Mils Muliaina and Reversing the Burden of Proof in Sexual Assault Cases.

Mils Muliania should be able to sue the Welsh police for the harm they have done him. The judge hearing his sexual assault case has thrown it out, and on the face of the reportage, I find it incredible this former All Black has had his life, and reputation, shredded over the last seven months on the basis of this:

 Proceedings in Wales have ended because the Cardiff Crown Court ruled there was insufficient evidence, and no realistic prospect of a conviction.

Muliaina, 35, had been charged with sexually assaulting a 19-year-old woman in Cardiff in March.

His defence counsel, John Charles Rees, said the Crown's case was "outrageous".

He said the allegation was that the complainant's bottom had been fleetingly touched [outside her trousers] on a busy nightclub dancefloor.

Muliaina was later [publicly with TV cameras in attendance] arrested by police moments after a cup match before being charged with sexual assault.

Speaking outside the court, Muliaina said the past seven months have been difficult for him and his family.

"While I understand the police have a job to do, the manner in which I was arrested I find difficult to understand.

"I can still hold my head up high and, as the judge said, this is no stain on my character. I have always known that I did not do anything wrong.

"I don't even know the woman and I don't know what happened, but I wasn't the person who had done what she said had happened."

I have written previously on how identity feminism (as opposed to a feminism based on individualism) has the agenda of reversing the burden of proof in sexual assault cases such as this, and further, that women making false rape complaints are not prosecuted (noting I’m not saying ‘this’ was a false complaint, but certainly a wrong-headed one. Although, to invite censorious condemnation on my head, this public demolition of a prominent 'male' for a 'fleetingly' touched bottom in a nightclub - really?) ... Matters of scale and gravity in Muliaina's case aside, if won, this reversal of proof will destroy the hard fought for principle that justice is best served by innocent until proven guilty, and turn our legal system into a mechanism for vendetta (by social justice thugs) and politicking.

Worse, this notion, along with the concomitant concept there be no right to silence in such cases, has been given oxygen way too high up in the current government, including Prime Minister Key.

There is one other field in our modern tax surveillance states where the burden of proof is reversed against the individual: taxation. IRD assess you, and it’s your job to prove them wrong. This is a system loaded toward the state, where individuals are on the back foot, with few resources (compared to the entire tax-pool turned against them), and consequently over the last fifteen or so years IRD haven’t lost an important, precedent setting tax avoidance case. And that has meant everything is tax avoidance now, pretty much wherever the taxpayer is not paying the maximum quantum of tax. The standard of classical liberalism we had in the Commonwealth protecting us from this abuse by a rampant state, the Westminster Principle, is destroyed at the enfeebled hands of a judiciary captured by Gramsci from their earliest state-schooled infancy who firmly believe that property in your effort and income vests in the state, not you individually.

This is a vicious dystopia. Because turn Muliaina’s burden of proof around to the Welsh police simply being able to have charged he touched her bottom, and rather than they have to prove he did, he has to prove he didn’t - how well would he have got on then? This would be playing out differently, and not in the cause of truth and justice.

We need to find our way back to individualism, because the foundations of the next Western gulags are clearly visible.


Related Reading (Not Linked in Source Post):

Retrieving Roger Sutton's Corpse from the Cross of Shesus.