German Lawmakers Approve 'No Means No' Rape Law

[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]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

[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.