11/07/04

Only Women Are To Be Protected In Spain The council questioned whether it was constitutional for an action to become a crime only when it was perpetrated by a man and the victim was a woman.

...

From Javier

The situation in Spain is unbelievable.

Massive grants of restraint orders (injunctions), psychological crimes, mental crimes, and now, a proposal for a law with different penal codes, one for men, another for women.

The same act of aggression, between a man and a woman, should be considered a crime if it is committed by a man against a woman, and just a civil infraction if carried out by a woman against a man.

The Highest Judicial Council of Spain has stated that this is unconstitutional, but the Socialist Government has persisted with the legislation. It has been approved by the Cabinet, and it is expected that, after the parliamentary phase (the socialists have a parliamentary majority), in about January 2005, there will be courts dealing only with women as victims.

Special gender-based laws and courts.

From six months to one year of jail, even for a first case of "psychological" crime against a woman.

The legal decision will hinge upon not merely the facts, but "the intention to perpetuate a submissive gender role upon the woman".

...

Will feminist-controlled western governments also shortly try to make pictures such as this one of a maid illegal on the grounds that the intention is to perpetuate a submissive gender role upon women. 

Yep: This is what they will try to do sometime in the future.

By doing this, governments would also create a whole new class of criminals whom they can intimidate, prosecute and imprison.

And, no doubt, just as in the case of the war on drugs, they would also generate resources for terrorists and a whole new criminal underground.

Governments positively thrive on such things.

Let us remember what Glen Smythe - then head of the UK's Metropolitan Police Federation which represents the rank-and-file of police officers -  said not long ago when he first heard the news about the possibility of David Blunkett decriminalising cannabis. 

He quickly blustered forth saying that it would interfere with the police powers to stop and search people!

Almost unbelievable! 

And, unsurprisingly, he looked very embarrassed by what he had just said. He had just admitted that he wanted cannabis to remain illegal so that he and his officers would have more power over citizens. 

He had let the police officers' cat out of the police officers' bag.

In the same way that an undertaker benefits from the deaths of people, or the dentist benefits from tooth decay, or the doctor benefits from diseases, so it is that a very large and hugely influential section of the organism called 'government' has a strong vested interest in damaging people in one way or the other.

And because it is so powerful - especially compared to the individuals that it wants to damage - it is, firstly, very difficult to restrain and, secondly, it is extremely harmful and destructive.

The undertakers, the dentists and the doctors do not usually have the means or the inclination to cause harm to people in order to build up their businesses. 

The same, however, is clearly not true for governments.

These are multi-peopled enterprises.

They are very large and very powerful organisms.

And they are very definitely not human ones!

For example.

You are a human being.

And you do not have the means to drop bombs on people.

But government organisms can do this.

And they seem to do such things with great frequency.

They are not human!

Government organisms do not have relationships.

They do not have children.

They do not have to get up in the morning to go to work.

They do not have their limbs blown off.

They do not have a sexuality.

They do not feel pain.

They do not feel loss.

They do not get depressed.

They do not have shame or guilt.

They do not even have a conscience! - which is why, for example, they would rather that people died in severe pain and discomfort than have access to a drug like marijuana, and which is why, for example again, they do not very much mind bombing people.

And yet these organisms are living in our environment, and in our midst. 

And they are enslaving us. They are mistreating us. They are costing us.

Wake up!

Last week it was pointed out that ...

The heterosexual male who is dominant over his partner has been continually under attack for far too long. And he is supposed to squirm in shame for his poor attitudes.

On the other hand, the dominant heterosexual female, and the dominant homosexual male or female, seem to have been lauded to the hilt over the past three decades.

And this is because feminists and the politically correct do not want dominant males and submissive females even to exist - even though the vast majority of both men and women prefer such roles - especially in their relationships.

This is why they are trying to prevent people from even portraying women as 'submissive'.

But, of course, it will remain completely acceptable to portray men and fathers as wife beaters, child abusers, rapists, harassers, paedophiles, thugs, morons, fools etc etc.

This is totally acceptable to them.

And this is because they profit from such things.

Government organisms benefit hugely by demonising men and criminalising them. And they gain magnificently if they can cause a great deal of trouble in the societies over which they exert power.

And when these organisms are populated by the feminists and the politically-correct, they follow an agenda which causes this trouble by, basically, breaking up people's relationships.

And by making it very difficult for men and women to feel secure in their relationships (for example, by pouring billions of dollars annually into encouraging women to report and to feel 'abused') government organisms are reaping enormous rewards.

And at the moment it seems that they are now beginning to pursue a course that will make criminals out of men who merely portray women as submissive.

Anyway.

Readers might also like to read this ...

Jail Sentence For Sexist Insults The French cabinet yesterday gave its backing to a bill authorising penalties of up to a year in jail for anyone found guilty of making an anti-gay or sexist remark. 

Yes. Even the French government is at it.

We are being policed more and more with regard to what we can say, see, think or do.

And always with the highest expense being paid by normal heterosexual men.

Do men really want to live under an oppressive communist state where government thugs will control and engineer - by force - almost every aspect of both their physical and mental lives?

Well. This is happening before their very eyes.

And here's Walter ...

Jail sentences for "sexist" insults. 

Mind you, that is already in place in Canada, monetary and/or jail sentences for insults against gays and feminists. It's just that France now joined the increasingly more all-pervasive effort to suppress, oppress and persecute the conservative majority.

However, you are perfectly alright if you wish to insult men for being heterosexual and Christian. There's no penalty for any of that. You don't even have to try to find out how that works. Just watch TV and see it being done with impunity, many times, everyday, on virtually all channels you can get access to.

If you wonder what is a "sexist" insult, don't worry. Canada's Human Rights Tribunals, our equivalent of Peoples Courts in other totalitarian regimes, will take that decision off your hands. They say that anything you say about a minority group that is alleged to have offended a member or members of that group will be deemed a criminal offence, even if it happens to be the truth. The truth is no defence. You are held to be innocent only if nobody ever lays a complaint about you.

If someone from a minority- or special interest group complains about you having offended them, that is all that matters, no matter whether the complaint is reasonable or not.