In all seriousness, I wonder if a prosecutor could call this a “hate crime” based on “sexual orientation” if the man pressing charges claimed to be homosexual?
A court’s been told a stripper accused of raping a man at a buck’s night told him it was “just a joke”, after he complained about being violated by a sex toy.
The alleged victim told the Victorian County Court that he he urged stripper Linda Maree Naggs not to put the pink strap-on dildo into his anus and was shocked when she did.
…The man said he went to the toilet and returned with a bloody tissue that he showed to Naggs.
…Naggs’ barrister has suggested the man placed himself in close proximity to the dildo for a reason.
Sound like a frivolous and gratuitously shocking question? Think again. When “sexual orientation” demands being taken seriously as an especially protected legal category, all kinds of ridiculous and disgusting legal arguments are inevitable, as the plain meaning of the law will require us to pretend that all – ALL – sexual perversions are dignified, including pedophilia and public genital exposure and bestiality. Those, too, are all “sexual orientations”.
Another legal puzzle: Will movie scenes like the following be considered “hate crimes”, or will it be a hate crime not to use them as instructional material in schools?