Ireland outlaw buying women's bodies and cross-examining

[Chessmistress]

First, the news (not really news, it's almost three weeks old):

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics ... -1.2968097

Sexual Offences Bill criminalising purchase of sex passed in Dáil
Legislation also stops accused from cross-examining victims of sexual offences

Emphasis mine on the latter, because it's at least equally important, very likely to be, on the long run, even more important - I hope to expand it further during the discussion that will follow but I don't want an excessively long OP in order to not discourage people, so let's focus on the criminalization of men buying women's bodies.

I'm glad that Ireland is following the EU Parliament suggestions, and joining the group of countries that are particulalry dedicated to fight against trafficking and buying women's bodies: France, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Northern Ireland.

There have been a very broad consensus while passing the law:

Legislation which criminalises the purchaser of sexual services rather than the seller has been passed in the Dáil by 94 votes to six.

There are even a lot of other interesting measures:

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill also strengthens laws to combat child pornography and prevent the sexual grooming of children. And it amends provisions on incest and indecent exposure.

I think this is a very important advancement for the rights of Irish women, I think that Feminists in Ireland really did a great job, and I'm not the only one who thinks so:
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/02/ ... c-ireland/

Today, the Sexual Offences Bill passed in the Republic of Ireland, criminalizing the purchase of sex. Big congrats to our sisters who worked so hard to get this bill passed!

For those who wish a deeper insight about the reasons why such law was absolutely needed
http://www.nwci.ie/download/pdf/nwci_su ... tution.pdf
This is the document by the NCWI, National Women’s Council of Ireland, the major Feminist organization in Ireland, with 170 member organisations affiliated to it, and representing an estimated 500,000 women.
This document highlight the strong correlation between prostitution and patriarchy, and makes very clear why the criminalization of men who buy women and girls' bodies is so important.
There's a growing number of men, particularly young men, who buy women's bodies as a form of entertainment. It has been theorised that this trend, where women and girls are viewed as mere sexual toys, it's very likely to lead to an increase in the number of violence committed by young men against women.
Hence why such kind of laws are extremely important.

What do you think, NSGs?

[Baltenstein]

There's a growing number of men, particularly young men, who buy women's bodies as a form of entertainment. It has been theorised that this trend, where women and girls are viewed as mere sexual toys, it's very likely to lead to an increase in the number of violence committed by young men against women.

...

This document highlight the strong correlation between prostitution and patriarchy

Riiiight, because if you take a look at any international comparison on the legality of prostitution and violence against women, the causation is totally obvious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Europe

After all, it's common knowledge that the Patriarchy (tm) rules supreme in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Latin America, but has been severely weakened in Africa, Russia, East Asia and the Islamic world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitut ... _world.PNG

[Prusselanden]

By the way you wrote the title, I thought you meant buying female cadavers.

[Crockerland]

I think this is a very important advancement for the rights of Irish women

You are objectively wrong, the rights of women have not been advanced whatsoever, Irish people of both genders now have fewer rights, though that's not inherently a bad thing.

[Alkasia]

By the way you wrote the title, I thought you meant buying female cadavers.

I agree. I was quite concerned that it was such a problem over in Europe.

[Xelsis]

I'm not sure what's up with the whole "banning cross-examining" thing.

[Prusselanden]

By the way you wrote the title, I thought you meant buying female cadavers.

I agree. I was quite concerned that it was such a problem over in Europe.

I thought the creator of the thread meant that Ireland had a large Necrophilia problem when I read the intro, which weirded me out at first

[Zottistan]

I'm not sure what's up with the whole "banning cross-examining" thing.

Seems like a bigger deal than prostitution if you ask me, although I'm not happy with either of these developments.

[Alkasia]

I thought the creator of the thread meant that Ireland had a large Necrophilia problem when I read the intro, which weirded me out at first

I really didn't realize it was referring to prostitution until after reading the entire post. I don't think "buying women's bodies" paints a picture of what the OP thinks it does.

[Prusselanden]

I thought the creator of the thread meant that Ireland had a large Necrophilia problem when I read the intro, which weirded me out at first

I really didn't realize it was referring to prostitution until after reading the entire post. I don't think "buying women's bodies" paints a picture of what the OP thinks it does.

Do you think they do that though?

[Ifreann]

This isn't actually law yet.

[Galloism]

This isn't actually law yet.

Oh good.

Especially problematic seems to be the removal of the right of the defense to face their accuser in any meaningful way. As far as common law principles go, that's a very important bit.

[Sanctissima]

At first glance, reading this thread's title, I thought it was about cannibalism or Irishmen buying dead women's bodies for some weird sexual fetishes.

I am acutely disappointed.

[New Chalcedon]

This isn't actually law yet.

Oh good.

Especially problematic seems to be the removal of the right of the defense to face their accuser in any meaningful way. As far as common law principles go, that's a very important bit.

^ This. While I can readily see that cross-examination often causes the survivors of sexual assault to effectively relive the trauma (and yes, that's a real thing, and a bad thing), removing or circumscribing the right of the defendant (or their lawyer) to cross-examine prosecution evidence and witnesses has a big, red button with "DO NOT PRESS" written all over it. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure it's not that. Perhaps writing a set of rules for courtroom proceedings that permit a trial judge far more leeway to shut down questions if they're causing the witness obvious distress?

As for the prostitution part: Not a fan of that either, although my objections are vastly more moderate. If a woman freely (i.e., absent of coercion, whether it be physical, mental, economic etc.) chooses to take up such an industry to earn money...why should she be forbidden to do so? For that matter: Should a man who makes such a choice be forbidden from doing so? Once again, I can see where the law's authors are trying to do a good thing (get the coercion, the desperation and the exploitativeness that is all too incident to prostitution, in either gender, out of the equation), but overreaching.

[Ostroeuropa]

Prostitution is a service not a product. Nobody buys anyone, and it should not be outlawed. I'd argue the prohibition of prostitution rests on a mindset that views women as objects tbh, and chess displayed it here too.

If you refer to your employees as your property, you are dehumanizing them.
Prohibitionists do the same to prostitutes, which ultimately makes their whole "think of the women" thing suspect.

Oh, and yeh, destroying the rule of law and due process and making it so justice revolves around womens interests is a fairly common thing for the feminist movement to try these days.
See college campuses etc.

[Ifreann]

Here's a PDF of the bill as passed by Daíl Éireann.

[San Marlindo]

I'm not sure why cross-examining victims of sexual crimes was banned.

Wouldn't this in theory make it easier for false rape accusations to be more successful?

[Xelsis]

I'm not sure why cross-examining victims of sexual crimes was banned.

Wouldn't this in theory make it easier for false rape accusations to be more successful?

Given some of the rhetoric of feminist groups around rape accusations-to assume that the accusation is true until proven otherwise, rather than the standard of "innocent until proven guilty", I do not think that that is a major concern of the authors of the bill.

[Galloism]

Here's a PDF of the bill as passed by Daíl Éireann.

This seems to be the relevant bit:

Protection against cross-examination by accused
14C. (1) Where—
(a) a person is accused of an offence to which this Part applies, and
(b) a person under the age of 18 years is to give evidence,
the court shall direct that the accused may not personally crossexamine
the witness unless the court is of the opinion that the interests
of justice require the accused to conduct the cross-examination
personally.
(2) Where—
(a) a person is accused of a sexual offence, and
(b) a person who has attained the age of 18 years (being a person in
respect of whom a sexual offence is alleged to have been
committed) is to give evidence,
the court may direct that the accused may not personally cross
examine the witness unless the court is of the opinion that the interests
of justice require the accused to conduct the cross-examination
personally.
(3) Where an accused person is prevented from cross-examining a witness
by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), the court shall—
(a) invite the accused person to arrange for a legal representative to act
for him or her for the purpose of cross-examining the witness, and
(b) require the accused person to notify the court, by the end of such
period as it may specify, as to whether a legal representative is to
act for the accused for that purpose.
(4) If by the end of the period referred to in subsection (3)(b), the accused
has notified the court that no legal representative is to act for him or
her for the purpose of cross-examining the witness or no notification
has been received by the court and it appears to the court that no legal
representative is to so act, the court shall consider whether it is
necessary, in the interests of justice, for the witness to be crossexamined
by a legal representative appointed to represent the interests
of the accused person.
(5) If the court decides it is necessary, in the interests of justice, for the
witness to be so cross-examined, the court shall appoint a legal
representative (chosen by the court) to cross-examine the witness on
behalf of the accused.
(6) Where, in a jury trial, an accused person is prevented from crossexamining
a witness in person by virtue of this section, the court shall
give the jury such warning (if any) as it considers necessary to ensure
that the accused person is not prejudiced—
(a) by any inferences that might be drawn from the fact that the
accused has been prevented from cross-examining the witness in
person, or
(b) where the witness has been cross-examined by a legal
representative appointed under subsection (5), by the fact that the
cross-examination was carried out by such a legal representative
and not by a person acting as the legal representative of the
accused.
(7) In addition to the meaning assigned to that expression by section 27 of
the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995, ‘legal aid’ in that Act means
representation by a solicitor or barrister, engaged by the Legal Aid
Board under section 11 of that Act on behalf of the accused in relation
to the cross-examination of a witness under subsection (3).”.

So, it's not saying the witness can't be cross examined, but that the court may prevent the accused from cross examining the witness personally, but not his or her legal counsel, and if he or she does not have legal counsel, legal counsel can be appointed by the court to conduct the cross examination.

... I'm ok with that. The cross examination is still being done.

[Ostroeuropa]

So, it's not saying the witness can't be cross examined, but that the court may prevent the accused from cross examining the witness personally, but not his or her legal counsel, and if he or she does not have legal counsel, legal counsel can be appointed by the court to conduct the cross examination.

... I'm ok with that. The cross examination is still being done.

If this is the case, i'm also fine with it. It has always struck me as a pretty sinister set of circumstances should the perpetrator decide to represent themselves and do this.

I'd regard this as closing a loophole, even if it does technically mean less rights for the accused, it doesn't seem to actually harm them in any way, and does protect people from psychological harm.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well I'm glad they're trying not to punish prostitutes, but I'd rather it be legal

[Galloism]

So, it's not saying the witness can't be cross examined, but that the court may prevent the accused from cross examining the witness personally, but not his or her legal counsel, and if he or she does not have legal counsel, legal counsel can be appointed by the court to conduct the cross examination.

... I'm ok with that. The cross examination is still being done.

If this is the case, i'm also fine with it. It has always struck me as a pretty sinister set of circumstances should the perpetrator decide to represent themselves and do this.

I'd regard this as closing a loophole, even if it does technically mean less rights for the accused, it doesn't seem to actually harm them in any way, and does protect people from psychological harm.

Yeah, at least regarding that part, I'm pretty ok with this.

I mean, the outlawing of women doing what they want with their own bodies is still stupid, but we've gone over those reasons ad nauseum.

[Aclion]

snip

So cross examining is still legal and I can still get my Irish cadavers?

[Alizeria]

I stopped reading as soon as I saw who the OP was.

[Great Nepal]

Here's a PDF of the bill as passed by Daíl Éireann.

This seems to be the relevant bit:

-snip-

So, it's not saying the witness can't be cross examined, but that the court may prevent the accused from cross examining the witness personally, but not his or her legal counsel, and if he or she does not have legal counsel, legal counsel can be appointed by the court to conduct the cross examination.

... I'm ok with that. The cross examination is still being done.

I've problem with the principle behind it; the only way the law makes sense is if you assume someone accused of sexual offence is actually guilty - otherwise if the case is entirely made up for instance there would be no harm done by a self representing accused questioning the witness. This seems to be weakening the principle of innocent until proven guilty in cases of sexual offences - if the law was broader and shifted the burden to the witness to demonstrate that having accused question them would cause harm then it'd be a different discussion but given it is limited based on accusation it seems rather more sinister.