#statutory offence

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Negro Found Guilty At Lockport Court," Niagara Falls Review. June 23, 1933. Page 7. --- LOCKPORT, N.Y., June 23 - A county jury before Judge William A. Gold yesterday afternoon found Jefferson Hill, 45 years old Negro, Niagara Falls, guilty on a charge of assault, second degree.

Hill was charged with attacking Pearl Nelson, Niagara Falls, with an iron pipe on March 25th. He said he was defending himself from the attack of another man and struck the Nelson woman by accident.

Frank McIntyre, 40 years old, of this city, accused of a statutory charge, and Roland Berne, 27. Town of Lewiston, charged with abandonment, entered pleas of guilty when arraigned this morning

A jury last night found John Skwasrzyski, 36, Niagara Falls, not guilty of abandoning two children.

[aminul-24]

Reblog if you’ve spent at least one night reading fanfics until daybreak.

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

hello and welcome to the uk is a fucking hell country, part 284829494

[alt text:]

Anti-monarchists receive ‘intimidatory’ Home Office letter on new protest laws

Home Office claims timing of new powers, taking effect days before king’s coronation, is coincidental

Ben Quinn, Rajeev Syal and Vikram Dodd

Official warning letters have been sent to anti-monarchists planning peaceful protests at King Charles III’s coronation saying that new criminal offences to prevent disruption have been rushed into law.

Using tactics described by lawyers as “intimidatory”, the Home Office’s Police Powers Unit wrote to the campaign group Republic saying new powers had been brought forward to prevent “disruption at major sporting and cultural events”.

The new law, given royal assent by Charles on Tuesday, means that from Wednesday:

Protesters who block roads, airports and railways could face 12 months behind bars.

Anyone locking on to others, objects or buildings could go to prison for six months and face an unlimited fine.

Police will be able to head off disruption by stopping and searching protesters if they suspect they are setting out to cause chaos.

Jun Pang, a policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, said: “Key measures in the bill will come into force just days before the coronation of King Charles – a significant event in our country’s history that is bound to inspire a wider national conversation and public protests. At the same time, the government are using a statutory instrument to bring draconian measures that the House of Lords threw out of the bill back from the dead, once again evading scrutiny and accountability.

“It’s worrying to see the police handed so many new powers to restrict protest, especially before a major national event. When the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act came into force, the police repeatedly misused them – in part because they simply did not understand them. Similarly, when Queen Elizabeth died, we saw police acting in inappropriate and heavy-handed ways towards protesters that violated their rights.”

Shami Chakrabarti, the former shadow attorney general, said: “During the passage of this illiberal and headline-grabbing legislation, ministers admitted that the new offence of ‘locking on’ is so broad as to catch peaceful protesters who link arms in public.

“Suspicionless stop and search is notorious for racial disparity and it is staggering that more of these provisions have brought into force so soon after Louise Casey’s devastating report [on the Met police]. The home secretary can blast ‘ecowarriors’ but this legislation may be used against anti-poverty and Ukraine solidarity protesters too.”

A statement from the home secretary, Suella Braverman, said: “This legislation is the latest step the government has taken against protesters who use highly disruptive tactics to deliberately delay members of the public, often preventing them from getting to work and hospital, as well as missing loved ones’ funerals.

“The range of new offences and penalties match the seriousness of the threat guerrilla tactics pose to our infrastructure, taxpayers’ money and police time.”

full article here

so just to sum this up, peaceful protesting can now land you in prison for a year and you might face an unlimited fine which i believe is up to £5000, and police can now stop and search you if they believe youre "setting out to cause chaos"

its specifically being put in place right before charles' coronation, but these are now considered criminal offenses so theyre not exclusive to it.

you know, a country where you can be put in prison for a year for peaceful protesting really doesnt sound like a fucking democracy to me.

[ukrfeminism]

2 minute read

Children conceived through rape will be officially classified as victims of crime under new government plans.

The changes, due to be made in the forthcoming Victims Bill, will entitle those conceived as a result of rape access to information about their case.

The legal changes will also make it easier for victims to receive support from police and the criminal justice system "whenever they may need it".

The law will cover all sexual offences which can result in pregnancy.

England and Wales are understood to be among the first nations in the world to officially confer victim status to children born of rape.

Announcing the plans, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said: "No child born in these horrific circumstances should be left to suffer alone, which is why we must ensure they can access vital support whenever they may need it.

"Our Victims Bill will amplify their voices and boost support for all victims at every stage of the justice system."

The Commons Justice Committee recommended the amendments to the draft Bill, following calls from campaign groups to change the law.

The statutory 'Victims' Code' sets out the rights available to all victims who report a criminal offence to the police.

The cross-party Justice Select Committee found individuals who believe they were born as a result of rape currently find it "unnecessarily difficult" to get help, including information about their case, because they are not defined by the Code as victims - and guidance is unclear.

The change in law will entitle them to make a complaint to the police, in their own right - and to receive information and access support in the same way as any other victim of crime.

Under the ministry's plans, that help could be accessed at any point in their lives, to address issues including alcohol or drug dependency, education and housing benefit.

Research by academics for the Centre for Women's Justice (CWJ), who lobbied for the change, estimate that more than 3,000 children may have been conceived after rape in England and Wales in 2021 alone.

The change, dubbed 'Daisy's Law' by the CWJ, is named after a campaigner who born as a result of a historic rape in the 1970s.

The CWJ said there was evidence that both mothers and children who are rape victims, will "often suffer from attachment difficulties and poor mental health, which in turn can profoundly negatively affect a child's development and educational outcomes, as well as his/her wellbeing in adulthood".

[workingclasshistory]

On this day, 2 March 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old Black schoolgirl, refused to give up her seat on a bus that she had been ordered to vacate for a white passenger. She was arrested and charged with multiple offences for violating the city’s segregation laws (content note: sexual violence). Leaders of the Black community considered attempting to make her case a cause célèbre and a test case for the civil rights movement, but, according to some local activists, Claudette’s dark skin and working class background caused concern. One, Gwen Patton, told Guardian journalist Gary Younge, “It was partly because of her colour and because she was from the working poor. . . . It was a case of ‘bourgey’ Blacks looking down on the working class Blacks.” After Colvin became pregnant as a result of a statutory rape, the leadership decided against pursuing her case. When Rosa Parks – educated, married, and lighter-skinned – was arrested later that year, civil rights leaders had their standard-bearer. More information, sources and map here: https://stories.workingclasshistory.com/article/9207/claudette-colvin-arrested https://www.facebook.com/workingclasshistory/photos/a.296224173896073/2221678694683935/?type=3

[aminul-24]

´Tis the season(ing)!!

[ltwilliammowett]

The Articles of War

The Articles of War are a series of regulations intended to govern the behaviour of a country's military and naval forces. The first known use of the term can be found in Robert Monro's work His expedition with the worthy Scot's regiment called Mac-keyes regiment etc. from 1637 (in the form "Articles of warres") and can be used for military law in general. In Swedish, the corresponding term Krigsartiklar is first mentioned in 1556, but the term is usually used more specifically and with the modern spelling and capitalisation to refer to the British regulations drawn up in the wake of the Glorious Revolution, as well as the regulations of the United States, which were later based on them.

England's first Articles of War were written for the Royal Navy. They formed the statutory provisions regulating and governing the behaviour of members of the Royal Navy. They were prominently displayed in all naval ships, and set out a list of criminal provisions which applied to members of the Royal Navy and others to whom the Act applied, in addition to the criminal law of England and Wales and any local criminal law.

The naval Articles of War were originally issued by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty in 1653 as fighting instructions after defeat at the Battle of Dungeness. Soon after the Restoration, they were converted into an Act of Parliament. After another defeat at the Battle of Toulon, Parliament amended the Articles in 1749, further tightening discipline. These Articles resulted in the execution of Admiral John Byng, despite a clear sentiment in the navy and in Parliament that he should be given a lower punishment. In response, the 1779 amendment was the start of a gradual process of easing the more draconian punishments. The naval Articles were retained in the Naval Discipline Act 1957 but then replaced by the provisions of the tri-service Armed Forces Act 2006.

The 34 Articles of War were read aloud to the crew - many of whom were illiterate - usually once a month, usually on a Sunday. Some captains preferred to do this every Sunday.

There were at least seven crimes for which the death sentence was mandatory: Communicating with the enemy Failure to fight Failure to pursue the enemy sedition or mutiny Burning of ships, boats or magazines Murder Fornication or sodomy against men or animals

The articles list a further 13 offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, but which may be replaced by a punishment deemed appropriate by a court martial. The remaining offences, such as refusing to work, rudeness to officers, uncleanliness, etc., could be punished by the captain or lieutenant. The lesser offences could still be punished on the spot, such as extra work or grog withdrawal. While the more serious offences, such as refusing to work, were carried out on Sunday in front of all crew members and could be punished with flogging.

[absolute-immunities]

Congress knew the “dual sovereign” thing was bad back in 1825

when Congress asserted concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard United States ships in foreign ports, they reserved to the defendant a statutory immunity from double jeopardy

if the foreign prosecution resulted in trial and acquittal or conviction, the defendant would “not be subject to another trial in any court of the United States” for the same offence

even if the Fifth Amendment didn’t bar prosecution, fairness should. we could prosecute someone the same crime as a foreign sovereign. but we shouldn’t

that was in the background when the Court started drawing the line between state and federal criminal jurisdiction. “we can let them have a little concurrent jurisdiction,” they said. “they’ll be good”

It is almost certain, that, in the benignant spirit in which the institutions both of the State and federal systems are administered, an offender who should have suffered the penalties denounced by the one would not be subjected a second time to punishment by the other for acts essentially the same, unless indeed this might occur in instances of peculiar enormity, or where the public safety demanded extraordinary rigor.

this is a bit of wisdom that Congress has lost, if it ever had it

[eaglesnick]

"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so."

Mahatma Gandh

The environment polluting industries certainly had a friend in the last Conservative government and it remains to be seen if Starmer’s Labour Party will be any different.

In January 2020, then Home Secretary Priti Patel included climate activists in her guide to “ideological extremism", and added them to her anti-terrorism watch list issued to the police and security forces.

Forced to retract her initial labelling of environmentally concerned children as “terrorists” Patel did not give up on her war against environmentalists. She threatened to change the law so that members of Extinction Rebellion could be accused of belonging to a “criminal gang" and jailed for up to five years.

She justified her stance by saying:

'We must defend ourselves against this attack on capitalism, our way of life and ultimately our freedoms.’

Yesterday, Patel’s dream came true when five environmental activists were each given between 4-5 years imprisonment for "conspiring to cause a public nuisance". These sentences are the harshest ever handed down for a peaceful protest in England.

While water companies continue to pollute our waterways with raw effluent and water company  bosses pay themselves huge bonuses for destroying  the riverside and shoreline environment, environmental protesters  convicted of causing a “public nuisance"  are jailed for 5 years.

Priti Patel and Sunak’s government might see people who protest against environmental polluters as an “attack on capitalism” but many see it as the only way to bring the publics attention to what big corporations are doing in their pursuit of profit at any cost.

Rather than the protesters mounting an attack against capitalism in general as Patel claims, the protesters target corporations who are knowingly polluting our environment. The protester attacks are very specific.  The Police. Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, introduced by Rishi Sunak, by contrast  is a general attack on our democratic freedoms.

Doughty Street Chambers (March 2023) pointed out the irony of the new public nuisance law in targeting  political and environmental protesters.

“The common law offence of public nuisance was traditionally, and frequently used to prosecute significant environmental offences. This included air pollution and the release of noxious substances by corporations or individuals that caused real harm to the general public. There is no irony lost in the fact the same offence in statutory form is now being zealously deployed to prosecute environmental protestors"

You really cant make this stuff up.!

[lemonhemlock]

i probably shouldn't even react anymore to this disc horse but i read some "opinion" about aegon's rape of that girl, again, and again was baffled by how it was presented and handled. blacks want some justice by law, but aegon literally owns this dyana like cattle by law, like all people of her social class, she's servant, if he wants her to serve in that way, she has to bow and do what he asks her to do. if anything, in realistic setting she would be punished for disobeying the prince, making a scene in front of queen mother and disrupting the peace in the palace. she has to thank alicent being anachronistic feminist, or she would get beaten instead of money. if she was noble, her male relatives could ask for justice on her behalf, that justice being aegon marrying her or at least legitimizing the child if she has one, not jail sentence blacks fantasizing about. westeros doesn't have anti-rape laws, if it did have, viserys would be in jail for marital rape and demon for statutory one. but all these clowns are free and continue perform in this circus for our entertainment. but politically powerless alicent somehow should make unprecedented laws out of thin air to punish her own son?

I mostly agree with what you wrote, anon, but I would like to expand and nuance it a bit. I agree that, realistically-speaking Aegon cannot get punished, but, at least in theory, Westeros is not such a lawless land. Nor were the real Middle Ages such dark times. Rape and murder, specifically, were offenses for which weregild was demanded as punishment/form of reparation. Within ASOIAF, we know for a fact that rapists can get sent to the Wall.

Moreover, slavery is forbidden in Westeros and GRRM makes no mention of serfs (if anyone has evidence to the contrary, please point it out). Jorah Mormont is banished by Ned Stark for selling his smallfolk into slavery. Dyanna is an employee in the Red Keep, she gets paid for her services and receives food + board. We know this, because Cersei mentions docking the washerwoman's pay for "shrinking" her dresses. Dyanna does not belong to Aegon, she is free to leave and find another form of employment, should she so wish. That doesn't mean that, in practice, she isn't restricted by the lack of job opportunities, but she is not property and cannot be bought/sold/traded. She is also not legally obligated to sexually service the prince in any way; Aegon is absolutely abusing his power and breaking the law by assaulting her.

The unfortunate truth here is that Dyanna is a nobody, while Aegon is the highest kind of somebody anyone in Westeros can be - the first son of the King. Regardless of whether you think he is the heir or not, he occupies a space of immense privilege, at least until Rhaenyra executes him in order to secure her claim. As a result of this, Aegon can get away with a lot of illegalities. No one is going to care about Dyanna to be willing to go against the institution of the Crown to get justice for her. In that regard, as long as Aegon's offences target vulnerable individuals that cannot fight back as a result of their low socio-economic position, he is free to perpetuate these abuses with impunity. If his offences start amounting to a more systemic, societal issue, he can expect consequences, but not before. For example, Aerys II wanting to burn down the entirety of King's Landing.

Had Dyanna been Someone's (™) daughter/sister/wife, the situation would have been different, because her family would have accrued sufficient importance in order to Be Offended And Act Like It. Similarly, Rhaegar couldn't get away with kidnapping Lyanna, since her father was literally the Warden of the North. The Starks had sufficient power and resources to make a fuss about it, had the means to activate the STAB military alliance and pose a very real threat to the Crown.

On the other hand, where was Ned when Roose was raping Ramsay's mother and perpetrating first night? Of course, you can claim that maybe he didn't know, but say he did. What do you think he would have done about it? Realistically, not a goddamn thing. Roose is too much of a big fish for Ned to actively seek out to punish him on account of a miller's wife. However, had Roose raped Catelyn/Sansa/Arya, you bet your arse that Ned would be calling his banners and asking for Roose's head.

Which is to say that the discussion would have shifted dramatically had Aegon raped a girl coming from an important family. As it stands, what exactly can Alicent do about it? She can't enforce anything drastic like castrating him or sending him to the Wall or exiling him, since for sure Otto would put a stop to that. The greens need Aegon to secure the Crown, so this would effectively be an act of self-sabotage that could cost them their lives. By this point, they have invested too much in Aegon by securing him a marriage with the only Targaryen princess they had available (who is also a dragon-rider, to boot) and by making him sire children of his own. If Aegon is out of the equation, they will be forced to campaign for a child king in Jaehaerys, a less enticing prospect than a fully-grown Valyrian-looking prince with the most beautiful dragon in the world and a fully-formed family of his own already, guaranteeing stability. Sunk-cost fallacy. They could certainly crown Jaehaerys if needs be, don't get me wrong, but it's too much of a bother to go through for a crime committed against a serving girl with no money/power/influence.

Furthermore, Alicent can only rule in Viserys' stead since he is mostly incapacitated. The suggestion to send Aegon to the Wall or imprison him would actually be dire enough they would need to get Viserys involved and, since he's such a non-confrontational person willing to sweep everything under the rug, at most, he is going to give Aegon a chiding while he is half-conscious from milk of the poppy. Viserys is a bad and neglectful father, but he is not about to ruin his son's life for an offence he doesn't even care about and would probably consider a folly of youth/passion. Now, if Aegon had raped Rhaenyra, we'd be having a very different conversation.

Therefore, the only paths open to Alicent are the ones she already takes: makes sure Dyanna isn't saddled with Aegon's bastard by giving her moon tea (a potion v difficult to brew & as a result, most likely expensive, so probably something not easily accessible), removes her from Aegon's geographical reach, pays her weregild AND administers Aegon's punishment herself, both verbally and physically via chastisement / shaming + a slap.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Islamophobia was invented to silence those Muslims who question the Koran and who demand equality of the sexes.

By: Pascal Bruckner

Published: Jan 3, 2011

At the end of the 1970s, Iranian fundamentalists invented the term "Islamophobia" formed in analogy to "xenophobia". The aim of this word was to declare Islam inviolate. Whoever crosses this border is deemed a racist. This term, which is worthy of totalitarian propaganda, is deliberately unspecific about whether it refers to a religion, a belief system or its faithful adherents around the world.

But confession has no more in common with race than it has with secular ideology. Muslims, like Christians, come from the Arab world, Africa, Asia and Europe, just as Marxists, liberals and anarchists come or came from all over. In a democracy, no one is obliged to like religion, and until proved otherwise, they have the right to regard it as retrograde and deceptive. Whether you find it legitimate or absurd that some people regard Islam with suspicion – as they once did Catholicism – and reject its aggressive proselytism and claim to total truth – this has nothing to do with racism.

Do we talk about 'liberalophobia' or 'socialistophobia' if someone speaks out against the distribution of wealth or market domination. Or should we reintroduce blasphemy, abolished by the revolution in 1791, as a statutory offence, in line with the annual demands of the "Organisation of the Islamic Conference".  Or indeed the French politician Jean-Marc Roubaud, who wants to see due punishment for anyone who "disparages the religious feelings of a community or a state". Open societies depend on the peaceful coexistence of the principal belief systems and the right to freedom of opinion. Freedom of religion is guaranteed, as is the freedom to criticise religions. The French, having freed themselves from centuries of ecclesiastical rule, prefer discretion when it comes to religion. To demand separate rights for one community or another, imposing restrictions on the right to question dogma is a return to the Ancien Regime.

The term "Islamophobia" serves a number of functions: it denies the reality of an Islamic offensive in Europe all the better to justify it; it attacks secularism by equating it with fundamentalism. Above all, however, it wants to silence all those Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and doctrinaire. It follows that young girls are stigmatised for not wearing the veil, as are French, German or English citizens of Maghribi, Turkish, African or Algerian origin who demand the right to religious indifference, the right not to believe in God, the right not to fast during Ramadan. Fingers are pointed at these renegades; they are delivered up to the wrath of their religions communities in order to quash all hope of change among the followers of the Prophet.

On a global scale, we are abetting the construction of a new thought crime, one which is strongly reminiscent of the way the Soviet Union dealt with the "enemies of the people". And our media and politicians are giving it their blessing. Did not the French president himself, never one to miss a blunder - not compare Islamophobia with Antisemitism? A tragic error. Racism attacks people for what they are: black, Arab, Jewish, white. The critical mind on the other hand undermines revealed truths and subjects the scriptures to exegesis and transformation. To confuse the two is to shift religious questions from an intellectual to a judicial level. Every objection, every joke becomes a crime.

The desecration of graves or of places of worship is naturally a matter for the courts. In France, for the most part it is Christian graveyards or churches that are affected. Let us not forget that today, of all the monotheist religions, Christianity is the most persecuted – particularly in Islamic countries such Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey or Egypt. It is easier to be a Muslim in London, New York or Paris than a Protestant or Catholic in the Middle East or North Africa. But the term "Christianophobia" does not function – and that's a good thing. There are words which taint language, which obscure meaning. "Islamophobia" is one of the words that we urgently need to delete from our vocabulary.

==

Iranian Islamists invented "Islamophobia."

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“22 TRIALS AT ASSIZE,” Vancouver Sun. March 2, 1933. Page 13. ----- FOUR ACCUSED OF ATTEMPTED MURDER ---- The calendar for the Vancouver Spring Assize, which opens on March 13 with C. M. O Brian. KC, as Crown prosecutor, now contains 25 names. In three cases, two persons are charged jointly, so that the present indication is 22 trials at this sitting. 

Four attempted murder and two manslaughter charges appear, but robbery with violence is the dominant accusation. 

The list at present Is as follows: 

Charged with robbery with violence: Roy Lindley, Thomas Chappie, Ernest Jackson also facing two counts of retaining stolen property; Irvine Lapiere, Hugh Wellington Jones and Charles Anderson. 

Charged with attempted murder: Gordon Bloomfield and P. R. Decker, two counts: Hugh Wellington Jones, Charles Anderson, Carl G. Roadhouse, also facing a charge of attempted robbery with violence. 

Charged with breaking and entering: W. Blackwood and C. Buchanan, Frank Lonsdale, alias Johnson, and William Smith, alias Beaumont. 

Charged with manslaughter: Harry Lawrence Watson, J. G. McDonald.

Charged with statutory offences: Max McKechnle, Harry Leslie Cockrell, John L. Brown. 

Other cases are: 

R. A. Baker, traversed from the Fall Assizes, charged with false pretences and extortion. 

Edwin B. Skinner, charged with false pretences. 

John Francis Davidson, charged with making a false statement on oath. 

Puran Sing, charged with fraudulently omitting to account for $474.80. 

Surain Singh, charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 

Jack Jung, also known as Jang Quon Poy, charged with unlawfully depriving a mother of her child.

David W. Davies, facing three) counts of dealing with forged documents.

[galerymod]

Imagine you are so extremely rich that you can afford anything!

How stupid do you have to be to put your personal reputation on the line to profit from what exactly?

Power over people or is it really just pathological greed for the save of money?

British billionaire clan on trial for exploitation

They belong to one of the richest families in the UK. But they apparently only had a tip to spare for their domestic workers. Four members of the Hinduja clan are now on trial in Switzerland for exploitation and human trafficking.

The public prosecutor's office accuses them of possibly not always treating their servants appropriately.

The Hinduja family, whose fortune is estimated at around 47 billion dollars, owns a villa in the wealthy town of Cologny in the canton of Geneva.

They apparently recruit their domestic staff mainly in India. According to the public prosecutor's office,

It is said that Prakash and Kamal Hinduja, along with their son Ajay and his wife Namrata, compensated the victims with a mere $8 each for 18-hour days.

Wow 8 ÷ 18 = 0,4444444444

In a nutshell: Minimum wage in SwitzerlandIs there a statutory minimum wage in Switzerland?

No, there is no statutory minimum wage in Switzerland. However, as trade unions have repeatedly called for a Swiss minimum wage, there is now a minimum wage in five cantons: Neuchâtel, Jura, Geneva, Basel-Stadt and Ticino.

How high is the minimum wage in the different cantons?

In Neuchâtel, at least CHF 20.08 must be paid per hour of work. In Jura, the minimum wage is CHF 20 per hour, while in Ticino it has been CHF 19 since 1 January 2021. In Geneva, the hourly pay must be at least 23 francs; 21 francs must be paid as a minimum in Basel-Stadt (expected from 1 July 2022).

Why is there no statutory minimum wage in Switzerland?

There is no question that there are a number of reasons for and against minimum wages. As many Swiss people voted against the introduction of a minimum wage in a referendum, it was ultimately decided not to do so.

Again, in plain language, referendums are not always for the good of all. So it was legally compliant to pay fucking low wages,

it was just morally and ethically reprehensible. Evil world of good people with their morals and ethics, smile.

It is also alleged that they confiscated their passports and restricted their freedom to leave the house.

The family's lawyers partially admitted the allegations, but at the same time tried to relativise them by referring to the free board and lodging.

As far as the financial exploitation is concerned, an agreement has already been reached, reports the BBC.

However, the accusation of human trafficking remains. The confiscation of passports and the strict curfew could possibly be categorised as human trafficking. In Switzerland, human trafficking is considered a serious criminal offence.

To be really evil now! British society likes to bet what would you bet that this can all be settled with a paltry financial penalty?

mod

Being rich means taking responsibility for society at all levels and not exploiting it at all levels.

This only comes from these ***** elite schools and universities where profit maximisation is put before ethics and moral responsibility.

We can't eat as much as we want to vomit!

Incidentally, this is just one example of so many, it is sad how our elites and our academic cultural elites hand in hand hardly represent moral values if not for self-expression.

[secretceremonials]

i analysed the cassandra myth from a modern english and welsh legal perspective because i’m drunk, bored, and procrastinating (maybe this will be a good revision exercise? 

Apollo v Cassandra: Breach of contract

i want to preface this by saying that i don’t fully study contract until next year, so i’m not going into detail here. apollo and cassandra do enter a verbal contract to provide the gift of prophecy for the service of sex (if we go with that version, which is my go to), so cassandra may well be liable for her breach. i would argue that this contract had unfair terms however, making it void to the extent of those terms. again, i don’t know enough about this to say for sure. 

Cassandra v Apollo: maliciously administering poison 

i don’t see any reason why apollo’s saliva that causes casssandra not to be believed can’t be interpreted as poison (we have case law of HIV infected semen being treated in this way). following this logic, his spitting can be viewed as maliciously administering poison, contrary to either section 23 or 24 of the offences against the person act 1861. for a section 23 offence, the defendant must intend to cause grievous bodily harm or endanger life. i’m not really sure that applies here, although cassandra’s mental state is possibly bad enough to constitute grievous bodily harm, it may be difficult to prove that apollo intended to cause this. section 24 would therefore be easier. this section simply requires intention to injure, aggrieve, or annoy. intention to punish would absolutely fall under here, i think. 

failing that, spitting on people without consent is a battery, so we definitely have a civil route if not a criminal one. it is worth noting that it absolutely is possible to pursue an action on the basis of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. injury does not have to be physical.

Cassandra v Ajax: rape or battery, depending on your favoured myth

In some versions of the myth, Ajax rapes Cassandra in the temple of athena as the city falls. in others, he drags her away in a massive breach of sanctuary laws. which version you prefer will alter what wrong has been committed.

If she is raped, it is... rape. crazy, i know. the statutory definition of rape is the penile penetration of another without consent or without a reasonable belief in their consent (sexual offences act 2003, section 1), which is what occurs here. they have sex, cassandra absolutely does not consent. easy.

if she isn’t raped, there is still a wrong, albeit probably a tort rather than a crime. the tort of battery is committed when an individual intentionally (or recklessly) touches another without consent. obviously this happens here. assault is likely as well. this occurs when the defendant does something to make the victim think they are about to directly and involuntary apply force on their body. this probably happens, but we don’t have enough detail to know for sure. we can maybe convict him of a crime instead, but this depends on what injuries cassandra acquires. i think it is likely enough that she would suffer actual bodily harm (a bruise or worse- we know the attack was violent), but grievous bodily harm is unlikely. If she suffers actual bodily harm, this is common assault, contrary to s47 of the offences against the person act 1861. 

Cassandra v Agamemnon: unlawful imprisonment

because slavery is illegal and i am completely ignoring historical context here, agamemnon most likely unlawfully imprisons cassandra. false imprisonment is confining an individual to a restricted area without their consent and without lawful justification. the only issue with proving this would be that i’m not sure if cassandra is really confined to a limited space? but presumably she has to stay around agamemnon? i think it counts.

Cassandra v Agamemnon: rape

it goes without saying that, in modern law, slavery is illegal. so, for the sake of simplicity, i’m going to continue arguing that cassandra’s enslavement is akin to unlawful imprisonment. obviously, keeping someone as a concubine without consent is very illegal, but we’ll ignore that for now. 

bearing that in mind, it is probable (but not certain) that Agamemnon rapes cassandra. As we have already seen, the definition of rape in the sexual offences act 2003 is the penile penetration of another without their consent, or without a reasonable belief in consent. as cassandra does, in some versions, have children, I am going to assume that her and agamemnon have sex. so now the question is consent. 

In section 75 of the sexual offences act, evidential presumptions about non-consent pop up in some cases. the effect of these presumptions is that non-consent is assumed, unless the defendant can provide some evidence that is “More than merely fanciful and speculative” that the alleged victim did in fact consent. one case where this occurs is when the alleged victim was wrongfully imprisoned by the defendant at the time of the incident. this means that agamemnon would have to provide some evidence of cassandra’s consent before a full trial would occur. this isn’t a particularly high bar, but it is something. 

we don’t know enough about cassandra’s state of mind to know whether she consented (she did consent to the marriage in Euripides’ trojan women, and until 1992, marriage was taken as an express form of consent- not super relevant, but interesting anyway), and honestly, given the context, agamemnon may have had a reasonable (in his culture) belief in her consent. obviously now we would not assume that a woman would consent to a man who took her from her home and family, but bear in mind that this is the bronze age. i’m also not sure if we should apply the reasonableness standard of a reasonable man today or a reasonable one then? recklessness is also subjectively measured now anyway, so he may not even have been reckless as to her non-consent.

Cassandra v Clytemnestra: murder

okay, this one is probably the easiest. In (basically) every version of the myth, Clytemnestra kills Cassandra. murder is the killing of another with the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Clytemnestra intends to kill Cassandra. She does so. It’s murder, she will really struggle to access a defence here. There is no self-defence or necessity present. There may be some grounds for a partial defence of provocation as she is faced with her sexual rival, but I honestly doubt there is enough of this to warrant a manslaughter verdict. 

Conclusion

Cassandra deserves a break. i hope you enjoyed my silly little law exercise :)

[uter-us]

radfem question

what are yalls thoughts on legally defining rape as penile penetration (in the uk), having it so only men can be legally rapists? (and your thoughts on people advocating for this to be changed? like do you think this is good or bad?)

"The Sexual Offences Act 2003 says that someone commits rape if all of the following happens: They intentionally penetrate the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with their penis. The other person does not consent to the penetration. They do not reasonably believe that the other person consents."

even though it happens less often, what abt women-to-woman rape and woman-to-man rape? cuz from my understanding it would be considered sexual assault, which has a max sentence of 10 years as opposed to rape w a max sentence of life, OR it would be assault by penetration defined as, "when someone puts an object or any part of the body other than their penis (for example fingers) into another person's vagina or anus, without the person's permission" with a life sentence.

couldn't this skew the UK's data on which sex is the primary rapists as only men could be? or would it be okay cuz we could still see the primary/majority sex of sexually violent criminals?

but back to the original question, it feels iffy to me cuz rape is definitely like considered worse, like in this that I linked, there's a FAQ part w the question "What happened to me doesn't fit the legal definition of rape. Does that mean it wasn't as bad?" and Rape Crisis repeatedly states throughout this page that they use "words that are meaningful to the victim or survivor, not just legal terms," so is there a case to be made that legally it should reflect that (like the word rape being more meaningful in expressing the severity than assault)?

and alternatively, is there a good reason to have only males commit rape and have "assault by penetration" seperate (even tho it's the same max sentence )?

also kinda side note: to my knowledge either sex could be charged w statutory rape.

**FYI FYI FYI I'm not from the UK and can definitely be misunderstanding the law**

[ukrfeminism]

2 minute read

Police will be barred from asking for rape victims’ therapy, health, school or other personal records unless it is “absolutely necessary” under new laws to reverse plummeting conviction rates.

Ministers announced the rules as part of a new victims and prisoners law which also gives victims a right to refuse to provide the information without the prospect of the police threatening to drop their case.

The moves will mirror laws already in place that limit police access to victims’ mobile phones to prevent intrusive “digital strip searches” of their private lives, which have been blamed for deterring women from continuing with a prosecution.

The Ministry of Justice said it aimed to end “expansive fishing expeditions” for information that was not relevant to the investigation and could be used to undermine the credibility of the victim.

Preventing ‘invasive requests’

The number of sexual offences including rape have jumped by a third to nearly 195,000 since before the pandemic ,while the proportion resulting in a charge have fallen to as low as 1.3 per cent.

Since ministers pledged to tackle the crisis, the charge rate has increased, although up to 60 per cent of victims withdraw from the prosecution before it comes to court amid concerns at intrusions into their private lives, delays of two years or more in bringing cases to trial, and the trauma of reliving the attack in the witness box.

The new measures to protect from “invasive requests” will cover any official “third-party” information on victims such as education, medical, social services and counselling records.

Police will be allowed to request access only if it is “absolutely necessary and proportionate” to the investigation. They will also be required by law to inform victims about what type of information is being requested, why and how it will be used.

It will dictate that any victim must be informed their refusal to hand over their phones will not automatically lead to a police investigation being dropped.

Police face threat of legal action

If the police fail to abide by the statutory duties in the legislation, they would be in breach of the law and could be open to a legal challenge, according to John Edwards, the Information Commissioner.

Alex Chalk, the Justice Secretary, said: “This important reform will end invasive unnecessary requests for therapy notes for rape victims and give them the confidence to seek the help they need earlier, free from the fear that what they share in the process of healing could be weaponised against them.

“The Victims and Prisoners Bill is ensuring victims are treated as participants in, not just spectators of, the justice system – improving support for them while overhauling the parole system to better protect the public from the most dangerous offenders.”

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, said: “It is simply unacceptable that victims of some of the most traumatic crimes have had significant amounts of their personal records unnecessarily requested.”

The changes followed a Home Office consultation in 2022 which showed that almost 90 per cent of respondents were in favour of introducing a statutory duty on police forces to only make necessary and proportionate requests for the disclosure of third-party information.