Upskirting bill blocked

thanks Eloethan, I hadn't read up on Joanna Williams before catching up with your post, now I don't need to.

Joanna Williams argues that the possible outcome - up to 2 years imprisonment for someone convicted of upskirting and distributing photos and film - is out of proportion to the offence.

She says:

"Many circumstances can be experienced as distressing and humiliating. People say and do horrible things to each other all the time". She later refers to upskirting ss being "vile and anti-social". Surely, generally speaking, vile and anti-social acts are subject to legal intervention? A man exposing himself - even at a distance - is a criminal act and, undoubtedly, quite disturbing. But is it as disturbing and humiliating as having a man, unknowingly to you, taking photos or filming up your skirt and distributing those photos to all and sundry, accompanied by lewd comments?

My understanding of what was proposed was that upskirting should be made a criminal offence which carries a potential risk of imprisonment of up to two years. That would be the maximum sentence. if it was proposed that every instance of upskirting would receive a mandatory prison sentence, which could not be suspended, I'm not sure I would agree with that but this matter needs to be treated as a crime against the person.

"It seems that people, especially women, no longer have any sense that they can slap or chastise men".

"We’ve so imbibed the view that women are victims that we see the law as the only form of redress against embarrassment."

"Making a law would create the impression that all men are perverts and all women are victims."

She talks of "infantalising women" and implies that women should not be only overly concerned about an act which she passes off as "an embarrassment" but also that they can no longer stand up for themselves. I'm not sure how a woman "stands up for herself" in this situation when she is unlikely to be aware of what has happened or, if she does become aware, may run the risk of being physically attacked or, if she does retaliate, finding herself incourt for assault. It was a woman who started this campaign, very bravely I think, given her humiliating experience. Men too experience humiliation. It is well known that men who are raped are very reluctant to report the matter because they feel it reflects on their masculinity. Are they being "infantile" to feel humiliated and degraded?

Actually, I don't recall this time that she and others refer to when women did feel able to retaliate when they were sexually assaulted. Many accounts on Gransnet following the revelations re the President's Club function, Weinstein and other issues reflect the powerlessness that many women felt in the "old days" after experiencing sexual abuse at work and in the public arena. This was partly because they felt they ran the risk of not being believed, of being accused of being over-sensitive or of exaggerrating. It seems some women would like to go back to those days.

The comments following this article, mainly written by men, were fairly predictable, and this one, posted by "Richard", commenting on the statement that "Chope has denied women the right to feel safe" is fairly typical:

"Well, that can easily be achieved by dressing in a different way. Apparently it is only "victim blaming" if the crime specifically affects women, because apparently some just like to see women as victims."

I think men are described as "victims" too, particularly in a legal context. A man who is raped is a victim as much as a women is. It is not a derogatory term, it simply means someone who has suffered harm at the hands of another person. It is perhaps reasonable to say that a victim can, and hopefully will, be better described as a "survivor" at a later date.

I'd never heard of Joanne Williams but, having looked her up, I see that she has no time at all for feminism and has written many books and articles decrying it, e.g.:

"Women v. Feminism: Why we all need liberating from the gender wars" (book)

Articles:

Feminism is holding women back

After Manchester: The Cowardice of Feminists - "anger seems absent. Fury and rage have been squashed in a determination to stick to the narrative of keeping calm and carrying on and choose love not hate."

Apparently some people chose to interpret the Manchester atrocity as a crime specifically aimed at women, particularly young, free, western women. I would describe myself as a feminist but was not aware of that interpretation and do not agree with it. I think, in any event, it is ridiculous to suggest that the same sorts of statements have not been made after other such atrocities. There has always been a call for calm, for not resorting to targeting Muslims because of the acts of a few deranged individuals. Presumably she prefers mosques being burned down and women in burkhas being insulted and attacked.

She has written for the Spectator, the Sun, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail, none of which have been particularly progressive in their views about women and sexuality in general.

www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/trying-to-defend-procedure-over-upskirting-is-pathetic-the-bigger-picture-is-far-more-important-a3866471.html

Interesting article in today’s evening Standard . trying to defend procedure over upskirting is pathetic

Good response to JW.

JW is a right wing academic - her views on women, Trump, Brexit etc are no more balanced or considered then someone on the far left. So she thinks that taking a photograph and distributing it on the internet of the bloodied knickers of a 12 year olds should not be criminalised. Well she’s wrong. Full stop.

Joanna Williams is associate editor at spiked.

Presumably if a female who had been the subject of 'upskirting' grabbed the phone from the 'stupid but not perverted teenage boy' and smashed it, she could then be charged with criminal damage.
Or a schoolgirl being 'upskirted' by the boy below her on the stairs pushed him down those stairs she could be charged with assault.

Fine - let's encourage women and girls to fight back - but on what terms? Amnesty for them?

I expect that Joanna Williams is well able to take care of herself but some young girls of 12 or 13 or so may be rather more timid than a woman journalist working in a tough world.

I don't agree with the views expressed in that article.

We’ve forgotten that behaviour can be vile and unacceptable but not illegal. It seems people, and especially women, no longer have any sense that – perhaps together with friends or family – they can slap or chastise someone who has behaved badly towards them. We’ve so imbibed the view that women are victims that we see the law as the only form of redress against embarrassment.

Upskirting is hardly like, for example, a pinch on the bottom which could be dealt with promptly and efficiently.

It is voyeurism and also includes the spreading of the offensive photographs on the internet.
It should be criminalised imo.

A clear, balanced and considered article. Thanks Baggs

Joanna Williams talking sense about the criminalisation of upskirting.

And Baggs speak for yourself about not having heard of CC - those of us who are politically aware and interested in the concept of democracy and how many of the arcane procedures of Parliament play against that, have followed his pathetic ‘career’ for years. I well remember his trying to block the Hillsborough debate as one particular egregious example. The reason this particular objection has received do much reaction is multi- factorial but includes the fact that unusually for a PMB it had received government backing and so it was expected to progress to the Committee stage after last Friday. Hopes had been raised and then were cruelly dashed. Another reason is the feisty amazing women who are fighting for this legislation and will not let it go and the power of social media to call people out very quickly. G23s post demonstrates why people care so much about getting this legislation through and why it matters .

So Baggs ‘banning’ something (or as we ALL understand it to mean and use it as shorthand, legislating against an action and having sanctions in place) doesn’t stop that action from happening? Well who knew?

If males see females wearing shorts under their skirts or wearing trousers they get the message that it’s up to the females to change their behaviour to protect themselves and that they as males bare no responsibility for their actions. Really? Really? And that will be a message well used when they encounter a young woman who has had too much to drink or is walking home alone at night.

The current problem with 'upskirting' is that it has moved on from the perverted pursuit of a handful of deviants to the 'In Thing', 'Just a Joke' or a dare for teenage boys. Whilst being upskirted by a pervert and subsequently having the pictures published on Reddit is distressing enough, I would argue that when this happens close to home, then this is even more devastating, because the pictures will be posted on local social media and seen by your friends, relatives, colleagues. People you see every day will have seen or heard about it. You will be the 'Talk of the Steamie'. Meanwhile, the photographer will be feted by his peers.

Baggs suggests that girls can 'protect' themselves from having their 'bits' photographed but wouldn't there be MORE ridicule if you were seen to be wearing 'Big Knickers' etc. This has become sexist bullying rather than a purely sex offence. In this instance it is not our girls who need to change their behaviour - it is our boys.

In Scotland both the taking and publishing of any such pictures is a criminal offence, linked to voyeurism. The emphasis, so far, has been on prosecuting the pervert on the train, or serial publisher. I reckon that a few prosecutions of the 'just a joke' offenders would teach a salutary lesson to these youngsters

Baggs, I do wonder if the men who upskirt, confine their sexual offending to "only" taking photographs of this kind. So far, I don't know of any research either way. Sex offenders rarely confine themselves to only one behaviour. Like other offenders, they often escalate into more 'serious' forms of behaviour. I also wonder whether you're right when you say that even the offenders realise they're not behaving well at better points in their lives. (my paraphrase, hope I got it to reflect what you said.)

Whilst I think we are all have some responsibility for our own safety - such as not drinking so much as to make ourselves vulnerable to attack - I can't agree that women can be responsible for upskirting. It doesn't matter whether a woman wears a short skirt or one skimming her knees - upskirting still happens. The only way to stop it is if we all wear something akin to a burkha.

Making upskirting a crime would not stop it but it would mean that when caught the perverts could be prosecuted.

Baggs You can be so patronising sometimes.

I agree Baggs. My GD says girls at school in short skirts (even for PE) always wear shorts underneath for modesty!

A very good post Baggs I totally get what you are saying.

....and I’m normally a bit slower than most....

Not what I said, OM. I realise some of what I have said is too subtle for some people.

Interesting comment by Hugo Rifkind in today's Times about "Asbomania". Worth a read.

Oh, so it’s the women’s own fault for not protecting themselves. Of course!

And I still say that there are various ways women can protect themselves from upskirting and downblousing. Most of us practice such 'protections' all the time, just as most men protect themselves all the time from ballogling.

Another (sadly) Labour MP is reported to have said this:
"“How many hours will be required to arrive at the conclusion that the taking of photographs underneath, mainly, women’s clothes by perverts is a bad thing?”

Why do so many people not get it? Of course it's a bad thing and of course nearly everyone thinks it's a bad thing. I bet even some of the people who do it think that in their better moments.

Whether it's a bad thing isn't the point.

One thing that's puzzling me is this: if blocking PMBs is so noisome and if Chope has been blocking PMBs for most of his parliamentary career (35 years), why has it only just been flagged up as Such An Awful Thing To Do? I bet he (and others) have blocked similarly 'worthy' PMBs before and yet nobody had heard of him except his constituents who kept voting him back in.

As I've indicated in previous posts, like nearly everyone else, I think this practice should have serious legal consequences for perpetrators. But I think the details of the law on those consequences should be very carefully decided.

I also think "banned" is a stupid word to use. The revolting practice is "banned" morally already. Making it a crime won't ban it any further; it might just make a few people not do it for fear of being caught. But the perverts will think of something else.

Add on tonight's piece of nonsense. although the vote was Ayes 88, Nos 51 there were only approximately 50 MPs in the chamber. Apparently, when the division bell rang 80+ MPs, who had not heard a single word of the debate, rushed out of the bars, quickly voted and rushed back to watch the footie.

Now I know this sort of thing happens all the time but to carry on doing it, laughing all the while, when they know full well that the spotlight is currently on these idiotic Parliamentary procedures, demonstrates complete contempt for democracy, and the privileged role we. their voters. have given them.

Xposts Iam we are of one mind on this it appears.

Rightly or wrongly that's JP’s style. She can be rather in your face but she’s a great campaigning MP who really gives a damn. She’s been an MP since 2015 so you might have to forgive her for not yet having reformed Parliament (CC has chalked up 30 years and has damn all to show for it).

Oh Baggs - I do understand your objections, I do not agree with you. I fear you are intellectualising an issue that doesn't need emotional distance. Jess Phillips works extremely hard. She pioneers women's issues.

Jess Phillips is a Good Thing. Christopher Chope is Not a Good Thing.

The End.