German Lawmakers Approve 'No Means No' Rape Law

[Commander Wallace]

German lawmakers passed a bill on Thursday that will make it easier to file criminal complaints regarding sexual assaults if they rejected their attacker's advances with a clear "no."

The bill was in response to attacks in the city of Cologne over the course of New Year's celebrations.

Prosecutors in Cologne received more than 1,100 criminal complaints following the New Year's assaults, including about 500 allegations involving sexual crimes. The first trial for sexual assault — against two men from Algeria and Iraq — began Thursday in Cologne.

" Quote " German law previously required victims to show that they physically resisted attack before charges for rape and other sexual assaults could be brought. Women's rights campaigners argued that Germany's failure to recognize the principle of "no means no" was one of the main reasons for low reporting and conviction rates for rape in the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/07/07/world/europe/ap-eu-germany-rape-law.html?_r=0


" Quote"

Under the new law, prosecutors and courts can take into account that a victim didn't resist assault because they were incapacitated, surprised or feared greater violence if they objected.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/07/07/world/europe/ap-eu-germany-rape-law.html?_r=0


Hopefully other European countries will adopt a similar stance on protecting their populace if they haven't already. There is no doubt Germany got this legislation right but does it go far enough ?

[Betonov]

One question ??
Why was this passed in 2016 and not in 1870 :doh:

I think that ''a third no is a legitimate pepper spray in your face'' law would work better. But that's just my opinion man.

[Dowly]

I was not aware Germany was so behind on rape laws. :doh:

Better late than never, I suppose. :hmmm:

[Skybird]

There are some implications which make this complicated, and most people are not even aware of it. From the law's standpoint, if you execute it pedantically correct, any man taking the initiative for approaching a woman to form a contact of first kind, for example in a bar smiling at her and asking whether he could spend her a drink, must fear to be sued for that as long as he took the initiative. If the law gets adopted by the full range of implications in it, it must now always be the women taking the initiative. Radical feminists might be happy with this, but what does it tell you beyond the obvious - that one and the same act done by a man puts him with one leg into a court, while the same act done by a woman - smiling at him in a bar or asking if she could pay him a drink - shall have not any legal threats involved?

Like so often these days, intentions that once were meant well now overshoot the target, get abused for ideological agendas, and may do more bad than good.

And why even importing the many sexual offenders from a certain other culture that now in Germany as well as in Sweden is massively over-represented in crime statistics describing sexual harassment and rape? Some days ago I read in the news here in Germany that an Iraqi migrant has slain his wife and told the court that he just practiced his legal right to do so, and that he cannot understand why he is being sent to prison.

Well. If one even must explain what does not match here, then all hope is lost indeed. Like in other European countries with massive Muslim influx, Sweden being just one example, the number of sexual attacks and harassment even of little girls in swimming halls and in public has exploded. The German police just days ago complained that German politicians still do their best to prevent fast and effective forced removal of according subjects. And the German public: lets them get away with it and does not care.

Well, things are like we deserve them to be, then. And we deserve this speed-typed law as well. Something better we could not appreciate anyway.

[Commander Wallace]

One question ??
Why was this passed in 2016 and not in 1870 :doh:

I think that ''a third no is a legitimate pepper spray in your face'' law would work better. But that's just my opinion man.

Pepper spray being the mildest option. :hmmm:


There are some implications which make this complicated, and most people are not even aware of it. From the law's standpoint, if you execute it pedantically correct, any man taking the initiative for approaching a woman to form a contact of first kind, for example in a bar smiling at her and asking whether he could spend her a drink, must fear to be sued for that as long as he took the initiative. If the law gets adopted by the full range of implications in it, it must now always be the women taking the initiative. Radical feminists might be happy with this, but what does it tell you beyond the obvious - that one and the same act done by a man puts him with one leg into a court, while the same act done by a woman - smiling at him in a bar or asking if she could pay him a drink - shall have not any legal threats involved?

Like so often these days, intentions that once were meant well now overshoot the target, get abused for ideological agendas, and may do more bad than good.

And why even importing the many sexual offenders from a certain other culture that now in Germany as well as in Sweden is massively over-represented in crime statistics describing sexual harassment and rape? Some days ago I read in the news here in Germany that an Iraqi migrant has slain his wife and told the court that he just practiced his legal right to do so, and that he cannot understand why he is being sent to prison.

Well. If one even must explain what does not match here, then all hope is lost indeed. Like in other European countries with massive Muslim influx, Sweden being just one example, the number of sexual attacks and harassment even of little girls in swimming halls and in public has exploded. The German police just days ago complained that German politicians still do their best to prevent fast and effective forced removal of according subjects. And the German public: lets them get away with it and does not care.

Well, things are like we deserve them to be, then. And we deserve this speed-typed law as well. Something better we could not appreciate anyway.


Being In Germany, you probably have a better perspective on this issue then those of us who reside elsewhere in the world. I'm thinking this piece of legislation is not an attempt to prevent people from conversing in a bar or other public places in the furtherance of making contacts or new friends. I'm thinking this is to give women some added protection with regards to men being aggressive in an overtly sexual manner.

In countries with a civilized people, No should mean just that-NO. Most men are gentlemen and take the hint or simply move on. I think the newly enacted laws are for protection from the small minority who don't have the wherewithal to understand No means No.

[Skybird]

I'm thinking this piece of legislation is not an attempt to prevent people from conversing in a bar or other public places in the furtherance of making contacts or new friends. I'm thinking this is to give women some added protection with regards to men being aggressive in an overtly sexual manner.

I neither said nor implied it is a law to prevent people conversing in a bar. It simply is a badly-made law stitched with with hot needles, an actionistic attempt of politicians to react to the events from Cologne. This law was under dispute already before Cologne, and many delayed it, because it was so ideological questionable. After Cologne, these doubts have been thrown out of the window. Politicians want to show that they "do somethign about it".

For radicla feminists, who already yell "sexual discrimination!" when a man holds a door open for a woman, it is a big victory, for it allows that males in principle can be sued for any initiative they show by now, even if it includes no aggression at all. If pushing it to the point, males are demanded to be totally passive and submissive now, leaving every initiative and every first step to the dominant female. That is feminst paradise! ;)

A law should not allow loopholes that can be abused for such dubious things, if a law includes such loopholes, it is a sign that it simply is a badly-made law.

And we know how it goes. Where abuse is possible, abuse will manifest itself sooner or later.

[Oberon]

Allahwin in 4. :yeah:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Allow me to voice an unpopular opinion and object to the proliferation of "No means No" criminalization.

I have tried to find exactly what this new German law says, but as yet I cannot find the text so I can read it, if only through the lens of Google Translate.

Anyway, an inevitable consequence of going from "archaic" laws requiring signs of physical coercion to "modern" laws is the abandonment of the requirement of objective evidence to prove the criminality of a person, reducing criminal justice to the pre-19th century state of one person's word against another. Since there will often be no other evidence or even witnesses, and yet these laws have to have bite, the principle of "beyond a reasonable doubt" will be weakened to an dangerous extent. In essence, the woman's accusation would have to be enough, since that will often be the only evidence of criminality available.

While I'm not unaware of the legitimate scenarios these kinds of laws are intended to prevent, it is not worth in my eyes the abandonment of the modern principles of habeas corpus. In essence we are back to the 14th century for certain categories of crimes.

[Skybird]

^ Yes.

The Germna law now puts under penalty if a man is "in a group" from which sexual violence" is directed against a victim. Unfortunately this law doe snto define what "in this group" should mean. Do you have to see the rape with your own eyes, or is it enough to stand in close vicitnty to the event, or is it sufficient that you are simply present on the scene of the crime, beign part of a bigger crowd like in Cologne?

It could happen to you that you get charged while you just pass through a crowd, with a group harassment taking place 30m away.

I see a worrying tendency in Germany to reverse the burden of proof to the innocent/suspect, to make it easier for the government body and its service to do their job". Also, there is practically consensus amongst politicians of all parties that in the near future they want to collect all private savings from private people who cannot gaplessly prove that they own that money legally and in conformity with rules of the law - you are assumed to be guilty as long as you have not proven your innocence. Its just another way of fighting the war against cash money, and of course socialist plunderer ideology.

Assumed not guilty as long as guilt has not been proven had become a fundamental pillar of law and order in the West not for no reason.

I find this all very worrying.

I am also pissed that, like on past football events 2 and 4 years ago, highly dubious and controversial law projects get whipped through parliament in sprinting mode while the public is distracted and the German team prepares to play.

[Oberon]

There is a bit of balancing needed to be done with modern rape laws, we seem to have swung from police not believing any rape claims to them believing and prosecuting every single one. However, I think there does need to be a reinforcing message in society, primarily to men but also to women because it's not just women who get raped after all, but people need to know that rape is not acceptable, especially in an era when you get sleazy 'pick-up artists' on youtube with thousands of subscribers, drugs that are easy to slip into unattended drinks and the increased sexualisation of...well...everything really.

[Oberon]

^ Yes.

The Germna law now puts under penalty if a man is "in a group" from which sexual violence" is directed against a victim. Unfortunately this law doe snto define what "in this group" should mean. Do you have to see the rape with your own eyes, or is it enough to stand in close vicitnty to the event, or is it sufficient that you are simply present on the scene of the crime, beign part of a bigger crowd like in Cologne?




So, basically a whole group of society, in this case men, should not be blamed for the actions of a minority of that same group?

[Skybird]

http://www1.wdr.de/radio/1live/magazin/silvesternacht-in-koeln-106%7E_v-gseapremiumxl.jpg

^ 1100 charges of rape and sexual harassment filed.

[Jimbuna]

Really people, rape in either form, female or male is a seriously terrible crime. Trust me (or please yourselves) I know from some serious real life involvement/experience.

Anything that lessens the possibility of such a crime should be embraced (no pun intended).

[Catfish]

Of course this is generally a good idea. But some might refer to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_(film)

If a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment, and the man denies, and there are no witnesses, who do you believe?

There was a case, where a woman i know personally accused a man harassing her, so she called in the police and we were all asked if we saw anything. We had not, but that of course did not mean it had not happened. But he was losing his job and his friends. Until some years later, she admitted she had made it up because said man was not interested in her, and she wanted "revenge".
Just saying that men being as they are, a helpless and disgraced and maybe weeping woman will always wake the protector's instinct, against the accused. Even if she made it all up.

Evidence matters.

[Jimbuna]

In a situation where there is no evidence of any kind or witnesses to the alleged event then leave it up to the relevant department (in the UK it is the Crown Prosecution Service) to decide if there is any realistic outcome of a successful prosecution as well as the law courts/jury.

That is the situation in the UK anyway.

[Oberon]

Evidence matters.

Absolutely, however the case should be taken seriously and investigated and then dismissed for lack of evidence. That's the key differencial between now and the past, where a policeman would oft automatically assume the burden of guilt upon the woman and dismiss the case out of hand. Ironically, it's gone a bit the other way now, because of the machismo of men if a man is raped by a woman he will find himself being asked what the problem was, especially if the woman was attractive in the eyes of the officer. Men are automatically assumed to be willing participants in sexual intercourse. :dead:
Still, evidence should be key alongside witness and victim/perpetrator testimony, no doubt about that at all. Rape kits should be something that are made more available so a victim of rape can get evidence gathered in the immediate aftermath of the assault.

Of course, sexual harrassment is a lot harder to prove and gather evidence for, that's a much trickier subject, and in that case I think education and defence might be a better thing to help, but also in the future if things like Google Glass ever catch on then evidence will be a bit easier to gather.

I must admit though, I do find it ironic though about the complaints that people feel that all men are being found guilty until proven innocent because they are the same gender group as the most common perpetrators of rape. Can anyone think of other instances where a wide group of people have been blamed universally and acted against because of the actions of a smaller sub-group within that group? :hmmm:

[Commander Wallace]

In a situation where there is no evidence of any kind or witnesses to the alleged event then leave it up to the relevant department (in the UK it is the Crown Prosecution Service) to decide if there is any realistic outcome of a successful prosecution as well as the law courts/jury.

That is the situation in the UK anyway.


Your analysis sums up the newly enacted legislation in Germany concisely. Your background in law enforcement gives this issue a better perspective.

If there is physical evidence which ties an individual to the crime we are discussing here, then it's likely that individual will be prosecuted. DNA analysis in various forms is no longer in it's infancy and is widely accepted in prosecutorial court proceedings due to it's near certainty. There are also eyewitness accounts which although useful, can be discredited in court. DNA evidence is almost iron clad.

DNA evidence has also been used to exonerate people wrongly tried and convicted for various crimes.

For this reason, I don't think people have much to worry about with regards to being in the general area where a crime took place if they weren't involved in the crime itself.

I think most people would intervene on the side of the victim if a woman was being attacked in that manner or physically assaulted to help them.
I'm sure this newly enacted law will be tweaked as the need arises if there are problems or issues.


Something else to consider is any law, rule or regulation is only as good as the enforcement behind it.

[Commander Wallace]

Leaked document says 2,000 men allegedly assaulted 1,200 German women on New Year’s Eve

" Quote "

Lawmakers were facing intense pressure to pass the new legislation, particularly in the wake of the Cologne assaults. Most of the perpetrators in that city stand accused of groping and facilitating sex assaults as part of a group — accusations that were difficult to prosecute.
The stricter law is also supposed to make it easier for refugees to be deported if they are convicted in sex-assault cases — an aspect of the new law that activists and advocates for refugees have harshly criticized.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/

[Skybird]

"To make it easier to deport people?" Criminal police already now is just bitterly laughing about that. And some days ago I read about new legislation in Germany that allow that asylum seekers whose case already got rejected, nevertheless stay in Germany for years and years - legally. And after some years, no court in Germany will ever dare to throw them out again.

Doing so would be considered to be "anti-social".

Criminal police inspectors also recommend to let the Cologne cases rest by now. It leads just into nirvana-by-court. The guys who got convicted some days ago, already are on free foot again, left the court as free men, because they shed some tears at court. Guilty, but free and unpunished.

Both from a perspective of morals, and psychological conditioning, I just can shake my head in resignation. Many things go terribly wrong with out law enforcement and the way perpetrators can escape at court. But I think nothing else does so much damage to justice,like suspending penalties, and deals made. Both must be banned, completely and always. But most löawyers do not even understand why.
So what hope could there be?

Right - probably none.

[Schroeder]

BTW "criminal police" and "criminal police investigators" are not corrupt LEOs but are actually members of the "criminal investigation department". Just in case someone was confused....:know:

[biosthetique]

One question ??
Why was this passed in 2016 and not in 1870 :doh:


One of the reason could be the emergence of usage of incapacitating drugs by sailors onto their intended victims.

There is a good article about Sexual Assault & Response Weapons by Commander Timothy P. McGeehan, U.S. NAVY in the JULY 2016 publication of "PROCEEDINGS" from the U.S. Naval Institute.

[Betonov]

One of the reason could be the emergence of usage of incapacitating drugs by sailors onto their intended victims.


But preventing your victim from saying ''no'' already makes it rape :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

But preventing your victim from saying ''no'' already makes it rape :hmmm:

Yep and in the UK if a victim is incapable of giving consent (for any reason) then there is no defence.