nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Catcalling is now a 'hate crime' - UK Police Force

[Deleted User]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/catcalling-is-now-a-hate-crime-in-this-british-county_us_57890182e4b03fc3ee508b14

A UK Police Force has provoked debate after declaring that unwanted misogynistic advances are now to be investigated as hate crime

Nottinghamshire police define mysogynistic advances as unwanted behaviour directed towards women by men, simply because they are women, which includes catcalling, apparently.

The Force's newly-appointed Police Constable has said that she is 'delighted' to be targeting misogyny in all its forms.

Personally I think this is going way overboard. Opinions?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Greentopia

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It shouldn't. Telling her and then following her as she moves away from you should. There is a difference. And it is an important one.

It's intimidating and makes a woman feel like a slab of meat to have her body commented on by a stranger. And it's never done by one person, it's always only said by a guy when he has the courage to do it because he's with a group of his mates (unless he's drunk) so it's intimidating and scary to have a group of guys laughing and jeering at their mate's remark (unless they call their friend out on their bad behaviour there and then, which I've never seen).

You have no idea what that situation is like unless you've been the victim of it. I have and it's horrible. I told the guy where to go and he got verbally aggressive and abusive with me. There's more to harassment than following someone as they move away. That's why I would support this law.

Two Tone

I don't find it intimidating or scary but it makes me feel extremely uncomfortable, self conscious and embarrassed if a bunch of lads (and when it happens it is always a bunch, and I am always on my own) shout lewd remarks about my bum/boobs. I wouldn't care if they just shouted "Hiya!" or whatever other mild comment and left it at that (I'd say "Hiya!" back) or even a whistle, but shouting remarks about my body-parts is just idiotic and a twattish thing to do.

I would think the very same about women shouting similar stuff to men.

But I don't agree it is a hate crime.

[Deleted User]

The target is misogynistic behaviour towards women, not civil conversation.

'Bend over and don't move til I'm done, bitch' - said to a friend of mine in a bar, out of the blue, would probably be a good example of what they mean.

'What time is the next 46a due?' - rather unlikely to result in a prosecution.

The first kind of encounter seems to be much more prevalent than people realise, I've been on the receiving end of that kind of horrible sexist stuff since I was 12 years old. I'd love it to stop.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

darkpagandeath

Candie wrote: »

The target is misogynistic behaviour towards women, not civil conversation.

'Bend over and don't move til I'm done, bitch' - said to a friend of mine in a bar, out of the blue, would probably be a good example of what they mean.

'What time is the next 46a due?' - rather unlikely to result in a prosecution.

The first kind of encounter seems to be much more prevalent than people realise, I've been on the receiving end of that kind of horrible sexist stuff since I was 12 years old. I'd love it to stop.

Yes but laws on top of laws we already don't use how will you police it'. Especially the She said He said. I would imagine some would die if they went to spring break in America or mardi gras.

darkpagandeath

jacksie66 wrote: »

Using Tinder is going to be a hate crime soon..

Only if you are a white male :P

[Deleted User]

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes but laws on top of laws we already don't use how will you police it'. Especially the She said He said. I would imagine some would die if they went to spring break in America or mardi gras.

The example I gave was in a bar, in front of others, lots of witnesses. Fairly clear cut. One prosecution might make others who thoughtlessly insult and intimidate to make their mates laugh think before they speak.

That would be a very easy case to prosecute, for example.

darkpagandeath

Candie wrote: »

The example I gave was in a bar, in front of others, lots of witnesses. Fairly clear cut. One prosecution might make others who thoughtlessly insult and intimidate to make their mates laugh think before they speak.

That would be a very easy case to prosecute, for example.

How would you prove in a crowd of people it was directed at that person ? I imagine stuff like this getting tossed out very quickly. And thankfully we don't have ridiculous laws like this. Or it would get to the stage of having a smartphone on record and video 24/7 to prove it was not said or who said what.

[Deleted User]

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How would you prove in a crowd of people it was directed at that person ? I imagine stuff like this getting tossed out very quickly. And thankfully we don't have ridiculous laws like this. Or it would get to the stage of having a smartphone on record and video 24/7 to prove it was not said or who said what.

Very easily. It was said directly to my friends face, in the presence of about 25 others. It was extremely obvious who said it, and to whom.

It's not a ridiculous law, not if it stops that moron saying it to one other person.

darkpagandeath

Candie wrote: »

Very easily. It was said directly to my friends face, in the presence of about 25 others. It was extremely obvious who said it, and to whom.

It's not a ridiculous law, not if it stops that moron saying it to one other person.

Yes it is as it's sexist for a start.

NiallBoo

I think a lot of the differences in opinion here are down to nobody having any idea what the wording of the law will be - assuming a lot from the broad outline and some fearing the worst.

I think it's a reasonable to assume that the law will be worded to provide protection to everyone, not just women.

I think it's also likely to be phrased to require an offending comment/whatever is of a nature that the speaker should reasonably assume will cause offense.

Also, I'm sure at least some kind of proof will be required.

Arcade_Tryer

Greentopia wrote: »

It's intimidating and makes a woman feel like a slab of meat to have her body commented on by a stranger. And it's never done by one person, it's always only said by a guy when he has the courage to do it because he's with a group of his mates (unless he's drunk) so it's intimidating and scary to have a group of guys laughing and jeering at their mate's remark (unless they call their friend out on their bad behaviour there and then, which I've never seen).

You have no idea what that situation is like unless you've been the victim of it. I have and it's horrible. I told the guy where to go and he got verbally aggressive and abusive with me. There's more to harassment than following someone as they move away. That's why I would support this law.

Yes, that's horrible. But as horrible as it is, it would be much more horrible if those guys didn't have the right to say those things for fear of being arrested or charged in court. You might not like it, but it's the truth. And if you want people to stop behaving like that in public, laws are not the answer. Education is. Offer to pay more in taxes to fund education and teachers rather than lawyers, courts and prisons to persecute people for saying horrible things to you.

Arcade_Tryer

Greentopia wrote: »

It's intimidating and makes a woman feel like a slab of meat to have her body commented on by a stranger. And it's never done by one person, it's always only said by a guy when he has the courage to do it because he's with a group of his mates (unless he's drunk) so it's intimidating and scary to have a group of guys laughing and jeering at their mate's remark (unless they call their friend out on their bad behaviour there and then, which I've never seen).

You have no idea what that situation is like unless you've been the victim of it. I have and it's horrible. I told the guy where to go and he got verbally aggressive and abusive with me. There's more to harassment than following someone as they move away. That's why I would support this law.

looksee

Is anyone else seeing any parallels between this thread and the one about 'have you ever experienced prejudice for being Irish'?

darkpagandeath

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think a lot of the differences in opinion here are down to nobody having any idea what the wording of the law will be - assuming a lot from the broad outline and some fearing the worst.

I think it's a reasonable to assume that the law will be worded to provide protection to everyone, not just women.

I think it's also likely to be phrased to require an offending comment/whatever is of a nature that the speaker should reasonably assume will cause offense.

Also, I'm sure at least some kind of proof will be required.

I like to see a study being done to even warrant such ridiculous sexist laws. As it's only mentioned misogyny.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

The target is misogynistic behaviour towards women, not civil conversation.

'Bend over and don't move til I'm done, bitch' - said to a friend of mine in a bar, out of the blue, would probably be a good example of what they mean.

'What time is the next 46a due?' - rather unlikely to result in a prosecution.

The first kind of encounter seems to be much more prevalent than people realise, I've been on the receiving end of that kind of horrible sexist stuff since I was 12 years old. I'd love it to stop.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, it's all the grey in between which causes issues. This doesn't just mention threats or persistent harassment, it talks about

Especially for teenagers. It's been widely commented upon that being clumsy and making mistakes when chatting somebody up or having a crush on somebody is now likely to result in such intense vilification and accusations of being a creep of some kind, that a huge number of young teenagers of both genders are developing serious issues around confidence. And to be honest, I remember being able to see that first hand when I was an older kid in school doing my leaving cert - clumsiness and idiocy by younger lads has gone from being something that they get made fun of about, to something they get letters sent home about.

All that will ever result in is a generation of lads who are too afraid to respond to what might be flirting, lest they get it wrong and get accused of engaging in harassment.

To put this another way: The word "harassment" implies persistence. It falls massively outside the definition of the word, to apply it to the first instance of "unwanted attention" - in my day, that first instance was when you'd find out whether you'd correctly interpreted the situation or not, and if not, it would at most be a moment of embarrassment and blushing. I honestly fear that guys are now being asked to develop psychic powers to determine whether their crushes are reciprocated before they actually act on them.

Interesting suggestion: If we're going to create an environment in which guys can't make the first move without risking being horrendously misinterpreted, do we also need to simultaneously start encouraging women to make the first move as they won't risk getting in trouble with whoever is in authority if they f*ck it up?

Another suggestion: Should we create designated "hookup zones", where approaching somebody to hit on them or ask them out is acceptable, outside which it would be considered harassment?

Because without taking action like this, I don't see how anyone can actually approach somebody they like for the first time without risking it being considered "unwanted attention".

darkpagandeath

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Yes, that's horrible. But as horrible as it is, it would be much more horrible if those guys didn't have the right to say those things for fear of being arrested or charged in court. You might not like it, but it's the truth. And if you want people to stop behaving like that in public, laws are not the answer. Education is. Offer to pay more in taxes to fund education and teachers rather than lawyers, courts and prisons to prosecute people for saying horrible things to you or anyone else.

Is that not what equality and diversity officer gets paid for in colleges ? Last one I heard about said she could not be racist or sexist as she was a woman of colour. :pac:

Sweetemotion

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Is that not what equality and diversity officer gets paid for in colleges ? Last one I heard about said she could not be racist or sexist as she was a woman of colour. :pac:

And she was white herself :eek:

Sweetemotion

This newly appointed police constable, should be shown her p45.

NiallBoo

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I like to see a study being done to even warrant such ridiculous sexist laws. As it's only mentioned misogyny.

How do you know if the laws are sexist or not?

Either they'll have to pass new laws - in which case we can't know that until we read what's published.

Or, they'll try to prosecute under existing laws - which would mean that either the existing laws are sexist (and we're a bit late to the party) or a judge will have to make a decision, and that can't be (or not be) sexist until it happens.

darkpagandeath

Sweetemotion wrote: »

This newly appointed police constable, should be shown her p45.

To be fair it's the lowest rank.

darkpagandeath

NiallBoo wrote: »

How do you know if the laws are sexist or not?

Either they'll have to pass new laws - in which case we can't know that until we read what's published.

Or, they'll try to prosecute under existing laws - which would mean that either the existing laws are sexist (and we're a bit late to the party) or a judge will have to make a decision, and that can't be (or not be) sexist until it happens.

We are talking about this ridiculous comment from a rank and file Police officer. Wanting misogynistic comments hate crimes. That's sexist.

Sweetemotion

NiallBoo wrote: »

How do you know if the laws are sexist or not?

Either they'll have to pass new laws - in which case we can't know that until we read what's published.

Or, they'll try to prosecute under existing laws - which would mean that either the existing laws are sexist (and we're a bit late to the party) or a judge will have to make a decision, and that can't be (or not be) sexist until it happens.

The newly appointed police constable is only delighted to be targeting misogyny in all it's forms.

Delighted to be targeting men. How is that not sexist?

[Deleted User]

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The newly appointed police constable is only delighted to be targeting misogyny in all it's forms.

Delighted to be targeting men. How is that not sexist?

Targeting misogyny =/= targeting men.

NiallBoo

darkpagandeath wrote: »

We are talking about this ridiculous comment from a rank and file Police officer. Wanting misogynistic comments hate crimes. That's sexist.

Misogynistic comments being illegal doesn't mean that misandrist ones won't be.

Also, constables doesn't make laws.

pickarooney

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What if you're actually calling a cat and the police shoot you in the face mistakenly?

In the Philippines that's fair game.

Arcade_Tryer

You know, the word privilege is often thrown around in conversations like this in relation to white men. And that's fair. White men are privileged in many ways. I am one myself. And we don't suffer even close to the same levels of cat-calling for example as many women do.

However, there is also a tremendous privilege in being able to support a law that criminalizes a person's right to speech in a public place. And that privilege applies to both men and women of all origin and look. And it takes far more intelligence and critical thinking to understand that hate crime legislation are never, ever, ever, ever, ever the way to combat issues such as racism, sexism, misogyny and so on. South Park told us this ten years ago in an episode with a line about "hate crime hypocrisy." And Orwell told us throughout the 20th century. And philosophers like Voltaire and Rosseau before him. And yet here we are in the 21st century, with more information, more knowledge, more understanding, and more education than ever, and we have more and more people than ever advocating for hate crime laws. Tragic.

darkpagandeath

NiallBoo wrote: »

Misogynistic comments being illegal doesn't mean that misandrist ones won't be.

Also, constables doesn't make laws.

Where did she comment on that in her idea ?

Sweetemotion

Candie wrote: »

Targeting misogyny =/= targeting men.

My apologies I forgot about male feminists.

FortySeven

She's the chief constable. That's the head of that force. Can't get higher.

What she is doing is taking the hate crime legislation and using it to forward a feminist agenda. Working with women's aid.

It's not an idea. It's now in action.