Direct Democracy proposal for Law - Civil and Criminal

Rape case judges not to be allowed to consider mitigating circumstances [rape myths]

In our opinion and also according to law, rape occurs when one person assaults another through the act of sexual intercourse without consent. Without consent, sexual intercourse becomes sexual assault.

By law, it is the aspect of consent that defines rape and not any other aspect. This means that regardless of any circumstances, a person should be found guilty by the courts if sexual intercourse took place without the consent of the other person.

For example, a person can be under the influence of any drug, naked in public, flirting to any degree whether verbally or physically and even willing to engage in sexual practices but, at any time, if such a person refuses intercourse regardless of the reason, then should intercourse take place without consent, it is rape.

Being under the influence of drugs, being naked in public, flirting to any degree whether verbally or physically and even engaging in sexual practices or engaging in any other expressed behaviour is not in itself specifically giving consent to sexual intercourse.

The ability or disability of one's control over one's own behaviour regardless of any influence, should never be passed on to the victim of such an assault.

If a couple are engaging in consensual sexual intercourse and at any time, one person expresses that they wish for the act to stop, continuation past this point amounts to committing the act of rape. If one person can not respect the request of the other to stop, then their lack of respect for the other person and lack of personal responsibility should never be passed on to the pother person, as one can only be responsible for one's own actions.

At any point, if one person expresses non-consent then in the opinion of the People's Administration, this person has acted responsibly - regardless of what they were wearing or how they were behaving [for example].

Should the People's Administration install direct democracy, we propose to not allow judges hearing rape cases, to consider any circumstances surrounding the victim, and only to consider the aspect of consent.

We feel that this will help to increase rape report and conviction rates whilst at the same time, act as a deterrent to those who currently may feel able to take advantage of others by committing this form of assault.

We also feel that this will help to remind the 56% of women who somehow think that rape victims part-deserve what they get, that rape is about lack of consent and not lack of clothing or about any other circumstantial aspect. We feel that both the courts and non-victims of rape have for too long, conveyed a message that enables some to justify this form of assault and, we also believe that the courts offering leniency to false accusers makes it more difficult for real victims to pursue legal action. As such, we believe that our proposal could address all of these aspects.

PA direct democracy proposal: Rape case judges to request a forensic criminal psychological assessment

Voting for direct democracy outside a general election

Direct Democracy - Audio

It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy as soon as possible.

This is not a protest campaign.

In accordance with Magna Carta Article 61 and with UN UDHR Article 21 and with all of the democratic principals up-held by the UN [which the UK has signed-up to], the people already have the lawful right to reform to direct democracy - even outside a general election.