I recently came across this shocking piece of legislation that was passed back in 1993 in the United Kingdom (other countries have enacted similar changes):
Abolition of presumption of sexual incapacity
The presumption of criminal law that a boy under the age of fourteen is incapable of sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural) is hereby abolished.
Yep that’s pretty much all it says. What does that mean? I can guess but you don’t have to believe me as my suspicions are confirmed by another more recent document relating to a similar change in the law being pushed through in Hong Kong. You can read the document here.
In short, this legislation appears to have been passed solely for the purpose of ensuring that boys under the age of 14 can be convicted of rape – there are no other reasons. This has lead to instances like the case of two 11 year old boys being convicted of attempted rape back in 2010.
The absurdness of this change of the law is significant because it demonstrates the contradictory nature of our political dogmatists. If a child is too young to consent to sex, as is often claimed, then it follows that they are also too young to be a rapist as they lack the mental maturity to know that they are raping. One cannot claim children are incapable of consenting to sex yet on the other hand consider them culpable and jail them when they do have sex. On the rare occasions that these contradictions in the law are questioned they are often ignored and brushed aside with excuses like “legislators just didn’t think about that” and “these laws were enacted with the best intentions but they accidentally got out of hand”. However, what this particular change in the law shows is that legislators deliberately changed the law knowing full well that children cannot (legally) consent to sex to make it so that children are considered legally liable for rape.
This, to my mind, demonstrates that our legislators did not have the best intentions at heart. They knew what they were doing; they deliberately changed the law as part of their man-hating feminist ideology so that they could charge any male – child or adult – with rape.
What’s even more surprising is that it does seem as if knowledge of this change of the law somehow got swept under the carpet as I certainly had never heard about it before now (I came across it by accident when googling).
Well, at least now we know something more about what they’ve been upto. What other skeletons do our politicians have in their closets?