WeGoHigher
"I've just read this about a street harasser. The man won on appeal. (Bear with me on this, it's relevant.)
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/20/rotterdam-street-harassment-catcall-court-appeal
Here's an interesting bit from the article:
The court found that such interference in the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention of human rights had not been justified.
Men cannot in theory have more rights than women (see for example: Equality Act 2010) but yet that is how it appears to be playing out across the board, from tribunals to appeal courts, from England to the Netherlands.
Harry Miller could still win, of course."
I cannot work out from that Guardian article whether or not that court case in the Netherlands is a good result for freedom of speech or not. It seems to rest on there being a "Get out Jail Free Card" on the basis that if you are unfamiliar with what the locals consider "offensive" AND unable to express yourself in the local language that it is OK to "gesture" something that would otherwise be deemed "harassment" if spoken.
So, by analogy, if that same guy in the Netherlands had shouted, "Man!" after a trans woman in the street he would be bang-to-rights but if he had done the "Little Finger Dinkie-Penis" gesture then he would have been off the hook?
Have I got that right??
Extract from the Guardian article cited:
"The law states it is forbidden to jeer at someone else or others on or along the road or in a building accessible to the public, or to harass another person or others with offensive language, gestures, sounds or behaviour.
"However, the court of appeal in The Hague found that the man should not have been convicted for any of his behaviour in July 2018, for which he had been ordered to pay a €170 fine or spend three nights in jail.
The court acquitted him for both comments and actions and argued there was “no reason to distinguish between purely verbal expressions, verbal expressions supported by gestures or behaviours, or mere opinions expressed by gestures or other behaviours”.
It also said the scope of the bylaw was “very large” and it was not clear the statements and gestures were “evidently offensive and that the persons to whom they are addressed are thereby harassed”.
The court’s ruling added: “In the Netherlands there is a multicultural society and in, among other things, the municipality of Rotterdam there is a strong multicultural community life in which not everyone has a good command of the Dutch language or is familiar with culturally determined behaviour.”
The judges said: “Citizens who, for whatever reason, cannot (sufficiently) express themselves through (the Dutch) language, must be able to (partly) use gestures.”
The court found that such interference in the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention of human rights had not been justified."