One great thing about developed and enlightened societies is; the people are smarter and when there is a hovering problem or misconception, they quickly fix it—to protect victims and to be able to throw into jail smart predators…

If you’ve lived in any developed nation before, it would certainly be difficult to live in a developing nation, thereafter—because the latter would come up as a jungle, a forest of lawlessness full of people who just refuse to reason.

According to new UK rules which come as part of a ‘tool kit’ to fight the crime of rape in the 21^st century, the old useless adage-“silence means consent” has long been ditched and men must prove that a woman actually said YES to s*x—lack of her express refusal does not mean consent.

By default, consent is implied by many people when a woman does not really say NO—and this brings to mind the many lousy arguments of screaming, shouting and fighting back that many made in the KKD alleged rape case.

Of course, in developed countries like the UK no reasonable person would make such an assumption or argument—or else, you would find your lame butt in jail as a rapists one day.

Even that, the state has expressly turn this into a rule so that women would be more protected—and also end the ‘blaming’ of the victim by society culture.

Speaking on this issue, the Director of Public Prosecutions-Alison Saunders said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no” to recognise situations where women may have been unable to give consent.

Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society “if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze and say nothing because they are terrified of their attacker. Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so” reports the Telegraph. Even before this rule, UK judges were already thinking along this line…

Mrs Saunders added that; “For too long society has blamed rape victims for confusing the issue of consent – by drinking or dressing provocatively for example – but it is not they who are confused, it is society itself and we must challenge that. Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area – in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely. It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink.

These tools take us well beyond the old saying ‘no means no’ – it is now well established that many rape victims freeze rather than fight as a protective and coping mechanism. We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue – how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?”

This is where it gets interesting and may give you a chance to re-think the recent KKD alleged rape case. According to the Newspaper, Mrs Saunders, who was speaking at the first National Crown Prosecution Service/Police Conference on Rape Investigations and Prosecutions in London, said the guidance should not only cover situations where someone is incapacitated through drink or drugs, but also where “a suspect held a position of power over the potential victim – as a teacher, an employer, a doctor or a fellow gang member”. And I will add; a CELEBRITY.

I bet this way of thinking and rules will reach Ghana a century later—and as such, people will continue to take advantage of women who will then become victims under the harsh ignorant criticism of society.

If we cannot reason to run a simple effective bus system and tackle congestion or our filth problems, how can we reason to this level of conformity and smartness?