So wolf-whistling is a hate crime…
BBC News–20 Jul 2016
Let’s look at The Guardian!
One police force (Nottinghamshire) has expanded its definition of hate crime to include misogyny and harassment of women.
Hate Crime to include misogyny?
If this were true, then it would mean that anyone advocating shariah law would, ipso facto, be guilty of a ‘hate crime.’
Shariah is an iniquitous code that imposes mean-spirited and absurd misogynistic discrimination on women.
Not only the misogynistic ‘aurat’ stuff, whereby every woman is coerced into shrouding her God-given crowning glory, the lovely hair on her head, not to mention her knees, mid-riff, thighs and even those soft smooth shoulders on which her hair ideally cascades…
‘Fathers and Husbands, their aurat (private parts) are your responsibility!’
…..a nonsense that would degrade all girls until they resemble the famous Michelin Man advert…
…but also the grossly discriminatory inheritance laws, which denies daughters equal inheritance rights.
And let’s not even discuss the grotesque concept of polygamy…
….how can anyone seriously maintain that men can have multiple spouses while women may one have one?
As misogynistic as it gets!
Alas, I fear the PC Plods in Notts County lack the guts to go after shariah hate crimes.
Of course the very idea of ‘hate crime’ is an affront to justice.
If you kill or injure somebody, whether in a fit of temper and/or jealousy, or during a bar-room brawl, or, most horrendous of all, surely, because he or she converts to another religion – ooops, that’s shariah law again…
…then you are guilty of murder.
There’s neither fairness nor logic in making the penalty heavier if your crime was motivated by ‘hate.’
However, if the ruling PC ideology imposes such a nonsense as ‘hate crime’ on our legislation, then the Guardian scribbler whose link I’ve appended above, makes a fair point.
If the gigantic PC catch-all net includes ‘disability, gender identity, race, ethnicity or nationality, religion, faith or belief and sexual orientation. Is it really so shocking for sex to be included in that list?
And that’s what Nottinghamshire Police have done.
But here’s another curious extract from her article, a statement from Notts Police, which declares that a ‘hate crime’ is not a crime at all.
Madhouse England, yeah? Here’s the full quote –
“A hate crime is simply any incident, which may or may not be deemed as a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred.”
In other words, whether it’s a crime depends if the complainant or his or her pals or some agitprop pinko whiner have a big enough chip on their shoulders.
A charter for uptights.
The authoress ( that’ll wind her up nicely – I’m sure ‘authoress’ is as non-PC as ‘actress’ these days) is named Laura Bates, BTW.
Laura doesn’t like being whistled at!
Laura in fact began her article with the words wolf-whistling has been reclassified as a crime! But then she explains how that sentence, that ‘crime,’ wolf-whistling is not even mentioned in the police report.
She blames the Guardian’s media rivals for trivialising abuse of women by introducing the non-existent ‘wolf-whistling’ crime. Again, fair comment.
But then she exposes her own loopy libber mentality, by adding that wolf-whistles are the thin end of this wedge…
I don’t walk around Jakarta whistling at girls – a friendly smile seems a more decorous approach, and is often reciprocated.
And on my rare trips to the Wicked West I regret to admit that nobody has wolf-whistled me.
Were it to happen, assuming the whistler wasn’t a poofter, I’d not be upset at all. It’s a compliment, albeit an unsophisticated one.
So why should it be cause for complaint?