19/5/00 

Hysterical, Vindictive Women's Groups want Mike Tyson Banned from Entering the Country.

Vengeful feminist groups of various kinds have been bleating and squealing about the Home Secretary's decision to allow Mike Tyson to enter the country to fight Lou Savarese. According to these hysterical women Mike Tyson should be banned from entering the country because of his previous conviction for rape.

They never forgive and they never forget do they? 

Mike Tyson has done his time for the crime, but hysterical women want him to continue to be punished, no doubt for the rest of his life. It's the kind of unbalanced, distorted view of justice that many women have. The Christian value of forgiveness doesn't carry much weight with them. They want permanent revenge. Permanent vindictiveness. Permanent hostility. 

This is surely not the way we want society to be.

This desire to continue to punish men for crimes that they have committed,  or allegedly committed, is not conducive to anything but more hostility and more violence. And it encourages the politics of hatred and vengeance.

Now, I don't know whether Mike Tyson committed an act of rape or not. For example, you might remember that the beauty contestant whom he had allegedly raped had willingly sneaked her way into his bedroom for some sex. No-one had forced her to do this. And there were considerable inconsistencies in her testimony. 

Further, you might also recall that ELEVEN OTHER WOMEN also accused Mike Tyson of sexually assaulting them. Eleven women from the Miss Black America Pageant, after claiming that Mike Tyson had touched them on their rears, filed a $607 million lawsuit against him. Several of the contestants later admitted they had lied in the hope of getting publicity and cashing in on the award money which would have given them around $20 million each. The fact that he would have served many, many more years in prison didn't worry these women a jot. 

These women were not 'victims' though they spent months trying to make themselves out to be. They were bald-faced liars and, worse, they were false accusers who tried to extort money from a man who was innocent of any offence against them. But they would have been quite happy for this  man to go to prison for life, so overcome with greed were they.

These were women. REAL women. And until more people recognise that many women who portray themselves as victims are nothing more than deceitful, manipulative frauds, we do not have any hope of creating a just society.

And, by the way, these women were never punished. In fact, unlike Mike Tyson, they would probably be welcomed with open arms into this country.  I can imagine the feminists cheering for them as they arrive the airport.

Yet, in my view, their crime was worse than Tyson's.

Women lie. And there are more women who lie than there are men who commit rape - e.g. see Rape Baloney. And when there is a great deal of money on offer, or there is some other advantage to be had, like satisfying the thirst for REVENGE, for example, then even more women lie.

Goodness me, thousands of people -  and this includes women - will rob, steal, cheat and even murder for money. And lying is a lot easier to do. Especially when a man is already facing an allegation from another quarter. It's so easy, isn't it? 

And so lucrative, if successful.

Twelve women accused Mike Tyson of assault. Eleven of these were later proved to be lying. Why is anyone so sure about the twelfth one?

So, all in all, I don't know whether Mike Tyson raped anyone. His character suggests that he might well have done. Financial inducements and the PROVEN malicious nastiness of many of the women who FALSELY accused him all suggest that he might not have done.

Feminism, however, is an ideology akin to Nazism. It thrives on promoting hatred. It whips up hysteria and hostility against men whenever it can. 

It never ceases and it never forgives.

But, whichever way you look at it, and whatever, in fact, happened, Mike Tyson has served his time.

Also see Women Just Love Violent Men.

Excerpt from this long 'academic' piece by Stacey Pastel Dougan.

... Fletcher condemns the trial court's exclusion of witnesses in the Tyson case.<77>; Here, three women would have testified for the defense that they saw Tyson and Washington kissing in his limousine on the night of the rape. Fletcher queries, "If they were amorous at the outset, isn't it probable that they were so inclined a half-hour later?<78>; Clarifying his point, Fletcher claims that the defense would not have introduced the evidence to show that because Washington consented to kissing in the limousine that she consented to sex. "There was no suggestion that she was estopped from changing her mind . . . . It's just that, by common experience, we know that if she was necking at 1:30 A.M., then we should recognize the increased probability that in fact she consented to sex at 2:00 A.M.<79>; Presumably his standard of reference for "common experience" is that of the defendant.

Fletcher concludes that the trial court ruled wisely in the Smith case, but tragically in the Tyson case, concerning the admissibility of past conduct. But his conclusion ignores one critical point noted by Professor Susan Estrich: "[E]vidence that a man has abused other women is much more probative of rape than evidence that a woman has had consensual sex with other men is probative of consent.<80>;

Had the court permitted Tyson to present the testimony of the three witnesses (who would have testified about Washington and Tyson kissing), Fletcher opines that this evidence could have established that Tyson made a reasonable mistake in thinking Washington "was also consenting in the bedroom.<81>; Instead of focusing on Tyson's "reasonable reliance," the jury was forced to focus on "an ineffable moment in Washington's psyche. He became guilty or not guilty not on the basis of what he did and thought but on the basis of what the jury perceived that she thought.<82>;