Man convicted for staring at woman – Result: fine and jail sentence

Updated 2018 07 02: To make addendum

Man convicted for staring at woman – Result: fine and jail sentence. While women are considered incapable of committing crimes, men are considered the sole perpetrators of them.

News.com.au
April 18, 2008 11:54pm

AN ITALIAN man was given a suspended jail sentence for staring too intensely at a woman sitting in front of him on a train.

A judge sentenced the man in his 30s, whose name was not revealed, to 10 days in prison and a 40 euro ($68) fine after a 55-year old woman filed a complaint for sexual harassment….

 Read the whole story.

Apparently, the evidence supplied to establish that conviction was nothing more than the woman’s uncorroborated assertion.


Addendum 2018 07 02

The Italian man got off lightly. In another, comparable case, the accused man lost his reputation, his job and career.  In that case it was because a woman alleged (again without any corroborating evidence or witnesses) that a  university professor had leered at her in a public swimming pool.

“….The National Organization for Women must therefore begin to speak.”

More at The 1966 Agenda of the National Organization of Women (NOW)

And speak they did! Men are now the class that can proudly claim to be discriminated against.  In all imaginable sectors of society, men are as a rule being discriminated against.

Jurisprudence is actively pursuing a course of persecution of men. Men are completely helpless in trying to obtain equitable justice. Governments at all levels are supporting programs in favour of women and virtually none that are in favour of men. Hate language and gender-hatred against men have become part of everyday life and is actively being promoted and sponsored by governments–the reverse had never been the case. Women’s groups receive generous funding out of tax funds. Men’s rights groups receive none.

Women are considered incapable of committing crimes. Men are considered the sole perpetrators of them. That has reached proportions where women are encouraged to commit violence against men at an ever-increasing rate. Women can now with impunity murder their spouses and men in their lives, and against their children–all under the guise of P.M.S., the “Learned Helplessness Syndrome,” the “Battered Woman Syndrome,” “Automatism,” etc. None of those defences are available to men.

Provided a woman’s crime comes to trial at all, which it often does not, the risk of being convicted is far less than that of a man.

    If a sentence for a violent or any other crime committed by a woman is handed out, she receives on average a sentence that is only one-third of what a man receives on average for perpetrating a crime of equal severity.

    If incarcerated, a woman is also likely to serve far less of her term of incarceration than a man would. Women’s prisons are far more amicable than men’s prisons, in general, they are described as “country club settings.”

The sex ratio of inmates in our correctional facilities is now in Canada 100 men for every woman, and in the U.S. 17.2 men for every woman.

The effort to house women in comfortable settings has resulted in the average cost for the accommodation of female inmates to exceed by far that of the average cost for male inmates.

Our jurisprudence has become so distorted that it is now possible for a woman to get a university professor sentenced to a two-year term of incarceration for sexual assault, simply by alleging — supported by no evidence other than her say-so — that he “leered” at her in a public swimming pool, and to completely ruin his professional career in the process by forcing him from his teaching position.  Here are a few comments from the media and from one other source, relating to that case.

HIS CRIME: LEERING In the eyes of some feminists, Richard Hummel played King Leer all too well. Indeed, Hummel, 60, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Toronto, has been banned from the campus swimming pool-for leering at women. The case made a public splash, of course, after a student complained that Hummel leered at her as she swam. Moreover, she and several other swimmers aired suspicions that the professor wore a snorkel mask and flippers while swimming alongside women only to enhance his vision. Despite angry denials and Hummel`s insistence that a bad back forced him to wear flippers and snorkel mask, the university`s sexual harrassment review board has banned Hummel, a pool regular, from the campus pool for five years. As he appeals, ecstatic campus feminists are determined to create more waves over man’s well-documented predeliction. Overt “girl watching,” they complain, constitutes sexual harrassment. (Give up guys. You`ll never win.)

Chicago Tribune, 1989 03 30

A MILESTONE IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Richard Hummel, professor of chemical engineering at the University of Toronto, said his sexual harassment case cost him and his university more than $200,000 in costs and fees. Hummel was convicted in 1989 of “prolonged and intense staring” while swimming in a university pool. Maclean’s columnist Barbara Amiel called the case “the utter debasement of the genuinely serious nature of sexual harassment.”

Seattle Times, 1992 01 22

Many careers were destroyed on account of such cases, but such cases are also the foundation on which careers are built, as was the case of Prof. Richard Hummel.

Being a Feminist Lawyer

by Susan Boyd and Camille Israel

W. Anita Braha gave an inspiring talk titled “A Feminist Practice: A Chronicle of Issues Over the Years” about her experiences as a feminist and a human rights lawyer. Her stories showed us that her work on feminist projects as a student gave her experience and contacts that paid off in future opportunities….

During this time, she was asked to represent the first complainant under the University of Toronto’s sexual harassment policy, who was an engineering student. At issue was whether leering constituted sexual harassment. The defendant, 60-year old chemical engineering professor Richard Hummel, was accused of following and intensely staring at female swimmers at Hart House Pool. The board held that his actions did constitute sexual harassment. The decision was immediately appealed, and the defense hired Morris Manning, a prominent criminal litigator. As co-counsel, Anita retained Kate Hughes, who later represented LEAF in its intervention in Meoirin v. BCGSE, the landmark gender discrimination case. Anita’s client won the appeal, but the decision was not uncontroversial. Maclean’s columnist Barbara Amiel strongly criticized the case as “the utter debasement of the genuinely serious nature of sexual harassment.”

Of course, given that there was the complainant’s assertion that the good professor had been leering at her, a defence by the accused that he had not been leering was to no avail. Such an assertion by a woman trumps even hard and cold evidence to the contrary. When it comes to she-said vs. he-said, what she says almost invariably trumps what he says.

A man who dares to use a worm instead of a fly to fish for trout will quite likely serve 30 days in jail, whereas a woman who murders her child or her spouse will quite possibly not be incarcerated even for a single hour.


#ManConvictedForStaringAtWoman

See also:

This entry was posted in Men's Issues, The New World Order, Women's Violence. Bookmark the permalink.