Around a hundred women demonstrated in Brussels on Friday to denounce gender violence on the eve of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on 25 November.
No clue what the sentence severity is, as compared to rape, but stealthing should probably be considered sexual assault rather than rape. In my jurisdiction, sentence length is identical for both but elsewhere it can vary.
I want you to picture a jury. You have to convince them that unprotected sex through subterfuge is specifically rape on top of convincing them that unprotected sex was had. Why not just skip a step, punish the same, and be done with it?
There’s the violence of “a wrong committed against a person’s body”, and there’s violence in the sense of “a direct application of physical force”.
I think everyone here is in agreement that the second sense should not be considered a prerequisite for the first.
Yeah. That’s the only attitude that makes the French legal definition of rape barely tolerable.
France, for instance, considers that rape can be considered to have occurred when “an act of sexual penetration or an oral-genital act is committed on a person, with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.”
Far from ideal, but it leaves enough room for interpretation that a decent judge can work with it. Unfortunately, that same leeway can also allow a shitty judge to let scumbags off easy.
I can’t be fucked to find the original analysis I read on this, but IIRC France objects because they are already party to the Istanbul Convention which apparently defines things in a way that, they argue, not only is redundant but is more specific and therefore holds more legal weight.
I’m no jurist, but I think there’s more nuance to this subject than sensationalist headlines imply.
France, for instance, considers that rape can be considered to have occurred when “an act of sexual penetration or an oral-genital act is committed on a person, with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.”
So, what kind of non-consensual sex act couldn’t be argued to be rape under this definition? “violence, coercion, threat, or surprise” seems to cover all bases I can (perhaps naively) think of.
At least I don’t think we should so easily dismiss concerns that a competing definition might weaken the word of the law, as well intentioned as it may be.
So because France considers their definition to be the same or better, they block it from becoming the definition for the whole bloc where other countries have looser definitions. Make no sense and makes them the bad guy here holding off the progress.
Or they’re saying “come back with a better one”. That doesn’t seem unreasonable or evil, especially if the ultimate outcome IS a better definition of rape.
Again, I’m no jurist and I haven’t looked into the details of this, but I don’t think weakening the law in some countries is a good outcome even if it strengthens it in others. The French government’s stated concerns seem legitimate to me and I’d like to see those concerns addressed by the Commission before dismissing them as “bad guy behavior”.
(And let’s be clear here: I’m not French and I have no love for the French government, many members of which are or were accused rapists IIRC)
After reading about the convention, it doesn’t contradict the proposed definition, and the convention is using a definition limited in scope only defining violence against women or trans women. But not men, who can also be victims of rape. Also, the convention is voluntary, and any signatory country can leave it any time, like Turkey already did.
So again, there is no reason to oppose the definition as it’s currently proposed, as it doesn’t contradict the definition used by convention and expands it to cover areas that convention doesn’t.
This is just France being France. They are the obstinate teenager of the EU. It doesn’t need any logic, they just need to be both correct and different.
Yeah the threat of violence makes it robbery (eg if you have a banana in your pocket but say you have a gun), just like terrorism can be either violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political goal. However, a bank heist would not be robbery, just like burglary or pickpocketing is not robbery.
This probably depends on jurisdiction. I also suspect “violence” in a legal sense is different from the everyday sense. I’m not a lawyer.
From the US FBI’s web site:
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines robbery as the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.
It’s wild that some countries doesn’t consider it rape unless violence is used. Fucked up world.
Hot take: Rape is violence, no matter what.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but the counter argument is that rape could occur through coercion or deception.
Like stealthing
No clue what the sentence severity is, as compared to rape, but stealthing should probably be considered sexual assault rather than rape. In my jurisdiction, sentence length is identical for both but elsewhere it can vary.
It’s unprotected sex without consent. Don’t see why it shouldn’t be rape.
I want you to picture a jury. You have to convince them that unprotected sex through subterfuge is specifically rape on top of convincing them that unprotected sex was had. Why not just skip a step, punish the same, and be done with it?
There’s the violence of “a wrong committed against a person’s body”, and there’s violence in the sense of “a direct application of physical force”.
I think everyone here is in agreement that the second sense should not be considered a prerequisite for the first.
I think the problem is this is “legally defining”
So a hot take just wouldn’t hold up in court. This is about pushing it further than just a hot take.
Yeah. That’s the only attitude that makes the French legal definition of rape barely tolerable.
Far from ideal, but it leaves enough room for interpretation that a decent judge can work with it. Unfortunately, that same leeway can also allow a shitty judge to let scumbags off easy.
I can’t be fucked to find the original analysis I read on this, but IIRC France objects because they are already party to the Istanbul Convention which apparently defines things in a way that, they argue, not only is redundant but is more specific and therefore holds more legal weight.
I’m no jurist, but I think there’s more nuance to this subject than sensationalist headlines imply.
So, what kind of non-consensual sex act couldn’t be argued to be rape under this definition? “violence, coercion, threat, or surprise” seems to cover all bases I can (perhaps naively) think of.
At least I don’t think we should so easily dismiss concerns that a competing definition might weaken the word of the law, as well intentioned as it may be.
So because France considers their definition to be the same or better, they block it from becoming the definition for the whole bloc where other countries have looser definitions. Make no sense and makes them the bad guy here holding off the progress.
Or they’re saying “come back with a better one”. That doesn’t seem unreasonable or evil, especially if the ultimate outcome IS a better definition of rape.
Again, I’m no jurist and I haven’t looked into the details of this, but I don’t think weakening the law in some countries is a good outcome even if it strengthens it in others. The French government’s stated concerns seem legitimate to me and I’d like to see those concerns addressed by the Commission before dismissing them as “bad guy behavior”.
(And let’s be clear here: I’m not French and I have no love for the French government, many members of which are or were accused rapists IIRC)
After reading about the convention, it doesn’t contradict the proposed definition, and the convention is using a definition limited in scope only defining violence against women or trans women. But not men, who can also be victims of rape. Also, the convention is voluntary, and any signatory country can leave it any time, like Turkey already did.
So again, there is no reason to oppose the definition as it’s currently proposed, as it doesn’t contradict the definition used by convention and expands it to cover areas that convention doesn’t.
This is just France being France. They are the obstinate teenager of the EU. It doesn’t need any logic, they just need to be both correct and different.
Right… Like: “it’s not a bank robbery if you don’t use a gun!”
Robbery does require violence though.
Does it? Quietly hand a note to the bank teller that says: “this is a robbery, put $10000 in a bag”, then calmly walk out when they give it to you.
One could argue that there was violence implied, but that doesn’t mean that violence was used.
Yeah the threat of violence makes it robbery (eg if you have a banana in your pocket but say you have a gun), just like terrorism can be either violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political goal. However, a bank heist would not be robbery, just like burglary or pickpocketing is not robbery.
Cybercrime? Insider job?
deleted by creator
This probably depends on jurisdiction. I also suspect “violence” in a legal sense is different from the everyday sense. I’m not a lawyer.
From the US FBI’s web site:
Yes I did gloss over the “threat of violence” part and just included it in general as “violence”.
So two of these things aren’t violence. One is threats and one is making people afraid.
Which are two of the scenarios that the protestors say the rape laws should be made to cover.