Upskirting - Should the gender of the skirt wearer matter?

[shadowfax]

The Voyeurism (Offences) (No.2) Bill (a.k.a. the Upskirting bill) passed third reading in the House of Commons chamber and will now be considered by the House of Lords.
The gender of the victim of the upskirting will not be a factor.

The amendment on misogyny was withdrawn by Stella Creasy, the MP who had proposed adding it to the Upskirting bill, when the government minister announced that the government would be setting up a review/enquiry on misogyny in general.

[crfriend]

The amendment on misogyny was withdrawn by Stella Creasy, the MP who had proposed adding it [...]

Good. Perhaps somebody informed her of the inherent perils of segregating people into factions and then treating them unequally. If they're to consider misogyny as a "hate crime" (a term which I detest) then they need to consider misandry in the same light -- and the latter is vastly more common these days than the former.

[shadowfax]

The amendment on misogyny was withdrawn by Stella Creasy, the MP who had proposed adding it [...]

Good. Perhaps somebody informed her of the inherent perils of segregating people into factions and then treating them unequally. If they're to consider misogyny as a "hate crime" (a term which I detest) then they need to consider misandry in the same light -- and the latter is vastly more common these days than the former.

I suspect that Ms Creasy would have attached her amendment on misogyny to any bill that was even vaguely related to it? IMHO Her intention was to get a review on misogyny and once the government minister, Lucy Frazer, confirmed that the review would take place, Ms Creasy was happy to withdraw her misogyny amendment.

Here is the Hansard text of the debate.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... m(Offences)(No2)Bill

[crfriend]

Here is the Hansard text of the debate.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... m(Offences)(No2)Bill

Well, that was an interesting read, and a point that did not escape my notice is that it was only the women MPs who insisted in portraying the behaviour as strictly threatening women. At least a couple of the Male MPs properly referred to the sex-neutral [1] wording -- bravo.

One thing stands, though, and that's that the practise is damnably difficult in practise and thus likely not as common as might be made out in horror stories. Is it a violation of privacy? Absolutely. Should it be criminalised? Possibly. The assertion of an estimated 29 prosecutions per year points up how rare the matter is in practise and that other, more general, statutes are already in place that technically cover the matter. Are there not more pressing issues to attend to? (Like the matter brought up of cell' 'phone use whilst driving (or attempting to)?)

The hate-crime aspect frightens me, however, for how that's likely to be applied. In the US, effectively a matriarchy, there's an assumption of misogyny -- whether it exists or not -- and the upshot of that would be that the penalty for anybody stupid (or just plain dim-witted) enough to commit the offence would be automatically subject to the elevation of penalty because of the "aggravating factor" of the "hate crime". The mandate of making "upskirting" a crime of misogyny would also defeat the language that is, wisely, sex-neutral, when it came to taking lewd photographs of men wearing kilts or skirts. Good law should apply equally to all citizens and should not favour or elevate one class over another no matter what that class distinction is. (Yes, I know that's not how it works, at least on these shores, but one can hold out hope.)

[1] Before anybody goes off on the sex-versus-gender aspect here, this is merely a matter of gross anatomy. The victim either has, or does not have, external genitalia.

[Sinned]

As for misogyny/misandry I like the statement "The weaker sex is the stronger sex because of the weakness of the stronger sex for the weaker sex." Conventional definitions as standing.

[shadowfax]

Latest news on the Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill 2017-19

The First reading in the House of Lords took place on 6 September. This stage is a formality that signals the start of the Bill's journey through the Lords.

The Second reading - the general debate on all aspects of the Bill - is scheduled for 23 October.

Information and a link to a PDF of the Bill that their lordships will be debating.
https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/voyeurismoffencesno2.html

The wording of the bill is still non-gender specific.

[Daryl]

FT444 - frequently. No problems at all.

Most recent one was in Reading (okay, not West Mids) when I wore my green non tartan kilt suit to a work conference. My 200 colleagues loved it! More than one asked me, jokingly - “why are you wearing a skirt?” My three word response? “ Because I can!”

My go-to response is still "because I'd get arrested if I didn't."

[Daryl]

There should be no difference in the rules . The problem is that most of these laws were written in a different. time .I would think that as they are rewritten the laws will treat both sexes eaqually

I think that anyone who tries to upskirt is a sick individual. Now excuse me I have a pair of shoes that I have to polish the tips

I once wore a pair of shoes with domed mirrors and little focused flashlight bulbs aimed upwards
on them to a Hallowe'en party. When people asked I told them I was Peter the Perv and
flashed the lights on and off.

I have caught women trying to see up my skirt, and one woman, familiar to me but not an
intimate acquaintance, started raising my skirt once in jest. I am pretty sure that as a
man I feel nowhere near the amount of invasion or threat from these acts that women
can feel, but nonetheless the law should apply equally in all cases even if just so that it
doesn't need to be revised someday in the future.

[Daryl]

I found a story on the BBC News website about a campaign in the UK to make 'Upskirting' a sexual offence.
Should the gender of the skirt/kilt/dress wearer make any difference? I for one wouldn't want to be a victim of upskirting whilst out in public wearing my kilt or a skirt.

The sex of the wearer should not be a factor but whether to call it a "sexual offence" or not is less clear to me, because in some jurisdictions the consequences could be far out of proportion to the real harm due to moral panic around sex offences, and attitudes being heavily tinged with zero-tolerance ideology. It is certainly a social offence worth legally punishing but separate law should take care of any degrees of the crime, up to and including calling it a "sexual offence", for example in the case of making pictures and distributing them (with graduations for whether or not the victim was identifiable or not, and so forth).