A police force revealed today it has become Britain’s first to recognise misogyny as a hate crime. Nottinghamshire Police is recording incidents such as street harassment, verbal abuse, unwanted physical approaches and taking photographs without consent within the hate crime definition. It also includes using mobile phones to send unwanted messages, unwanted sexual advances and ‘unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement’, possibly including wolf whistling. [my underlines]Physically approaching a woman is a crime? Do these idiots not know that "uninvited" verbal and physical contact is how people make new friends?
The force’s chief constable Sue Fish said: ‘I’m delighted that we are leading the way towards tackling misogyny in all its forms. ‘It’s a very important aspect of the overall hate crime work being conducted and one that will make Nottinghamshire a safer place for all women.Firstly. Sue Fish should be removed from office and barred from any government policy making body. Secondly, since when are men second class citizens in the UK? Since she has declared this to be a about the "safer space" for women, it is clear that the "law" is not about equal protection and equal applicability but about conferring special and preferred status to women simply because they are women. This action by the police shows feminism as the farce that it is. Those that approve of this do not think women and men are equal, they think women are weak and in need of special protections from society. This attitude was the exact same reasoning given for denying credit cards and property ownership. Women were too mentally weak to control themselves and property and therefore had to be under the guidance and control of men.
A force spokesman said: ‘Unwanted physical or verbal contact or engagement is defined as exactly that and so can cover wolf whistling and other similar types of contact. If the victim feels that this has happened because they are a woman then we will record it as a hate crime. ‘This doesn’t necessarily mean that a criminal offence has been committed, but means we will carry out risk assessments and offer support as we would to any victim of a hate crime.About this whistling thing. Personally I find such behavior to be low class. That said though, nobody is harmed by whistling. As a matter of fact such behavior is considered complimentary by those doing the whistling therefore making the designation "hate crime" even that more untenable. Lets consider the example given by the police:
‘I was eating in a takeaway when a man asked for some of my food. I said no. He started shouting at me, calling me a ‘fat f***ing bitch’ and getting more and more angry. He then threatened to assault me. I felt really scared and had to get a taxi home.’Apparently this was a homeless man. There are laws against threatening violence against anyone so there is no need for "hate crime" bullshit.
‘A builder near a school shouts vile abuse to every woman, including pregnant women or women with their children. Women are scared to walk past him and go out of their way to walk down other streets in the area.’Question: WHAT exactly did these men say? Second question: Describe these men.
‘A man stepped into my path and said “Hello” and he then followed me... He came up to me and said “I like you” and tried to put his arms around me, completely invading my personal space. I pushed him away and told him firmly to get away from me and leave me alone. I then witnessed him try the same behaviour to another woman... another man stepped in and challenged his behavior.’As above; Describe the man. Secondly as said before, once he tried to "put his arm around men" we have a law for that It's called assault.
‘As I child I had men shout comments such as “are you legal yet” at me.’Again, IMO, low class behavior. But two things: First: It shows the men in question did not want to engage in pedophilia which is a good thing. Secondly had that question been asked by a man this particular woman liked we wouldn't have heard about it. Indeed this author has had women who were of questionable age volunteer their legal status.
‘I have been followed home, chased through the streets by two men, and asked for sexual favours from a taxi driver. I believe the abusers targeted my vulnerability as a young woman or child who would not be able to fight back.’First and second examples are called stalking. It's illegal. Follow the law. The third example is likely a fireable offense. And no the women aren't targeted because they are young, they are "targets" because they are considered attractive. Heterosexual men make advances on women they find attractive. This is how it works in the natural world.
‘I have been repeated shouted at in the street since 13 years of age. The shouts at times have been very sexually explicit and have caused me to fear for my personal safety, to take a different route, quicken pace, telephone for help etc. I have been followed by strangers and had to take a different more public route to avoid risk of assault I feared may otherwise occur.’13 years of age meaning: showing secondary sexual characteristics typical of a female having entered mid-late stage puberty. Again I think it's low class to shout at a woman one doesn't know, particularly words of a sexual nature. I would ask again, citing the recent events in places like Rotherham what these men looked like. When we were shown the video of "walking through manhattan" we saw something quite peculiar about the people who were approaching the woman featured in the video. I don't doubt that men are following some women, I'd just like to know if they are importing the problem. The unfortunate thing about this, aside from confirming that feminists actually believe women to be not equal in capacity is that the "rules" are so broad as to invite abuse by those who wish to mess with a man who has pissed them off somehow.