I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately.Right there you deny, and then affirm my point. You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately.
I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger if he doesn't search thoroughly. That isn't considered molestation and if that isn't, then neither is this.
The police officer still requires just cause and must inform me of their intent. They cannot simply by virtue of being a police officer molest anyone they please. They have no right to apprehend someone and molest them. That would be a sexual assault crime as well.
You are using dramatic words to make strong accusations to try and make a point that should be made in an entirely different way. These kinds of overly dramatic arguments are easy to dismiss and unfortunately, the real arguments that argue for the same solution will silently be dismissed along with them.
I'm afraid that they will only be silently dismissed by those who are apologetic to perpetrators.
The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem.
The victim will not likely feel any less violated or assaulted because you choose to call it, "inappropriate touching." That is something kids do when they don't know any better. The problem in this case was that this woman was molested. Whether that was because the TSA agent made a mistake, was improperly trained, or was a sexual predator remains a question for the courts to hear and determine. Either way the charge is the same and the victim is no less hurt by what happened.
Calling it anything less is dismissing the crime. I'm not misappropriating the term with hyperbole. You're simply down-playing it. If we do not call it what it is, we choose to ignore it or apologize for it. Either way, it's a sign to me that you do not think there was a victim here and that this woman is not justified to feel the way she does as a victim of a crime.
At least we do agree on one thing: the greater crime here is the policy itself.
I simply hope that cases like this DO go to court so that the justice system can rule the policy unenforceable and compel the TSA to remove it.