Catcalling is now a 'hate crime' - UK Police Force

cannex · 17-07-2016 04:02AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You agree with police and garda introducing legislation now ?

What bloody legislation? Whos introducing legislation? The hate crime law already exists, it is now extended to harassment of women for simply being women.

If you feel hard done by trying to interpret "a new law" that unfairly targets men who want to chat to girls in bars without fear of being arrested then maybe this black and white, reactionary thinking is the issue here.

mysogyny is now included in a law that already exists.
ie, being targeted in an aggressive, sexual and intimidating manner simply because of being female. NOT being chatted up in a bar. FFS

Sorry love, but the research does not show that men experience the same level of unwated verbal contact from women, simply for being men.

And before you demand links and proof of my statement go do your own research. I have already done mine.

cannex · 17-07-2016 04:06AM

NOBODY said that women cant be just as violent as men.

So there needs to be more awareness of how skewed the system is when it views women as being incapable of being violent. I am well aware of that.
There are thousands of examples of women getting lesser sentences simply because they are women.
Or women pretending that the man made them do it.

Yes, it sucks for men how messed up that is.
Obviously!!

This addition to the hate crime list is just an addition and you are mad to think this means chatting up a girl. Come on!

You know society seeing women as not being as violent as men is skewed and sexist too, against men obviously.

Comparing one to the other does not make one more or less irrelevant than the other.

17-07-2016 04:08AM

cannex wrote: »

I'm actually ridiculing your interpretation of it.

The law should only ever be interpreted literally as its written.

So if two people can look at it and get different meanings, it needs to be rewritten. Strangely though, that's not the case.. It's spelled out perfectly clearly but you're actively just ignoring it.

There's only one sane interpretation of it. And you're ridiculing it.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 04:10AM

cannex wrote: »

I'm actually ridiculing your interpretation of it.

There is no new law.

Mysogyny is now included in the previous law that covers harassment.

There has been no new law folks.

You are mistaken. The existing hate crime legislation will now be applied to mysogynistic behavior. That equals a new interpretation of the law. It is in effect now.

The issue is the opacity of mysogynistic behavior. This legislation clearly states unwanted communication. This includes verbal, text message, email.

If you cannot see the issue with this then perhaps, just perhaps you should not be involved in defending a law you think isn't in force and is entirely just, as long as you feel safe.

You are so wrong yet you keep going. Imagine this utopia. You could create a law so you don't have to hear men telling you you are wrong.

Wait. They just did.

17-07-2016 04:17AM

FortySeven wrote: »

Imagine this utopia. You could create a law so you don't have to hear men telling you you are wrong.

Wait. They just did.

No No No No No. You're wrong! You're so stupid!

cannex has already explained to us that the law is only there to make her feel safe. We have absolutely nothing to worry about because judges only go on the general idea of laws.

We're fine. The law is fine. Everything is fine.

cannex · 17-07-2016 04:17AM

FortySeven wrote: »

You are mistaken. The existing hate crime legislation will now be applied to mysogynistic behavior. That equals a new interpretation of the law. It is in effect now.

The issue is the opacity of mysogynistic behavior. This legislation clearly states unwanted communication. This includes verbal, text message, email.

If you cannot see the issue with this then perhaps, just perhaps you should not be involved in defending a law you think isn't in force and is entirely just, as long as you feel safe.

You are so wrong yet you keep going. Imagine this utopia. You could create a law so you don't have to hear men telling you you are wrong.

Wait. They just did.

So do you think the cops in nottinghamshire police are going to arrest some guy for an unwanted email or text?
Or perhaps, just maybe it might require a serious complaint?

Talk about trivialising something to the point that you are now telling me that I want a law where men cant tell me I'm wrong?
Really?

Also this law does not apply to all of the UK, just one area, nottinghamshire.

So let me get this straight, guys are freaking out because it is unfair for men to be targeted just for being men?

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 04:26AM

cannex wrote: »

So do you think the cops in nottinghamshire police are going to arrest some guy for an unwanted email or text?
Or perhaps, just maybe it might require a serious complaint?

Talk about trivialising something to the point that you are now telling me that I want a law where men cant tell me I'm wrong?
Really?

Also this law does not apply to all of the UK, just one area, nottinghamshire.

So let me get this straight, guys are freaking out because it is unfair for men to be targeted just for being men?

No. Guys are freaking out because even though women already hold all the legal power when it comes to relationships. Some joker decided to put an appallingly written piece of legislation on the statute book that effectively makes it a hate crime to attempt to communicate with a women by any means should that woman not want it. How is a man to know? Even asking if it is ok to communicate is communicating. Therefore, technically a breach. It is retrospective judgement and it cannot be mitigated.

You keep interpreting this law to suit your argument but it is very clearly written.

They don't call it ' the letter of the law' for fun.

17-07-2016 04:29AM

cannex wrote: »

So do you think the cops in nottinghamshire police are going to arrest some guy for an unwanted email or text?
Or perhaps, just maybe it might require a serious complaint?

The problem is that now they can.

cannex wrote: »

Talk about trivialising something to the point that you are now telling me that I want a law where men cant tell me I'm wrong?
Really?

You're sitting in a cafe in Nottinghamshire with a friend discussing how great this new law is. I'm getting a coffee and on my way out say, "I think you're wrong because I don't think it's a good law".

That's illegal because it's unlikely you wanted to be contacted. But only because I'm a man.

cannex · 17-07-2016 04:38AM

Hate crime lads.

Do you understand the definition of a hate crime?

Speaking to women is still not a crime.

And how is a guy to know.

Well, can you tell the difference when someone says something to you that is degrading and intimidating?

Thats how you know.

And once again I agree with you that women do hold too much power in the court system and being seen as victims when they are clearly the agressor in a lot of cases, your story of course.

But seriously, this is directly from the nottinghamshire police website:

"The event included testimonials by victims of misogynistic hate crime and examples of British Transport Police’s marketing and Hollaback UK’s campaign work.

Misogyny hate crime, in addition to the general hate crime definition, may be understood as incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

Examples of this may include unwanted or uninvited sexual advances; physical or verbal assault; unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement; use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent or permission."

There has been over two years of research, projects, training and it was implemented by two male senior police.
Do you think they have it out for themselves too?

That is your so called letter of the law.

A hate crime, lets define it here FFS
Is experiencing, fear, intimidation, humiliation and being degraded because of who you are.

That is not speaking to a women in a cafe.

Such a basic understanding of a hate crime and how mysogyny fits into this is not the same as approaching, speaking to and chatting up a woman.

Come on!

17-07-2016 04:53AM

I'm going to leave this thread before I punch my screen.

Well done cannex. You won the argument through sheer brute force and relentless ignorance.

cannex · 17-07-2016 04:56AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm going to leave this thread before I punch my screen.

Well done cannex. You won the argument through sheer brute force and relentless ignorance.

Yay!

Lets see, approx 2 women on this whole thread. I see that you view this new addition to the hate crimes law as unfair but the reality is that your version of feeling persecuted for talking to a woman is not the same as mysogyny.

Unfortuately yours and every other guys reaction is so black and white its disturbing.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 05:09AM

cannex wrote: »

Yay!

Lets see, approx 2 women on this whole thread. I see that you view this new addition to the hate crimes law as unfair but the reality is that your version of feeling persecuted for talking to a woman is not the same as mysogyny.

Unfortuately yours and every other guys reaction is so black and white its disturbing.

LInk ?

cannex · 17-07-2016 05:12AM

look yourself lazyboy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/13/nottinghamshire-police-becomes-first-force-to-record-misogyny-as/
"Sarah Green, acting director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: “We welcome this because it comes off the local police force talking to and listening to local women’s groups. What we are talking about is not trivial behaviour – some harassment that women and girls receive in public is upsetting and should have the attention of the authorities.”

She added: “Police in Nottingham have not changed the law but they have listened to local women who said the behaviour bothered them. Together, they are recording it so they can monitor it and look back on who is doing it and where it happens.”

What you did do is react to a clickbait, ill-informed sensationlist headline from the USA.

Night night boys. mwah!

selastich2 · 17-07-2016 08:12AM

Let's hope they don't re-run the diet coke ad where the guy takes off his shirt

Special Circumstances · 17-07-2016 09:14AM

What if a nonbinary person is catcalled by an economic migrant from a country where women are actual second class citizens due to religion/culture?

Does the application of this new policy depend on if the person felt predominantly female at the time?
Is the catcalling trumped by respect for more enriched cultures?

selastich2 · 17-07-2016 09:21AM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

What if a nonbinary person is catcalled by an economic migrant from a country where women are actual second class citizens due to religion/culture?

Does the application of this new policy depend on if the person felt predominantly female at the time?
Is the catcalling trumped by respect for more enriched cultures?

The 10 hours walking in NY video was predominantly filmed in black and hispanic neighbourhoods. a male model made one, he got just as much abuse as the female. A gay man tried it, he got the same. a woman in a burka tried in, she got no abuse.

Moral of the story, wear a burka

Special Circumstances · 17-07-2016 09:46AM

selastich2 wrote: »

The 10 hours walking in NY video was predominantly filmed in black and hispanic neighbourhoods. a male model made one, he got just as much abuse as the female. A gay man tried it, he got the same. a woman in a burka tried in, she got no abuse.

Moral of the story, wear a burka

I do enjoy the "white male privilege" 10 hours of compliments one.
"Hey harvard! You wanna job?"
"Why don't we carry you on a chair like a king?"
Happens me all the time.

SEPT 23 1989 · 17-07-2016 10:07AM

Thank God I know real women who would find this rubbish just as amusing as I do

Two Tone · 17-07-2016 10:22AM

selastich2 wrote: »

Let's hope they don't re-run the diet coke ad where the guy takes off his shirt

As I said, I think this being a hate crime is laughable, but can any other example besides that one - an ad that's nearly 20 years old - be given to demonstrate a double standard? It's getting a bit old (literally).

selastich2 · 17-07-2016 10:34AM

Two Tone wrote: »

As I said, I think this being a hate crime is laughable, but can any other example besides that one - an ad that's nearly 20 years old - be given to demonstrate a double standard? It's getting a bit old (literally).

i already gave the example of women harassing young waiters in restaurants

seen as you like your viral videos how about this one, that caused controversary, only because the men hit back?

TRIGGER WARNING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvRYEo8EFkc

Wasn't there another viral video of woman hit man, croed doesn;t react. man hits woman, everyone goes spare?

17-07-2016 10:42AM

selastich2 wrote: »

Wasn't there another viral video of woman hit man, croed doesn;t react. man hits woman, everyone goes spare?

And rightly so.

A man hitting a woman shouldn't just be hit back, he should have a few fingers bent back until they audibly break.

A woman hitting a man? Well boo hoo...blub blub... Man up and take it or put up a hand to block it.

Mod: Banned

FishOnABike · 17-07-2016 10:44AM

FortySeven wrote: »

I was beaten and kicked by my stepdaughter while my partner held me from behind. When it got to the top of the stairs and I thought I was going down them I reached behind me and pulled her off me by the hair. I could have beat the two of them had I chosen to, instead I left the home. 2 weeks later I was in court facing a barring order. The judge heard from my partner that I was attacked and then I pulled her hair. Judge gave her a protection order.

That was 5 years ago.

This is why even seemingly neutral laws on paper can be particularly insidious if they are not enforced and prosecuted in a neutral manner. When a chief constable openly expresses a clear bias in the enforcement of the law it is time for them to consider their position.

selastich2 · 17-07-2016 10:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And rightly so.

A man hitting a woman shouldn't just be hit back, he should have a few fingers bent back until they audibly break.

A woman hitting a man? Well boo hoo...blub blub... Man up and take it or put up a hand to block it.

because being the weaker sex they can''t be expect to know better?

Is that the reason?

conorhal · 17-07-2016 10:50AM

December2012 wrote: »

Delighted this is happening.

Catcalling is humiliating and degrading. It is not a way to start a conversation or engage with a person. It's not even a way to chat up a person.

I've always thought that the kind of people who whistle and holler 'Heyyyyyy Bayyyybeee!" at women in the street are bellends. But if being a bellend is now a crime we're going to have bigger shortage of prison cells then we do social housing.

17-07-2016 11:04AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And rightly so.

A man hitting a woman shouldn't just be hit back, he should have a few fingers bent back until they audibly break.

A woman hitting a man? Well boo hoo...blub blub... Man up and take it or put up a hand to block it.

Hahaha!
Yes obviously women don't realise in their pretty little minds what they are actually doing?
Time of the month is partly to blame?
We should block and explain, "miss you aren't going to hurt me because I have a brain and a cock".

Man up, and dish out what is done to you without provocation.

selastich2 · 17-07-2016 11:07AM

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Hahaha!
Yes obviously women don't realise in their pretty little minds what they are actually doing?
Time of the month is partly to blame?
We should block and explain, "miss you aren't going to hurt me because I have a brain and a cock".

Man up, and dish out what is done to you without provocation.

In the PI section of this very forum, a woman assaulting a man was excused as "maybe she saw it in a film"

RandomName2 · 17-07-2016 11:08AM

My name is URL wrote: »

Categorising it as a hate crime is idiotic in the extreme

Categorising anything as a hate crime is pretty idiotic imo. How many crimes are committed out of love?

What use is slapping the modifier "hate" onto "crime". Because it is a different order of offence? Because it allows one to more readily identify ne'er-do-wells? I agree with you that it is absurd in the extreme to term something "hate" where there is no hate involved (the problem is that catcalling is offensive, not hateful).

But why would emotion ever play a part in the labelling of a crime? Burglaries are very often the most hate-filled (highlighted in cases where burglars defecate on victims' carpets or furniture), but that would never be labelled a hate-crime because idiocy.

Fr_Dougal · 17-07-2016 11:13AM

cannex wrote: »

look yourself lazyboy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/13/nottinghamshire-police-becomes-first-force-to-record-misogyny-as/
"Sarah Green, acting director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: “We welcome this because it comes off the local police force talking to and listening to local women’s groups. What we are talking about is not trivial behaviour – some harassment that women and girls receive in public is upsetting and should have the attention of the authorities.”

She added: “Police in Nottingham have not changed the law but they have listened to local women who said the behaviour bothered them. Together, they are recording it so they can monitor it and look back on who is doing it and where it happens.”

What you did do is react to a clickbait, ill-informed sensationlist headline from the USA.

Night night boys. mwah!

The attitude in your posts is a bit unsettling, but thanks for highlighting the emboldened.

diomed · 17-07-2016 11:16AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

This newly appointed police constable, should be shown her p45.

http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/styles/police_profile/public/profiles/photos/CC_Sue_Fish-8.jpg?itok=0YKykRZ8

Two Tone · 17-07-2016 11:25AM

selastich2 wrote: »

i already gave the example of women harassing young waiters in restaurants

seen as you like your viral videos how about this one, that caused controversary, only because the men hit back?

TRIGGER WARNING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvRYEo8EFkc

Wasn't there another viral video of woman hit man, croed doesn;t react. man hits woman, everyone goes spare?

Other men help propagate this sh-t, it's not always women who are to blame. I and other women find it loathsome when it's considered fair game to abuse men. Not apologising for idiotic, vapid women who endorse it (nor should the normal majority of men feel compelled to apologise for men who have sh-t attitudes towards women).

Catcalling is now a 'hate crime' - UK Police Force

Comments