Jury nullification debate conclusion

Note to readers: At the outset of this debate there was to be three exchanges between myself and Johann the Cabbie. We agreed in advance that there was to be a 72 hour turnaround limit between responses. I insisted on the commitment to honoring the deadline in advance and explained to Johann that it was important to me that AVfM readers be able to depend on our timeliness.

On his first opportunity to respond, Johann failed to meet the deadline and made no effort to contact me about it. I posted a comment to his site pointing this out to which he responded, in part “I am in breach of our agreement. I offer no apologies our excuses, but I do offer a shamefully belated response.”

His response, if you can consider it that, is posted here below, along with my final rebuttal. This has allowed him equal time in the exchange. But this is where I terminate our “debate.” I can take Johann’s youthful arrogance, but his lack of integrity crosses the line. As he has clearly expressed that he has no regard for being trustworthy or credible, this exchange will conclude this debate with Johann the Cabbie, but I also take this as an opportunity to extend the invitation to anyone with an opposing view, and a commitment to their own word, to have this debate at a later time.

Johann’s response:

Times Square attracts the crazies. Nutters pick their spot of sidewalk and spend hours shouting and waving their arms, trying to convince any who pass by that their particular brand of crazy ain’t so crazy. After a while, one gets to recognize the regulars – the science of sin guy, the Black Israelites, even some dude playing a guitar whilst claiming to be naked, but really, he’s wearing hat, boots, and tighty whities.

Reading Paul Elam’s writing reminds me of those nutters. So much so that I wonder how he can get any typing done with all the arm waving and shouting. The man can type at length, but like the Times Square nutters, he produces no evidence to back up his assertions. And just like the nutters, his rants can get rather tedious.

Elam’s main contention is that rape shield laws prevent the jury from hearing relevant evidence, so guilt beyond a reasonable doubt cannot possibly be ascertained. And lacking any evidence beyond mere anecdotes, he resorts to making one unfounded assertion after another.

His best attempt at providing some evidence or logic is quoting some federal evidence rules to show that rape shield laws have always been unnecessary. He fails to mention that rape shield laws are designed to instruct judges what is and what isn’t relevant in rape trials.

Here, I’ll give a list of his evidenceless[sic] assertions:

The entire nullification argument hinges completely on the idea that obvious guilt is unattainable under the current system, specifically where “rape shield laws,” are concerned. To ascertain guilt, relevant evidence must be weighed. If the accurate weighing of that evidence is not possible because relevant facts have been intentionally omitted, it amounts to nothing more than a magic show; smoke and mirrors from which no true picture can be gleaned. In that scenario, a fair trial is not possible. It is as easy to understand as it is logical.

There is no logical reason, in the face of the evidence, to lump all other criminal court proceedings in with rape trials. They are conducted differently, which is the point of this debate.

All Johann has done here is to momentarily pretend that the rape shield laws he was already minimizing now don’t exist at all.

One, the lack of reason (though unreasonable they are) in these politically motivated laws is not so much the issue as is their impact on due process. The moment we  systematically deny a defendant the right to include evidence casting legitimate concern on the veracity of an accuser, or on possible motive to fabricate, we have not only denied them a Constitutionally guaranteed fair trial, but we have also eviscerated any opportunity to hold credible the evidence required to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

…why is he [JtC] not advocating for rape shield laws, for the accused? I will tell you why. It is because he is affected by the same one dimensional, irrational and lopsided thinking that afflicts Matt Dillahunty, just to a slightly lesser degree. He has surrendered reason for rote protective instinct that has no place in our criminal justice system where life and liberty depend on thoughtful analysis and an unfettered pursuit of the facts.

He sees women as primarily victims, in need of special treatment, yet he offers not one shred of evidence of why that special treatment is necessary, effective, reasonable or consistent with Constitutional demands. And he does not even speculate what the real impact of those special rules might be on the people they most affect.

I’ll ignore his arrogance of attempting to place thoughts in my mind and just worry about his complaints about rape shield laws.

Anecdotes are not evidence. In a country of over 300 million people, some will be screwed by society. Some innocents will suffer in the criminal injustice system. Every travesty is a tragedy, but Elam’s listing of a few of those travesties is not evidence of an endemic problem. Elam needs to provide some actual data to prove that rape shield laws are a systemic, endemic problem.

Until then, I will continue to view him as one of the Times Square nutters.


Elam Responds:

Given that this debate is coming to an abrupt and unscheduled end I will respond to what little substance was offered by Cabbie and move on to other points I would have made in future installments of this debate.

After we shave off all the name calling and other distractions, and take a look at the one point that Cabbie even attempts in this “rebuttal,” we find that he still fundamentally fails to understand the Constitutional and rational imperatives that undermine his position.

His one and only assertion here is that there is no justification for nullification without empirical proof of an “endemic problem” with the misapplication of rape shield laws. In fact, he is saying that without that evidence, the predisposition to nullify amounts to something equitable to chanting about End of Days on the street corner.

This, of course, is neither applicable nor logical. All we must do in the case of criminal trials is prove that the problem is prevalent enough that there is reasonable concern about tainting the presumption of innocence and the ability to ascertain guilt beyond reasonable doubt, broadly speaking. I think the arguments following do that with more than sufficiency.

To begin with, the trouble over rape shield statutes did not originate with me or with the MRM, generally speaking. There have been repeated concerns expressed about the impact of rape shield laws on due process and fair trials long predating anything I have published on the matter.

Columnist Cathy Young wrote an article at titled, Excluded Evidence, the Dark Side of Rape Shield Laws. In it, she writes the following about the courts excluding evidence of previous false rape accusations from trial:


Most of the time, however, the burden is on the defendant to show that the value of this evidence to his case outweighs its “prejudicial effect” on the complainant. In several states (including Alabama, Iowa, and Washington), courts have held that excluding evidence of an earlier false or dubious rape complaint by the accuser does not deny the accused a fair trial — even, perhaps, if the evidence is relevant to the question of his innocence.

As far back as 1976, David S. Rudstein wrote, in the William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 18, Issue 1:


…those statutes that absolutely prohibit a defendant from introducing evidence of a rape complainant’s bad reputation for chastity, opinion  evidence of her bad character for chastity, and  evidence of specific acts of sexual intercourse between the complainant and men other than the defendant on the issue of consent may unconstitutionally deprive the defendant of his rights to a fair trial and to confront the witnesses against him.


In Courting Disaster: Re-Evaluating Rape Shields in Light of People v. Bryant, Josh Maggard wrote:


Under the most stringent of the rape shield statutes, a defendant charged with murder has more protections and greater leeway with introducing evidence in his defense than a defendant charged with rape. More compellingly, a defendant who rapes and murders a victim enjoys a lesser standard of evidentiary exclusion for the murder than he does for the rape. This should give pause to even the most vocal of rape victims’ rights proponents: a legal structure which rewards a crime ending in death with more substantive and procedural protections must, by necessity, be flawed. As Susan Jacoby noted, “the most important change brought about by the women’s movement is abandonment of the antediluvian notion that rape is ‘a fate worse than death.’ Nothing is worse than death.

These and other legal and common opinions have not gone without some reaction in actual courts. As Clare Dyer reported in The Guardian in May, 2001, a British House of Lords ruling challenged rape shield laws there:

A law that bans juries in rape trials from hearing evidence that the accused had a previous sexual relationship with his accuser breaches his right to a fair trial, five law lords ruled yesterday in a landmark judgment.

“Good sense suggests that it may be relevant to an issue of consent whether the complainant and the accused were ongoing lovers or strangers,” said Lord Steyn.

“To exclude such material creates the risk of disembodying the case before the jury. It also increases the danger of miscarriages of justice.”

And it is that risk that speaks directly to the issue of nullification. These legal rulings, opinions and layman interpretations of rape shield laws also do not serve to provide Johann the Cabbie with the “endemic problem” neatly cited and referenced, so that he may quiet his personal derision and see merit in the nullification argument. Nor will the anecdotes of those concerns being realized sway an individual so predisposed to look only at the concerns of alleged female victims.

What they do provide, however, is sufficient information for reasonable citizens to look at rape shield statutes and determine they are an endemic threat to due process and presumed innocence, by their very existence.  Rational thinkers can view this information and conclude there is a problem not addressed by the state that can be addressed through the wisdom and power of the juror, and that it can be done with complete moral certitude.

But here is the kicker, and it is a grand one. If, by some measure of miracle, rape shield laws were suddenly overturned and wiped clean of the statutes, there would still be just cause for nullification. This is a point we would have come to naturally had the Cabbie assisted us with taking this debate to its scheduled conclusion. His failure to contribute notwithstanding, we can get there anyway.

As it stands right now in many, rather, most  jurisdictions, the only evidence needed to convict a person of rape is the alleged victim’s word that it happened. We saw this in the case of Vladek Filler, before his conviction was overturned. It was overturned not on a lack of evidence, but on misconduct by prosecutor Mary Kellett. Had she not been caught misleading the jury, the conviction would have stood, because all the jury was required to hear was the complaint of Ligia Filler in order to convict. Given that Ligia Filler’s propensity to lie was withheld from the jury, it left Mr. Filler wide open to false conviction.

The same was true more recently, in July of this year, for Darrell Williams, an Oklahoma State basketball player, who was convicted of sexual battery and rape by instrumentation solely on the word of his accusers. The Sun Times article title, Conviction but no tangible evidence, tacitly conveyed the injustice, but it did not do the young man any good.

As it stands now, the standard of evidence required to convict a man of rape in a criminal court is utterly indistinguishable from the standard of evidence required to lynch a Black man for rape 50 years ago in Mississippi. It requires only the word of the alleged victim, and the willingness of others to commit violence on her behalf in retribution.

There is no shortage of accusations, and the state has set itself up as the instrument for that violence by proxy, as surly as if it were a legislated lynch mob.

That lack of standards, combined with the effect of rape shield laws to protect the credibility of the alleged victim from falling under direct scrutiny, is the combination of forces that form the perfect storm of unchecked injustice.  This is addressed by Bruce Gross, Ph. D., JD, MBA in The Forensic Examiner, in his article False Rape Allegations: An Assault on Justice:

Although it may not be “politically correct” to question the veracity of a women’s complaint of rape, failing to consider the accuser may be intentionally lying effectively eradicates the presumption of innocence. This Constitutional right is especially significant when dealing with allegations of rape as in most jurisdictions, sex offenses are the only crimes that do not require corroborating evidence for conviction. Because there are often no witnesses and no physical evidence (especially if the victim delays in filing a report), the case may come down to the credibility of the accused versus the credibility of the accuser.

The realm of false allegations is intimately tied to the need for nullification, but I will pass on including it as a part of this particular argument.

The fact that sex offenses stand alone as the only crime for which corroborating evidence is not needed for conviction makes them, in my opinion, as a slam dunk for the legitimacy of nullification.

We have another word for “corroborating evidence.” We call it proof; the kind we like to have for convicting under the standard of reasonable doubtAs difficult as it is to be the victim of any crime, including rape, are we really going down the path of elevating the victim’s trauma to the point it supplants the need for evidence and due process in the course of obtaining a conviction?

Indeed we are. We are, in fact, very far down that road, even with the blessings of supposedly rational thinkers like Johann the Cabbie.

Were there another way to address this problem, I would enjoy entertaining it. The system is far too broken, too corrupt and too politicized for conventional redress. Extreme injustice calls for extreme retaliation. Luckily, nullification by jurors remains available as a legal, moral answer to the states failure to contain its power and to abide by the mandates of the Constitution.

  • Dr. F

    “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?”

    “Fuck no way pal. There. I just swore.”

  • Dr. F

    Good on you Paul.

    You gave it your best, pearls and swine and all that.

    If anything, his abbreviated input with dialogue here serves as a reminder of other things anyway. I hear arrogance and ignorance having sex and another participant would be welcomed no doubt.

    If there are others out there with more substance in the ways that count, can you step up to the plate?

    I am assuming that if the offer is proffered you’ll be in like that Flynn fella.

  • Tawil

    Johann – you agree to enter a debate and then don’t show up? Bad form.

    From what I gather, the debate so far can be summed up thus: Rape shield laws “shield” the presentation of relevant evidence to the court and thus establish a false trial.

    Now, whilst I can’t know what Johann’s next response might have been, I’m assuming he would have continued to sidestep the miscarraige of justice that withholding of evidence (shield laws) present. His main argument appears to be that we should ignore this problem, “cause problems are everywhere, so why bother”.

    I started reading this topic with a neutral (or more accurately undecided) mindset, and Paul’s elaboration of the shield law function has convinced me there is a problem here, and Johann’s lack of answer for it leaves only one conclusion.

    I would still like to see someone from the pro shield laws camp -what i will now call the anti-evidence camp- debate this topic in more detail if they think they have an argument to put.

    • J3DIforce1

      “Johann – you agree to enter a debate and then don’t show up? Bad form”

      Because He does not know what to say. Thats why the bulk of his response is nothing but shaming language. A typical reaction of those who quickly go from big man with somthing to say, to deer in the headlights.

    • Muk

      I came into it with a neutral position as well…I was a bit uneasy about the prospect of setting an “Obviously guilty” defendant free, however, it may not be so obvious to me as a juror if we’d be given all of the evidence, and allowed to come to our own conclusion on how “relevant” it is.
      I am now squarely on the side of nullification…even though I’m still not sure if this is an issue that we want on the forefront of the MRM…I just don’t have faith in the blue-pillarians to look deeper at it to come to a conclusion other than “OMG RAYPIST SUPPORTER!”
      People are stupid…

  • Bombay

    I think Cabbie’s response is full of irony. He is the person who is “waving their arms” to accuse someone else of “waving their arms”. And it was so full of “waving their arms” that it could not be more obvious to the point that I wonder if he needs medical attention.

  • Man

    So the Feminist Cabbie ends the “debate” with ad hominem attacks and calls men nutters for voicing their concerns.

    • Muk

      Pretty much…

      “You’re a nutter, therefore, your argument is VOID.”

  • droobles

    It saddens me when people can’t accept logic.
    Elam, you are so correct that I have nothing to add.

  • Suz

    Did I imagine it, or did JtC just dismiss the entire issue with the (true) statement that it’s inevitable that innocent people will be imprisoned because the justice system will occasionally fail?

    Yes, a system that was designed to succeed will occasionally fail. Rape shield laws however, change the system so it is designed to FAIL. Wrongful rape convictions resulting from rape shield laws, are not “mistakes.” They are exactly how the system is designed to work.

    • Man

      Because they were never designed for fairness, equality, or justice.

  • Iron John

    Paul, I would like to thank you for taking the time to finish this debate. Especially with everything that is going on here at AVfM. I can see you put in a lot of hard work in terms of both writing and research. I think this bodes well for the future of this MRM organization in that it sends a very clear message to those who oppose us: If you are going to challenge us then you had better be ready, AVfM always brings it’s A game.

  • Greyfeld

    I was disappointed in JtC’s response. Spending half of his effort on mud-slinging the arguer of the opposing viewpoint, he sounded like somebody who had to fall back on undermining his opponent’s credibility because he couldn’t come up with a logical counterpoint.

    His tone came off like one of the hardcore feminists who try to shut people up by acting arrogant and claiming they “just don’t get it,” but can’t actually explain what there is to get. Which is a shame, because I was really looking forward to seeing a logical and well-thought argument.

  • lancelot

    Very disappointing, Johann. It’s election year. There’s enough name calling masquerading as debate on the TV already.

  • Turbo

    I hope JtC at least has the good grace to post this final response from Paul on his website. I think it would be very poor form if he does not.

  • Perseus

    Atticus Finch lives, and he goes by the name, Mr. Elam, anagram.

    If the kourt is a lie, you must nullify.

    ..‘by their very existence’.., dumbfuck

    Johann, why don’t you go stick the crucible up your ass? We want no part of your little Salem experiment. Bitch.

  • dhanu

    Expected. These stupid people are used to automatic approval for just being what they are (supporters of feminism, an ideology they hold in such high regard that nobody should ever question it). They’ve been getting this treatment for so long that they’ve become accustomed to their echo chamber of consenting voices. They always assume that whatever they have to say will be unquestionably accepted by everyone as long as it’s in line with the feminist principles. Not surprisingly, they’ve lost all sense of reason or logic. As soon as they’re confronted by someone challenging their views or pointing out flaws in them, they have no idea how to respond properly (because they’re not used to any opposition). So all they can muster is personal insults or willful ignorance of the facts. This is not arrogance; they really don’t have anything to counter logic with, no matter how polite the person is.

    They already know this. That’s why they were so opposed to the ‘Has feminism gone too far’ debate. This type of debates expose them for what they are. It makes them consider the validity of the principles they’ve lived by for their entire life. They, by inertia, simply don’t want these principles to be proven wrong as that would put a question mark on their ability of judgement. To get rid of this uncomfortable feeling, they consider it the best to just ignore the voices of truth and keep their heads stuck in the dark.

    When it happens enough times, they finally either have the courage to see the fault with their ways and change themselves (the former feminists who joined us fall under this category), or they decide that they’ll continue with the wrong path despite having full knowledge that it’s wrong (these ones become the willfully bad people, or the ‘wrongarians’ in Dr F’s words). JtC falls under the second category.

    I can even predict the next course of behavior for JtC. He now knows that he’s wrong, and has chosen to continue. He’ll now become extremely vicious and his (verbal/written) attacks more violent, full of lies and hatred, and just plainly wrong (even stupid), only supported by the other people of his kind.

  • lensman

    I would like to offer an alternative view on the matter. JtC’s name-calling and belated response, was not so much due to his inability to debate, but rather because he wanted to distance himself as much as possible from the “nutters” in the MRM. He saw what happened with Justin Vacula (who resigned after the AVfM controversy), and he probably didn’t want to get ostracized from his erstwhile followers. So his response, insulting and moronic as it may be, does make sense once you look at the big picture.

    JtC, in case you are reading this, if anybody ever accuses you of misogyny just for posting on AVfM, don’t apologize. It didn’t do Lawrence Summers, Lazar Greenfield or Justin Vacula any good. It only gave the mud-slingers even more dirt to throw at them. Defend your position and your actions, but never, ever say that you are sorry for them. I am really sad if fear prevents you from debating further, but I do understand why you are doing this.

    Do I agree with everything at AVfM? No, for instance I thought that the petition to change the name of Vancouver to Mancouver, was a pretty idiotic move that didn’t really add to the credibility of the MRM. Sure, it may have been satirical, but it didn’t exactly make others look at us in a more positive way.

    But where evidence is offered, and proper logic arguments are being made, I am inclined to pay closer attention, and, god forbid, even change my mind, if I am wrong.

    JtC, the truth of the matter is that you simply failed to make your case. You didn’t mention any cases where the rape shield laws actually had a positive impact (which would be a great rebuttal to Paul’s allegedly “isolated cases in which rape shield laws where missapplied”), and you didn’t even make a search on google-scholar which would help you make your case and mount up a good rebuttal. I was prepared to change my position if you simply did those things… but you didn’t. So I won’t.

    Furthermore, you failed to address the fact that it often only takes a woman’s word to get a man convicted or at the very least his life destroyed. And before you accuse me of misogyny I’ll simply say that there have been rape-cases (as in the woman was really, truly, raped) in which the woman quite simply identified the wrong man as the perpetrator.

    See, memory is a very tricky thing, especially in traumatic cases, and it is a well documented fact that people don’t generally remember faces very well when they belong to people of different race. Now, to be perfectly fair, cases in which the rapist belongs to a different race are only a small percentage, but it does, or at the very least should, give us pause on the credibility of a person’s say-so, even if that person is absolutely certain that what he/she thought happened was really what happened.

    • lensman

      Sorry for the double comment, but I just did some small research on Google Scholar, and try as I might, I couldn’t find a paper that advocated the necessity of rape shield laws. What I did find however was several papers noting their unconstitutionality, their potential for abuse, and, get this, even a feminist repudiation. I couldn’t access most of the documents, so do take what I am saying here with a grain of salt, but I am getting a pretty good idea why JtC didn’t use peer-reviewed research to back up his position.

      • Paul Elam

        I had the same problem, and I looked for a long time. I wanted to make the argument for him that he was not making for himself.

        After the searching, the only conclusion that I could draw what that rape shield laws are purely political. They do not enjoy support for legal scholars. As you said, almost everything I could find on them was repudiation. I found the feminist critique you referenced, too.

        The only reason these laws are still in effect are because no one will risk the political fallout of correcting them. There are even studies out there that debunk why the laws were passed in the first place, e.g. it was thought they would increase the numbers of women willing to report. Bust. No influence at all on reporting.

        • Suz

          You are a truly extraordinary man.

        • Druk

          It seems like it should be obvious that the burden of proof is on those who are using the law to alter something as basic as due process. To be honest, I’m surprised you were unable to find anything even presenting itself as evidence; it’s not as if feminism hasn’t made up useful statistics in the past.

        • Sasha

          This is like watching Muhammed Ali pile into a schooboy. I don’t know why you keep doing these debates. You did it once before, and the fellow bailed out then as well. It’s tedious and boring, ideologues can’t debate – they’ve nothing to argue once you get past the insults. I

    • Astrokid

      but rather because he wanted to distance himself as much as possible from the “nutters” in the MRM. He saw what happened with Justin Vacula (who resigned after the AVfM controversy), and he probably didn’t want to get ostracized from his erstwhile followers.
      Nope. I know this clown from an atheist forum we are on, a forum that acts as one of the Resistances to the feminist onslaught in the atheist community over the last 2 years. A “MRAs are as bad as radfems” charge was made there a month ago.. i.e way before the Justin Vacula affair.. this Cabbie clown provided the below as “evidence”.. the fuckwit didnt have any arguments back then either. He’s some unknown loser, and probably wanted to gain some attention, which nobody gives him on the atheist forums either. Richard Dawkins once turned down a debate request by saying (paraphrased): “This debate will look good on your Resume, but does nothing for me”. Cabbie deserved the same, but in the process we got to see Paul make some lovely arguments and present solid evidence.

      by Johann the Cabbie » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:58 am
      You requested evidence of extreme ideology within the MRA movement. It’s not hard to find. … al-acquit/
      Some of the comments are especially disturbing.

  • andybob

    Johann the Cabbie entered the fray on a cloud of blue pill smugness. Bolstered by assurances from feminists that AVFM was a hate site inhabited by kitten-eating misogynists (and a few brain-washed, kitchen-tethered babes) hell bent on legalizing rape, he assumed it would be a piece of piss. Paul Elam would surely reference the Illuminati somewhere.

    It must have been a rude awakening to discover that Dr Elam’s position never had anything to do with legalizing rape. That was just a predictably crude misrepresentation by feminists engaging in their propaganda war. Once in the arena, Mr Cabbie confronted the alarming reality that Dr Elam actually had an entirely different argument – one based on sound reasoning, a profound sense of justice and the capacity to present it with intelligence and clarity.

    Witnessing Johann the Cabbie’s pitiful attempt to save face – by calling Paul Elam a limb-flailing Times Square nutter – is as embarrassing as it is fascinating. I suppose we should be thankful that he didn’t dissolve into a puddle of tears and false accusations a’la Jenna Myers Karvunidis.

    Perhaps I speak too soon.

  • Jay

    Pure gold. This debate has been won by Paul by an absolutely smashing margin. This website is the best in the world for gender equality.

    And let’s not forget what the newspapers wrote about this issue:

    Herald Sun from Australia (the second most read newspaper in the entire country)

    A MAN who is littering the city with posters promoting a website that encourages men to support rapists has declined the opportunity to explain himself.

    The website, which the Herald Sun has chosen not to name, is campaigning to get men sitting on juries for rape trials to “vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true”.

    The group says the campaign is necessary because it claims women lie about being raped and men are unfairly treated in the courts.

    Women’s rights campaigners questioned whether the group’s members had the courage to make the same statements to women in person.

    Posters promoting the website have been posted at Monash and Deakin universities and around Melbourne’s law courts precinct.

    Frank James Spencer, who has been putting up the posters around Melbourne, told the Herald Sun he became involved with the website as an extension of the “atheist” movement but declined to answer further questions.

    The website claims women hate porn because they cannot compete with a “porn actress who has a beautiful face, a perfect body”.

    The website’s publisher, Paul Elam, told the Herald Sun he was too busy watching the movie Air Force One to be interviewed, but later said by email he stood by the campaign.

    He did not hate women but they had an unfair advantage.

    “Only when they are in court for anything,” he said.

    Women’s rights campaigner Melinda Tankard Reist said the website did not represent the majority of men’s views.

    Jess Boccia, of women’s group Reclaim the Night, said the website was disgusting “especially when it’s so hard for women and children to report rape”.

    Of course they chose not to name this website – because anyone looking here will see it is about equal and fair rights for men and boys. The article even has the views of Melinda Tankard Riest – an evil radical feminist misandrist who wants all men locked up for offences which hurt no one. The mainstream media is incredibly misandric.

    • Greyfeld

      That article was disgusting from beginning to end. The moment it said that somebody was putting up posters that “encourage men to support rapists,” I wanted to punch the author in the face.

    • The Observer

      Don’t worry about it. They mentioned Dr. Elam’s name, after all. Anyone searching his name on the web will invariably run across AVFM.

      • Greyfeld

        You assume anybody who’s willing to be subverted by one-sided journalism actually cares about doing research. Likely, the only people who will be reading up on Paul’s work will be those who are already skeptic.

        • dhanu

          @Greyfeld Those who do not try to find the facts for themselves are anyway useless and not needed here.

  • JGteMolder

    You know, I’m almost ashamed I’m an Atheist.

    Johann the Cabbie wouldn’t know debate and logic if it hit him in the ass.

    A proper way to address having no more arguments, is to conceit defeat. Not stick your emotional bullshit and start ranting shaming language and name calling.

    • MRA Greatest Hits

      “proper way to address having no more arguments, is to conceit defeat.”

      Absolutely. He could have left with some respect. It’s reasonable to acknowledge that this is quite a complex and even confusing matter & there’s no shame in realising and admitting that you don’t fully understand it, particularly when debating with someone who understanding the issues so thoroughly. He might have learned something, instead he illustrated clearly that he has no interest in that.

  • Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

    Pardon me if I am remembering incorrectly, but didn’t the last chap who challenged Paul to a debate pack up his toys and leave in a huff before the end of the exchange, too?

    • Iron John

      You remember correctly. For those who missed the debate the first time around, here is a brief account of what went down:

  • Lovekraft

    Cabbie’s position that there are some aberrations in the application of the law, but not enough to warrant reviewing the practice amounts to “The End Justifies the Means”.

    Standard tactic of Progressives and Nazis everywhere.

  • Astrokid

    Hey Cabbie, you might wanna join your local slutwalk. Its that season again.

    Slutwalk 2012 London.
    Earlier this week, around a dozen protesters protested opposite Downing Street to call on Prime Minister David Cameron to ensure the criminal justice system takes rape and sexual assault cases more seriously.

    Student Anastasia Richardson, 18, said: “All the failings of the police and courts, they are only allowed to happen because there is not proper supervision at the top, because rape is not being made a priority within the justice system.
    “Rape is essentially legal in this country. That is very much his (Mr Cameron’s) responsibility to stop.”
    According to the activists, only seven out of every 100 reported rapes end in conviction.

    • Greyfeld

      … I think I’m going to be sick.

    • andybob

      Anastasia Richardson displays all the wisdom and depth one would expect of an 18 year-old female student who has just discovered the joys of victimhood. She believes that P.M. Cameron, like all men, is responsible for all rape (which is ‘essentially legal’).

      I always experience a jolt of euphoria when these ideologues utter such breathtaking stupidity. Surely, someone somewhere is sitting up and saying, ‘WTF?’ Ms Richardson is 18, she’s spouting offensive and illogical crap, and, oh yes, she’s participating in a Slut Walk.

      Then I remember that it is this kind of hysteria that enabled feminists to implement VAWA, rape shield laws and other draconian measures in the first place – and my blood runs cold. It is the kind of hysteria that is ruinous for everyone in society.

      Anastasia Richardson has been pickled in feminist ideology from the day she was born. She doesn’t know it, but feminism has ruined her life. She will never be capable of a healthy relationship because she has been trained to loathe and distrust men. Victimhood is her dominant identity, making her vulnerable to foolish and dangerous life choices. Then there are the men whose lives Ms Richardson will always feel entitled to destroy.

      Most chilling of all is that this girl calls for more ‘supervision at the top’, which is her way of saying that men aren’t monitored enough. Her few, brief statements encapsulate how thoroughly she has been brainwashed by the feminists whose purpose she serves. My brief jolt of euphoria is now well and truly quashed. Anastasia Richardson, a slut-walking teenager, is given credence by the MSM while we get called a hate movement.

      • Bombay

        And is carrying around a loaded gun. How many lives will she destroy?

  • Jared White

    Oh nos, Paul, but we need rape shield laws so when female accusers are on the stand they can’t be slut shamed by the evidence against their testimony!!

    Oh and by the way, where I’m from, this;

    “His failure to contribute notwithstanding, we can get there anyway.”

    Translates into this;


    • Paul Elam


      • Roger O Thornhill

        Paul, I think it’s very unfair of you to use logic! LOL
        Good work all the same :-)

        • MRA Greatest Hits

          lol “using logic”, that domestic violence is some states i believe.

  • MarkofWisdom

    Reading this “debate” if it can be called one brings to mind an image of a young boy getting his first squirt gun and then excitedly going to challenge the biggest, baddest guy in town to a gunfight, then pissing himself and running like hell when he realizes just how outgunned he is. Paul absolutely destroyed Johann’s weak attempts at forming an argument, then Johann did the equivalent of realizing he can’t win and then trying to call the other guy mean names and hope he’ll go away. Very interesting read-well, Paul’s parts were at least, Johann’s was like watching a sad clown try to juggle

    • Turbo

      Yes, and as of this moment he still has not put up Paul’s response on his website.

      His readers can find the link to this website in a comment that Paul left there, but he has not posted it on his blog as part of the debate.

      Pretty piss weak really.

  • Druk

    So I was going back through all this, and decided to go and check out the Cabbie’s site to see if anything had happened since.

    Two main parts to mention:
    1) Johann’s debate announcement indeed admits the same thing that Paul claims: that the debate “will have three exchanges, with me (Johann) going first”.

    2) Johann has a part 4 on his site where he claims that “Paul Elam quit in a huff”. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I could have sworn I just linked to him agreeing to there being 3 parts to the debate. But then he did post Paul’s part 3 response, so that counts for something.