Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

New gender biased law in England (would love to hear from English women about this)

Ivory11

Star
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Location
Australia
So while on Facebook today I came across a link to this https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/world/husbands-who-yell-at-their-wives-face-up-to-14-years-in-prison-under-new-law

On the surface you might think "it's just for bullying husbands who scream abuse" however it also applies to criticism of a woman's weight, appearance and attitude, which means if a man and woman marry, she gains 70 kilos, it would be illegal for her husband to suggest she go in a diet, if they're going out and she chooses to wear a tiny miniskirt and revealing top, it's illegal for him to crtiticize her choice in clothing, if she's being abusive, he's not allowed to so much as raise his voice in response.

It's pretty clear what I think if you know of my other posts on this matter, that this is a load if feminist bullshit and any man in England should get out while he still has the right to move without feminist permission, but what about you? What do you think?
 

MellowYellow

Pulsar
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
It's always nice to see that 'equality' really translates to 'turning the tables.' Really.

As for this fucked up excuse for a law, I have to say ultimately that it proves to be a very worrying prospect and also a system that could very easily be abused. What exactly translates to verbal abuse? It seems very loosely defined in the article. If it's flipping out at your spouse in public, then yeah I can see that. What if it's just sarcasm or harmless ribbing, or a mutual argument between partners where both are slinging insults left and right?

Oh that's right, people like this belief that all women everywhere are innocent doe-like beings of angelic purity who could never ever do anything wrong. Even thinking otherwise, well that's grounds for a jailing.

Hell, what if you wind up dating a total sociopath who starts recording statements from you taken out of context and uses them as blackmail material? Or if you're provoked enough to warrant insults?

Lastly, yes this is biased as fuck. Not only does it not account for male abuse victims in hetero relationships, which isn't surprising as this particular issue is always shafted by modern society as if it's a logical impossibility when it's that very attitude that makes that problem worse, but it also doesn't account for gay men or women with abusive spouses.

A jail sentence for 'being mean.' Jesus fucking Christ...
 

DeusExMachina

Planetoid
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
This law is just utterly ridiculous at best. I would say it is extremely worrying.
I get it, domestic abuse and violence is a serious issue and a serious problem.
But that doesn't mean you can just put out a law heavily favoring women in a marriage and forbidding a husband from basically doing anything. The terms are too loosely defined and can be stretched to encompass basically anything the wife doesn't like. Also this law blatantly ignores the existing data that clearly states that not only men are the abusers in a relationship. They are the majority, statistically speaking, but not by as much as you would think.
On top of that there are laws that cover domestic abuse already. Any form of violence falls under assault and physical abuse, non consensual sexual interaction falls under sexual abuse or rape, depending on the situation, even psychological abuse is covered to some extent, at least to my knowledge.
The problem here is that we say violence in distinct categories depending on the gender of the victim and the aggressor and then prioritize one of those categories for no particular reason. (There is a quite interesting video out there comparing the public reaction to violence against a woman and a man. Highly interesting but worrying.)
If you want to take it a little broader, thanks to feminism (not exclusively and not the sane kind) we think of women's issues and men's issues, sometimes even flat out denying there are any relevant men's issues at all.
If we want to move forward as a society we have to stop thinking about violence against men and women separately, it' violence against a human and that is all that is really important. Same thing with men's and women's issues, they are human issues at the end of the day and we should work together on making the world a safer and better place for anyone and everyone.
 

Ivory11

Star
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Location
Australia
Honestly it's even worse in places like Sweden, where the left-wing parties are trying to push through a new bill to make it illegal for men to urinate while standing up.
m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1590572

Honestly the term "feminist" doesn't mean "I believe in equality" anymore. Modern feminists are in my opinion, packs of viscious, uncaring unfeeling creatures parading around in human skin with a downright disturbing obsession with trying to destroy men, boys and anything that could ever be considered masculine or boy-ish.

The term now for someone who believes in actual equality is "Egalitarianism" and thanks to what I call "the fall of feminism" things like equal responsibility and consequences go alongside the demands for equal rights.
 

DeusExMachina

Planetoid
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
I have to admit, that proposal in Sweden is just bonkers.
In recent year feminism has somehow transformed from a dignified and noble movement, that actually had a point (looking at the movements to attain the right to vote for women for example) to a assortment of radicalized and for the most part fact free harpies.
Neo-feminism as it is sometimes called has nothing to do with equality anymore, it is about female supremacy, sometimes even blatantly stated outright. They have a collection of professional victims in their ranks who effectively shut down all criticism our attempts of discussion by simply labeling it 'harassment' or 'misogyny'. One of the more popular examples from the gaming community is Anita Sarkeesian (Feminist Frequency) who does not understand how the internet works and can't seem to get a grip on the concept of a troll.
Sadly this is not the only movement gone horribly awry. A bunch of other branches of what is sometimes known as the Social Justice Movement or Social Justice Warriors have radicalized as well and have made issues like cultural appropriation or preferred pronouns into topics you shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole unless you like getting yelled at through the internet.
By far the most mainstream and biggest group is still feminism and the other ones rumble around in various corners of the internet.
In all fairness one has to admit that there are perfectly reasonable and smart members of the feminist movement, much closer to the feminists of old, openly criticizing what has become of the whole thing (and getting yelled at for it) and fighting for important issues of gender equality in a sane and intelligent manner.
Such a shame that those few reasonable voices are drowned out by a choir of shrieking, fact-free radicals because they do have some good points to make.
 

Nihilistic_Impact

Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Location
Gardens of Kadesh
Has anyone seen the actual proposed law change? That article didn't provide any real context so I went digging and all I could find was the desire to include behaviour that would isolate someone from others. Which would be a patterned of behaviour over time.

I also saw no indication of it being limited to a single gender, if someone has seen other wise please let me know.

I honestly see no issue with expanding domestic disturbance laws to include manipulation of the sort that would alienate an individual from their family/friends and see their self worth eroded over time to the point where they can't function without their abuser.
 

DeusExMachina

Planetoid
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
I personally always see an issue with expanding legislation of any kind.
New laws, especially those that introduce new offenses or new concepts I'm always critical of. Sometimes they make sense, covering new ground that needs at least some rules (the internet for example, even though I think the existing legislation retaining to the internet in basically every country is horribly conservative and outdated and doesn't look forward enough, causing wasted potential), but most of the time they are hilariously stupid at best and harmful at worst.
Maybe it's just that I'm a very rare and peculiar brand of anarchist (a philosophical anarchist to be precise, let the hate roll in) but I don't like an ever expanding set of rules no one can possibly keep track off with a majority of them being outdated and backwards thinking.
What I would like to see is a complete overhaul of basically all legislation, slimming it down, dropping parts that are not relevant anymore. Making the whole thing more effective, more progressive and a whole lot easier to understand and implement.
As to the issue of covering this specific behavior of slowly crushing someone's psyche, making them dependent on their abuser, that is something that needs to be addressed (even though it is probably rather rare). But not by adding another law to the pot, but by expanding existing legislation through setting precedence in court, making existing laws include this specific behavior as another variant of the existing offenses.
What would also help is getting to the root of the problem instead of just jailing existing offenders. Fight crimes at their respective cause where ever possible and set up a better network of support and help for the victims, making it easier to come forward and break the cycle.
 

Jolie

Star
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Location
Bi-Coastal
New gender biased law in England

Nihilistic_Impact said:
Has anyone seen the actual proposed law change? That article didn't provide any real context so I went digging and all I could find was the desire to include behaviour that would isolate someone from others. Which would be a patterned of behaviour over time.

I also saw no indication of it being limited to a single gender, if someone has seen otherwise please let me know.

I honestly see no issue with expanding domestic disturbance laws to include manipulation of the sort that would alienate an individual from their family/friends and see their self-worth eroded over time to the point where they can't function without their abuser.
I had the same thought. What is the actual text of the proposed legislation? What is their definition of “coercive control” and how does this legislation differ from legislation introduced in some jurisdictions in the United States (to deal with “patterns of abuse” and the fact that not all abuse is physical)? I suspect the definition of coercive control will be something similar to this,

Domestic violence is a pattern of coercive control that one person exercises over another. Abusers use physical and sexual violence, verbal and physical threats, emotional insults, property damage, and economic deprivation as a way to dominate their partners. Battering is behavior that verbally, physically and spiritually harms the victim. It arouses fear and terror. Abuse prevents individuals from doing what they want and/or forces them to behave in ways they do not want to. Domestic violence is a campaign of strategies, similar to brainwashing. Domestic violence is serious, deliberate and repeated.

The coercive control language comes from Dr. Evan Stark who is “pushing” for changes in the law so that abuse is not looked at in the context of a single incident, but whether there is a pattern of abuse that would turn seemingly mild events (if looked at out of the context of the relationship as a whole) into something more serious.

Ideally, we don’t want to criminalize a husband who gives his wife a pop on the butt, because she looks cute in the kitchen and he feels mischievous (which frankly, I would probably enjoy receiving) or tells her that the dress she wore at her last high school reunion isn’t going to work at this one (bastard, he'll pay). Honestly, that would be utterly ridiculous and criminalize on some level every relationship in the world (except for the former Pope’s ultra-secret relationship with his male Siamese twin lovers, because that one’s just sweet). If you make everything illegal the law has no meaning. Right? Then we become a nation of who has the power to put you in jail if you piss someone off and that’s not a nation of laws anymore.

I think the kind of behavior they want to criminalize (if I’m right in what they’re trying to do), the idea of criminalizing serious, deliberate, and repeated abuse (regardless of whether the abuse if physical or mental) is a hard thing to pin down. It means we’re going to have situations that are not black and white, but every shade of grey. It gives the people who choose to prosecute these crimes a lot of power and that power can be abused. And don't most countries already have enough vague, easily abused laws on the books?

Which brings me to Deux Ex Machina’s point.

DeusExMachina said:
I personally always see an issue with expanding legislation of any kind ….
Cicero said the more laws, the less justice. This might be an example of the kind of law that proves his point. Before I would support this kind of legislation, I would want to ask whether the laws we already have in place are sufficient to address these issues and if the problem was simply that we aren't enforcing laws already on the books, rather than writing a new set of legislation. In the United States, it’s practically impossible to live your life completely within the rules. Downloaded a video? Copied a movie? You know that really cute “Speakeasy bar” that’s behind a certain shop in a certain part of the city where you go behind a door and you “build a bowl” off a nifty printed menu and people do coke on the bar in front of you? The one you used to go to before you fell out with the owner and in your bitchier moments you think about dropping a dime on the owner, but never do? Okay maybe not, sorry. The point is, if federal prosecutors want to put you away, they can find something you did wrong and you’ll be facing 50 felonies and 50 years in jail and a choice before pleading out or going to trial and in either case, your life is ruined.

In other words, I think I understand why this law was/is being passed. I even concede that there is a real social problem regarding domestic violence, which may not be adequately addressed already. But I’m not sure this law or even the criminal justice system is the right way to handle the issue.

Oh and as for the peeing sitting down thing that the Left Party was trying to pass in Sweden a few years back? What a crock! I have to ask if one nut was behind this or maybe the Left Party just wanted to get some attention. Stupid, stupid idea which would never pass and if it did, well, then you’re living in a nightmare state. But just because one nut proposes something for a law doesn't mean it’ll pass. This coercive control legislation sounds like a different kettle of fish. It’s passed and I can see at least a hint of a reason why rational people would debate the issue.

 

DeusExMachina

Planetoid
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
This law should be thoroughly examined before it is passed, but really that goes for every law, and the possible implications and benefits have to be laid out carefully and as extensively as possible.
I will not deny that it is possible that this law covers a form of offense that the current structure of laws is unable to handle, even if you use other methods such as court precedence or an addendum or whatever the British system allows for.
What I fear is that it has similar implications as the Hobby-Lobby-Case in the USA where a case about covering contraception in healthcare spiraled out of control and has opened the floodgates for a number of crazy things.
For those not familiar with the case a little refresher (please bear in mind that I'm typing this from memory so you should check my points if you are seriously interested). The case was roughly about a corporation (Hobby-Lobby) that was by law required to cover certain kinds of contraception for its employes (as every company is) and due to the fact that the company had devout christian roots (or whatever you want to call it) it was against their beliefs to do so. The court ruled in their favor and granted them exception due to 'deeply held religious beliefs' and because of the precedence this case has set you can get away with a lot of things in the USA now if you claim them to be your religious beliefs (there are some crazy cases relating to this out there).
My point is, that if the laws is too vague and unspecific it could open the gates to criminalize anything the wife doesn't like and that serves no one.

And that is why I usually stand against these laws and regulations and instead advocate a more active and involved society capable of reaching out to victims, detect such behavior early and take appropriate steps.
I know we are far away from this and too caught up in petty squabbles that don't mean jack in the end to achieve it anytime soon.
But it's still a concept and goal worth striving for and we might as well get started.
 

Jolie

Star
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Location
Bi-Coastal
DeusExMachina said:
And that is why I usually stand against these laws and regulations and instead advocate a more active and involved society capable of reaching out to victims, detect such behavior early and take appropriate steps.
Agreed.
 

captain_jay_conrad

Super-Earth
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Location
Courthouse.
RE: New gender biased law in England

As an attorney, these sorts of laws always concern me. Such statutes are shrouded in good intentions, but always wind up being a legal nightmare, because of the unforeseen consequences. That’s the problem with a great deal of our modern laws and statutes. They’re written in a vague way. For instance, the words “coercive control” will undoubtedly be left vague, or defined as a “term of art”, which in legal parlance means that the definition can be expanded or changed.

It’s not a bad thing to want to ensure that physical and mental abuse are curbed. However, determining honest cases from false claims will be difficult, and this has the potential for prosecutorial abuse. Let’s point to a real world example. There are a set of evidentiary rules in America that are known as, “the rape shield laws”. One of the most contentious rules from this is Federal Rule of Evidence―Rule 412. Which prohibits the use of certain types of evidence by the defendant in a case of alleged sexual misconduct. Rule 412 states in pertinent part:

The Following evidence is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct: (1) evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or, (2) evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual predisposition.

Of course, this original rule had to be changed, as defendants argued that in criminal cases, the alleged victim’s sexual behavior may prove that the defendant actually engaged in consensual sex, or that the alleged victim is making a false allegation of rape.

Therefore, Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (b) goes on to list exceptions to the general rule, and states in pertinent part:

The court may admit the following evidence in a criminal case:
(A) evidence of specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior, if offered to prove that someone other than the defendant was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence; (B) evidence of specific instances of victim’s sexual behavior with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct, if offered by the defendant to prove consent or if offered by the prosecutor; and, (C ) evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights.


Subsection C was added because the rule change was starting to face significant legal challenges based on the constitutionality of the changes. This is a prime example of how what starts off as a simple law, made with the purest of intentions can spiral out of control. However, there was still a problem with the law. If you notice, the exceptions listed above did not mention what the proper process was in a civil case. Therefore, the rule had to be amended again. Thus Federal Rule of Evidence 412(b) (2) was added and states:

In a civil case, the court may admit evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. The court may admit evidence of a victim’s reputation only if the victim has placed it in controversy.

Okay, this appears fine on the surface...however, terms of art appear again. What exactly constitutes “substantially outweighs...and harm” Also, what would be “unfairly prejudiced to any party”? Well, the rule cannot set that out. So, it now requires a special hearing, in which the evidence is presented in camera (behind closed doors) to the judge. A determination is then made on a case-by-case basis.

Herein lies the problem. Enforcement of these sorts of laws becomes a difficult issue. It leads to greater number of disputes, and the application of the law creates new concerns for Equal Protection. Consequently, this remains one of the most contentious laws on the books. Defense attorneys loath the law, because it ties one hand behind their back when it comes to zealously representing their client.

Don’t get me wrong, there was a time when this crime was swept under the rug, and not thought of as a real issue. That being said, such laws should only be passed with extreme discretion, and after they have been fully vetted and analyzed to determine whether they would have a disparate impact upon the legal system, and the rights of all parties involved.

The idea that the anti-abuse law could be used as a form of punishment when a disagreement occurs between two parties is not at all unfathomable. Pointing again to the example of the rape shield laws, two cases come to mind of abuse of the law. The first is the Kobe Bryant case, and the second case is the Duke Lacrosse Case.

Both cases involved the rape shield law, in both cases the defendants were fully acquitted...however, their reputations suffered. The rape shield laws prohibit the alleged victim’s name from being released to the public via the media. However, the accused are afforded no similar such protection. Consequently, their name is allowed to be broadcast to the public ad nauseam. This results in an unfair and unreasonable exposure to public scorn and ridicule. In the Duke Lacrosse Case, the Prosecutor―Mike Nifong―was disbarred and sentenced to one day in jail for improper statements made which were unethical and prejudicial to the case. Such improper prosecutions are horrendous and tarnish the reputation of the entire justice and legal system.

That is the sort of danger that we should seek to avoid when evaluating such laws. However, it is a risk that you’ll always run with respect to such laws. Even if the law in question here were to apply equally to both genders, it still runs the risk of being abused by one of the potential parties. I fear that it would wind up being a convoluted mess like the rape shield laws, and would create a quagmire in their court system.
 

Tierhund

Super-Earth
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Location
UK
Couldn't access the resource link, and I have no idea if you mean UK England or not. But it's news to me, never heard of anything like that.

Also 'feminist bullshit' wooooowwww that's always a good sign
 

Dutch

Meteorite
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
I can't seem to open the link, all I know is that it says "husbands can't yell at their wives". The original post seems to over exaggerate this. Criticism ≠ aggressiveness.

But seriously, that law is not what you would expect in the current century. Facing over a decade in prison because of a moment in which you yelled at a woman? Talk about being over the top and biased.
 

Ivory11

Star
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Location
Australia
DeusExMachina said:
I have to admit, that proposal in Sweden is just bonkers.
In recent year feminism has somehow transformed from a dignified and noble movement, that actually had a point (looking at the movements to attain the right to vote for women for example) to a assortment of radicalized and for the most part fact free harpies.
Neo-feminism as it is sometimes called has nothing to do with equality anymore, it is about female supremacy, sometimes even blatantly stated outright. They have a collection of professional victims in their ranks who effectively shut down all criticism our attempts of discussion by simply labeling it 'harassment' or 'misogyny'. One of the more popular examples from the gaming community is Anita Sarkeesian (Feminist Frequency) who does not understand how the internet works and can't seem to get a grip on the concept of a troll.
Sadly this is not the only movement gone horribly awry. A bunch of other branches of what is sometimes known as the Social Justice Movement or Social Justice Warriors have radicalized as well and have made issues like cultural appropriation or preferred pronouns into topics you shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole unless you like getting yelled at through the internet.
By far the most mainstream and biggest group is still feminism and the other ones rumble around in various corners of the internet.
In all fairness one has to admit that there are perfectly reasonable and smart members of the feminist movement, much closer to the feminists of old, openly criticizing what has become of the whole thing (and getting yelled at for it) and fighting for important issues of gender equality in a sane and intelligent manner.
Such a shame that those few reasonable voices are drowned out by a choir of shrieking, fact-free radicals because they do have some good points to make.
Actually I would say Anita Sarkesian has one of the best grasps of how the internet works I've ever seen in my life... she just pretends she doesn't.

She knows her fan base, many of them are at the mental state where they'll mindlessly support who is the victim, regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong" you see this everywhere, like in a recent video where a student went around his campus in the U.S waving an ISIS/ISIL flag, then did the same thing but with an Israeli flag.

The student's reactions to the flags were as follows.

With the ISIS flag, the students mostly ignored it, very few actually objected to it and a greater number than those who rejected it... actually gave encouragement.

With the Israeli flag, the responses were immediate, screaming, threats, actual violence etc...

Now, when you look at both of the groups, ISIS/ISIL is an undoubtedly utterly evil organization, slaving, wiping out entire villages, torturing children, crucifying people, putting their enemy's and dissenter's heads on fence posts etc...

Israel on the other hand, while even I, a staunch Israel supporter aggree that many of Israel's policies have been detrimental and terribly unfair, when you look at the situation their country is in, surrounded by nations who don't recognize their right to live, with a population greater than their own (palestinians) preaching "death to Israel" on a daily basis and shooting rockets at their cities to the point the Israelis make bus stops that double as bomb shelters... with points both in favor of and against it, now given it's situation, you'd think there would be at least some students who would at least say "well done" for showing the courage to wave an Israeli flag on an american campus which has a "BDS week"

why is this? why almost only shows of support for ISIS and total condemnation of Israel on a university campus? simple... who do they think the victims are.

ISIS's media campaign, as well as Anita Sarkesian's campaign play the same basic angle "I'm the victim so support me" and these days people on the left-wing side of the political spectrum respond to that more than anything else, whoever plays the victim card the most, whoever cries the loudest, gets the support regardless of the facts.

Anita Sarkesian understands this perfectly, she knows those who donate to her are the minority, and she pushes that angle as well. She plays the victim card so hard, she's been found to not report "threatening" posts to the police, instead just to whine about them and link to her Patreon page. She knows the media LOVES victims, so with her playing the victim card, and purposefully attracting trolls which she then uses as justification for her placing herself as the "Victim" and telling her followers that the way to make her stop being a victim is to give her money... and even if she were empress of earth, she would still be pushing this angle.
 

DeusExMachina

Planetoid
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
This only makes my point of a fact free environment.
Even though I wouldn't call ISIS/ISIL evil, but only simply because there is no point to it. Good and evil is religious rhetoric that lacks any usefulness for an intelligent debate and even lacks a clear definition.
They act immoral there is no real doubt about that but I won't call them, or anyone for that matter, evil unless someone can provide a clear and reasonable definition for the word.

As the the whole flag experiment. There are many factors to consider here. Firstly, the American system of education sucks. That might have something to do with it. Secondly the media there is a complete circus, granted the rest of the world is not really better on this one, pushing sensationalism and agendas of their own. Lastly a few student on a campus is not really relevant or representative and you can easily cut the footage together to increase or manipulate the effect.
So in summary, not really much of a point.

A to the problem with our beloved video game culture critic (sarcasm, just so you know). I'll give you that she probably understands the internet better than I gave her credit for and she is pretty good at manipulation.
But in the end it is so easy to see through it. Her tactics are basic textbook and manipulation 101 stuff. Painting herself as the victim, always. Strawmaning the living hell out of her critics to the point of absurdity and of course the absolute lack of intellectual honesty.
Her arguments are easily torn to shreds and the threats she receives are obviously mostly trolls and basically the same stuff anyone on the internet has to deal with.
So there is really no excuse for anyone to believe even a word she says without extensive fact-checking and by this point no one with any intelligence should fall for the victim routine anymore.
 

winx

Supernova
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
It was already a law it goes under abuse controlling how the women lives her life effects emotionally. A lot of domestic abuse starts off with how they should dress, act down to there looks, they what they can and can not do slowly isolating them from the love ones where is some cases the physical abuse starts.
 

LizH

Planetoid
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Location
London
I think the Chicken Littles in this thread need to actually read the DoJ guidance on this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/482528/Controlling_or_coercive_behaviour_-_statutory_guidance.pdf

It's not about saying "you look fat". It's about women living in fear of violence. The gloss on verbal abuse in the article was provided by one MP who the website decided - because it makes it a good story - to take as a gospel interpretation of the law. It isn't. And bear in mind any instances of this will also have to be proven to the satisfaction of a jury, and juries in the UK are frequently very good at not convicting where they feel a law is being missaplied - this happened a lot with our bullshit RIPA Act (kind of our own stupid version of the Patriot Act), where councils ended up arguing it allowed them to snoop on whether people were putting things in the correct recycling bins, or protestors not being able to take photographs of policemen and other similar nonsense, all of which got struck down by the courts and later clarified legally in revised legislation.

To be honest I suspect a lot of the thrust of the law is to do with... how shall I put it in PC language... women from more... 'traditionalist' communities where the men often feel that women shouldn't be allowed to go outside unescorted, own property etc etc.
 
Top Bottom