A:     It is ironic isn’t it? The banning of “India’s Daughter” has done one positive thing; it has insured that everyone will watch the documentary, at least those who are man enough to do it. Have you seen how the women rights debate has been reignited all over the world, asking for redefinition of rape.

S:     Classic Ameen; support women equality and use a gender stereotype in the same sentence. “Man enough”. You are the picture of political correctness.

A:     Classic Sadiq, chase behind linguistic semantics and ignore the intentions of the speaker. You know what I meant, it things like these which make the feminist movement so polarising. I asked you a question because you are a lawyer; now answer me, what is this redefinition of rape business?

S:     Touché. I liked that one. As for this ‘redefinition business’, I think it is a great idea, one that may work to actually get the people charged for rape behind bars. See a crime has two elements, both of which need to be proved in court; the ‘actus reus’, the physical act of the crime, and the ‘mens rea’ the mental state of the accused or objective behind the action. A conviction for rape requires proof of the physical act of intercourse, or some lesser actions in some harassment cases. It also has to prove that the victim did not consent. Right now the burden to prove non-consent lies on the victim, a redefinition would assume non-consent if the victim claims non-consent, while the burden is on the accused to prove that his actions were consensual.

A:     That doesn’t sound right. It is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”, yes? Wouldn’t this lead to injustice? Any person who has consensual intercourse with another can suddenly stand up and start crying rape, just to get the other convicted, under serious sentences, I might add. I have myself seen countless cases of people using rape or sexual harassment charges to hide affairs, settle scores and even gain publicity sometimes. How is this good thing?

S:     Because it evens some of the odds stacked against women in courts. The women has to prove non-consent, relive all of the horrible acts inside a court full of people, while the defence can shamelessly sling mud on the woman’s “character”. If she has had relationships before, or she spends her time outside the house, then she was probably consenting to it. It is disgusting, at least the rapist won’t get off easily, the innocent ones will have to rely on evidence, sounds like a fair deal to me.