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...-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...-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

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.

Better late than never, I suppose.

[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.

[biosthetique]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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

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]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

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

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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

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