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

New gender biased law in England NihilisticImpact 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 familyfriends and see their self-worth eroded over time to the point where they can't function without their abuser. Click to expand... 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 andor 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 dont 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 isnt 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 Popes ultra-secret relationship with his male Siamese twin lovers, because that ones 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 thats not a nation of laws anymore. I think the kind of behavior they want to criminalize if Im right in what theyre 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 were 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 Machinas point. DeusExMachina said I personally always see an issue with expanding legislation of any kind . Click to expand... 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, its practically impossible to live your life completely within the rules. Downloaded a video? Copied a movie? You know that really cute Speakeasy bar thats 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 youll 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 wasis being passed. I even concede that there is a real social problem regarding domestic violence, which may not be adequately addressed already. But Im 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 youre living in a nightmare state. But just because one nut proposes something for a law doesn't mean itll pass. This coercive control legislation sounds like a different kettle of fish. Its passed and I can see at least a hint of a reason why rational people would debate the issue.