Unintended Consequences

GoTopless Day 2016 by GoToVan, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original altered to be SFW

First of all, before I get to the main point, let me establish one simple thing. Real men don’t put their hands on women uninvited, period. Societies have developed over time (some faster than others) laws, traditions, customs and mores to protect women and children from attack by predatory males. These are based on both physical and psychological differences between men and women. One category of these, is appropriate attire for the situation. And before anyone goes there, No; “She was asking for it, is never an excuse.”

Today’s offering, demonstrates Leftists just can’t seem to admit that certain things like appropriate public dress codes and behavior, arose for a reason. They also just can’t seem to get past themselves and their own personal desires, sometimes with unintended consequences the group or groups they claim to be helping.

Fox5 in Atlanta has a report about three New Hampshire ladies, Heidi Lilley, Kia Sinclair and Ginger Pierro. These women, who are part of the Free the Nipple campaign — an advocacy group promoting the rights of women to go topless, had been arrested for violating a local ordinance prohibiting topless bathing. The case finally arrived at the New Hampshire Supreme Court. From the article:

CONCORD, NH (AP) – – New Hampshire’s highest court upheld Friday the conviction of three women who were arrested for going topless on a beach, finding their constitutional rights were not violated.

In a 3-2 ruling, the court decided that Laconia’s ordinance does not discriminate on the basis of gender or violate the women’s right to free speech.

Citing rulings by several other courts, Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi wrote that courts “generally upheld laws that prohibit women but not men from exposing their breasts against equal protection challenges.”

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice James P. Bassett with Senior Associate Justice Gary E. Hicks concluded the ordinance was unconstitutional because it treats men and women differently.

Hynes [the attorney for the ladies] said he would have to talk to the women about their next step, including possibly appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The dissenting justice, likely by accident, points to why this ordinance exists in the first place, “…it treats men and women differently.

Well , Justice Hicks, men and women are different. There are certain female attributes inherently attractive to men, hence the constant female exclamation, “Hey! My eyes are up here!” This is also why a male pervert who grabs a lady there without permission, can be prosecuted and for more than a Simple Battery.

If these ladies win this one, they will be doing a huge disservice to other women. Once they get a court to equate male and female breasts, then the next time some creep grabs a woman’s there, the most he’ll be able to be charged with, is Simple/Misdemeanor Battery, instead of possibly, Felony Sexual Assault. The question to ask yourselves ladies, “Is your desire to wave your equipment around in public, more important tha keeping an important legal tool in the District Attorney’s toolbox for prosecuting sexual predators?”

Mike Ford is a retired Infantry Officer who writes on Military, Foreign Affairs and occasionally dabbles in Political and Economic matters.

You can find his other Red State work here.

He is also (reluctantly) on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

The post Unintended Consequences appeared first on RedState.