A new law proposed by a lawmaker in California is aimed at stopping people from making racially motivated calls to the police.
It's been proposed by San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton, and is called the 'CAREN' act, which stands for Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies.
Recently there has been a large uptick in incidents during which white women call the police to make reports against people of colour who they claim have made them feel uncomfortable while they're going about their daily business.
These people have become known colloquially as 'Karens'.
Calls to police can put the subject of those frivolous 911 contacts in danger of arrest for a crime they haven't committed, or an interaction with the police that could otherwise have been avoided.
Just recently, Amy Cooper called the police on a man who was birdwatching in a New York park because he'd asked her if she could put her dog onto a leash.
Then, closer to where the law is being proposed, Jennifer Schulte called the police when she saw two black men having a barbecue in a park.
A woman also threatened to call the cops on a man for stenciling 'Black Lives Matter' in chalk on his own house.
This new law aims to punish those who think they can use the police to intimidate people of colour who have done nothing wrong.
Walton argues that the proposed measures 'are part of a larger nationwide movement to address racial biases and implement consequences for weaponizing emergency resources with racist intentions'.
It's similar to a bill put forward by California State Assembly member Rob Bonta that calls for people who use law enforcement in a way that is biased towards people for their race, class, appearance, or religion.
Speaking about that piece of legislation, Bonta said: "This bill could protect millions of Californians from becoming targets of hate and prevent the weaponization of our law enforcement against communities of colour."
Oh my goodness, this has been quite the thread... 1) Ladies who are called Karen, should not be stigmatised 2) I'm totally lost here 3) I'm going to start a thread about painting your toenails
Gary boys, or Garrying in the 90s or noughties, ditto with Kevin/Trevor or Kevving/Treving. A Chad is a bloke held up by incels as the bone headed jock type. A Barry/Brian is the over officious older man. Wayne was supposed to be an indicator of class. Dwayne an indicator of ethnicity.
I know my mother picked my name because she thought it was a naice middle class name. A name isn't just a name. It carries social meaning.
I don't feel victimised, do you Sparkling? Invisible at times as an older woman but after the less than conformative life I've had, I'm ok with flying beneath the radar.
Is it now unacceptable to be white and middles aged with a certain hairstyle, does that mean we are now a minority and are being victimised? This feeling we are not good enough is damaging mental health. Should we just stay in?
Diminished responsibility is age old! It's inserted into every religion
By religion I take it you mean judicial system?
Talk about stating the * * * * * obvious. The fact that it may be years and years old does not invalidate the possibility that some woke do-gooder might invoke it as a defence.
It’s not down to character flaws. It is an illustration of deliberate malicious, vexatious, and racist troublemaking. Let’s not give it the respectable cloak of a psychological trait. People will be claiming diminished responsibility next.
Diminished responsibility is age old! It's inserted into every religion!
I must admit, the photo currently being used on the main page of this site is very, very, very, very white ..
Outside of the orbit of washing detergents, are there degrees of white? Slightly white, predominantly white, very white, very very white? Apart from the emojis which can be red , blue , yellow or green - but never white
It’s not down to character flaws. It is an illustration of deliberate malicious, vexatious, and racist troublemaking. Let’s not give it the respectable cloak of a psychological trait. People will be claiming diminished responsibility next.