• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wave of sexist insults inundating Belgium.

Abdul Alhazred

Philosopher
A
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
6,023
Stern measures required. :)

Belgium’s ban on sexist insults
Daily Mail

Mocking a stay-at-home father or insulting a woman for wearing revealing clothes will be illegal in Belgium under sexism laws unveiled yesterday.

Sexist comments in the office, on the street or online will be punishable by courts in what is thought to be the first legislation of its type.

Equality minister Joelle Milquet said shaming a man for being a house husband will be banned, but added that the legal protections were designed mainly for women.

...
Click to expand...
 
This seems to be an annual "new unveiling":

Belgium's Equal Opportunities Minister, Joëlle Milquet (Christian democrat), has unveiled plans to make sexism a criminal offence.
Click to expand...

2012

And again in 2013. Seems to be the exact same minister every time.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
This seems to be an annual "new unveiling":



2012

And again in 2013. Seems to be the exact same minister every time.
Click to expand...

Is this simply a case of a story being reported once when bill is introduced and again when it is passed into law?

I can't tell. The reporting in the Daily Mail article is characteristically thin on facts.
 
Puppycow said:
The penalty is a fine, like a parking ticket or speeding violation. No "years in prison".
Click to expand...
Why should there be a fine? Is getting rejected no longer good enough, now the government fines you for the attempt?
 
If you think the appropriate method of trying to get a date with a woman is sexist insults, I think a fine might be a nice little wake up call.
 
WildCat said:
Why should there be a fine? Is getting rejected no longer good enough, now the government fines you for the attempt?
Click to expand...


But, the story didn't say that "hitting on a girl" is illegal, it said that "sexist insults" are illegal. I haven't read the law, so I don't know how that's defined.

Do you think it's a problem if a woman can't go about her daily business without being bothered by strangers?

It's kind of predictable that the first people to object seem to be mainly men, who don't regularly experience this sort of thing. Do you accost random women on the street to get a date? Or call them a **** if they aren't interested? Of course not (I hope). If you don't do it, then you probably understand why this sort of thing would annoy a person.
 
As a born and bred Belgian, who's lived in Belgium for close on to half a century now, and who's also something of a news junkie, I can assure you: this story is non-existent in any Belgian media outlet I normally follow. And yes, I did google to see if I missed anything in ones I don't follow. From what I can tell, it's just another Daily Fail "fill the pages with Europhobic made-up crap when there's no real news around" story.
 
FromBelgiumWithLove said:
As a born and bred Belgian, who's lived in Belgium for close on to half a century now, and who's also something of a news junkie, I can assure you: this story is non-existent in any Belgian media outlet I normally follow. And yes, I did google to see if I missed anything in ones I don't follow. From what I can tell, it's just another Daily Fail "fill the pages with Europhobic made-up crap when there's no real news around" story.
Click to expand...

Are you saying they made it up from whole cloth?
 
Puppycow said:
Are you saying they made it up from whole cloth?
Click to expand...

Not really. It's real piece of proposed legislation. Just one that is uncontroversial, which has been working its way through the tediously-slow Belgian legislative process for years, and (IANAL) basically just extends Belgium's already existing wide-ranging anti-discrimination laws to purely sexist discrimination. I imagine Ms. Milquet hopes to get it through Parliament before the dissolution for the elections in May, so she can claim it as a personal achievement in the election campaign. But trust me (I know you have no real reason to take that phrase seriously), this is non-news in Belgium itself.
 
quixotecoyote said:
If you think the appropriate method of trying to get a date with a woman is sexist insults, I think a fine might be a nice little wake up call.
Click to expand...

Puppycow said:
But, the story didn't say that "hitting on a girl" is illegal, it said that "sexist insults" are illegal. I haven't read the law, so I don't know how that's defined.
Click to expand...
In the video Peephole posted as an example it was a woman being hit on. Peephole, IIRC, lives in Belgium.

Puppycow said:
Do you think it's a problem if a woman can't go about her daily business without being bothered by strangers?
Click to expand...
Nobody has such a right. I get bothered by strangers every single day, whether it's panhandlers on the street or politicians knocking on my door (and there's been a lot of the latter recently because of an upcoming election).

Puppycow said:
It's kind of predictable that the first people to object seem to be mainly men, who don't regularly experience this sort of thing. Do you accost random women on the street to get a date? Or call them a **** if they aren't interested? Of course not (I hope). If you don't do it, then you probably understand why this sort of thing would annoy a person.
Click to expand...
It's funny, if a good looking guy saying all the right things picks up a woman on the street he's a ladies man, a pickup artist. If he's not as good looking or doesn't have as good a repertoire it's suddenly sexual harassment and should be sanctioned by the government? Ridiculous.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
So the only thing misleadingly "Daily Mailish" about the presentation is the notion that it might be controversial in some way?
Click to expand...

Not really. The misleadingly Daily Failish aspects about this are that

(a) This isn't, as the headline states "Belgium’s ban on sexist insults", or, as the subheader states "Under new laws it will be against the law to mock a stay-at-home father or a woman in sexy clothes". There is no new law yet. This is merely proposed legislation, which may or may not get through the federal Parliament before the dissolution of Parliament before the May 2014 elections (often referred to here as "The Mother of All Elections", because in Belgium the federal, regional and European parliament elections will coincide, which in a small country with six sovereign Parliaments of its own, plus the European one, all elected through proportional representation, means an awful lot of shuffling about of a fairly small cadre of political personnel, followed by a predictably awfully long period of painful and terminally boring coalition negotitations afterwards.)

(b) This proposed legislation doesn't really outlaw anything that isn't illegal already, as far as I can tell (again, IANAL). It just provides for some more specific definitions for behaviour that is illegal already. It seems more like a bit of well-meant political posturing than genuine new legislation (again, this is purely a personal opinion, based on a cursory reading of what limited information I can find in Belgian media sources on this proposed legislation. I admit I haven't gone to the trouble of trying to locate the full text of the proposed legislation, and then hiring a bunch of lawyers to offer their opinions of what it would mean in practice if it actually became law.)

(c) The general suggestion that this is somehow a big news story in Belgium. It isn't, believe me.
 
WildCat said:
Nobody has such a right. I get bothered by strangers every single day, whether it's panhandlers on the street or politicians knocking on my door (and there's been a lot of the latter recently because of an upcoming election).
Click to expand...

OK, take panhandling. Some places in America have banned it or tried to place limits on it. Although recently a federal judge threw out one of those laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive_panhandling

A typical ordinance is one from Longview, Washington:

9.23.030 Place of panhandling – Violation. It shall be unlawful for any person to panhandle when the person solicited is in any of the following places within the city limits of Longview, Washington:

(1) At any bus stop; or

(2) In any public transportation vehicle or facility; or

(3) In any vehicle on a street or on a driveway providing ingress or egress to a street where such driveway is open to the general public; or

(4) Within 50 feet of any automated teller machine (ATM); or

(5) On private property, unless the panhandler is in physical possession of written permission from the owner or lawful occupant thereof. (Ord. 3051 § 2, 2008).

9.23.040 Manner of panhandling – Violation. It shall be unlawful for any person to panhandle in any of the following manners:

(1) By intentionally coming within three feet of the person solicited, unless that person has indicated that he or she does wish to make a donation; or

(2) By intentionally obstructing the path of the person or vehicle of the person solicited; or

(3) By intentionally obstructing the passage through the entrance or exit of any building; or

(4) By soliciting anyone under the age of 16; or

(5) By following a person who walks away from the panhandler, if the panhandler’s conduct is intended to or is reasonably likely to intimidate the person being solicited into responding affirmatively to the solicitation; or

(6) By using profane or abusive language, either during the solicitation or following a refusal. (Ord. 3051 § 2, 2008).[5]
Click to expand...

Do you agree that some panhandling is probably constitutionally protected free speech, but overly aggressive panhandling may cross the line into harassment? Asking strangers for change is one thing, getting in their face, not letting them pass, using insults and intimidation is another. Do you agree there is a line where the behavior becomes harassment?
 
Puppycow said:
OK, take panhandling. Some places in America have banned it or tried to place limits on it. Although recently a federal judge threw out one of those laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive_panhandling



Do you agree that some panhandling is probably constitutionally protected free speech, but overly aggressive panhandling may cross the line into harassment? Asking strangers for change is one thing, getting in their face, not letting them pass, using insults and intimidation is another. Do you agree there is a line where the behavior becomes harassment?
Click to expand...
The law you cited is unlikely to survive a court challenge, at least most of it. Do you really think an insult should be illegal?

What in the video Peephole posted do you think should be illegal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom