For posterity
May. 8th, 2024 09:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
highlyeccentricA list of posts I have not finished making
1. A history of the Great South Road. (But hey, it finally kicked me into reading Grace Karskens. I can't get hold of her work on the Great North Road, but even she hasn't studied the Great South Road in depth)
2. My Angst Re R v Martinez, Let Me Show You Eet. Not least because I think the costs judgment R v Martinez gives enough information to an infomed reader to alert one to the possibility of transphobia(transmisogyny) at play, and I didn't know this until someone else alerted me to the news so uh... maybe I missed it? Maybe it was a forensic decision to avoid the nonbinary-femme-thingy? It's not like I have close personal knowledge of the case, but I definitely heard ABOUT it in progress.
3. Huh, I really appreciate that NSW doesn't use the term "rape" in indictments.* I THINK that when I did y 11 legal studies the term was still rape, although it's possible we were too callow to care about distinctions between rape and "sexual intercourse without consent". I do remember that the benchmark, whatever it was, in 2003, was not PIV but body part or implement into any orifice. That... hasn't come up in my courts career, which either means a) legal studies instruction weird or b) legislation doesn't reflect what's actually prosecuted or c) b, but also add Time And Multiple Changes To The Law. Goats only know, the way that crimes of buggery are prosecuted in 2023+ bears no resemblance to how prosecutors thought about it pre 1984. Ditto "indecent act upon male", see scathing judgement in appeal Lam v R.
I am MOSTLY in a state of "aaargh when in doubt go to the library" about... all of the things.
But I am also, often, when I surface in a sense of balance, unexpectedly liberated by the absence of the word "rape" from the formal legal landscape.
If I could refine my bullshit down ONLY to ye olde nonsense inflicted by my Worst Ex, I would go frolicking across the fields, gladly embracing a world in which "rape" just isn't a term used to determine indictable-ness, and which can instead be used to define a sexual-social offence.
Unfortunately, every time I come to that extremely freeing realisation... well, all the other bullshit piles up. I definitely remain someone who has either better or more urgent things to do than Speak Up As A Survivor.
4. After clarifying 3, I haven't even got more than two sentences into trying to make re My Most Recent Ex. Probably doesn't count as "post I'm not making. Do I know where it should start? No. Right now, it feels like the item that should follow is something about how second-to-last time we had dinner he was snarking about how I "am not interested in the kind of topping he needs" but yon numpty never SPECIFIED anything, and if he MEANS "ed is not available for non-con play", ffs, I was actually willing to figure out how far the fuzzy zone might go, except yon numpty WITHDREW from me at An Critical Point, and then once i moved back, well... loook... shit was weird, I maintain I do not presume upon people who aren't throwing themselves at my feet! All this deserves a much longer post but by now I'm really glad I DIDN'T float that possibility because yeeeeeeezzzkkk even if short term functional that would have backfired badly on either the relationship or my job or both.
5. Let point 5 stand for the things I haven't even STARTED posticulating about. There are many.
* Add to list of reasons why I shouldn't be allowed to exist without access to academic databases: the bench book (used in sentencing) says part 3 div 10 of the Crimes Act is "offences in the nature of rape, [etc+ - it's a long header]. I have typed MANY sentences in the last year and not heard the term used.
1. A history of the Great South Road. (But hey, it finally kicked me into reading Grace Karskens. I can't get hold of her work on the Great North Road, but even she hasn't studied the Great South Road in depth)
2. My Angst Re R v Martinez, Let Me Show You Eet. Not least because I think the costs judgment R v Martinez gives enough information to an infomed reader to alert one to the possibility of transphobia(transmisogyny) at play, and I didn't know this until someone else alerted me to the news so uh... maybe I missed it? Maybe it was a forensic decision to avoid the nonbinary-femme-thingy? It's not like I have close personal knowledge of the case, but I definitely heard ABOUT it in progress.
3. Huh, I really appreciate that NSW doesn't use the term "rape" in indictments.* I THINK that when I did y 11 legal studies the term was still rape, although it's possible we were too callow to care about distinctions between rape and "sexual intercourse without consent". I do remember that the benchmark, whatever it was, in 2003, was not PIV but body part or implement into any orifice. That... hasn't come up in my courts career, which either means a) legal studies instruction weird or b) legislation doesn't reflect what's actually prosecuted or c) b, but also add Time And Multiple Changes To The Law. Goats only know, the way that crimes of buggery are prosecuted in 2023+ bears no resemblance to how prosecutors thought about it pre 1984. Ditto "indecent act upon male", see scathing judgement in appeal Lam v R.
I am MOSTLY in a state of "aaargh when in doubt go to the library" about... all of the things.
But I am also, often, when I surface in a sense of balance, unexpectedly liberated by the absence of the word "rape" from the formal legal landscape.
If I could refine my bullshit down ONLY to ye olde nonsense inflicted by my Worst Ex, I would go frolicking across the fields, gladly embracing a world in which "rape" just isn't a term used to determine indictable-ness, and which can instead be used to define a sexual-social offence.
Unfortunately, every time I come to that extremely freeing realisation... well, all the other bullshit piles up. I definitely remain someone who has either better or more urgent things to do than Speak Up As A Survivor.
4. After clarifying 3, I haven't even got more than two sentences into trying to make re My Most Recent Ex. Probably doesn't count as "post I'm not making. Do I know where it should start? No. Right now, it feels like the item that should follow is something about how second-to-last time we had dinner he was snarking about how I "am not interested in the kind of topping he needs" but yon numpty never SPECIFIED anything, and if he MEANS "ed is not available for non-con play", ffs, I was actually willing to figure out how far the fuzzy zone might go, except yon numpty WITHDREW from me at An Critical Point, and then once i moved back, well... loook... shit was weird, I maintain I do not presume upon people who aren't throwing themselves at my feet! All this deserves a much longer post but by now I'm really glad I DIDN'T float that possibility because yeeeeeeezzzkkk even if short term functional that would have backfired badly on either the relationship or my job or both.
5. Let point 5 stand for the things I haven't even STARTED posticulating about. There are many.
* Add to list of reasons why I shouldn't be allowed to exist without access to academic databases: the bench book (used in sentencing) says part 3 div 10 of the Crimes Act is "offences in the nature of rape, [etc+ - it's a long header]. I have typed MANY sentences in the last year and not heard the term used.
no subject
Date: 2024-06-05 11:46 am (UTC)[witnessed]