This is the latest but probably not the last bit of lunacy arising from feminism. The feminist division of the Nottinghamshire Police, in partnership with Nottingham Women’s Centre, have decided that ‘hate crime’ includes wolf whistles, photographing women without consent, unwanted sexual advances, uninvited physical or verbal contact, and unwanted messages via mobile phones, if such things are perceived by the ‘victim’ as occurring ‘because she is woman’.

So talking to a woman you want to get to know, without invitation, is now likely to be treated as a ‘hate crime’ by those police! Women really do want to be treated like royalty. “How dare he speak to me uninvited; off with his head!”

The Nottinghamshire feminist police think it’s ok to treat people, read MEN, as criminals even when no criminal offence has been committed. In effect, they are treating normal, legal behaviour as criminal only because those who do it have penises. This is dangerous discrimination on the basis of gender.

How on earth is a man to know whether or not a woman will not want to be approached until he has tried and she has perhaps informed him that she doesn’t want that? But the Notingshamhire feminist SS now expect men to read women’s minds in advance to avoid causing women the terrible trauma of being talked to or propositioned by a (gasp) man uninvited!

The definition of this feminist hate crime is as stupid as the idea: It’s a ‘hate crime’ if the woman believes a man’s communication towards her was because she is a woman. But any courtship approach by a heterosexual man will in large part occur because the subject of his interest is a woman. Essentially, all heterosexual courtship behaviour initiated by any man can now be labelled as a hate crime and the unfortunate bastard involved can expect to be spied on, harassed and charged with something for his trouble.

On the other hand, you can be sure that any man objecting to being talked to by a woman uninvited, or to being photographed by a female journalist, will be ignored or laughed away by those same cuntstables.

Another very bad aspect of this nonsense is the degree to which one person’s behaviour is defined as a crime on the basis of another person’s subjective feelings about the behaviour. The same has long applied in NZ’s ‘protection’ order regime, with subjective claimed fear on the part of the applicant, if female, being sufficient to deprive the male respondent of many civil and parental rights. Nothing he actually did, or whether he ever broke any law, is of much relevance.

In fact, the Nottinghamshire lunacy will show many more people the ridiculous and dangerous nature of feminist ideology and demands. It will hasten the wave that is growing.