New law in Nation of Bastards Iceland means rape accused must prove they had explicit consent

ICELAND’S PARLIAMENT RECENTLY passed a landmark bill, which makes sexual relations with a person illegal unless you have their explicit consent.

Under the new law, consent must be clearly and voluntarily expressed.

It represents a shift in the country’s legislation, as it places the consent burden on the accused – rather than the court focusing on whether the victim said ‘no’ or tried to fight back, the accused will have to prove the other person consented.

The legislation passed unanimously in the parliament on 23 March now states that:

Any person who has sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with a person without his or her consent shall be guilty of rape and shall be imprisoned for a minimum of one year and a maximum of 16 years.
Consent is considered present if it is expressed by free will. Consent is not considered present if violence, threats, or other unlawful coercion is used. ‘Violence’ here refers to the deprivation of independence by means of confinement, drugs, or other comparable means.
It is also considered rape and shall result in the same punishment as specified in the first paragraph of this Article to employ false pretences or utilize a persons‘s lack of understanding concerning circumstances, or exploit a person’s psychiatric disorder or other mental handicap in order to have sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with him or her, or the fact that, for other reasons, he or she is not in a condition to be able to resist the action or to understand its significance.

Jón Steindór Valdmarsson, an opposition MP in Iceland’s Reform party, proposed the legislative change. His party only has four seats in the parliament, but his bill received overwhelming support.

He told it is an important amendment to Icelandic law as it makes it “clear and explicit that sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with a person without his or her consent is rape”.

“I believe this change will have significant impact and is an important step in reducing sex-related violence against women.”

Sweden is also proposing a radical change of its laws around consent. The government has proposed the introduction of two new offences, ‘negligent rape’ and ‘negligent sexual abuse’, with a maximum prison sentence of four years.

“The negligence aspect focuses on the fact that the other person did not participate voluntarily. This means that it will be possible to convict more people of abuse than at present, for example, when someone should be aware of the risk that the other person is not participating voluntarily but still engages in a sexual act with that person,” the Swedish government said in December last year.

“It sends out the message that everyone is entitled to control their own sexual engagement and no one can be entitled to have sex with another person under any circumstances without her consent expressed by free will.”

It is proposed that the legislative amendments enter into force on 1 July this year.

Burden of proof

Following the public interest and commentary after the Belfast rape trial last month, Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan launched a review of the legal protection offered to complainants in sexual assault cases.

The Department of Justice said legal representation for victims is one issue that will be examined as part of this review.

“Among the other issues that will be examined are the existing legislation, maintaining the integrity of the trial process in Irish law, what offences might be covered and within what legal aid framework it might be provided,” a spokesperson said.

Chief executive of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre Noeline Blackwell said the inclusion of legal representation for complainants in rape cases is welcome, as it will provide a more equal opportunity for both sides where consent is contested.

However, she said she hopes the Minister will also take the opportunity with this review to look at legislative changes and initiatives other countries, like Iceland, have introduced to tackle levels of sexual assault.

“This would be shifting the onus of proof and that is quite the stretch for our system as it stands right now,” she said of the Icelandic law.

“Shifting the onus from the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to putting the burden on the person accused to prove they got consent.

“That would be a very big step for our common law system to take. Here a person is innocent until proven guilty, in the Icelandic legislation, it moves more towards guilty until proven innocent.”

Blackwell said this would be an “enormous” change to Ireland’s criminal law and could raise constitutional questions.

“But in the review, it’s worth looking at – this is where we could go. Is there a middle ground?”


Police stymied in pursuing Canada’s jihadists

Jihadists and terrorists are actively planning attacks in Canada, according to a new report from the Trudeau government.

Meanwhile, our law enforcement agencies claim that red tape and legal loopholes are stopping them from protecting Canadians.

On Thursday, the Federal Department of Public Safety released a report demonstrating that several terrorist groups and their supporters are active in Canada.

The chilling report tells us what we have long suspected.

We are, by no means, immune to the turmoil and bloodshed of jihadist insurgents.

At least 180 individuals with a connection to Canada are overseas fighting alongside terrorist organizations. That’s up from 130 known terrorists in 2015.

But those individuals aren’t necessarily the problem for Canada right now. A far greater security concern is the jihadists who are here in Canada.

The report discusses two types of terrorists in Canada: wannabe jihadists who have had their passports removed and therefore cannot travel to places like Syria and Iraq, and those who already went overseas to fight for the terrorists but have since returned to Canada.

Despite having significant information about these dangerous jihadists, there are major roadblocks in laying criminal charges and convicting both types of terrorists.

First, let’s look at the jihadists who are grounded in Canada.

Both men who murdered members of the Canadian Forces in Quebec and Ontario in October, 2014 were prohibited from leaving Canada.

So was Aaron Driver, killed by the RCMP in Strathroy, Ontario earlier this month.

In all three cases, the individuals were known and even monitored by authorities.

But this was not enough to stop them from planning deadly attacks.

Despite receiving significant information from agencies such as CSIS and the FBI, the RCMP are often powerless to act.

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mike Cabana told CTV News Thursday that police receive information about violent jihadists, but they “cannot proceed with criminal charges” because of legal limitations placed on them by our court system.

Known terrorists are able to plan attacks and recruit new members because our law enforcement officials are bogged down with legal technicalities that prevent them from doing their job.

The second terrorist threat to Canada is from returned foreign fighters.

The Paris attacks, as well as the Brussels airport bombing, were carried out, in part, by jihadists who had travelled to Syria and then returned home to Europe.

There are about 60 known returned foreign fighters in Canada, according to the federal government’s report.

And yet, in most cases, these individuals are living freely in Canada, without any criminal charges.

Our authorities simply don’t know what to do with them.

According to Larry Brooks, a former CSIS counter-terrorism official, it’s tough to prove to a Canadian judge that an individual participated in terrorism overseas.

In an interview with Postmedia, Brooks discussed the challenges of gathering incriminating information from a foreign combat zone.

“It’s tremendously difficult to collect credible evidence that would satisfy a Canadian court for prosecution,” said Brooks.

Believing in an extreme Islamist doctrine is not illegal.

Nor should it be, in a free society.

But traveling overseas or attempting to travel overseas to join a foreign army is against the law.

We need to remove legal loopholes that allow terrorists to stay out of jail, and we need to give police and prosecutors the tools they need to charge and convict terrorists who have broken Canadian laws.

Our safety and security depend on it.

Islam party in Belgium wants to create an Islamic State and separate men and women

For the second time in 6 years the ‘Islam’ party will participate in Belgium’s municipal elections. The party wants to create an Islamic State and separate men and women in public transport, Belgian newspaper HLN reports.

“Our goal is a 100% Islamic State, but we don’t mean we want to oblige the headscarf,” the party’s founder Redouane Ahrouch says. “By establishing Sharia law we want to follow the way of the prophet and the Quran”, he adds.

The Islam party clearly focuses on conservative Muslims and already has two members elected as a result of the 2012 elections. This year it will participate in 28 municipalities.

Ahrouch says he wants to reach the party’s goals “without violating the Belgian constitution”. It is unclear how he wants to do this as the party wants to separate men and women in public transport.

Belgium’s state secretary of immigration, Theo Francken, says the party “disgusts” him. On Twitter he writes:

“A political party called ‘ISLAM’ is growing in Belgium. They openly call for the introduction of Shariah law. The Shariah is in violation with human rights. Shariah parties therefore are antidemocratic. These are wolves in sheep’s clothing.” #Soumission


“Classic example of taqqiya: these Islamists want to install a ‘100% Islamic state’ in our country, but ‘without touching the constitution’. Impossible lies. I wonder what their off camera campaign looks like.”

Experts say the party could score because a lot of left-wing parties with Muslim candidates are losing popularity among Moroccan and Turkish voters. The name of the Islam party could also encourage Muslims to vote for it, because of its well-recognised ideas.