A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Some of them even fathered children while doing so. If those children are not given every possible support available to it then by their government, every monetary, food, social, health, etc, then that government is creating illegitimate children, which speaks to the legitimacy of the government itself
I think the word you're looking for is "raped." Undercover police officers raped unsuspecting members of the public. Often repeatedly.
When literally everything that they used to gain consent was a lie, it's a rape by any other name.
As scummy as what happened here is. I think describing it as rape is a slippery slope.
How were these women able to give any kind of informed consent?
TIL that I've been raped by exs because they didn't disclose disturbing personal details about themselves until later in the relationship.
Or, maybe, consent isn't something that you can decide to revoke years later.
Informed consent is typically limited to things effecting the individual sexual incident. So things like not disclosing that you have HIV or that you intentionally damaged a condom could violate that principle but that doesn't mean that any lie renders the other person incapable of consent.
A person lying about personal details doesn't mean that they're a serial rapist. If you really believe that definition (rather than, as I suspect, engaging in motivated reasoning to reach an outrage-based conclusion) then every dating site and bar on the planet should be shut down due to the amount of "rapists" that they enable.
Obviously the government has liability here. After all these men were agents of the government at the time and there are children resulting from this incident and so it should be investigated before a judge.
But trying to call this rape is just nonsense.
would need to be further defined if informed consent can only happen if you know and can verify the personal details of your potential partner. I doubt that is the scope of it and courts would rule that you consent to the act, not necessarily to the identity of your partner beyond what is apparent to you. This is different to for example getting married to an individual intending to mislead you.
Rape by deception is legally recognized. If they would not have consented had they not been deceived, it is rape.
Gotcha. Read up on that, if they would not have consented had they not been deceived seems to be the typical issue to rule on these cases.
In many, if not all of the cases outlined, the police officers only had the opportunity to get to know their victims because they were undercover in their community (and often using the relationships as a means to bolster their cover). If this isn't rape by deception, I don't know what is.
There is no statute of limitations in the UK for rape, based a quick search, so all these "spy cops" need to be unmasked and charged.
That's pretty nuch why every one of these cases has settled before it reached court. The first thing the prosecution would do would be to get documetation of how many times this had happened, and the met policy that knowingly encouraged it.
No. Just no. Stop diminishing what people who have actually been raped have gone through.
Would you consider this worse because it was years and wasn't only physical? What word would you use to also encompass the extra trauma involved with this lie?
I can see why you would want to use a different word. Mainly to explain different scenarios of rape for people to be aware of, but I wouldn't call it diminishing to other victims.
How about this. In one case the sex was consensual, where in the other it was not. Now put your self in the shoes of someone who was forcibly raped. Do you think they would see it as the same. These people were lied to and deceived, and that is terrible. But it many people will say it just isn't the same level. And that diminishes rape generally. But in addition to the personal crime, it is also a crime against all of the people. Thier trust in police is erroded further. So while it is comparably terrible, a lot of people just won't see it that way. But in their heads, when they hear rape, a small part of them will think of this and say, "that's not so bad".
I think both are terrible. Forcible rape (as the example you gave) is the idea that most people think of when they hear rape. There are other kinds.
I think building a life with someone and raising a child for a few years with someone, only to have that person disappear. No explanation. Just gone. That person you thought you know was an act that you spent years living with. That's an extreme act of betrayal. I'm not sure if I would be able to get over that.
I think though that a lot of spouses lie about things early on in a relationship. Usually about things they are or are not interested in. It's kind of part of courting. People get divorced all the time saying the other person wasn't who they thought they were. And no one willing has a relationship with someone who will cheat on them, yet it happens. The person said they would be faithful, but they lied. This isn't that far off really. And no one would call those things rape. They are terrible, but not the same. And they are too common place. Associating them with rape would make rape more common place. Which will reduce peoples opinions of how big a deal it is.
A.C.A.B
Proposing a legal remedy that's not properly implemented where I live, but could be properly implemented...
It should be required by law that police disclose to all people who have been under their surveillance, all the information that was collected about them - after their surveillance permit expires (and the permit should be possible to get only through a court of law, no managerial decisions).
...and also, they should be required to compensate for any damage done through this.
So when are they going to be tried for these rapes?
Technically it isn’t rape to have consensual sex while undercover. But it is shady af to have a bunch of kids while undercover, pretending to be someone else.
Very much feels like a loophole.
Is it legal for someone's identical twin to pretend to be them in order to tick someone into sex?
It’s not illegal. Immoral, yes. Tricking someone into consensual sex is not rape. Heck, it’s called “dating.”
The sex is not the problem, it’s that they did it without protection and had kids. And still, is that an illegal act? Certainly they should not keep their jobs. But what if they’re really good at their job?
I really don’t like humans very much.
Pulling the rape trigger so easily diminishes what real rape survivors have been through. Is this a terrible crime. Yes. Is it that crime. No.