Upskirting bill blocked

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

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

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

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

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

Baggs You can be so patronising sometimes.

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, 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.)

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

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.

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 .

Joanna Williams talking sense about the criminalisation of upskirting.

A clear, balanced and considered article. Thanks Baggs

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The horrific "Handmaid's Tale" envisions a society in which men, insecure in their masculinity, dominate. Women become instrumental in enforcing, through a set of brutally repressive sub-structures, a doctrine that sees them falling into two categories - good/compliant, bad/disobedient - both definitions being determined by what suits men.

I read it when it was first published and, though I felt it provided food for thought, I suspected the author used shock, horror and controversy in order to create interest and promote her writing. I couldn't really believe such a scenario could actually happen in the modern world.

When I see some of the comments that men - and, shockingly women too - make about women, I can see why Attwood wrote this book and that she was giving her take on how easily, and almost imperceptibly, the role of women could gradually be re-defined and enforced, with the approval and collusion of many of their own sex.

Thank you for that Eloe and the time you must have spent doing it. Anything written by JW has to be seen through the prism of her political views and in particular her views on feminism. She sounds like just a slightly more educated version of AR and JH-B - all that is needed for men to behave is slap or a steelyeyed stare. I have to ask myself why some women are so unsupportive of other women

X posts.

If a person upskirts me unknowingly to [me] , to quote Eloethan, then no damage is done to me. If he shares whatever photographs he has taken, with or without lewd comments, nobody will recognise me from that angle so there is still no damage to me.

Whether having a man expose himself to someone or being knowingly upskirted (it would have to be knowingly for it to matter; see above) is worse would be an entirely subjective thing.

Just being pedantic. Pedantry is important in law-making, I think. Details matter. I think that's what Williams is saying.

The good news is that the bill has not been blocked forever. It never was. Only while important legal details were sorted out.

Of course you are FAR too subtle for most of us lesser mortals Baggs ???

Baggs I do see your logic, but in the case of young girls it has been known for the pictures to be shared with family and friends naming the girl. The sooner upskirting is made a criminal offence (whether the woman knows about it or not) the better.