[ShepherdsDog]

Brenda Brenda:

I do not understand what this has to do with this thread.
Nor do I see how this is your problem, or where this is coming from.

oh the sweet irony

[Khar]

I don't even agree with this law, but I think the purpose and method of this law has been somewhat lost. So, without further ado, why nothing in this thread is even illegal and what this law is used for, at least from my perspective.

Time for a Devil's Advocate.

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

What a girly thing to do.

Not banned. Generalizations against an entire gender or sex is not banned here, and hence calling something girly, even if it is meant as an insult, is not an attack. Further, this is calling something girly, not calling someONE girly as an obvious slur. Nor does it exactly fit as a slur anyways, since it'd be hard for ANYONE to take a serious level of offense to the degree of being harmed by it either.

Things can be girly, after all, and frequently are. No one can doubt some things are gendered. They perhaps shouldn't always be called that, but sure.

The difference between generalizations and a group of women or men you meet on the street is laid out in the law, afaik. IE, there is an obvious difference between saying "all women" are this or "legal women" are that, and "these women who I am meeting on this street right now are BLANK because BLANK and I am telling them this/showing them this."

$1:

You would be. How do you enforce this? What constitutes an insult? Is vavavavoom an insult? How about "nice tits?"

No to either, unless you followed her around screaming about her tits or something. The point of this law was to stop direct attacks on a singular individual as a result of their gender, or to stop people from reducing others only to their sex.

It would be the same way you handle assaults on parking enforcement officers and so forth. Caught on camera, pay the fine. Lots of witnesses, pay the fine. Write it on a website, pay the fine. Even then, I'm betting it'll be handled in most situations like loitering. How do you prove someone loitered? It provides an incentive for people not to, and a reason for police to get involved where they might not otherwise be able to in concerning situations.

The simplified terms of the bill are "a gesture or statement that is clearly intended to express contempt for one or more people of a different gender on the basis of their gender or to make them appear inferior or reduce them to their sexual dimension in a way that constitutes a serious attack on their dignity."

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

andyt andyt:

You would be. How do you enforce this? What constitutes an insult? Is vavavavoom an insult? How about "nice tits?"

Google'd this, can confirm that you are ancient

Because 1954 is always an excellent baseline for the Civil Rights movements of today.

DanSC DanSC:

What a dick move.

Still allowed, general reference to sexuality is fine in describing other things.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Bitches.

Generalized insult, also still fine.

Thanos Thanos:

Yup, the Phlegms, those no good bloody Belgian bastards, are nothing but a bunch of prissy little bitches. Are your breasts sore again today, bitches?

Still too generalized. Guys, you gotta do a lot worse than this and to a lot fewer people for this law to even kick into effect.

Unsound Unsound:

*watches her walk away*




too far?

Nope. Not even close.

Count_Lothian Count_Lothian:

Well there goes half the world's pick up lines to trial.

Unless you are the biggest douchebag in the world and would never get laid with any of your pick up lines, I severely doubt that. Especially since if you are trying to get laid, you don't tell people they deserve to be raped in an alleyway.

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

‘This has to stop. A woman is not a sexual object.’

I don't know where you get that idea, but YES, women are sexual objects. As are men.
Grow up already and get rid of that stick up your ass. No pun intended, you might see it as a 'sexual insult'.

When you get whistled at, smile, and take the ego boost. Walk straight up and smile.

When you get touched, or when you are personally assaulted, you have a case. "Hey beautiful, nice legs" when you are wearing a short skirt is NOT an insult. When the tone is not right, have a smart answer ready. Or a look that kills.

My advice? Smile. Be better. Accept the compliment. MAKE it a compliment.

Or, you know, don't take being called a "filthy little cute" as a compliment? Accept that this it, unlike the majority of your examples, is an actual insult, meant to cause harm directly to you, as a woman? I don't mean to make a point of the obvious here, but yeah, things like cat calls aren't sufficient enough under these laws to warrant a fine or an arrest. Complimenting people on their sexual attributes isn't here either. It's literally the people who are complete misogynists trying to make your life miserable for being a woman.

The point here is if you call someone a whore or a hooker for wearing little, it's a problem. When you belittle them, that's the problem. When you turn around and see someone miming what they'd do with you with their fingers, grinning and licking their lips while insulting you. When they do that consistently, not just a one-off thing, but got out of their way to abuse you for existing. You shouldn't smile in the face of that. You should knock their heads around for it. This is the state doing that.

Recognize the entire point of this law isn't to drop sexual language or gender-ed language from the Belgian public sphere, it is literally an extension of the sexual assault laws for those situations where threats or actual actions are not undertaken but a woman or man is subjected to a significant amount of scorn or verbal abuse for simply being a woman or a man. As in, a woman can't file a suit when a man is coming after her, doing what I described to you, for days or weeks on end, but now she can. The reason for this law's existence, and for the existence of jurisprudence, is for a judge or legal official to look at something and decide if it's worth following through on. The amount of cases that are thrown out in the current legal system is not small, and don't take a lot of time to process as "not worth the time of the court" or even a bylaw officer. The system tends to be rather redundant in these situations, I have no doubt any of the insults above would easily be thrown out.

If you have ever watched one of those shows about stalkers, this is what that is about. It gives the police tools to go after websites with pictures of you, describing actions they would take against you and so forth. It allows them to go after you for mailing abusive letters, or telling someone you are watching them always. It lets you go after someone for sending you increasingly unwanted sexual emails. For the record? A lot of this is protected under free speech in western countries. It's one of the reasons why stalkers can pursue people for literally decades in places like the United States, even when being incredibly aggressive about it -- because it's entirely allowed with current discourse laws. Over 50% in the UK last longer than a year, as far as the victims are aware. The average is 1.5 years, with 2.2 being the average for those who were in relationships.

People have been mistaking the Beligan law for this law, which was not only described incorrectly (the point was to stop when the woman asked you to stop in those laws, not an outright ban), but was not passed in any format that would ban such activities, given why people suddenly are arguing it will happen here.

Finally, on men and women being sexual objects. Sure, they are. What you accidentally left out was where they are reduced to only being sexual objects. As in, there is nothing to you but what is between your legs or on your chest. You aren't a human being. You don't deserve respect. You are a thing. The idea is that no one should treat you like porn in heels when interacting with you, at least not in a manner that is actually meant to harm you.

Remember, not only does your actions matter in this case, but your intent as well. If you never intended for someone to be harmed by your comment, then this law continues to allow that. If you actually did intend to cause someone harm, and then proceeded to cause them harm through using gendered or sexual discourse that would specifically make them significantly harmed with the hopes of that result, and reduced them to that aspect of themselves while doing so, then you have breached the law.

This is an incredibly difficult law to break, from what I have gleaned and from what I have read, anyways. There are literally multiple portions that you must breach (likely repeatedly) before you will ever see someone attempt to give you a fine. More than likely, this law will not be enforced for most actions. None of the ones in this thread so far would even count, and are a far throw away from ever being something you could take to court. None of the victims get money from this either -- all jail time is served at the behest of the government, and all fines are paid to the government. The point here is to open up the justice system to handling endemic issues that men and women are forced to deal with without support, and provide avenues not just for police to intervene in situations they are concerned about, but also a way for the justice system to deal with those sexual offenders who exist in the gray area of the law -- those who get away with stalking for years, or those who are constantly insulting women at work, or asshole misogynistic douchebags who want to put women in their place every second of every day.

Since 99% of people aren't those people, it isn't a problem. As I said, I wouldn't have drafted this law and don't agree with it, but that's no reason for me not to play Devil's Advocate. It's not banning objectification (otherwise porn would be done for). It's not banning gendered language. It's not banning compliments or pick up lines or cat calls or whatever other ordinary everyday activity exists. It's dealing with the extreme edge of where that stuff can go, for both men and women.

[Public_Domain]

[westmanguy]

This is BS. Such a double standard too.

Ever bin on BuzzFeed lately where they list "24 reasons <insert male celebrity> is hot" and they have like dozens of pictures of bulges or just utterly sexually objectify the guy.

I don't mind it at all, but I always think, take that kind of article, insert a female celebrity with the same level of sexual objectification and watch the feminists explode in vitriol.

[Public_Domain]

[Brenda]

$1:

Or, you know, don't take being called a "filthy little cute" as a compliment?

That's called harassment and is already illegal. Even in Belgium.

I don't know where you get your 'that is allowed, and that too, but this is not'-rant from, but from I learned from the article, you're making it up.
Mocking a house-husband is becoming illegal. You can't comment on any awesome ass anymore. But you can in general. Just not on one specific one.

$1:

What you accidentally left out was where they are reduced to only being sexual objects.

Ummm, I was quoting the article. That I assume you didn't read?

[Public_Domain]

[Khar]

Brenda:

$1:

That's called harassment and is already illegal. Even in Belgium.

I don't know where you get your 'that is allowed, and that too, but this is not'-rant from, but from I learned from the article, you're making it up.
Mocking a house-husband is becoming illegal. You can't comment on any awesome ass anymore. But you can in general. Just not on one specific one.

Yeah, no. You tried to argue that the article stated the law disallowed compliments, when the actual written portion of the law, as available (and as I directly quoted) broadly on the net and as implied in the article states otherwise. Indeed, the article in this thread said nothing about "compliments" and talked specifically about insults and shaming.

Sorry Brenda, but I will not give countenance to a straight out miswording of what was written in the article in this thread. Further, I provided a straight our definition of what a "sexist insult" is as has been broadly defined in longer, more expansive articles about this very law (such as this one here). Given that the thread title is "Belgium bans sexist insults" that may have been the first hint that your commentary on compliments was irrelevant. You may know more about where I get my stance by finishing the article cited in this thread, and then moving on to others.

Intent and context matters here.

Further, it's unfortunately not illegal under harassment, or cannot be handled to the degree it should be. If it was, then this law is already in effect and is not an issue worthy of the outrage present here. If it isn't, then this law should be in effect to assist the women and men who are facing these issues. I pointed out the unfortunate realities stalkers face in dealing with their tormentors, since most of that torment is not physical, but verbal. It's an unfortunate norm that current laws are not equipped to deal with. I suspect part of it is because it's a norm; one of the things that lead to this law, was a Beligan film, where a woman walks around, getting called whore and so forth, and even followed by a man for a while making unwanted sexual overtures. Source. What recourse is available? How would you manage a harassment suit? You'd be surprised at the lack of recourse actually available.

Verbal harassment, while not protected under charters of rights and freedoms, tend not to be on the criminal code. Indeed, it is typically only considered a problem when there is a credible threat or implied threat of violence. Violence is not implied in most of these situations.

$1:

Ummm, I was quoting the article. That I assume you didn't read?

Was it the one under the title you didn't read, followed by the bullet points you didn't read, under the picture caption you didn't read? Those all said "insults."

You straight out assumed that she was saying we aren't sexual. Frankly, presuming that the person who wrote that meant that is silly. Sexual objectification "is the act of treating a person merely as an instrument of sexual pleasure." It should be clear that, if it's a negative, someone is treating a man or a woman in a way that isn't normal. It's normal for people to be considered sexual. It is not normal for people to be only sexual.

Do not blame me for making proper use of the noun in a sentence.

westmanguy:

westmanguy westmanguy:

This is BS. Such a double standard too.

Ever bin on BuzzFeed lately where they list "24 reasons <insert male celebrity> is hot" and they have like dozens of pictures of bulges or just utterly sexually objectify the guy.

I don't mind it at all, but I always think, take that kind of article, insert a female celebrity with the same level of sexual objectification and watch the feminists explode in vitriol.

The article states how it was focused on protecting stay-at-home Dads as well. While it helps protect women predominantly, the protections are extended to men as well. I can get the focus on women, since I think that while both sexes are harmed, women are harmed more. Given they aren't excluded either sex from getting help, I think it's fine, personally.

Sorry, I initially PM'd you but decided that there was value to providing a public response as a whole. Given it's mostly the gutters of the political blogosphere who are covering this (with a token article on one or two big sites, like the Daily Mail), it feels more like an issue being made than an issue actually existing, to be honest. Since it tends to be the gays who get the end of the stick there, it's hard not to throw in as a Devil's Advocate here. You know how it is.

[Brenda]

$1:

Given that the thread title is "Belgium bans sexist insults" that may have been the first hint that your commentary on compliments was irrelevant.

There are plenty of people who find it insulting when they are complimented on their looks or sexuality. What you find (ir)relevant, I might not.
Just sayin'.

$1:

Given it's mostly the gutters of the political blogosphere who are covering this (with a token article on one or two big sites, like the Daily Mail), it feels more like an issue being made than an issue actually existing, to be honest.

It is a complete non-issue and your attack on everyone who disagrees with you is rather annoying.
People should grow a pair, instead of wanting to pussify society. Fining each and everyone who does not agree with something and is 'insulted' by that disagreement is doing WHAT exactly? Don't we have more important things to worry about? Like murderers who walk within 10 years? Like people going completely broke because companies do not want to give them 40/hr a week anymore? Like elderly, who lay in their own feces and urine for days before someone comes to clean them because there is a lack of personnel?

$1:

Since it tends to be the gays who get the end of the stick there, it's hard not to throw in as a Devil's Advocate here.p

Ah, now it is a gay issue, and if it is not, you just make it one.

[Khar]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Given that the thread title is "Belgium bans sexist insults" that may have been the first hint that your commentary on compliments was irrelevant.

There are plenty of people who find it insulting when they are complimented on their looks or sexuality. What you find (ir)relevant, I might not.
Just sayin'.

Finding it insulting does not make it an insult. An insult is where you knowingly go out of your way to treat someone with disrespect or scorn. This is a ban on insults, and is not at all based on "feeling insulted."

This is further demonstrated when I quote directly from my other sourced article how an action in this case is defined: "a gesture or statement that is clearly intended to express contempt for one or more people..."

Hence, my insulting you is not the same as you feeling insulted. You've been in discussions where this distinction has been made before, and have successfully used this distinction, as a reminder. People can be offended by my religious/agnostic/insert-religiosity-of-your-own-here behaviour, but that does not mean I've insulted them, as an example.

Just sayin'.

$1:

It is a complete non-issue and your attack on everyone who disagrees with you is rather annoying.
People should grow a pair, instead of wanting to pussify society. Fining each and everyone who does not agree with something and is 'insulted' by that disagreement is doing WHAT exactly? Don't we have more important things to worry about? Like murderers who walk within 10 years? Like people going completely broke because companies do not want to give them 40/hr a week anymore? Like elderly, who lay in their own feces and urine for days before someone comes to clean them because there is a lack of personnel?

My attack? If that is what you so choose to call my response, that's fine, but that quote pointed out that is was being made an issue; people responding to what appears to be an issue is absolutely fine. The only problem was a lack of facts or alternative contexts/possibilites provided in this thread, which I am seeking to remedy.

I begin my response my pointing you to your own posts, some of which are in the linked sections. My second point is that you already know (and have known, as quoted) the very real difference between being insulted and feeling insulted, as I have covered above.

I'll extend my response by pointing out the legal system deals with all sorts of issues of various importance. We don't scale things on "how bad" they are on deciding when to legislate, we decide whether it is a bad thing in general, and if it'll be made better or worse for the legal system to attempt to remedy the problem. We don't care only about murder to the exclusion of all else, like rape, or assault. We recognize there is a need to cover those ills in society. We can handle those things and deal with other issues as well.

At this point, I'll remind you that you believed this already illegal, under harassment. If you believed it already illegal, did you have a problem with that law existing then? Are you okay with the law in exactly that context, or are you fine with harassment being unhindered in these situations? Are you okay with a woman being harassed at her job day in and day out but not have recourse? Are you okay with those stalking victims having no method with which to defend themselves? Tell me, on your sliding scale of selective justice, exactly where do those crimes fall? Before or after underemployment issues?

This argument makes no sense, Brenda, because it is harassment and needs to be stopped. We stop all the crimes we can; if the Belgian people supported this and the government did as well, and if it is solving an issue that harms people, then the justice system can be a remedy. Just like it can remedy parking tickets.

$1:

Ah, now it is a gay issue, and if it is not, you just make it one.

It's a human rights and discrimination issue, which make them similar. Try again, Brenda, that was a comment about similar situations to a fellow poster who has dealt with this line of reasoning and was in no way a co-opting of this particular thread.

For the record, that underhanded comment about my motives in this thread as being related to my sexuality? Also entirely allowed under this new Belgian law.

[Public_Domain]

[Brenda]

Khar, you have a tendency to state your opinions as facts, and your Devil's advocate thing is no different.
It is your OPINION. Just like my 'don't pussify society' is mine. I'm over people constantly yelling they want others to be punished because they don't agree. My opinion.

I have no problem with equal rights, and I do not necessarily understand why you brought gay rights into this.
Are gays more in their right to be insulted when people are being assholes? Doubt it. Btw, when people say something nasty about gays, it is hate speech. Illegal.

Just fyi, I am not interested in anyone's sexuality. Whatever floats your boat, none of my business. Don't try to make it personal.

[Brenda]

I guess what I am saying is that you cannot fine disrespectful behaviour. People are assholes. Fine everyone? How is that a solution? How are you going to enforce this? How do you prove in court you were 'insulted' when physically abusive people are not even held accountable? when death threats are not being taken seriously?

[Public_Domain]

[martin14]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Brenda Brenda:

People should grow a pair, instead of wanting to pussify society.

Why is this a statement I should agree with?

Being a White Knight isn't going to get you laid...