Terence Blacker: Wolf-whistles aren't matters for the courts

Making relatively trivial acts into crimes puts women in the role of victims

Terence Blacker
Friday 09 March 2012 01:00
Comments

The Great Offensiveness War is about to enter a new phase. Something called "street harassment" is to be the subject of new laws, the Government announced this week. Street harassment is defined as "unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person". If you think that definition covers a wide spectrum of human behaviour, you would be right. A word, a whistle, a look could soon be construed as an assault on another's dignity – "psychological violence", as the statement puts it.

The proposed legislation has been welcomed by the many sincere busybodies who believe that there is too much nastiness in the world, and that it is the job of the state to do something about it. Nastiness should be banned, niceness legally enforced.

The Government, which once argued that there are too many laws, has embraced these new controls. Aware that his party has a blokeish image, the Prime Minister seems to believe – in a typically patronising male way – that banning wolf-whistles will endear him to female voters. Cynically combining the announcement concerning street harassment with another covering the incomparably more serious crime of stalking, the Government's own niceness tsar, Nick Clegg, boasted that higher standards of protection for women would now be in place, with "greater support for victims".

There is something distinctly creepy about this plan to make disrespect a matter for the courts. As it happens, the vast majority of women are not in need of protection. If annoyed by someone who violates their dignity, they are more than able to cope with the situation in their own way without the help of the state.

Women who are genuinely victims are already protected by the law. In fact, making relatively trivial acts into crimes will have the very opposite effect of that intended: it will put women in the role of victims, cowering behind the protection of Nick Clegg and his niceness police.

Nor is it a small matter, putting yet more words and gestures within the reach of the law. Far from empowering individuals, it strengthens the grip of the state on the everyday life of its citizens. Once the idea is accepted that personal nastiness should be illegal, there is no end to the list of words, phrases, expressions and whistles which might upset someone somewhere.

These initiatives are seductive and an illusion of progress. They are an easy vote-winner for politicians, while granting yet more power to them and to the police. But they eat into our freedoms, bringing the law and the state into areas of behaviour that should be the responsibility of individuals. The niceness laws, stealthily extending their control over the way we behave on behalf of the offended, are a threat to us all, women and men.

terblacker@aol.com

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in