Another great episode, Dusty - thank you! If you haven't seen it, there is an excellent article by Janice Turner in the Times, about Gisèle Pélicot and how her case is important for France. One horrifying takeaway is that some or all of the men could walk away free, because the definition of rape requires force. Read it and weep (I did). https://www.thetimes.com/article/5deef277-12a8-41da-98ab-5ff283a6d6f6?shareToken=ac2265ecf6a156d63be77cc06597b300
From the article I sent, it seems that not struggling is taken as consent (don't shout at me, I'm as appalled as anyone!) It seems that this may be behind the drugging, alongside a regressive "his house, his bed, his wife" attitude that deems able to give proxy consent for their wives. I am sickened by what I learned from Janice's excellent article, to be honest.
My knowledge of French law is negligible - I'm only going on what I see reported in English media. I would certainly hope there is an alternative charge that can be brought, but I don't know.
Re the Allison Bailey case, just looked up section 111 of EA 2010 and I can see what they mean:
“111Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions
(1)A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 112(1) (a basic contravention).
(2)A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.
(3)A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.”
I’m feeling hopeful (but why wasn’t this taken into account in the earlier cases?)
Yes it's a wholly new point. I am not sure but I presume it was not quite as obvious as it was in this case in other cases The time line here is that Stonewall complained about Allison to Garden Court and then GC took the matter forward. GC then claimed that they, as it were, proceeding under their own steam but the link does seem very obvious on the face of it.
The greater significance is that, if this is successful, it will apply to Stonewall (and others) in many other cases.
Sorry the other aspect was that Stonewall claimed that the employee who contacted GC ( the one with the support dog!!) was acting under her own steam - that always sounded like a bit of a lame excuse!
The great thing about the overflow Court was that all of us Terfs could feel free to treat the Scottish Government case with the derision it deserved 😊
Trying to take notes while people are roaring with laughter is difficult 😂
Another great episode, Dusty - thank you! If you haven't seen it, there is an excellent article by Janice Turner in the Times, about Gisèle Pélicot and how her case is important for France. One horrifying takeaway is that some or all of the men could walk away free, because the definition of rape requires force. Read it and weep (I did). https://www.thetimes.com/article/5deef277-12a8-41da-98ab-5ff283a6d6f6?shareToken=ac2265ecf6a156d63be77cc06597b300
You're welcome, Jeremy and thanks, I shall read Janice's piece.
Dusty
If someone is drugged , they cannot give consent, therefore it’s forced, surely.
Here's hoping, Liz!!!!!!!!!!!!
From the article I sent, it seems that not struggling is taken as consent (don't shout at me, I'm as appalled as anyone!) It seems that this may be behind the drugging, alongside a regressive "his house, his bed, his wife" attitude that deems able to give proxy consent for their wives. I am sickened by what I learned from Janice's excellent article, to be honest.
Dreadful case!!! As you say, sickening!
Sorry Jeremy, we aren’t shouting at you. 😄
😀
I know, but thank you. ❤️
Another one up at daft-o-clock, TT!
That’s awful. Surely they must be able to prosecute somehow!
Sounds appalling but I’m not a criminal law expert. Jeremy?
Some kind of assault?
My knowledge of French law is negligible - I'm only going on what I see reported in English media. I would certainly hope there is an alternative charge that can be brought, but I don't know.
OK thanks, Jeremy.
Let's hope so!
Dusty
Re the Allison Bailey case, just looked up section 111 of EA 2010 and I can see what they mean:
“111Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions
(1)A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 112(1) (a basic contravention).
(2)A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.
(3)A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.”
I’m feeling hopeful (but why wasn’t this taken into account in the earlier cases?)
Hi Barbara
Yes it's a wholly new point. I am not sure but I presume it was not quite as obvious as it was in this case in other cases The time line here is that Stonewall complained about Allison to Garden Court and then GC took the matter forward. GC then claimed that they, as it were, proceeding under their own steam but the link does seem very obvious on the face of it.
The greater significance is that, if this is successful, it will apply to Stonewall (and others) in many other cases.
Fingers crossed!!!!
Dusty
Sorry the other aspect was that Stonewall claimed that the employee who contacted GC ( the one with the support dog!!) was acting under her own steam - that always sounded like a bit of a lame excuse!
Thanks Dusty, great work as ever. 500 updates, wow! I’ll get the bubbly chilled. 🥂
The more I read about the Supreme Court shenanigans, the more I can understand the hilarity from listeners.
You’re welcome, TT.
The great thing about the overflow Court was that all of us Terfs could feel free to treat the Scottish Government case with the derision it deserved 😊
Trying to take notes while people are roaring with laughter is difficult 😂
Dusty