in prison, because
it is guilty of publishing the statistic of 0.01% figure for false allegations
in cases of gender violence while knowing that this figure
is itself grossly misleading! It did this for ideological reasons,
because (judging by the situation in New Zealand) a large proportion of
judges are Feminist, anti-male and/or stupid.
This figure has been produced by a government body in Spain which is
responsible for publishing figures that people can rely on, and many people
will have been the victims of false allegations because the CGPJ has been
negligent in its duty and made the rest of the legal system feel that
false allegations are rare – whereas we do not know how frequent
they actually are!
I would like to thank Mr. Gustavo Revilla Olave for providing most of the
information on which this letter is based. However, the views expressed here
are my own personal views.
have myself been the victim of (mainly female) false
accusations in New Zealand. After having been convicted on the basis of
these false accusations, I laid formal complaints of perjury, false statement
and conspiring to bring false accusation. The police refused to take any action
on my complaints, for the reason that I had already been convicted. Assuming
that the situation is similar in Spain, the police would refuse to investigate
any allegations which had enabled them to achieve a conviction (fairly or