Sunday, August 16, 2009

The politically correct strikes again

Rolf Hillegren is the name of the day. He works at as prosecutor in Stockholm and was quoted the other day saying: “When thinking of rape, you mostly think about horrid examples. But take a man and a woman that really know each other (relationship*) and the female says she does not feel like it, but the male do her anyway. Sure it might be a bit unfair, but hardly worth a couple of years in prison”

What you really need to know before making a judgment about this statement is that this was said in the context of changing how courts rule in Sweden. Today you can be sentence to several years in jail just by someone else claiming you raped her/him. No evidence needed, no witnesses, nothing. All that is needed is for the judge and some politically appointed “jury’s” to believe in one story more than the other. This is about to change and in this context Mr Hillegren uttered that sentence.

Also you need to know about the scale within the Swedish justice system. Whatever one thinks about it, the fact is that there are several levels of rape and several levels of sexual abuse. In earlier statements from the same man with similar words he has referred to the technical/juridicial term “rape” and said it should not be interpreted as the same thing as sexual abuse. Legally speaking, he is right of course, but in this case it is not even this he is talking about, not as I see it, but no matter what, the headless chickens comes out of the woodwork to hang the man, without checking anything except for one sentence taken out of context. This is how you trick people, this is how you sell newspapers and this is how you know people are complete morons. I’m not even convinced he actually said the words being quoted; I trust newspapers and journalist as far as handicapped dwarf can throw them.

Of course feminists and politically correct ass-holes comes forth and crucify the man claiming he condone in-house rapes within relationships/marriages. I can hardly see how someone can make that claim about above sentence, and even if, it is even harder to think Hillegren actually talked about such events. At the most he should be accused of not bending to the PC-rule of always saying and using the “correct” phrases.

How many people - that have been in a relationship - have been saying no and not wanting sex, but end up having it anyway? I know I have, many times. And I cannot imagine anyone that hasn’t. Sometimes you don’t want to; sometimes you are tired or have jerked of too many times during the day and don’t have the stamina. Can such a situation really be construed as a rape-situation? If that’s the case I have been raped by many girls throughout the years and it would be very hard to find a single person on this planet that hasn’t been raped. This is ridiculous of course, but that doesn’t stop the PC-idiots.

So many morons and so little time…

* my translation from Swedish and my word put in to show what he was talking about


  1. To say that a passive victim is not a victim - is horrid - everyone understands that. To exclude someone from their rights on that account is not acceptable, of course. There are so many girls and women that are affected by sexual and verbal abuse in everyday-life - in schools, in "relationships", on the street, in the work-place. And they never speak to anyone about it, let alone press charges. It is not ok - especially not if you consider the grave and long-term consequences for the individual - yielding low self-esteem, need for self medication - cigarrettes, alcohol or even heavier drugs. And it ought to be dealt with. But with comments like this, and prosecuters like Hillgren - the problem and the crimes will not even be addressed.

  2. It should be sufficient that a woman SAYS no - she shouldn't have to fight to get her no respected. That's why a law on consensual sex would be appropriate - where a yes must be obtained before any sex takes place.

  3. @anonymous 2:01PM:
    The problem is, sometimes a woman (or man) says no and mean yes. The problem is also that putting all trust in one part of an alledged rape (male or female side), basically condemns everybody on the other side. For example, always trusting the female side means that women can falsely accuse men of rape without much evidence. Seen from the other side, always trusting the male side means men can basically get away with rape.

  4. The problem is also that if we do not have a strict enough law, which in turn is enforced, people will start to take the matters in their own hands. And one can be asured that if such a thing happen, more innocent people (most often men) will get hurt than if the juridicial system makes it a bit to easy to get a conviction.

    I, for example, would make a rapist of someone I love, sease to exist. Or maybe just cut of something dear to him. This is said without condoning the action - I would act out of controlled rage. In theory I know this is anarchy and wrong, but in the heat of the moment, that probably wouldn´t stop me. Or many others, coleric like me.