JB wrote about me: “Of course you would claim that feminists had nothing to do with this bill. It reeks of bigotry and violations of the accused rights to a fare trial. Obviously you would want to distance yourself from this bill but the problem is that it has feminism written all over it.”
my response: do some research dumbshit and learn how to read, and understand what you read so you will stop assuming that bills and other things say, apply to, and require things that they don't, and were written by feminists. This bill doesn't apply to rape trials so how does it reek of “violations of the accused rights to a fair trial” as you claim. And this bill does not only apply to females. Is is gender neutral so how does it reek of “bigotry” as you claim.
Senate Bill 967 which you have incorrectly claimed "would require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent there by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused." was written by Senator Kevin de Leon. There is nothing that indicates that he is A FEMINIST http://sd22.senate.ca.gov/biography
Carol Liu is the Chair of the Senate Committee on Education. There is nothing that indicates that she is a feminist either although she does belong to groups that try to benefit women, just like MRAs do things to try to benefit men. So what. What is wrong with that? http://www.asianamerican.net/bios/Liu-Carol.html. If you think that people who do that are bigots then you and all of your anti-feminist MRA buddies are clearly bigots as well.
The consultant on the bill is Lynn Lorber. She is a Principal Consultant to the California State Senate Education Committee. There also is absolutely nothing that indicates that she is a feminist either.
Contrary to what JB falsely claims, I never said "that this bill does not require a person to prove that they had consent". What I wrote was that contrary to what JB claimed below it (the bill) doesn't "require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent there by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused." Contrary to what JB wrote below there is nothing in this bill that indicates that "This bill if it becomes law would require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent there by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused." Contrary to what he wants to believe this bill DOES NOT apply to rape charges. The fact that he continuously attempts to claim that something applies to rape charges when there is nothing in it that says that it does, or when he indicates that in a rape trial the accused will have to prove that they got consent, which thereby shifts the burden of proof, when there is nothing that indicates that that is the case, proves how he tries to manipulate things in an attempt to get people to believe that "feminists" are doing something that they aren't while trying to claim that I have said things that I haven't. He is the one who is constantly spewing bullshit to try to make it look likes things are going on that aren't. He obviously doesn't read the bills and just believes the bullshit that someone who is undoubtedly an anti-feminist/pro-rapist writes about it, and it is clear that he doesn't understand law. Someone who doesn't read bills and doesn't understand laws shouldn't write about them because when they do so they very often make themselves look like idiots.
