crackhaus:
@LordReed, the answer to your question is no!

However, chapter 29 includes females in its entirety... that should clear whatever sentiments that (356) is discriminatory.

The problem with you all screaming discrimination is that you want to see discrimination.
No country's constitution is 100% fool-proof...more often than not, one section makes up for the lapses in another, and sometimes even contradict each other.

Also, you might want to look up the difference between felony assault and misdemeanor assault.

So someone receiving a lighter sentence for committing the very same crime on a woman than he would have received if it was a man he committed the crime against is not discriminatory? Okay o. LoL!

babygirlfl:


Ok. Apart from that part, I think there are so many other bits of our constitution that shows that woman are discriminated in one form or another. Forget the writers interpretation, look at our constitution and tell me if you honestly think there is no form of discrimination.

I have a pdf format of the Nigerian constitution and like I said, to the best of my knowledge there's no form of discrimination in it. If you think there's, just point it out, I'll be happy to verify

YourCoffin:


I have a pdf format of the Nigerian constitution and like I said, to the best of my knowledge there's no form of discrimination in it. If you think there's, just point it out, I'll be happy to verify

Ok can we discuss the points raised in the op one by one?

@ Yourcoffin

Take a look at this sections of our penal code

353. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults any male person is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years. The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.


360. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults a woman or girl is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

Do you think this is discrimination or not?

crackhaus:


26 (1): Subject to the provisions of section 28 of this Constitution, a person to whom the provisions of this section apply may be registered as a citizen of Nigeria, if the President is satisfied that -

(a) he is a person of good character;

(b) he has shown a clear intention of his desire to be domiciled in Nigeria; and

(c) he has taken the Oath of Allegiance prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to this Constitution.


Obviously, all of these conditions were not met...

Someone with no intention of residing in Nigeria and with no Nigerian parentage is supposed to be given Nigerian citizenship?
Will he be living in his country permanently and be a Nigerian citizen at the same time?

Na wah o!

Did you purposely omit this:

2) the provisions of this section shall apply to-

(a) any woman who is or has been married to a citizen of Nigeria; or

(b) every person of full age and capacity born outside Nigeria any of whose grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria.

This here is the bone of contention. The provision expressly states the situation of a foreign woman marrying a Nigerian but is mysteriously silent on the reverse. Can you please address the silence.

johnson232:

U are a b!tch! A frustrated hoe! If u are not okay with our constitution, why not come up with yours? Instead of modifying it to buttress and suit your senseless views. Or better still, why not go to a dessert where there is no discrimination? Continue posting specious information on NL, b!tch...

Take it easy man. We have enough hyperventilating folks here already.

babygirlfl:
@ Yourcoffin

Take a look at this sections of our constitution tution

353. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults any male person is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years. The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.


360. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults a woman or girl is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

Do you think this is discrimination or not?

Apologies, need to take care of s/th. I'll be back to answer your question

@Crackhaus

Do you find this discriminatory:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1874742

Excerpt:

CRIME
Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says
Sep 11, 2012

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
Other research has found evidence of the same gender gap, though Starr asserts that the disparity is actually larger than previously suspected because other studies haven't looked at the role of plea bargains and other pre-sentencing steps in the criminal justice system.
A 2009 study suggested the difference in sentencing might arise because "judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater caretaking responsibility."
Past studies have also found that minority men are, on average, given longer prison sentences than white men convicted of the same crimes.

If a Man married to a Nigerian Lady has to stay in Nigeria for some particular years to be conferred with a citizenship certificate, why is the same procedure not applied to a woman married to a Nigerian man?.

Equality & fairness my foot! Common sense ain't common.
These legislators need a life, bleh.

LordReed:


So someone receiving a lighter sentence for committing the very same crime on a woman than he would have received if it was a man he committed the crime against is not discriminatory? Okay o. LoL!

Do you know why I asked you to look up the difference between a felony assault and a misdemeanor assault?
It's to save me the stress of having to explain it myself...

So on the assumption that you have looked up the difference, I'm going to try my best to explain why the sentences for both differ.

The premise for classifying an assault on a woman as a misdemeanor is based on the assumption that whoever assaults a woman may not cause a serious injury or bodily harm on her person.

Misdemeanor assault includes but is not limited to: a slap, a kick, a forceful push/pull, grabbing/dragging a person without consent...etc.
Felony assault (causing serious injury or bodily harm) includes but is not limited to: using an object to strike, firing a gun to kill or with intent to kill, etc...

While it is assumed/probable that an assault on a man is most likely to be more violent since it will also most likely come from a man of equal or near-equal strength, it is assumed that an assault on a woman would be less violent and fall within the class of a misdemeanor (see above).


Now this is where the interpretation of the constitution comes into play:

The moment a woman is assaulted and suffers serious personal injury or bodily harm, the charge on the perpetrator reverts back to the clauses on chapter 29 (355)which caters to assaults on all genders and carries equal sentences for all.

355. Any person who unlawfully assaults another and thereby does him harm is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

Chapter 30 (360) which y'all call discriminatory is only in effect if the assault on a woman causes no personal injury/bodily harm to her eg. A slap.

In another situation where a woman is thoroughly beaten blue-black resulting in injury being inflicted on her person, it is called battery - A battery charge is worse than felony assault and will result in a sentence of 3yrs and above.

Take note that no matter how much a man is injured or beaten blue-black, the perpetrator will not be charged with battery but will still be classified as felony...even if the man lost both eyes and all his teeth in the process. ( but you don't see men shouting discrimination here )

Have you ever stopped to wonder why women in the west (if they can't make a report immediately) prefer to document their injured or bloodied face/body area on photo/video after an altercation?
This is because if there's no sign of serious injury, the man will only be charged with a misdemeanor and not battery or felony assault.

It isn't just a Nigerian constitution thing.



If you want to argue that the premise for the assumption that an assault on a man will likely cause serious injury to him, while an assault on a woman may just be a slap or push...then that's another case entirely, which I'm pretty sure still has nothing to do with a deliberate intention to discriminate.

LordReed:
@Crackhaus

Do you find this discriminatory:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1874742

Excerpt:

CRIME
Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says
Sep 11, 2012

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
Other research has found evidence of the same gender gap, though Starr asserts that the disparity is actually larger than previously suspected because other studies haven't looked at the role of plea bargains and other pre-sentencing steps in the criminal justice system.
A 2009 study suggested the difference in sentencing might arise because "judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater caretaking responsibility."
Past studies have also found that minority men are, on average, given longer prison sentences than white men convicted of the same crimes.

And yet you don't see men shouting discrimination left, right, and centre...

Same way I could scream discrimination that a whole chapter (30) deals with assaults on women ONLY, but no chapter is dedicated to dealing with assaults on men ONLY.

Isn't it discrimatory to think that men don't get assaulted as much as women? Lol..

crackhaus:

Do you know why I asked you to look up the difference between a felony assault and a misdemeanor assault?
It's to save me the stress of having to explain it myself...

So on the assumption that you have looked up the difference, I'm going to try my best to explain why the sentences for both differ.

The premise for classifying an assault on a woman as a misdemeanor is based on the assumption that whoever assaults a woman may not cause a serious injury or bodily harm on her person.

Misdemeanor assault includes but is not limited to: a slap, a kick, a forceful push/pull, grabbing/dragging a person without consent...etc.
Felony assault (causing serious injury or bodily harm) includes but is not limited to: using an object to strike, firing a gun to kill or with intent to kill, etc...

While it is assumed/probable that an assault on a man is most likely to be more violent since it will also most likely come from a man of equal or near-equal strength, it is assumed that an assault on a woman would be less violent and fall within the class of a misdemeanor (see above).


Now this is where the interpretation of the constitution comes into play:

The moment a woman is assaulted and suffers serious personal injury or bodily harm, the charge on the perpetrator reverts back to the clauses on chapter 29 (355)which caters to assaults on all genders and carries equal sentences for all.



Chapter 30 (360) which y'all call discriminatory is only in effect if the assault on a woman causes no personal injury/bodily harm to her eg. A slap.

In another situation where a woman is thoroughly beaten blue-black resulting in injury being inflicted on her person, it is called battery - A battery charge is worse than felony assault and will result in a sentence of 3yrs and above.

Take note that no matter how much a man is injured or beaten blue-black, the perpetrator will not be charged with battery but will still be classified as felony...even if the man lost both eyes and all his teeth in the process. ( but you don't see men shouting discrimination here )

Have you ever stopped to wonder why women in the west (if they can't make a report immediately) prefer to document their injured or bloodied face/body area on photo/video after an altercation?
This is because if there's no sign of serious injury, the man will only be charged with a misdemeanor and not battery or felony assault.

It isn't just a Nigerian constitution thing.



If you want to argue that the premise for the assumption that an assault on a man will likely cause serious injury to him, while an assault on a woman may just be a slap or push...then that's another case entirely, which I'm pretty sure still has nothing to do with a deliberate intention to discriminate.

Okay so if a man is slapped what is that, felony or misdemeanor?

crackhaus:

And yet you don't see men shouting discrimination left, right, and centre...

Same way I could scream discrimination that a whole chapter (30) deals with assaults on women ONLY, but no chapter is dedicated to dealing with assaults on men ONLY.

Isn't it discrimatory to think that men don't get assaulted as much as women? Lol..

Okay it is discriminatory right? So how come you are in denial about those clauses 353 & 360 being discriminatory?

And where was the idea expressed that men don't get assaulted as much as women?

crackhaus:

Do you know why I asked you to look up the difference between a felony assault and a misdemeanor assault?
It's to save me the stress of having to explain it myself...

So on the assumption that you have looked up the difference, I'm going to try my best to explain why the sentences for both differ.

Real good effort here Cracky. Some of the most erudite minds of their era did not sit down gleefully looking to codify the oppression of women into the constitution.

The very worst they would have done is capture what was already generally accepted in society - point in question being things about spousal unions and the marital estate.

Trawling through the constitution and then wilfully or ignorantly mis-ascribing discriminatory intent is the purview of a troubled mind. Like I noted, the law - for better or worse - evolves. Under appeal, any such blatantly discriminatory law would be repealed.

That is in part the confoundingly obtuse confusion of feminism. Always playing the victim, always bleating on about rights - yet totally neglecting responsibilities - and always looking to villify men as misogynist, whilst demanding the same men give in to their unthinking demands. Did anyone even look to see if any women were involved in framing the constitution?

LordReed:
@Crackhaus
Do you find this discriminatory:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1874742
Excerpt:
CRIME
Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says
Sep 11, 2012
The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
Other research has found evidence of the same gender gap, though Starr asserts that the disparity is actually larger than previously suspected because other studies haven't looked at the role of plea bargains and other pre-sentencing steps in the criminal justice system.
A 2009 study suggested the difference in sentencing might arise because "judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater caretaking responsibility."
Past studies have also found that minority men are, on average, given longer prison sentences than white men convicted of the same crimes.

I noted this phenom in my initial post. Even if laws are written in a perfectly gender-neutral manner, discrimination can still happen. It's common knowledge that women typically are charged less and receive lighter sentences where they are charged. It's not just the law, it's the application of the law.

Especially in sexual assault cases - where females are the perpetrators. Some women are shameless enough to claim victimhood - one case I recall the male she assaulted was barely 11 years old, and she claimed he seduced her .

A cause for whingers, mewlers, bleaters and losers who campaign on identity politics, unthinking notions of equal rights and victimhood.

Shior


TV

TV01:

Real good effort here Cracky. Some of the most erudite minds of their era did not sit down gleefully looking to codify the oppression of women into the constitution.

The very worst they would have done is capture what was already generally accepted in society - point in question being things about spousal unions and the marital estate.

Trawling through the constitution and then wilfully or ignorantly mis-ascribing discriminatory intent is the purview of a troubled mind. Like I noted, the law - for better or worse - evolves. Under appeal, any such blatantly discriminatory law would be repealed.

That is in part the confoundingly obtuse confusion of feminism. Always playing the victim, always bleating on about rights - yet totally neglecting responsibilities - and always looking to villify men as misogynist, whilst demanding the same men give in to their unthinking demands. Did anyone even look to see if any women were involved in framing the constitution?


I noted this phenom in my initial post. Even if laws are written in a perfectly gender-neutral manner, discrimination can still happen. It's common knowledge that women typically are charged less and receive lighter sentences where they are charged. It's not just the law, it's the application of the law.

Especially in sexual assault cases - where females are the perpetrators. Some women are shameless enough to claim victimhood - one case I recall the male she assaulted was barely 11 years old, and she claimed he seduced her .

A cause for whingers, mewlers, bleaters and losers who campaign on identity politics, unthinking notions of equal rights and victimhood.

Shior


TV

Can you just answer the simple question, is that example discriminatory or not?

LordReed:


Can you just answer the simple question, is that example discriminatory or not?

If you want a short answer it's "yes" - especially if viewed using the lens of gender equality.

Historically, women were given lighter sentences due to their child rearing responsibilities - and I for one can see the reasoning behind that. But in this age of equality, and people who can't rightly read making lung-bursting cries of discrimination, then it is - if you want to play that game.

There are murmurs of moves to stop the incarceration of women in the UK - the ideologically charged reasoning being that only men are really violent .

I repeat, no one - and yes, it was probably mostly men - sat down gleefully conjuring up ways to codify systematic discrimination against women. At worst what was codified was what already obtained societally. If viewed holistically, anything that appeared discriminatory against women would probably have placed a corollary burden on men.

And in this age, any discriminatory law will surely be repealed on challenge. The law evolves. Up until recently, it was legally permissable for a man to cane his wife in the UK - the only rule being the cane must not be thicker than his thumb. Guess I'm a law-breaker .


TV

TV01:

If you want a short answer it's "yes" - especially if viewed using the lens of gender equality.

Historically, women were given lighter sentences due to their child rearing responsibilities - and I for one can see the reasoning behind that. But in this age of equality, and people who can't rightly read making lung-bursting cries of discrimination, then it is - if you want to play that game.

There are murmurs of moves to stop the incarceration of women in the UK - the ideologically charged reasoning being that only men are really violent .

I repeat, no one - and yes, it was probably mostly men - sat down gleefully conjuring up ways to codify systematic discrimination against women. At worst what was codified was what already obtained societally. If viewed holistically, anything that appeared discriminatory against women would probably have placed a corollary burden on men.

And in this age, any discriminatory law will surely be repealed on challenge. The law evolves. Up until recently, it was legally permissable for a man to cane his wife in the UK - the only rule being the cane must not be thicker than his thumb. Guess I'm a law-breaker .


TV

Then why is it so hard to say clause 360 is discriminatory?

LordReed:


Then why is it so hard to say clause 360 is discriminatory?

Must admit, I've been in and out - what is the 'ish around that?


TV

TV01:

Must admit, I've been in and out - what is the 'ish around that?


TV

So you know even know Wetin dem dey argue about before?

Oga TV! Good morning sha.

TV01:

Must admit, I've been in and out - what is the 'ish around that?


TV

Here are the clauses:

353. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults any male person is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years. The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.

360. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults a woman or girl is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

If giving women lighter sentence is discriminatory then what do you call this?

LordReed:


Here are the clauses:

353. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults any male person is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years. The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.

360. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults a woman or girl is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

If giving women lighter sentence is discriminatory then what do you call this?

there's no discrimination in what you typed above because no one ever gets the maximum sentence in the court of law.

the maximum sentence anyone gets for assaulting a male is 3 years. this does not mean everyone who assaults a male gets 3 years. liable to get 3 years does not mean he will automatically get the 3 years. don't be surprised if he gets 6 months or even a community service.

what is written in the constitution is completely different to how it's executed. how many people even get sentenced to prison for assault in nigeria? if someone slaps you today, the police would record it as 2 fighting.......the matter would be settled at the police station and the rest is history.

furthermore, if a man were to beat his wife or if a wife beats her husband.....the police would ask the couple to call on the family elders to settle the matter amicably as they don't get involved in husband/wife matter. discrimination my foot - how come men don't complain about discrimination when there's no provision in our constitution concerning men räped by women?

sheesh!

coogar:


there's no discrimination in what you typed above because no one ever gets the maximum sentence in the court of law.

the maximum sentence anyone gets for assaulting a male is 3 years. this does not mean everyone who assaults a male gets 3 years. liable to get 3 years does not mean he will automatically get the 3 years. don't be surprised if he gets 6 months or even a community service.

Who wrote that is automatic? What a strawman argument. We all know the code is a guide but why is the perp assaulting a woman given a lighter sentence as maximum? Can you answer that and stop boxing shadows.

what is written in the constitution is completely different to how it's executed. how many people even get sentenced to prison for assault in nigeria? if someone slaps you today, the police would record it as 2 fighting.......the matter would be settled at the police station and the rest is history.

furthermore, if a man were to beat his wife or if a wife beats her husband.....the police would ask the couple to call on the family elders to settle the matter amicably as they don't get involved in husband/wife matter. discrimination my foot - how come men don't complain about discrimination when there's no provision in our constitution concerning men räped by women?

sheesh!

Please what does this clause mean:

352. Any person who assaults another with intent to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.

LordReed:

Who wrote that is automatic? What a strawman argument. We all know the code is a guide but why is the perp assaulting a woman given a lighter sentence as maximum? Can you answer that and stop boxing shadows.

if it's not automatic then why are you bleating about discrimination?

Please what does this clause mean:

352. Any person who assaults another with intent to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.

male on male rapë - 14 years sentence
male on female rapë - 14 years sentence

352 was not talking about a female räping a male, it's actually baffling that you dunno the constitution of your own country.

Section 357 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP 77, LFN 1990 defines rape thus:

“any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of false threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of harm, or by means of false or fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act, or in case of a married woman, by impersonating her husband is guilty of an offence called rape”.

from the above provision, it becomes quite glaring that under the nigerian law, only a man is capable of committing the crime of rape. section 357 of criminal code clearly states that;

“…any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl …”

coogar:


if it's not automatic then why are you bleating about discrimination?

You must be the goat here 'cos the only bleating I hear is from you. A judge is advised by law to give a lighter sentence to a perp in the case where the assault is against a woman than if the assault was against a man and you say this is not discrimination, you must be high on all the grass you've been eating.

male on male rapë - 14 years sentence
male on female rapë - 14 years sentence

352 was not talking about a female räping a male, it's actually baffling that you dunno the constitution of your own country.

Section 357 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP 77, LFN 1990 defines rape thus:

“any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of false threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of harm, or by means of false or fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act, or in case of a married woman, by impersonating her husband is guilty of an offence called rape”.

from the above provision, it becomes quite glaring that under the nigerian law, only a man is capable of committing the crime of rape. section 357 of criminal code clearly states that;

“…any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl …”

Conceded however I must ask would you rather see the status quo remain or you'd rather a change?

LordReed:

You must be the goat here 'cos the only bleating I hear is from you. A judge is advised by law to give a lighter sentence to a perp in the case where the assault is against a woman than if the assault was against a man and you say this is not discrimination, you must be high on all the grass you've been eating.

nah - you are the donkey braying after being repeatedly told that the execution of the law is the single most important factor, not necessarily what is written in text. 3 years, 2 years.....it bears no relevance in the grand scheme of things as the law is rarely enforced in nigeria!

Conceded

if you have conceded, please get out of this thread. your captain save-a-hoe antic is starting to make me feel nauseous!

however I must ask would you rather see the status quo remain or you'd rather a change?

i would rather see it remain.
what men seem to lose in this part of the constitution, they gain it elsewhere in the constitution.

and don't make it look like the nigerian legislators are clueless. till today, a woman cannot rapë a man in britain as well.

coogar:


nah - you are the donkey braying after being repeatedly told that the execution of the law is the single most important factor, not necessarily what is written in text. 3 years, 2 years.....it bears no relevance in the grand scheme of things as the law is rarely enforced in nigeria!

The grass you ate must be addling your brain because you keep bring up strawmen. Are we discussing whether law is enforced or not?

if you have conceded, please get out of this thread. your captain save-a-hoe antic is starting to make me feel nauseous!

Report me to the mods, take an anti-nausea pill and go to bed since the grass you've been eating is making you frail in the head.

i would rather see it remain.
what men seem to lose in this part of the constitution, they gain it elsewhere in the constitution.

and don't make it look like the nigerian legislators are clueless. till today, a woman cannot rapë a man in britain as well.

Up to 2 years ago I would have argued vehemently against the idea that man can be raped by a woman, the idea is only just catching on but everywhere the awareness is rising that change must occur and definitions of rape must include the fact that this happens and needs to be codified in law.

LordReed:

The grass you ate must be addling your brain because you keep bring up strawmen. Are we discussing whether law is enforced or not?

of what essence is your argument if the law isn't even enforced? what's wrong with captain save-a-hoe? are you high on sticky ovulates this evening?

Report me to the mods, take an anti-nausea pill and go to bed since the grass you've been eating is making you frail in the head.

i'd rather you report yourself, mate!

Up to 2 years ago I would have argued vehemently against the idea that man can be raped by a woman, the idea is only just catching on but everywhere the awareness is rising that change must occur and definitions of rape must include the fact that this happens and needs to be codified in law.

your argument or lack of it has no relevance. a woman cannot rapë a man because she does not possess a pënis - point, blank, period!

you have made about 30 comments on this thread because of a difference of an extra year punishment attached in the case of when a man is assaulted

i have given you a scenario where men get punished for 14 years & women walk away freely for the same crime - you can have the floor now to make more than 400 comments to bleat away on the discrimination against men by the nigerian constitution.

captain lord "save-a-hoe" reed......the floor is yours.

coogar:


of what essence is your argument if the law isn't even enforced? what's wrong with captain save-a-hoe? are you high on sticky ovulates this evening?

Whether it is enforced or not has no bearing on its status as discriminatory, your frail grass addled brain can not grasp that simple concept can it?

your argument or lack of it has no relevance. a woman cannot rapë a man because she does not possess a pënis - point, blank, period!

you have made about 30 comments on this thread because of a difference of an extra year punishment attached in the case of when a man is assaulted

i have given you a scenario where men get punished for 14 years & women walk away freely for the same crime - you can have the floor now to make more than 400 comments to bleat away on the discrimination against men by the nigerian constitution.

captain lord "save-a-hoe" reed......the floor is yours.

As though the only issue being discussed is this one, coogar go and sleep your brain is tired from all the grass you had to chomp on today.

Edit: The law will be updated to reflect that the definition of rape has broadened, the awareness is building up and there is no need to shy away from the issue unlike those who cannot face up to facts.

LordReed:


Okay it is discriminatory right? So how come you are in denial about those clauses 353 & 360 being discriminatory?

[s]And where was the idea expressed that men don't get assaulted as much as women? [/s]

The thing about arguing with people like you on NL is that you're actually not interested in changing your stance even when you seem to innocently ask questions just to bait...

I suspected you had a motive for asking that question and I responded with safeguards which you either deliberately missed or just didn't notice.

Here's my reply:

And yet you don't see men shouting discrimination left, right, and centre...

Same way I could scream discrimination that a whole chapter (30) deals with assaults on women ONLY, but no chapter is dedicated to dealing with assaults on men ONLY.

Isn't it discrimatory to think that men don't get assaulted as much as women? Lol..

First...
I never called it discriminatory because I know better, and also because I really don't care if male sentences are typically longer than females' - I'm not eternally tormented by the idea that my gender is being discriminated against...

Second...
The question on the last paragraph is rhetorical, even more sarcastic if you were observant enough to have followed the tone of my post from the first sentence...too bad it flew over your head, no pun intended.

LordReed:

Whether it is enforced or not has no bearing on its status as discriminatory, your frail grass addled brain can not grasp that simple concept can it?

the same frail grass addled brain destroyed your entire existence in one swift move. the grass addled brain undressed you in public & it exposed your cluelessness when it comes to your country's constitution! if anything, my brain commingles brilliance with wits.

As though the only issue being discussed is this one, coogar go and sleep your brain is tired from all the grass you had to chomp on today.

oh shut it, will you?
you have rambled the entire day with a stultifying dullness over a little difference. i have given you a scenario where the woman does not even get punished whilst the man gets 14 years.......i expect you to carry a placard tomorrow and protest against this injustice.

captain "save-a-hoe" - the floor is yours.

crackhaus:

The thing about arguing with people like you on NL is that you're actually not interested in changing your stance even when you seem to innocently ask questions just to bait...

I suspected you had a motive for asking that question and I responded with safeguards which you either deliberately missed or just didn't notice.

Here's my reply:

First...
I never called it discriminatory because I know better, and also because I really don't care if male sentences are typically longer than females' - I'm not eternally tormented by the idea that my gender is being discriminated against...

Second...
The question on the last paragraph is rhetorical, even more sarcastic if you were observant enough to have followed the tone of my post from the first sentence...too bad it flew over your head, no pun intended.

There are enough references to know whether I change my stance on issues when I get more information or not however I cannot say the same for you, care to prove me wrong?

Whether you are tormented by this or that is irrelevant but instead of facing the topic squarely you indulge in self-denial and grammatical acrobats that have no point other than to obscure the discussion. Who/what stops you from screaming discrimination? And if you point some other discrimination does it dramatically erase the others?