The Return of the Inquisition to Spain

(Open letter to thePrime Minister (Presidente) of Spain -- slightly edited)

(The background is that the Spanish government wants to pass a law aimed at so-called apologists for gender violence, which would (for example) imprison fathers' groups who said that most female accusations of gender violence were false. See http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2014/12/28/549efdf3268e3ed01a8b457b.html )

Dear Mr. Rajoy,

Since you have had a legal education, I would like to discuss the three legal terms “Predetermine”, "Natural Justice" and “Freedom of Expression” with you.

1.Predetermine:Establish or decide in advance (according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary);

2.Natural Justice: There are two fundamental rules for natural justice:

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).

1.Predetermination

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;
No Feminist has ever proved that men are privileged and that women are disadvantaged, because no Feminist has ever studied the disadvantages of men in society;
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!?

2.Natural Justice

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 Francisco Franco, because your spokeswoman, Marta Gonzalez Vazquez, says she wants to imprison men who say things that she disagrees with.
An article in "El Mundo" quotes Marta Gonzalez Vazquez as saying:

“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!

Yours sincerely,

Peter D. Zohrab

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 See my book, Sexo, mentiras y feminismo

2 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.

3I 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 unfairly).

(Open letter to thePrime Minister (Presidente) of Spain -- slightly edited)

Dear Mr. Rajoy,

Since you have had a legal education, I would like to discuss the three legal terms “Predetermine”, "Natural Justice" and “Freedom of Expression” with you.

1.Predetermine:Establish or decide in advance (according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary);

2.Natural Justice: There are two fundamental rules for natural justice:

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).

1.Predetermination

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;

No Feminist has ever proved that men are privileged and that women are disadvantaged, because no Feminist has ever studied the disadvantages of men in society;

Because no Feminist has ever studied the disadvantages of men in society, the Feminist claim that Feminism is about equality is a lie;1

2.Natural Justice

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 Francisco Franco, because your spokeswoman, Marta Gonzalez Vazquez, says she wants to imprison men who say things that she disagrees with.

An article in "El Mundo" quotes Marta Gonzalez Vazquez as saying:

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.

Mr. Gustavo Revilla Olave2 has researched the figures, and he reports as follows (slightly edited):

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!

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!

Yours sincerely,

Peter D. Zohrab

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 See my book, Sexo, mentiras y feminismo

2 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.

See also:

Webmaster

Latest Update

22 November 2020