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

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 05:50PM

Aurum wrote: »

If a person is going to be tried for a crime that trial is based on existing criminal legislation and case law. A judge will not consider the interpretation of this law by the Nottingham Police Department to be particularly relevant. A person can't be guilty of a crime just because they committed an otherwise non-criminal act in Nottingham.

Yes they can, if it is proven it was done out of misogyny. It is then a hate crime and can be dealt with in various ways including asbos, termination of tenancy etc. Or court.

It's all on the police force website.

Aurum · 17-07-2016 06:04PM

FortySeven wrote: »

Yes they can, if it is proven it was done out of misogyny. It is then a hate crime and can be dealt with in various ways including asbos, termination of tenancy etc. Or court.

It's all on the police force website.

A hate crime in the UK is not just an act that was sexist, racist etc. It has to be a criminal act that was motivated by this. The hate crime part means that a person can be sentenced more severely because of their motivation. Something like an unwanted approach is not a crime so the motivation is irrelevant. They can't be tried for anything. One police department in one city cannot change the law.

There is a pretty comprehensive guide, including the difference between a hate incident and hate crime in the UK, on Citizens Advice and the official website.

17-07-2016 08:35PM

Tombi! wrote: »

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say context might be relevant?
Asking your one at the bus stop if she'd like to grab lunch isn't going to get you nicked.
Telling your one at the bus stop she has a nice pair on her, that might get you in trouble.

But sure feck it, let's all have a go at the women.

The thing is Tombi though it depends on the person or 'victim' in question and their level of tolerance. By and large 99% of women are decent and will use their common sense but there is always one nutcase who will love to dramatise things.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 08:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing is Tombi though it depends on the person or 'victim' in question and their level of tolerance. By and large 99% of women are decent and will use their common sense but there is always one nutcase who will love to dramatise things.

I wager this has spread around and now we will be seeing criminal cases from colleges. There are plenty of people looking to take offence and this laws interpretation gives them power.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 08:57PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I wager this has spread around and now we will be seeing criminal cases from colleges. There are plenty of people looking to take offence and this laws interpretation gives them power.

The college started it with the aid of women's charity. They wrote the study and were involved in the police training. The gender studies department no doubt.

Letree · 17-07-2016 09:03PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

On a mental level, I totally agree with you that nobody has the right to beat another person. It's utterly hypocritical that our society tends to deem a female-on-male slap in the face relatively acceptable.

Nevertheless, that video you posted get's super-uncomfortable at 1:55, when the male on female violence starts.

You cannot ignore (and feminists should not ignore) the reality that men tend to be stronger, and hit harder, than women. Women are the weaker sex, in general. I couldn't even watch the whole of the video, so extreme was the difference between the violence perpetrated by women and that perpetrated by men. in every case (until I stopped the video), the women were knocked to the ground, whereas men were only ever 'slapped'.

Violence is never okay, but I think we have to be pragmatic, and say that male violence against women usually deserves special stigma.

I wouldn't get into a ring with Katie Taylor, mind you, but on the same basis, she wouldn't have a chance against a fairly average male professional.

There's quite a good illustration of this in tennis.

Jannick Noah once played a tennis match against Justine Hennan, whilst he wore a dress. He mostly played trick shots and slices, according to reports, and still he beat her (...in the sporting sense, you understand).

The point being, that male on female violence deserves its stigmatic status in our society. It's not unlike a grown 'tank' of a man beating up a slinky teenager. It's almost nauseating to see it.

Don't hit another human being would be a good starting point for both genders. If you do decide to hit another person don't be surprised at getting hit back.

steddyeddy · 18-07-2016 02:19PM

Aurum wrote: »

As I said before, hate crime is relevant when there is a criminal act combined with a specific form of motivation. It was committed because the person was of a specific race, disabled etc. The reason, I would imagine, that gender is not included in official hate crime legislation in the UK is because it would be very difficult to prove that a crime was carried out purely because the victim was a woman.

First you say why hate crime would hard to prove and then.......

However, women are disproportionately, and more severely affected, by sexual
harassment, so it was incorporated into the hate crime provision in Nottingham
as a way of highlighting this and gathering more data, and perhaps to act as a
deterrent

You go onto give the reasons why a woman and not gender is incorporated into the hate crime provision. The primary reason in your eyes seems to be that there's A) more women affected by this and

women are affected more severely.

First of all the number of racist/sexist attacks does not correlate to how wrong or distressing something is. You cannot legislate for one race, gender without being sexist or racist.

Racist attacks are occurring in the UK following the Brexit vote. The large amount of these seem to be against Muslim men and women. We can't exclude a minority from the law because members of that race, sex or ethnicity make up the minority of people affected by sexism or racism.

I'll mention again, no one will be prosecuted as a result of this change.

The reason why hate crime provisions would almost never work for men is because it would be incredibly rare for a man to be criminally injured by a woman purely because of the man's gender (rather than during an argument etc.) Certainly not frequently enough to require specific legal protection

Again the problem is the wording in bold. You can make gender discrimination a hate crime and race discrimination but you cannot sensibly make legislation for one race or gender.

18-07-2016 09:23PM

Aurum wrote: »

If a person is going to be tried for a crime that trial is based on existing criminal legislation and case law. A judge will not consider the interpretation of this law by the Nottingham Police Department to be particularly relevant.

You missed the whole point.

This isn't about judicial interpretation in the first instance, it's about prosecution. At present, most reasonable people might have assumed that such an allegation would be 'filtered out' by the police and would never get to court.

For clarity, there are two serious issues at hand.

First of all, the very fact that the Police intend to charge men with 'hate crimed' for verbally communicating with women in this way carries its own stigma, regardless of the conviction. Imagine going for a job interview and being asked, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, or are there any criminal charges pending against you before the courts?", and having to disclose that you have a hate crime charge pending.

Or imagine the headline, in this era of google, "Nottingham man prosecuted for hate crime" with your name and address in the by-line.

Secondly, the courts are, to an extent, at the mercy of the Police and the CPS in terms of the cases that appear before the courts. Judges in the lower courts (magistrates' courts and youth courts) don't have the same 'public policy' latitude that exists in the higher courts of England, they are expected to find cases 'on the facts', and do not tend to engage with the public policy dimensions of a case, since they do not establish precedents. The 'public policy' role, i.e. the advisability of bringing a prosecution, is left to the Prosecution, which at magistrates' level is handled in practice by the Police.

In conclusion, the Police play a significant role in determining the type of prosecutions that do, and do not, tend to appear before the courts in light of their 'policy' role in the lower (magistrates' and youth) courts. Therefore, their interpretation of criminal offences is of significant importance, and should not be dismissed.

Mrs Shuttleworth · 19-07-2016 06:42PM

This diktat discriminates directly against heterosexual men.

Furthermore, the "recording" aspect of the new protocol means that opposite gender interactions, even where no underlying criminal offence has been committed, will be logged, recorded and stored, which is outside the Police's existing remit and jurisdiction.

Mrs Shuttleworth · 19-07-2016 06:52PM

Stigura wrote: »

" Examples of misogyny hate crime include unwanted or uninvited verbal contact or engagement. "

I'm just fcuking speechless!!! " uninvited verbal contact ". That's what it says. Right there. You can now be arrested, In Nottingham, for asking a woman at a bus stop when the next fcuking bus is due!!!

FFFS!!! Any areas frequented by snowflakes students will now become no go zones for men ~ unless ye walk around staring at the ground and with ye lips tightly sealed.

Life didn't used to be like this

That's what cougars are for.

Mrs Shuttleworth · 19-07-2016 06:55PM

mohawk wrote: »

Catcalling is not a pleasant experience in most cases you just brush it off. It's when the guy turns on you when you ignore him or reject him that the line is crossed.

What kind of a world is this?

I've always enjoyed being told I have great tits.

Am I supposed to be upset?

Mrs Shuttleworth · 19-07-2016 06:57PM

osarusan wrote: »

If I understand the hate crime law correctly, the prosecution would still have to prove that any act was motivated by hatred of or hostility toward women.

So I think the fear of going to prison for just asking a woman the time at a bus stop or even using a risque chat-up line is fairly groundless.

I do agree though that I can't see what it is this law would criminalise that isn't already considered illegal. "Threatening, abusive or insulting" language is already illegal in the UK, and it doesn't require the motivation behind the act to be proven either.

As an aside, if the report in the OP is correct, I'm surprised to hear that any county police force in the UK can simply amend/expand law like that. I did not think they had the authority to do so.

Wrong, I'm afraid. These "incidents" are going to be logged and recorded with the intention of building a database - see the Notts Police pronouncement - even if no underlying criminal offence took place. It's a heterosexuality monitoring system under the guise of "protecting women".

Your second point - they don't.

There's a legal challenge in this.

(Apologies MOD for multiple single posts).

the_pen_turner · 19-07-2016 10:38PM

i was think about this today

this is not very far away from someone looking at women as they walk past. some people stare . im sure it upsets some recipients.
if this law gets a head of steam and isn't challenged it could lead to including looking at women too.

FortySeven · 19-07-2016 10:48PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i was think about this today

this is not very far away from someone looking at women as they walk past. some people stare . im sure it upsets some recipients.
if this law gets a head of steam and isn't challenged it could lead to including looking at women too.

'Stare rape' is already a 'thing' in America. Challenging this feminist travesty is something we need to get going before the next generation of feminised young men think this is normal.

19-07-2016 11:03PM

I'm not sure I even know what catcalling is. It's something I have never experienced.
Is it wolf whistles from a building site? I dunno but the world has gone bat shít crazy.

19-07-2016 11:16PM

FortySeven wrote: »

'Stare rape' is already a 'thing' in America. Challenging this feminist travesty is something we need to get going before the next generation of feminised young men think this is normal.

Feminism is a complex movement both politically and philosophically. There are different factions with views of varying extremes.

For so long women were the underclass. What's happening now I think is a swing without balance. It's like we must be protected at all costs, even a hint of sexism and the firey torches are bought out. Language has to be modified. The use of the term 'chick' for example will see some poor fecker dragged across the coals. Or a cutting comment because he dared open the car door for you.

The way it is for me quite simply is that men and women are equal because they are both part of the human race. I wouldn't dream of slapping a man across the face, or manipulating him in to sleeping with me by using my strong sexual currency, or feeling him up in a bar.
We must respect both genders equally and we must protect both genders equally.

FortySeven · 19-07-2016 11:51PM

Yep. This **** does nothing to empower women. It demeans them and gives power to those who don't believe in equality.

Renegade Mechanic · 20-07-2016 12:10PM

FortySeven wrote: »

'Stare rape' is already a 'thing' in America. Challenging this feminist travesty is something we need to get going before the next generation of feminised young men think this is normal.

Nowhere near as bad as Reverse Rape though.
That'll be next on the legislation list

https://mobile.twitter.com/DonovanPaisley/status/675671226463817729

20-07-2016 04:56PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Nowhere near as bad as Reverse Rape though.
That'll be next on the legislation list

https://mobile.twitter.com/DonovanPaisley/status/675671226463817729

The reverse rape is like parody from the Savage eye

Is there some sort of competition going on between the PC brigade/feminist morons where they are trying to come up with the most absurd concept in order to win a prize?

I can understand the whole objection to cat calling/wolf whistling and to be honest its nothing something i would like any female family members or friends to be subjected to by random strangers but stare rape is beyond the depths of idiocy. Women lingerly look at men as much as men look at women without even attraction coming into the equation. It could be in awe, bewilderment, the other person might be wearing a funny hat....who knows.

And besides anything else, to actually use the term 'rape' in the context of someone being simply stared at is absolutely despicable and disrespectful to genuine rape victims who have been left traumatised by their ordeal. To compare the sensation of being stared at to being actually raped by using the term rape is a violation on its own.

20-07-2016 05:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The reverse rape is like parody from the Savage eye

'Reverse rape' and 'stare rape' are not real causes. They're generated by parody blogs and parody twitter accounts, including the one in the above link. The only people who refer to them in a serious context are anti-feminist blogs and some guys on reddit.

They're not real.

FortySeven · 20-07-2016 06:05PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

'Reverse rape' and 'stare rape' are not real causes. They're generated by parody blogs and parody twitter accounts, including the one in the above link. The only people who refer to them in a serious context are anti-feminist blogs and some guys on reddit.

They're not real.

You need to check out tumblr. Granted it is feminazis pushing it but people in America's colleges are listening.

20-07-2016 06:11PM

FortySeven wrote: »

You need to check out tumblr.

Tumblr has many times more wind-up merchants than AH. 'I saw it on Tumblr' isn't going to convince anyone.

Neither term has any authentic status, neither term is perpetuated by academics, broadcast media, advocacy groups, or any well-known feminists at all. It isn't a thing and people should stop pretending it is.

FortySeven · 20-07-2016 06:24PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Tumblr has many times more wind-up merchants than AH. 'I saw it on Tumblr' isn't going to convince anyone.

Neither term has any authentic status, neither term is perpetuated by academics, broadcast media, advocacy groups, or any well-known feminists at all. It isn't a thing and people should stop pretending it is.

Goshen college implemented stare rape legislation in its sexual policies on campus. It later retracted after severe pressure. Still 'ogling' is part of the sexual harrasment policy.

You can Google it. Download their pdf document on sexual consent.

ToddyDoody · 20-07-2016 06:58PM

"Anything that would upset a 4 year old child to be declared a hate crime"

Smondie · 20-07-2016 07:16PM

FortySeven wrote: »

Goshen college implemented stare rape legislation in its sexual policies on campus. It later retracted after severe pressure. Still 'ogling' is part of the sexual harrasment policy.

You can Google it. Download their pdf document on sexual consent.

Oh my God, you're right...

Straight from the Goshen College website, on a page titled “What men can do to stop rape”:

“Don’t allow psychological rape or commit it yourself. Psychological rape consists of verbal harassment, whistles, kissing noises, heavy breathing, sly comments or stares. These are all assaults on any woman’s sense of well-being.”

Shint0 · 20-07-2016 07:32PM

This type of legislation and sentiment if it were to take on here would bring us back to the days when women and men had to line up facing each other across a dancehall with the local priest walking up and down acting as a chaperone.

It's a completely manufactured regressive measure which would put western countries on a par with patriarchal, misogynistic cultures where some public transport is segregated and companies must provide transport for female employees following later shifts for their own safety; the type of cultures where catcalling known as eve teasing is often associated with acid attacks where a woman rejects a man's advances. Are we really at that level where we need to start introducing similar measures. It's just creating a moral panic where this phenomenon is only engaged in by relatively small segment of the population and not normalised everyday behaviour.

I was walking near a beach yesterday evening with my dog and my husband was slightly ahead of me. Two youngish guys, possibly students, early twenties, quite normal average profile were chatting and as I walked past one of them quietly said "Are you local?". Now I knew he wasn't about to ask me for directions. It was quite obvious it was a male to female interaction and as I had my dog with me they might have presumed I was from the area. Given the context it was a great day at the beach, amazing weather, people tend to be a bit more free and sociable. I chuckled to myself that I must look younger than I thought as I was old enough to have been their babysitter when they were born. Could these guy have potentially been arrested?

Boundaries are there for a purpose but boundaries are not supposed to be rigid and inflexible which most well adjusted members of society recognise.

Elliott S · 20-07-2016 11:17PM

selastich2 wrote: »

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

This ad is always trotted out. This TWENTY year old ad. The fact that one has to go back so far is telling.

Smondie · 20-07-2016 11:36PM

Elliott S wrote: »

This ad is always trotted out. This TWENTY year old ad. The fact that one has to go back so far is telling.

If you read a bit further you will see someone else made that point and I pulled up more recent examples to show the same.

darkpagandeath · 20-07-2016 11:42PM

Elliott S wrote: »

This ad is always trotted out. This TWENTY year old ad. The fact that one has to go back so far is telling.

What about the ad where the guy has all these kitchen cleaners looking like what sorcery is this :pac:

Smondie · 20-07-2016 11:45PM

Benefit cosmetics

Hilarious Benefit Cosmetics ad shows women ogling men's bulges
The Benefit Cosmetics advertisement shows a series of good-looking men attracting the attention of women, who stare wide-eyed at their bulging crotches.

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

Comments