Man fined for catcalling woman (Redbridge, London)

[NitroNine]

If you read the news about street harassment being criminalised & thought “lovely gesture, but we’re never going to see the police use those powers” - amazingly, a man in London has been fined for sexually harassing a woman in Ilford while that Bill is still at Committee stage.

Rather than wait for the new legislation, Redbridge Council made use of a Public Space Protection Order - they’re designed to tackle anti-social behaviour, so ideal for the task, really.

Be interesting to see if any other Councils decide to try it. Of course, it does all rely on police presence etc - but it’s something? A step up from “misogyny can’t be a hate crime Because Reasons” - however you feel about the concept of Hate Crimes, that glaring omission is problematic. Ideally Officers would be redeployed from the “internet hurty words” divisions to this. (NB not from investigating actual cyber crime; just getting them away from telling women they’re forbidden from “being untoward about paedophiles” & disbanding the crack squad South Wales Police [gave the impression they] have dedicated to women having opinions on social media.)

I wonder if the police would issue fines if presented with evidence of street harassment after the fact. So not witnessed by an officer, but recorded by the victim[s]. I mean, most of us don’t go around filming covertly for documentaries on the topic, but it might be possible to catch some of prolonged harassment - or to capture it for someone else. How safe it would be to do so though?

On a related note, Southwark Council’s anti-catcalling/street-harassment advert released last month (developed with help from young people in the Borough) is firmly targeted at boys & men.

It is something at least, although i was disheartened to get to the end of the article and see the final paragraph basically link to another council's decision to use the PSPOs to fine dog walkers without poo bags £100. The same amount as the guy was fined for the sexual harassment PSPO. So I was yay, then urghhh so sexual harassment is equal in law to dog shit. Was ever the way!

I personally think all women, especially our Scottish sisters should go round with a hidden camera and microphone on, and a go pro type one. If asked why then obviously you are just making a documentary on life as a woman in the 21st century.

And finally the Southwark council advert, watching as a woman I was fairly pfff, as it really didn't seem that awful (shows how this stuff is just part of female life doesn't it) so was surprised to discover that the males who watched it were shocked by it.

Right another cup of tea is needed. Thanks for the links@NitroNine

Boiled

Ooh actually whilst pondering whilst the kettle boiled.

There actually could be a documentary, called "Woman 2023" with a proper website and everything about how the women of the UK are spending a year documenting evidence of all those things the government keep telling us never happen.

A few cups of tea later...It could actually start with the fact that the fine for sexually harassing that woman was the same as the fine for the dog poo thing, then segway into the glinner type posts of all those men doing horrible things, followed by the Scottish parliament standing and applauding those supporters in the balcony, then the anger of gussie scene then straight into every day female harassment by the male of the species.

That's all I've got for now..

I think dogs muck, which destroys clothing, spreads disease, prevents children playing, causes loss of sight, ruins your day, is fair enough to compare to catcalling, actually, and even if you dont, you must see that plenty of others will.

Both are very bad! Both get fined! all good, as far as I can see

Perhaps it’s more that women are treated like shit @Boiledbeetle? I understand your feeling of frustration/disappointment about the fine amount - it’s the problem when constrained by the PSPO framework. At least it wasn’t less than the poo!fine though…

I like your documentary idea. It could be used to explain what actual intersectional feminism is too - for example people casually moving my wheelchair as if I’m an abandoned supermarket trolley is part of a general trend that seems to happen far more often to female wheelchair users than male. Mere anecdata, but every time it gets discussed on social media it’s overwhelmingly women that people feel entitled to just shunt about because we all know disabled people don’t have bodily autonomy. People don’t seem to think carrying men places is an acceptable solution to access issues, either, whereas complete strangers will be very gung-ho about the idea of chucking me (& my fragile spine) about. 🤨

"sexual harassment is equal in law to dog shit" street catcalling being seen as as antisocial as leaving your dog poop in the middle of the pavement with a similar level of signage and enforcement would be a huge step forward though.

In terms of changing attitudes and behaviour that sounds like it would actually be quite effective.

Something is certainly better than nothing - the background information on the Bill that’s currently going through Parliament makes it clear that it’s frankly embarrassing this is the first punitive measure as options do exist. Part of the problem though is that it’s a jumble of options - absolute clarity will be provided by the new legislation.

The Bill is at Committee stage in the Commons so it has a way to go yet, but I am hopeful. I also (for avoidance all doubt, emphasis is mine) like the long title: A Bill to make provision about causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress to a person in public where the behaviour is done because of that person’s sex; and for connected purposes. Acknowledging that women are oppressed on the basis of our sex, not the related stereotypes, is so desperately DESPERATELY important. (And when men experience street harassment - which they do, although it takes a different form from that faced by women - it is, again, because of their sex, not stereotypes linked to it.) It is important that the title of the Bill is accurate; & the the government holds the line & does not bend on the wording.

Hopefully the Bill will move through both Houses swiftly but with sufficient time to get it right. Imagine being protected from street harassment. It’s like trying to imagine waking up to a world full of magical/mythical creatures existing alongside us. In fact, I think I find it easier to imagine my garden full of fairies & the local park as a unicorn reserve 😶

@NitroNine yeah the wording does sound helpful. I'd worry slightly about the word 'intentional' some many guys seem ready to claim that women love the attention.

@howdoesatoastermaketoast

It does avoid the prosecution of eg people with Tourette’s/someone behaving erratically due to a hypo though. If the Bill’s passage comes with a load of media coverage & a public information campaign (as with sealtbelt & drink driving laws) it’s not a claim that would stand up - not that it’s a robust claim in & of itself, obviously.

@NitroNine yeah that is important I agree, IANAL for sure but I would have thought the "where the behaviour is done because of that person’s sex;" would have covered that. A "load of media coverage & a public information campaign" would be welcome for sure,

I can't remember where I first heard it but the saying 'guys you should never say anything to a strange woman you wouldn't want to hear on your first night in jail" might be a suitable tagline.

@howdoesatoastermaketoast

But the point is not only is the harassment deliberate, it’s for that specific reason. Hence needing to state both things. It’s a discrete offence that they’re - finally - legislating against. Harassment in UK Law includes the intent to cause distress & alarm; so they’ve kept that intent-by-definition, though of course street harassment differs in that it isn’t repeated/prolonged. Or at least, it would be highly unusual to experience street harassment that would rise to the level currently considered harassment by police across the UK &/or the CPS.

I’ve now seen the Enough advert a couple of times (specifically, while watching The Canterville Ghost) - it includes street harassment as well as DV & other forms of VAWG.

All sounds good, and well as I say IANAL and I agree it's important to not criminalise the wrong people.

I admit this does worry me too. A lot of stuff that we all know is shitty goes on under 'plausibly deniable' - hello Mr Taxi driver from a couple of years back - and because of that, I worry this could be used against the wrong people. Hopefully it'll often be used as a warning on a lot of cases and will give that warning weight. Because a maximum two years in jail is a serious penalty.

On the bright side, two separate men on my night bus the other week told creepy bloke to knock it off, so thank you to them!

I can't remember where I first heard it but the saying 'guys you should never say anything to a strange woman you wouldn't want to hear on your first night in jail" might be a suitable tagline.

I like that: I was approached today by a man I assumed was a chugger. He said 'Hi! You look pretty'. I don't, and I ignored him, but that would have been a great response.

thanks @AutumnSquill I liked it too as it is one of those phrases that I feel has the potential to help ordinary blokes who wouldn't consider themselves to be jerks to 'get' what the problem is and why unwanted, unsolicited 'compliments' from men you don't know don't feel like a complement to all women all the time.