In the sacred arena of Western jurisprudence, the presumption of innocence stands as a shield against tyranny, a guarantee that no man is condemned without ironclad proof. Yet this bedrock is crumbling under a relentless feminist assault that prioritises ideology over truth, vengeance over fairness, and convictions over justice. Feminism's crusade against due process in sexual assault trials isn't a reform gone astray; it's a deliberate campaign to nab men, guilty or innocent, by dismantling the mechanisms that protect the accused. From high-profile acquittals met with feminist outrage, to laws rewritten to hobble defences, the pattern is unmistakable: the courtroom is no longer a quest for truth but a stage for ideological retribution. This war isn't just against men, it's against the very principles that hold civilisation together. As the Left, with feminism as its spearhead, seeks to dominate and destroy, the solution isn't compromise but divorce: building a parallel society where justice thrives, leaving their crumbling dystopia to rot under its own contradictions.
The evidence is glaring. The 2025 Hockey Canada trial saw five former world junior hockey players acquitted after a woman's testimony collapsed under scrutiny, videos showed her explicit consent, contradicted claims of intoxication, and an undisclosed settlement with Hockey Canada exposed her motives. Yet feminist scholars like Daphne Gilbert decried the judge's "victim blaming," ignoring the evidence to lament insufficient sympathy for the accuser, known only as E.M. Constance Backhouse went further, dictating how the ruling "should" have been written to spare the "victim" any taint, as if acquitting the innocent is negotiable. Post-verdict, Policy Options called the acquittal a "missed opportunity" to redefine consent so stringently that even a woman's "yes' could be voided by later regret. In their eyes, the real crime was the men's freedom, not potential perjury.
This isn't new; it's a pattern. The 2016 Jian Ghomeshi trial, where the CBC host was acquitted after accusers' flirtatious emails exposed their post-assault pursuit, sparked feminist demands to "reimagine" the system. Proposals for "trauma-informed" courts with mandatory feminist training for judges would excuse inconsistencies as PTSD, not lies. The result was Bill C-51, passed in 2018, which bans "ambush" defences by forcing pre-trial disclosure of private records like texts. No longer can a defence surprise a complainant with her own words; she gets a preview to craft a narrative. Defence lawyers called it a "catastrophic attack" on the right to a full defence, but feminists hailed it as progress, prioritising "dignity" over truth. Ghomeshi's emails, bikini pics, "I love your hands," proved pursuit, not victimhood. Today, they'd be sanitised, tilting trials toward conviction.
The 2006 Duke lacrosse hoax set the template: a stripper's lies fuelled a campus witch hunt — wanted posters, faculty screeds, headlines like "Sex, Drink, Rape: The Fall of College Sport." Even after DNA exoneration, feminists like Amanda Marcotte raged that the players "held someone down and ****** her," facts be damned. Michael Kimmel cited it as proof of "entitled male athlete" predation, shrugging off innocence as a technicality. In the Mustafa Ururyar case, a judge convicted on feminist fiat, silence as non-consent despite the woman's texts promising "hot sex," only for the appeal to free him, yet feminists mourned the "unraped" victim, blind to the man's wrongful jail time.
This crusade is rooted in feminist doctrine that views men as oppressors and law as their tool. Feminist Catharine MacKinnon calls consent a patriarchal sham, born of women's "despairing acquiescence" under inequality. Kate Millett spread myths of harsher sentences for female criminals to stoke fear. Their heirs, now dominating law schools where women outnumber men, push "affirmative consent" models where silence or intoxication voids agency, even when videos, as in Hockey Canada, show otherwise. Rape shield laws, meant to prevent shaming, now bar probing motives like revenge or financial gain, as seen in Hockey Canada's undisclosed payout.
The human toll is staggering. Men like the Hockey players, careers frozen for years on a woman's whim, emerge scarred, while false accusers face no reckoning. Society suffers too: eroded trust fuels underreporting of real assaults, as victims fear disbelief amid the noise, and men retreat from intimacy, wary of weaponised regret. Even Margaret Atwood, defending due process for accused professor Steven Galloway, was branded a "Bad Feminist," her plea likened to Salem's witch trials where accusation equalled guilt. #MeToo's fervour, while exposing real predators, morphed into a presumption of male guilt, with acquittals for Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, or Harvey Weinstein's overturned conviction branded "chilling effects" on survivors. Julie Lalonde's claim that acquittals "send women back 50 years" reveals the truth: facts are secondary, ideology paramount.
This feminist assault is just one front in the Left's broader war on reason and freedom, as Dallas Ludlum warns: "You can't reason with people who want you erased." The Left doesn't seek pluralism; they demand domination, silencing dissent through censorship, deplatforming, and now, lethal violence. The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, gunned down for his conservative Christian voice, is the ultimate proof. Years of dehumanisation by media, activists, and Big Tech paved the way, painting him as a "villain" until a bullet silenced him. This isn't politics; it's abuse, a marriage where one partner seeks the other's annihilation.
Campuses, once havens of debate, now purge dissenters, think Evergreen State, where a professor fled mob threats for questioning racial dogma. Big Tech rigs the digital game: shadow bans for questioning gender ideology, account freezes for supporting traditional values. On the streets, Portland's "protests" saw buildings torched and neighbourhoods held hostage, with leaders too complicit or cowardly to act. The Left's playbook, gaslighting, financial strangulation, physical intimidation, mirrors domestic abuse, with feminists weaponising sexual assault law to trap men in a system where innocence is no defence.
The Hockey Canada players, Ghomeshi, the Duke lacrosse team, they're casualties of a war we didn't start but must end. Feminism's attack on due process is the Left's broader assault in microcosm: a drive to erase dissent, starting with men, then anyone who dares think freely.
This divorce is survival. No more pleading with abusers who rewrite laws to convict the innocent and call it justice. Build our courts, our schools, our culture. Let their dystopia collapse under its own weight, while we forge a society where truth prevails, not ideology. The choice is stark: stay in their abusive grip, or break free and thrive.
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/feminisms-shameless-attack-on-duel