New legislation on harassment in a public place because of the victim’s sex

[ResisterRex]

One to look out for:

www.gov.uk/government/news/new-guidance-will-help-police-crack-down-on-public-sexual-harassment

The legislation will introduce harsher sentences if someone who deliberately harasses, alarms, or distresses someone in a public place does so because of the victim’s sex, with the maximum sentence increasing from six months to two years.
The amendment, tabled by the bill’s sponsor Greg Clark MP, will require the government to produce statutory guidance for the police to help them enforce the new offence.
MPs have now agreed that the statutory guidance should become part of the bill.
(More at link)

Will "sex" be defined?

I wonder how long it will be before women are arrested under this law because she complained about a male in a female space

Indeed. It will be a very interesting (and hopefully not too distressing for the arrested person) test of the government's January statement on the Equality Act petition. According to their statement, "sex" is nice and clear. I wrote to my MP, as suggested on that thread, and he reiterated this same message. I actually hope this new bill gets passed in to law before the Equality Act debate...

Not happy about this as I can see it as a transgender dream that will affect women disproportionately.

And what is sex defined as? Or indeed a woman as a sex class. The foundations are not yet in place.

Interesting.

Reminds me of a group of local secondary school boys who were jumping out at.... Well I'll let you guess. Was it the mums heading to the local primary school? Or was it the bouncers leaving the 24hour budget gym next door?

I wish there'd be some attention paid to the harassment and scamming for money that is focused on elderly people and those with learning disabilities. Surely they are covered by the equality act too?

Males can obtain a female birth certificate stating that is their sex, due to the Gender recognition act. A male could have a female prosecuted for speaking biological truth if the GRA is not repealed.

I think it's an interesting development. A few changes to it and you could have something useful to deal with crime motivated by misogyny.

On the use of the word sex, it is the conduct of the offender that is criminalised by their perception of that persons biological sex. You cannot use gender - that's a societal perception. This is quite carefully defined - several lawyers will have asked about the choice of the word before this was published.

How strange that the Government titles this as "sexual harassment" and then says in the description "because of the victim’s sex"

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page there is an option to say whether the page was useful or not, or if there is a problem with the page.

For anyone who has the time please use any or all options to explain the problem with the page ie as commented above!

(I know this worked with a previous announcement, cant remember which, so worth having a go at getting them to clarify IMO)

And also the proposed offence is sexual harassment because of the victim's sex - so telling a male he is a man wouldn't be covered because the remark is not sexually motivated.

If necessary the bill could explicitly define sex as biological sex/sex recorded at birth, which would take the Haldane judgement into account.
It would apply to both sexes equally, which makes me worry about malicious reports from misogynistic men about eg a drunk woman on a hen night repeatedly begging for a snog from the barman. Because we know the police would take such reports very very seriously indeed. Simone de Beauvoir said (I'm paraphrasing) "Women can be impatient, men can be importunate". It's the ability to follow through on the implied threat or coercive intent which makes harassment threatening. So there will be a lot of debate about the "reasonable conduct" defence mentioned, I would think.

So another law that will never get implemented or, when it is, badly.

Presumably there are plenty of other laws that criminalise street harassment and sexual harassment? They just don't get used. Just like the rape law doesn't get used in 99% of cases.

Tbh in the "drunk woman asking for a snog from a barman" isn't covered but it's not in a public place as I understand it.

If you go into a bar that is private property- so this is offending in the street. A public place in law is not the same as a place where the public go.

So designed to cover the "oi oi" shouter brigade when people are walking about minding their own.

OK, drunk woman leaning out of a pink limousine parked outside a nightclub who is shouting to the bouncer?

Yes, it covers both doesn't it. Harassment is in the eye of those who are on the receiving end, not those who do the shouting.

Btw just to add, if you are drunk and do this kind of thing, man or woman, it's considered worse in law. Being drunk is an aggravating element in criminal sentencing, so the law punishes you more harshly than if you weren't drunk.

Good thing too.

On the matter of reasonable conduct, it's going to be very difficult to say that leaning out of a window of a car or otherwise telling a total stranger that you'd like to shag them or you like their body parts is reasonable. It's not reasonable.

So on balance it seems reasonably well thought out to deal with strangers yelling or telling people their sexual thoughts at high volume.

Whether it's enforced is another thing but difficult to say anything connected to a stranger will be reasonable under this law.

Probably. But I was still thinking along the lines of "gissa snog", rather than remarks about the bouncer's body. I was trying to give an example of the sort of thing that is annoying rather than threatening to a man, but might be frightening to a woman. IYSWIM.

There's already loads of harassment laws, we don't need more.

And this will 100% lead to women being arrested for sexist harassment of Tim's

Well the thing is that harassment is something people feel. You cannot really say the drunk woman is acting reasonably because she isn't. In this scenario, the bouncer can decide whether he feels harassed, and then complain. Then you might have more facts to support that - ie she keeps telling, gets out of the car, or gets others involved.

That would be covered.

Our society has got so messed up with alcohol and sexual behaviour that there is a low standard that applies. Both drunk woman and oi oi van man are covered by this.

Yes, it would depend on the specific facts of each case, but I still think there is scope for malicious reporting. As a member of a jury, I would struggle to believe that a male bouncer at a nightclub genuinely felt harassed by a woman shouting oi, gissa snog from a car. Although I could imagine that of a shy 16-year-old boy in a similar circumstance.

You sound as if you have a legal background, so I hope this isn't annoying for you! I'm just thinking it through as I type. There's no doubt sexual harassment in the street is a huge problem but I am always wary about extra laws and unintended consequences.