NYC Law Would It A Crime To Stare At Women

This crazy bit of news from the Mens News Daily archives:

Incredible New NY Bill Will Make Staring at Women a Crime

August 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm

A letter from Jeff, a reader, about an incredible new New York bill:

"Dear Glenn

"This year, a couple of women complained to New York City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr., about a man standing under the subway steps at their station and looking up their skirts.

"He has responded with city legislation, introduced yesterday, that would make all voyeurism in New York a misdemeanor.

"Staring at women is rude. But, if it were turned into a crime, we all know what would happen.

"You get all types of people on the subway here, everyone from rude men looking for cheap thrills to mentally ill, paranoid women. These problems are best handled by the individuals involved. Passing laws just to appease a couple of female constituents is just not a good idea.

"Peter Vallone is a relatively moderate voice on a city council dominated by wild-eyed extremists. I was surprised at this move. The New York Chapter of the ACLU recognizes this legislation as too broad and have recommended against its passage."

I would agree with Jeff that staring at women can be rude. Making it a crime is quite another matter. I would also add that some women do everything they possibly can so men will look at them. Or if that's not their intent, they sure make it seem that way. The New York Sun article on the new bill is below.

Law Would Be Curtains for Voyeurs
By Grace Rauth
New York Sun, August 23, 2007


New legislation before the City Council could make it illegal for New Yorkers to look at a naked neighbor.

Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., a Democrat of Queens, is proposing to outlaw voyeurism by extending a state law that forbids nonconsensual peeping with cameras. He'd apply the law to also include, in the city, peeping with the naked eye.

The law would target offenders who crane their necks to peer under the dresses of women scampering up and down subway stairs. But the legislation also would ensnare anyone caught glancing into the window of a private bedroom or bathroom, which, in a city full of densely packed apartment buildings, is a hazard or a pleasure of urban life, depending on how you look at it, or who your neighbors are.

"If you have an expectation of privacy and someone is looking at you, you would be violating this law," Mr. Vallone said. It would not, for example, protect someone who stands naked beside her living room window, he said.

The New York Civil Liberties Union said the legislation, which was officially introduced yesterday, was too broad and could lead to abuse. The bill's "lack of clarity confers a license for abuse on those empowered to enforce the law by leaving it up to the individual police officer to decide which kinds of viewing are lawful and which kinds are degrading and hence unlawful," the group's executive director, Donna Lieberman, said in a statement.

Under Mr. Vallone's bill, characters on the television show "Friends," which was set in New York City, probably would be serving hard time. The cast regularly watched a man who lived across the street, known as the "ugly naked guy." A nudist, he might not have pressed charges.

While the bill was designed to deal with repeat offenders who do their peeping in public, Mr. Vallone acknowledged that, "invariably, other situations are going to get caught up in this."

Violations would be considered misdemeanors, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

The bill states that it would be illegal for anyone to deliberately view another person in a private place when they are in a state of undress, having sex, or using the bathroom, without that person's knowledge or consent. In a public place, it would be illegal for a person to deliberately or repeatedly go to a position to view "another person's sexual or intimate parts" when "such parts are not otherwise visible to the public."

A spokesman for Mr. Vallone, Andrew Moesel, said the law would be easier to enforce than some might think. A victim of peeping would be able to call the police and give a description of the offender.

Read the full article here.


and in the comments section:


shatteredmen said,

"A victim of peeping would be able to call the police and give a description of the offender."

Whats new? They do this with domestic violence with the VAWA. All a woman has to do is accuse a man of abuse and authorities have to accept it. Now a vindictive woman will be able to claim that you were looking at her by simply making sure she is in a public place that you often go to.


Jim Peterson said,

I am encouraged to know these old winos under the stairs still have a pair. I was just commenting yesterday how the saddest thing about hobos and drunks is that they seem not to be attracted to all the young women they are making fools of themselves in front of. I saw an old drunk turn to look at a gorgeous 50 year old woman the other day and I was shocked that he cared. Mostly, a man who would let himself run down like that no longer has any testosterone or will to compete.

Someone please find the contact information, phone number, for Donna Lieberman.

August 28, 2007

amfortas said,

Another law, framed in non-gender terms, (Hah!) but aimed just at men. But you won't find women marching in the streets demanding equality.

August 28, 2007


Ed said,

Again, you guys are all correct but the outrage over the government wasting time over this is where? What;s next? Thinking about a woman will get you 5-6 at Rikers?

God, is anyone else outraged over the silliness that goes on in this country? The current administration playing paranooid delusional politics and the "skools" dumbing down so much our kids can barely read? Forget about math. Femal(e) this, feamle that, polical correctness this, political correctnes that. Does ANYONE give a political s**t about any of this?

A crime for starring at a woman? Virginia trying to force men to register on some list if they had sex out of wedlock?

Has this country lost it's politically correct mind?

If people from other countries read these stories they must be sitting there scratching their heads asking "what the f**k are those guys on?".

It's becoming rediculous to read the paper and think this was once the epicenter of great thought, it even prodcued the Federalist Papers. The founding FATHERS must surely be turning over in their graves.

The depth and breath of the stupidity and inaneness of these silly laws literally leaves me speachless.

Again, give women the upper hand and viola'. Our forefathers knew this.

August 28, 2007

bombbombbombbomb said,

Maybe a law stating that if a women does not want to be looked at that she wear more clothes, until she no longer "feels" uncomfortable being looked at. Maybe there should be a law against people looking at my crotch when I wear a speedo .

August 28, 2007

Ray Blumhorst said,

And what would be the response from New York's, gender feminized, political minds if someone proposed this as a legal solution to stop all the female exhibitionism going on in New York?

Burqa

Once again, it appears to me that the leftist, political institution of hate and government is more focused on criminalizing all things male, than it is in equitably addressing the factual dynamics of human sexuality in its totality.

August 28, 2007

Ray Blumhorst said,

Please check out these photos (link below) from the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women. Scroll down to see the posters and enlarge to read the words on the posters. Can we expect to see a similar program in New York City entitled, "This is Not an Invitation to Look at Me?"

Where does the irresponsibility of women end? Are we to the point yet where all gender feminists will start wearing and using baby pacifiers in public to show where their brains really are?

Notice the insidious words on the seemingly innocent picture of an adult man walking with a little girl in this vile pogrom )in my opinion).

This is not an invitation to rape me

August 28, 2007



Denis said,

"Where does the irresponsibility of women end?"

Women have rights without responsibilities.

Men have responsibilities without rights.

The former defines a child. The latter defines a slave.

In America, women are increasingly becoming children while men are becoming slaves more and more.

Men who are expecting women to finally behave as equals will have a long wait.

Men expecting women to speak out about this, and demand equality. will have a long wait.

My last two comments are indicative of inferior people. But calling women what they are, inferior, WILL cause women and many feminised men to speak out about THAT conclusion.

Go ahead. It only proves my point further.

August 28, 2007


anti armchair generals said,

Glen Sacks,
You have reported incredible stories that I have not seen anywhere else. What happens if Victoria's Secret has models on the runvay. What hapens to various pageants and parades if held in NYC.?

August 28, 2007


fourthwire said,

Staring at a woman a crime? This country has completely lost its nuts! Quite a few mentally ill women would cheerfully dress provocatively, walk casually through the area, then phone the police!

Male sexuality is being steadily criminallized at the behest of the feminazis. There are enough completely ball-less politicians such as New York City Councilman Peter Vallone to pander to those bitches to make such misandry de rigeur in America today.

Soon men will be forced to avert their eyes from women, as the slaves of old had to avert their eyes from the ruling classes.

New York City - Gynocracy Capital Of The East Coast………

August 30, 2007





Just like Dennis said, women have rights without responsibility. I've seen it in Mardi Gras videos women going around in nothing more than body paint to advertise their sexuality to a man for a pair of plastic beads. But should any other man "respond" to that advertisment by attempting to feel them up they scream to the man to stop. As if the other men around her are not supposed to respond to a 20 year old naked woman standing only a few feet away from them with anything other than a bit of curious admiration.(Like staring at a painting in an art gallery.) (Then of course they want to charge the man who responded with sexual assult.)

I've often though to myself that women have rights with no responsibility. Dennis is just the first man to say so in public. If you enjoy your freedom avoid american women / western women like the plague...



0 comments

Translate Page Into Your Language

Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com



Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com









del.icio.us linkroll

Archive

Counter

Counter

web tracker

Widget

Site Meter

Blog Patrol Counter