I've seen on TV that recording of the Spanish sports official who kissed one of the female team members. And now I read he's been suspended and faces possible expulsion, accused of sexual abuse for that incident.
I have no idea of the relationship the two of them may have had before the incident, or even that there was a relationship at all. I also believe that if the kiss was unwelcome, it was inappropriate behavior on his part. But sexual abuse?
It is sexual harassment when you're a man doing it. When you're a woman kissing a man because "I thought, 'When else am I gonna get the chance to kiss Brad Pitt? I'm just gonna go for it.'", It's all A-Okay.
the Spanish sports official who kissed one of the female team members
This depends on the type of kiss.
One, two or three short kisses on the cheek(s) as usual for greetings in southern Europe are ok, no sexual harassment.
A short brushing kiss on the lips is debatable, a longer lasting kiss on the lips is a sexual act.
HM.
A short brushing kiss on the lips is debatable, a longer lasting kiss on the lips is a sexual act.
Luis Rubiales grabbed Jenni Hermoso's head and pulled it towards him. Southern Europe might have a lip-brush as an affectionate form of greeting, but to my mind there was an element of force involved in this instance.
AJ
Sexual assault. The main difference between sexual assault and sexual abuse is that sexual assault occurs to adults and sexual abuse occurs to minors or children.
Sexual assault...
I gotta agree with sexual assault...
"a kiss is an upper persuasion to a lower invasion" :->
No, not abuse — but that's not what he's accused of, but rather sexual assault. A forced kiss is definitely that.
This would be a relatively minor instance of assault, but there's many accusations of him (and other Spanish football officials) doing similarly inappropriate things to players, going back years. This is a major part of why half the original official team went on strike before the World Cup, forcing the coaches to find substitutes.
In addition to the element of force mentioned by others, keep in mind that there is a power imbalance here.
Luis Rubiales is the president of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) and a vice president of UEFA. Jenni Hermoso is a player on a team that Rubiales has authority over.
In addition, this isn't just about one kiss, although the fact that it was on camera with hundreds of millions of viewers makes it a pretty big kiss. In addition to the kiss, though, he also put his arm around her and joked about their wedding off camera. He also made sexualized gestures (grabbing his crotch) while standing near Queen Letizia and her 16-year-old daughter.
So the kiss is the thing he can't deny since it was in front of everyone, but if this goes to court he can't just claim it was a single incident in the heat of the moment. There's a pattern of sexual harassment just at this event, let alone past infractions.
Great! Now you've made your meaningful contribution, I can initiate a diversion of my own.
I am sure there are several, if not many, stories on SOL in which the (male) Mary Sue character can give his women 'small orgasms' just through kissing.
Has Luis Rubiales read too many SOL stories, and believed he could reward Jenni Hermoso's performance (which was actually pretty good) by giving her a small orgasm?
AJ
Has Luis Rubiales read too many SOL stories, and believed he could reward Jenni Hermoso's performance (which was actually pretty good) by giving her a small orgasm?
There are more than a few stories in which the female object of the protagonists desires/advances are a soccer player...
There are more than a few stories in which the female object of the protagonists desires/advances are a soccer player...
I might have written one myself, but she didn't get any 'small orgasms' from being kissed :-(
AJ
I don't think that "bussing" a kiss on the cheek is sexual assault. Nor is a kiss on the back of a hand.
Any kiss, or even a hug is likely to make me uncomfortable. I am of German, Scottish, and Norwegian heritage. Growing up we rarely touched; stoicism was typical.
Uncle Olly, "Well. Aunt Greta is dead. Pass the potatoes."
Aunt Delores, "Oh, Ollie, such a display of emotion."
Fortunately, my friends persisted in public displays of emotion. Giving me hugs, to comfort me in times of trouble or tragedy. I would go rigid. Eventually I grew to tolerate such displays of compassion (or whatever); I believe it was beneficial for my mental health.
Some cultures, in particular Italian, Spanish, Greek, Irish, etc. tend to hugging and kissing in a cavalier manner.
First, while I think that discouraging unwanted hugs or kisses may be a good idea. Lumping rude behavior with criminal acts is a bad idea. Cheapening sexual assault is dangerous. It is worse when a minor indiscretion, or innocent act is treated worse than groping a person or other aggressive act.
If we are going to have legal sanctions against an unwanted kiss, then there should be an appropriate legal charge.
The punishment should fit the crime. Ending someone's career for an unwanted kiss is madness! I have heard that he has committed other indiscretions before. Has never been sanctioned for those alleged acts? Warnings, or lesser punishments to discourage further indiscretions?
I believe it is dangerous to "determine" an act is criminal, primarily on the emotion(s) of the "victim" (offended person). Rejoice that not everything that offends me is criminal! It is dangerous to try to delve into the (supposed) motivation(s) of a criminal. Why is it not a "hate crime" for a member of the Crips gang to shoot a member of the Bloods gang? Yet if a Purple person stabs an Orange person it may be deemed a hate crime ?
Public opprobium for uncouth acts is appropriate. Perhaps other sanctions too. However, I am concerned that too harsh penalties are inflicted for comparatively trivial matters.
What really irks me is the arbitrary treatment of similar actions by different people.
Thanks for the correction. I might have made the error, or Auto-Incorrect may have done it for me...
Anyway, I will correct it. Thank you, I appreciate constructive criticism, and pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes.
Updated because Auto-Incorrect changed error to effort 🙃 and I had to edit this post.
Updated because Auto-Incorrect changed error to effort
Did you hear that the guy who invented autocorrect died recently. Restaurant in peace.
Did you hear that the guy who invented autocorrect died recently. Restaurant in peace.
Rest in pieces.
Restaurant in Pisces.
Rust in places.
> I believe it is dangerous to "determine" an act is criminal, primarily on the emotion(s) of the "victim" (offended person).
Since sexual assault has to be unwanted, the mental state of the victim seems pretty important. An easy way to establish that is to ask for consent before you kiss them, which is something I learned as a child and if we can teach it to kids, I'm pretty sure adults should be able to handle asking as well.
Grabbing somebody without consent is already a crime, specifically battery, and people generally handle that ambiguity just fine.
> Why is it not a "hate crime" for a member of the Crips gang to shoot a member of the Bloods gang? Yet if a Purple person stabs an Orange person it may be deemed a hate crime ?
Because hate crime is established by the motives of the perpetrator. You can get all het up about Mens Rea if you really want to, but it's pretty baked into a lot of legal systems at this point.
Of course not, politicians make the laws and what good is being a politician if you don't make sure you are exempt from those laws?
To my mind, it was HIS hand to the back of HER head forcing her onto his lips and not allowing any escape which was the sexual assault.
I also understand that victims do not always respond immediately at the time of the assault. But a huge slap to the macho bastard's face would have gone down so well.
One final puzzle and question. He is being prosecuted in Spain. But the alleged offence took place in Australia. Why was he not arrested and charged down under?
One final puzzle and question. He is being prosecuted in Spain.
People accuse the US of thinking it has universal jurisdiction. The Spanish courts really do claim universal jurisdiction.
https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/71/universal_jurisdiction/spain_e.pdf
Spanish law provides for the principle of universal jurisdiction, although its scope has been
limited in recent times as a result of the legislative reforms adopted in 2009 and 2014.
In its original formulation, article 23, paragraph 4, of Organic Act No. 6/1985 of 1 July on
the Judiciary (hereinafter referred to as Organic Act No. 6/1985)1 recognized the jurisdiction of
Spanish courts over offences committed by Spanish nationals or foreigners outside the national
territory, where those acts are classified as one of the following offences under Spanish criminal
law: genocide; terrorism; piracy or unlawful seizure of aircraft; counterfeiting of foreign currency;
crimes related to prostitution; trafficking in psychotropic, toxic or narcotic drugs; or any other crime
which should be prosecuted in Spain pursuant to an international treaty or agreement.
In this case, both the perpetrator and the victim were Spanish nationals, so the Spanish courts would have jurisdiction under their law even though the offense occurred outside of Spain.
Because of that and possibly not wanting to get held up in Australia for a trial, the victim may have waited until they got back to Spain to file a complaint.
ETA: Back at the end of the 20th century, Spanish courts attempted to have a deposed ruler of Chile extradited to Spain so he could be tried in Spain for crimes committed in Chile against the people of Chile.
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/31/world/judges-in-spain-assert-pinochet-can-face-trial.html
ETA: Back at the end of the 20th century, Spanish courts attempted to have a deposed ruler of Chile extradited to Spain so he could be tried in Spain for crimes committed in Chile against the people of Chile.
So they did - a proud moment of trying to take action against the man who caused the first 11th September slaughter.
So they did - a proud moment of trying to take action against the man who caused the first 11th September slaughter.
I disagree.
The people of Chile made a decision to forgo prosecution in Chile in exchange for a peaceful transition of power.
The Spanish courts had no business second guessing that decision.
I might see it differently if the Spanish courts had been seeking to prosecute for crimes against Spanish nationals, but they weren't.
He is being prosecuted in Spain. But the alleged offence took place in Australia. Why was he not arrested and charged down under?
There are rules where to prosecute offences between foreign nationals.
I don't know the rules applied in Australia, but here in Germany the rule for offences between foreigners of the same nationality is:
If it's no capital crime and it's punishable by our and their laws, just transfer the case file and any evidence to their local LEO. Saves the German taxpayer the costs and avoids diplomatic problems.
OTOH, if German nationals do things in a foreign country which are not punishable there, they can still prosecuted here in Germany.
HM.
If it's no capital crime and it's punishable by our and their laws, just transfer the case file and any evidence to their local LEO. Saves the German taxpayer the costs and avoids diplomatic problems.
That has to pay attention to the other country's jurisdiction rules.
I'm not certain a case like this could be prosecuted in the US even if it was US Citizens.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22497
Current Extent of American Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction
Congress has expressly provided for the extraterritorial application of federal criminal law most often by outlawing various forms of misconduct when they occur "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." The obligations and principles of various international treaties, conventions, or agreements to which the United States is a party supply the theme for a second class of federal criminal statutes with explicit extraterritorial application.
Other federal criminal statutes that have explicit extraterritorial application either declare that their provisions are to apply overseas or describe a series of jurisdictional circumstances under which their provisions have extraterritorial application, not infrequently involving the foreign commerce of the United States in conjunction with other factors.
One of the biggest obstacles on US jurisdiction on a case like this is that sexual assault would not generally be a federal criminal case, it would be prosecuted at the state level.
Even within the US, the general rule is that criminal cases should be prosecuted where the crime happened. So even if it's a federal crime, if it happened in New York, they can't prosecute the case in a federal district court in California.
He is being prosecuted in Spain. But the alleged offence took place in Australia. Why was he not arrested and charged down under?
Technically if they wanted to they probably could do so then deport/ extradite him so that he could be prosecuted again in Spain, but it's probably not worth anyone's time to bother.
In addition to Dominions Sons point about Spain's jurisdiction abroad, it's important to remember that Rubiales was in the country officially representing Spain for an international event. While not a diplomat, it can be seen as a similar situation. This is crime by a foreigner against a foreigner in a location that was quasi-neutral diplomatically when the crime took place.
To my mind, it was HIS hand to the back of HER head forcing her onto his lips and not allowing any escape which was the sexual assault.
This is my take as well. To my eye, he seemed clearly aggressive and was putting her into a position where she couldn't easily avoid what was coming. This wasn't a little smooch, or a kiss on the cheek (which he'd done to many of the others). In this case, yes, I feel sexual assault is reasonable.
I'm glad that some of the leadership in Spain is putting at least some brakes on their idiot macho culture. Tell them unwelcome contact will no longer be accepted, even if you are the boss.
Allegedly, both of Harper Seven's parents have kissed her on the lips since she was a young child. There's been some controversy in the media about it. Is it tha action of a loving parent or is it over the top?
AJ
Because hate crime is established by the motives of the perpetrator. You can get all het up about Mens Rea if you really want to, but it's pretty baked into a lot of legal systems at this point.
It's nice to know that the Crips don't hate the Bloods.
It's nice to know that the Crips don't hate the Bloods.
Hate Crimes are generally limited to hating the victim over some legally protected characteristic.
Other wise you end up with all crimes are hate crimes.
Hate Crimes are generally limited to hating the victim over some legally protected characteristic.
Not in the UK. For example, biological sex is a protected characteristic. Misgenderinging is a 'hate crime' but mis-sexing isn't, even though misgendering can only ruffle feelings whereas mis-sexing could potentially be lethal in a medical situation.
AJ
Not in the UK. For example, biological sex is a protected characteristic.
Note: Nowhere did I say that hate crimes laws have to have the same list of protected characteristics as other discrimination laws.
Yeah see it turns out that in a legal context, sometimes words mean very specific things and "hate crime" is one of those times.
