" Show where it states in the bill "in black and white" that if this bill becomes law it "would require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent...."
I already have. But since you obviously missed it or couldn't understand it I will explain it again in simple terms.
If a person accuses someone of a crime first they must prove that a crime took place. With rape its a little different in that they must prove that the they and the accused had some sort of sexual contact and that said sexual contact was nonconsensual. At least that's how it supposed to work. But we both know that more and more the burden of proof is being pushed onto the accused. But setting aside the violation of due process rights for now and for the sake of argument lets say that the accused should have to prove his innocence.
How would he go about proving his innocence?
A. Prove that no sexual contact took place.
Or.
B. That the sexual activity was consensual.
Lets look at B as it pertains to this bill.
" In the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a defense that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:"...... The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting. ......"
According to this bill he would have to prove that he took reasonable steps to obtain consent in order to use consent as a defence.
