Indeed. This is quite annoying.
The problem with putting all these āfiltersā to distort the issue, is that they do exactly that: they distort the issue.
This is a story about a protestor, using a non-violent method to send a powerful message, whilst mocking the violent tactics commonly deployed by riot police. Before she was charged with sexual assault this is what she said of the event: āI wanted that policeman to remember what happened to Marta from Pisa. Last July, she was beaten, with no consequences for the officers.ā
The move by the police to charge her with sexual assault is nothing more than a petty hissy-fit aimed to remind protestors āwho is in chargeā. The language of the dickhead in charge of the police union makes that perfectly clear: āWeāre tired of taking blows from the No TAV group ā and not just from them. Today, protesting is a sacred right, but when they overstep the line of legality, there can be no flexibility.ā
Throwing in hypothetical scenarios doesnāt make this case clearer, it only blurs the issue around the actual scenario. That scenario is a bully of a police union acting like theyāre victims when the truth is obviously very different.
6 Likes
Yes it wasnāt a very good time in history, the smile wasnāt meant to mean anything.
There really isnāt a rebuttal youāll accept. Because youāre doing the logic-troll thing.
Okay, one more time: I donāt care if, in your opinion, she actually assaulted someone. I, as have others, disagree, due, as has been stated, to the inherent power-imbalance there. Thatās not what Iām talking about.
My point is, a specific law has been deliberately misapplied in order to stifle dissent. Thereās no such thing as āideal lawā. In fact, Iād go so far as to say there are some very stupid laws, which I think we should ignore, and campaign to have removed. Not, obviously, those applying to assault and/or violence. However, not only are there stupid laws (which weāre not discussing here), but also laws either stupidly, or maliciously applied (which we are discussing here). Everything has to deal with nuance, intent, and whether or not we should carry on doing something when itās plain to see itās bloody stupid and will be nothing but an expensive waste of time (viz. the other two similar cases I mentioned earlier). Especially the law. This is going to get thrown out of court, if it ever even gets there.
Either you are arguing the toss for fun, or you have such an authoritarian world-view that we simply think in ways that are so completely orthogonal to each other that we canāt even process what the other is getting at. Either way, Iām done.
3 Likes
Youāre not making a rebuttal for me to accept. Weāre going in circles. Iām done with you.
Well, okay.
1 Like
I donāt know who she is. Neither do you. We donāt know the context and context matters.
What elements do you have in the italian case, and lacking in the egyptian one, that makes you certain that there is assault in the first case ?
(the same lady, kissing another copās helmet : http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/1/28/1296235341346/An-Egyptian-anti-governme-007.jpg )
And suppose the lady in the egyptian picture was very angry to see young men doing this awful job and obeying to terrible orders, and that her spontaneous reaction, a mix of anger and despair was to go and kiss the cop, who had to endure this passively ? Then, in that extremely hypothetical case, that would be assault, and she should have been tried accordingly, or not ?
Iām going to try and explain this to you and weāll see if you try to ignore everything I say or not:
First of all, I preface this based on the fact that I live in a common law country, I donāt know that much about civil law, and Italy is a civil law country.
Culture governs perception, perception governs apprehension, and apprehension is the key element most laws regarding assault. Also, consent has always been a defense to assault. Finally,
āI saw this young man in his uniform and I felt pity and disgust,ā she said. Taking advantage of the officerās orders not to react, De Chiffre said she also licked his helmetās visor and touched her fingers to his lips.
Link.
Maybe Iām the only person who read beyond the original article, but thatās nothing like any of the pictures you showed me.
Apparently you missed the part where she licked her fingers and spread them across his mouth and said she thought the āpigsā should be strung up from their feet and did it all to get a rise out of them. Her actions go way beyond what the media is showing you in that single picture.
You just levied a bunch of shaming language and no logical argument at him. Why should we listen to anything you have to say?
Sources of her claims that it was NOT the benevolent flower in the rifle action sheās being made out to be by some of you:
That is certainly gross - and she should probably have some punishment levied against her.
For what itās worth I still donāt see how thatās sexual assault though - although at this point I appreciate that may be splitting hairs.
I also still feel like we must be missing a lot of context here. Iāve never met a police officer that would let my fingers get anywhere near his mouth. Why didnāt he stop her? An important aspect here you need to consider is that he was in the position of power and should have had full control of over the situation - I donāt gather that he was ambushed by a random passerby.
But please keep in mind that Iām not saying that sheās done nothing wrong here - just that a charge of sexual assault is ludicrous, given the situation as much as the events in question.
Welcome aboard by the way! I hope that your b_s account serves more than one thread.
1 Like
You said yourself we donāt know about the Egyptian pictures context ! So how can you know āthatās nothing like any of the pictures you showed meā ?
And again, what about my hypothesis, namely that the egyptian cop didnāt consent to the kissing ?
Read your own statement. The hypo you pulled out of your ass is as good as the one I pulled out of mine.
Edit: Clicked the damn button early on accident.
I donāt have to address the Egyptian cop case, because it doesnāt change the facts of this case. Itās a distraction I shouldnāt have allowed you to pursue.
I gave you context for this picture. You want to talk about something else? Go find someone else do it with.
Except I explicitly presented my hypothesis as such, and not as a statement of fact as you did yours. Anyway, Iām afraid weāre going nowhere.
If he had used force against her, people would have claimed that he was overreacting. Since he did not use force against her, people argue that he should have done something to prevent it. It seems like he is in a no-win situation.
The fact that she was able to do this should be an indication that the power balance is not as black-and-white as everyone wants to believe.
They were fucking cops in riot gear. Itās pretty damned black-and-white.
2 Likes
I donāt think itās fair to assume an argument that hasnāt happened, especially as in this case I donāt believe you to be correct. Simply grouping others opinions into an absurd hypothetical that hasnāt been discussed doesnāt in any way validate your opinion on the subject.
If he had grabbed her arm and prevented her from touching his face, I donāt think anyone here would be saying he over reacted - why would they? Even if heād arrested her for some broad ābreaching the peaceā type offence I donāt see why anyone would bat an eyelid, as she was quite clearly acting inappropriately.
None of the above changes the fact that this is an obviously trumped up charge.
I could be just as ridiculous as you and claim that this debate is pointless, because clearly even if she hadnāt touched him youād still think she sexually assaulted him. Itās a no-win situation, apparently.
4 Likes
