The interrogation of a victim who was accused in court of “consenting” to sex with an adult when she was 12 years old has placed New Zealand’s sexual assault laws in the spotlight, with advocates pushing for a total overhaul.
The offender, Tulisi Leiataua, was found guilty this week of 33 charges of sexual abuse against two girls. His youngest victim was 8 years old when the abuse began. Both victims faced two weeks of gruelling cross-examination, and it was the nature of Leiataua’s defence, rather than the trial’s final outcome, that prompted outcry among New Zealand advocates.
Leiataua argued during the trial that his assault on one of the girls, who was 12 at the time of the attacks, was “consensual”, that she had “pursued” him, and that it was therefore not rape.
His defence utilised an element of New Zealand’s laws not widely understood by the public – that while the age of consent is broadly 16 years in New Zealand, consent is still a legal defence available to those charged with sexual violation by rape. Advocates say that should change, to ensure that children cannot be regarded as consenting parties to sexual activity with adults.
“There definitely needs to be change,” said Kathryn McPhillips, executive director of sexual abuse organisation HELP. She said it was “immoral to be putting those ideas forward that a child could consent … It’s way out of sync with what the general population thinks our law is.”
Let’s take a deeper look at the “nature of Tulisi’s defense.”
“You were scared because you didn’t want anyone to know you were having consensual sexual intercourse with an older man. The only reason you reported this was because you were forced to, you felt ashamed and regretful, this is the truth isn’t it,” Panama Le’au’anae put it to the now 24-year-old woman in the Manukau District Court earlier today.
It was an allegation the woman, who has automatic name suppression, was quick to refute.
“I didn’t say anything straight away because I thought no one would believe me.”
Le’au’anae is defending Samoan national Tulisi Leiataua who was extradited to New Zealand toTulisi Leiataua stand trial on 33 sexual abuse charges, six of which are in relation to a child under 12.
It’s alleged the now 45-year-old abused two girls over a period of four years. The girls were aged between 10 and 12 when it allegedly started in 2010.
“It all started when I was 12, he would bribe me with treats, comment on my body and would tell me how he will marry me when I’m older.
“But now I realize it was him trying to have a beneficial relationship with me, I was just a kid and I was scared.”
I’m going to make what should be the least controversial statement in all of human history. If you’re bribing your romantic interest with sweets, you’re probably a pedophile. Real men give our romantic interests alcohol. And no, that’s not carte blanche to start giving twelve year olds alcohol either. I’m just saying that if you can attract her with candy, she’s probably too young for you, or anyone else.
Leiataua was found guilty in Manukau District Court of four counts of sexual violation by rape, three counts of an indecent act with a young person, one count of indecent assault, 10 counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, seven counts of other sexual violations, two counts of other assault on a child and six charges of an indecent act on a child.
Layba Zubair, a 17-year-old advocate and campaigner, has launched a petition to parliament for an overhaul of New Zealand’s consent laws, arguing that “the definition of consent in our current laws does not reflect the necessity for free and voluntary agreement at the time of the act”.
She said New Zealand’s legislation needed an urgent review, and the country could consider affirmative consent laws such as those introduced in New South Wales this year. “The fact that our consent laws don’t even have a definition for consent, and the fact that our laws don’t protect people as young as 12-year-olds, it’s just horrifying,” she said.
Zubair said she was appalled that lawyers could argue a 12-year-old can give consent. “A lawyer is trying to do their job,” she said, “but the fact that the law allows them to make that argument and the fact that the law supports them … is disgusting.”
I had to write this piece for two reasons. First, there was a bit of a misconception going around that the judge was making up the argument on behalf of the defense. Nothing could be further from the truth, despite what this site says. Fake news is a real problem, and clownworld is bad enough as it is. I’m not standing for being discredited through association with Alex Jones wannabes, who are more interested in talking about gay frogs than sterilized children.
Secondly, children cannot consent to sex. This is obviously true, and it’s disgusting to even entertain any debate. But children also cannot consent to trannyism, even if that means making a “social transition,” where these groomers make it a part of the childs identity that they’re secretly a tranny, and give them a male or female name.
The truth is, as horrifying as child rape is, if the child is not physically damaged, that’s less of a crime than the permanent sterilization done through “hormonal therapy.” And yet, despite this being objectively less bad, although still horrific, only the most committed of pedos are trying to normalize child rape.
Really gets the noggin joggin.