[cardguy]

Interesting developments here in the UK:

Quote:

Domestic abuse involving “emotional blackmail” - but no violence - could become a criminal offence carrying a heavy jail term under tough new measures published for the first time.

Campaigners are drawing up a draft Bill which proposes making it illegal to “make contact with a victim in an aggressive way” and for a partner to “intend to control or coerce” their spouse.

Anyone found guilty of the new offence would face up to 14 years’ imprisonment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/c...crime.html

Wasn't sure what to make of this. Since it is hard to understand what they mean by 'emotional blackmail'.

But then - as often happens - the comments helped guide me in the right direction.

Quote:

"Controlling behaviour” would also lead to criminal charges, including when a partner makes another person “subordinate”, “exploits their resources” or “deprives them of the means needed for independence” "The offence would apply to abuse committed against any spouse, partner or former partner, regardless of gender"

Does that mean women who use the UK's corrupt divorce laws for unreasonable financial maintenance claims or women goldiggers or married women who buy too many expensive shoes on joint credit cards that cant be afforded will be banged up? No? Thought not. Surely these campaigners are exploiting taxpayers money for their own political ends so are committing an offence already?

I am never going to get married. So I find shit like this hilarious.

[cardguy]

More comments:

Quote:

"Campaigners are drawing up a draft Bill"

Lobby groups should not be drawing up anything.

"including attempts to exert financial control over a spouse or partner."

So if you have a high maintenance spouse who is unable to reign in his/her spending, you have a choice:

1. End up in court for domestic abuse.

2. End up in court for bankruptcy.

What a mind-numbingly dumb piece of legislation. The state already interferes far too much in the family, but this will make things far worse.

If you have two blazing rows with your spouse and he or she is the vindictive sort, get a good lawyer. Of course, you could even call Elfyn Llwyd himself who is after all a barrister.

That this kind of legislation is even being considered is beyond belief.

[Flavius Aetius]

(12-29-2013 02:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

Wasn't sure what to make of this. Since it is hard to understand what they mean by 'emotional blackmail'.

Don't worry, the definition of emotional blackmail will be determined unilaterally by a feminist judge in a family court where the man is told to keep his mouth shut at all times.

[iknowexactly]

doesn't sound like it'll fly, it's trying to define something completely subjective. not all lawyers are idiots.

[cardguy]

The problem stems back to the 'hate speech' laws we have in the UK.

'Hate Speech' is totally dependent now on how the 'victim' interprets your comments. Your motivation or intent is no onger relevent. It all comes down to how the 'victim' feels.

Totally subjective all the way down.

But people are too scared to challenge anything involving laws that are created to 'stop' racism. Since racism is the last taboo in the western world. Which is funny since it is as prevalent as fuck in the countries that people are most scared of being racist about. The ironic thing is that the UK is the most unracist country on earth. And yet it is the country where people are most paranoid about being thought racist.

And now that the door to 'subjective crimes' has been opened. It is being widened further to include conversations that take place in marriages.

This shit happens all the time. Like the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Which applies to everyone except those evil guys who are accused of rape, racism or paedophilia. Those guys tend to get smeared in the press and must obviously be guilty since there is no way a victim would make up a lie about that - or possibly be mistaken. Even people accused of murder are treat better than them.

The Bogey Men in society are constantly used as a way to undermine deep and important legal principles.

[Katatonic]

Shit. How long before we see feminists lobbying for legislation banning 'emotional rape'?

I would also be interested to know if that potential law would apply to those who observe Sharia Law?

[germanico]

(12-29-2013 02:14 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

doesn't sound like it'll fly, it's trying to define something completely subjective. not all lawyers are idiots.

The problem is that its not lawyers who pass the laws.

[Emancipator]

(12-29-2013 03:06 AM)Katatonic Wrote:  

Shit. How long before we see feminists lobbying for legislation banning 'emotional rape'?

I would also be interested to know if that potential law would apply to those who observe Sharia Law?

Of course it wouldn't, the court will melt down in a weird paradox.

"Emotional Blackmail defendant is not a straight white christian male with high readings of privilege?"

Error, System 32 has crashed

There's precedent too as Scotian pointed out in the Ontario Barber Legislation thread, A dyke or a muslim; whose feelings matter most?
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/16/gay...im-barbers

[Sp5]

In the USA there is a legal doctrine called "void for vagueness."

That means if an ordinary person isn't able to understand what a law prohibits, it's an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Thank God we have a written constitution in the USA - this law would never pass review there. There has to be some kind of clear objective act defined as a violation.

[iknowexactly]

(12-29-2013 02:04 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

More comments:

Quote:

"Campaigners are drawing up a draft Bill"

Lobby groups should not be drawing up anything.

Very good point, of course they can write anything they want, but when they present it to the Legislature, the response should be "What do you want?" and the demands addressed from the beginning, with skepticism if someone wants something turned into a crime.
.

[Parlay44]

It's like they want to indirectly kill the construct of marriage by making it completely unappealling to men. Yet they still want marriage. Like they have any other option? Cougarism? Crazy cat lady?

We should see if we can start a Groupon for vasectomies. I need to get motivated and get mine scheduled.

[Goldin Boy]

Quote:

when a partner makes another person “subordinate”, “exploits their resources” or “deprives them of the means needed for independence”

Sounds like what wives to do their husbands on a daily basis.

[void]

(12-29-2013 09:35 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

Quote:

when a partner makes another person “subordinate”, “exploits their resources” or “deprives them of the means needed for independence”

Sounds like what wives to do their husbands on a daily basis.

If you earn more than the wife (which is the standard case), you are guilty and deserve up to 14 years of prison. I can't even laugh about that retarded stuff.

[gfly]

As someone else said, applied gender neutral(yeah right)this outlaws being a wife. More stupid, but good because many men will not act with the expected supplication. Hope the ladies enjoy their newfound liberty to be avoided like the plague.

[Libertas]

Just the usual coming out of the UK it seems. I hardly even bat an eye over hearing things like this anymore.

(12-29-2013 07:40 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

In the USA there is a legal doctrine called "void for vagueness."

That means if an ordinary person isn't able to understand what a law prohibits, it's an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Thank God we have a written constitution in the USA - this law would never pass review there. There has to be some kind of clear objective act defined as a violation.

Yeah. As bad as it's become over here, in many respects the legal system still gives the U.S. many advantages.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(12-29-2013 11:51 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

Just the usual coming out of the UK it seems. I hardly even bat an eye over hearing things like this anymore.

Same here.

Has any country ever gone downhill harder and faster than Britain?

During their golden age, no one could hold a candle to them. England at its height had more juice than just about anyone in history. And now they're fast becoming a nightmare society, far in excess of anything that goes on in the US or most other western countries.

If I were English, I'd be very pissed off and almost desperate. How do the UK guys out there deal with this?

I sometimes think about the line in Led Zeppelin's "Achilles' Last Stand", when Plant sings:

Oh Albion remains, sleeping now to rise again

This line can give me a mystical belief that England has another act left. But they better get going.

[Aliblahba]

(12-29-2013 02:09 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Oh Albion remains, sleeping now to rise again

This line can give me a mystical belief that England has another act left. But they better get going.

Possible, when all of Europe slumps, and no one can afford to appoint fingers. Think Golden Dawn in Greece. Countries will go back to basic trade principles and tighten borders.

[NikNik]

This is a sign that humans are evolving beyond physical and are finally becoming telepatic creatures.

Some Star Trek shit.

[mental]

Quote:

MP backs draft Bill to create new domestic abuse offence carrying up to 14 years in prison.

[WestIndianArchie]

I hope it passes. I'd love to see a society try to enforce, adjudicate, and incarcerate citizens for this.

No one ever seems to think about the unintended consequences.

[cardguy]

Yeah - I actually think the law is hilarious. And I am never going to get married - so I don't give a fuck.

In fact I am going to write a letter to my local MP insisting that he support this "valuable and important" law.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Well, just don't wind up in the "then they came for my porn and my hookers and there was no one left to defend me" category.

As you probably know, the UK has criminalized possession of "violent" pornography, even when the "violence" is simulated by consenting adult actors.

Quote:

Mr Cameron said he wants to close a loophole that meant while it was a crime to publish pornographic portrayals of rape, the possession of such material was not an offence.

In addition, prominent UK politicians have advocated adopting the "Swedish model" of going after the "johns" and making the purchase of sexual services a criminal offense.

So I would say that any man in the UK, including someone never planning to get married, had better watch out. Things are getting bad.

[cardguy]

Yeah - good point.

[Emancipator]

Seems like Britain is on its way to being led by Adam Sutler and the Norsefire party.

[It_is_my_time]

(12-30-2013 06:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Well, just don't wind up in the "then they came for my porn and my hookers and there was no one left to defend me" category.

As you probably know, the UK has criminalized possession of "violent" pornography, even when the "violence" is simulated by consenting adult actors.

Quote:

Mr Cameron said he wants to close a loophole that meant while it was a crime to publish pornographic portrayals of rape, the possession of such material was not an offence.

In addition, prominent UK politicians have advocated adopting the "Swedish model" of going after the "johns" and making the purchase of sexual services a criminal offense.

So I would say that any man in the UK, including someone never planning to get married, had better watch out. Things are getting bad.

Great post. We are heading in the same direction in the USA as well.

Whether you think you have game, plan to get married or not, it is becoming a point that if you can't learn to live without any female contact in these countries you are taking a huge risk.

If you don't stand up to fight against it now, it will soon be far too late.