3 December 2021 • 9:30pm
Pestering women in the street or in pubs and making lewd comments at them could become an offence under plans to criminalise “public sexual harassment”, which are set to be announced next week.
A government-commissioned review of hate crimes will call for public sexual harassment and inciting hatred against women to be made criminal offences as part of an overhaul of laws to protect women and girls against violence.
But the review by the Law Commission – the body responsible for framing hundreds of the UK’s laws – will reject demands for misogyny to be made a hate crime because it believes it would be ineffective, according to Whitehall sources.
The new offence of public sexual harassment is seen as a more effective way of protecting women against violence than classing misogyny as a hate crime alongside race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity, Whitehall sources have said.
The Law Commission also decided it could make it harder to prosecute crimes such as domestic abuse and would create two-tier sentencing, depending on whether a sexual offence was shown to be a hate crime.
The move will be part of a week of government crime announcements, which include a crackdown on drug gangs, a new law to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, and prison reforms to reduce reoffending by getting more inmates into work.
A Whitehall source said: “The Law Commission is not going to class misogyny as a hate crime because it would be ineffective and in some cases counterproductive.
“But it will call for a public sexual harassment offence, which doesn’t currently exist. It thinks this fits with other work the Government is doing on criminalising intimate image abuse and will be more productive and better in protecting women.”
The Law Commission review of hate crimes was ordered three years ago by Sajid Javid, then Home Secretary.
It has since become even more important following the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by Wayne Couzens, a serving Metropolitan Police officer, which sparked a huge national debate on violence against women.
Sarah Everard’s death sparked widespread protests on the issue of women’s violence
Sarah Everard’s death sparked widespread protests on the issue of women’s violence CREDIT: Tolga Akmen/AFP
In the wake of Miss Everard’s killing, ministers said they would consider if there should be a new offence of street harassment that would criminalise explicit sexual and abusive behaviour or comments made in public.
Draft legislation prepared by campaigners covers behaviour including intentionally pressing against someone on public transport, persistent sexual propositioning or cornering someone, making sexually explicit comments, leering at a person and cat-calling.
It makes clear that police and prosecutors would have to show the behaviour would cause “harassment, distress or alarm” with an intent to “humiliate or degrade” an alleged victim.
Dr Charlotte Proudman, a barrister who helped draft the proposed bill, said it would also have to be in the public interest to prosecute.
“It could be someone shouting degrading, humiliating comments with lewd language to a woman walking down the street that makes them feel unsafe,” she said.
“If someone came up to you in a pub, didn’t leave you alone, made foul comments about your body, and was persistently following you around, maybe that would be captured.”
It is understood ministers are in favour of the new offences proposed by the Law Commission, as long as it can be shown that they plug gaps in current laws for common assault and public order breaches. Recommendations made by the Law Commission are generally accepted by the Government.
Priti Patel said earlier this year that police must “raise the bar” by taking harassment and flashing of women more seriously after Ms Everard’s death.
The Home Secretary said verbal or physical abuse of women in the street were not “low-level” crimes and could lead to more serious offences. Ms Everard’s killer had previously escaped prosecution for alleged flashing offences.
Wayne Couzens, Sarah Everard’s murderer, had escaped prosecution for alleged flashing offences
Wayne Couzens, Sarah Everard’s murderer, had escaped prosecution for alleged flashing offences CREDIT: Metropolitan Police/PA Wire
Nimco Ali, the feminist campaigner advising the Government on its violence against women strategy, said new legislation was needed to show such behaviour was unacceptable.
“It’s like seatbelt laws or the smoking ban. In order for social norms to change, you have to have legislation and then society will police it,” she said.
But the decision not to make misogyny a hate crime is likely to face a backlash from women’s groups, as it would have enabled police and prosecutors to ask for tougher sentences for some crimes against women.
The Law Commission is also expected to propose extending the offence of “stirring up hatred” to include provoking violence on the grounds of gender.
That is partly in response to the Incel movement – involuntarily celibate men, some of whom have been responsible for violent and fatal attacks on women.
It will also strengthen protections for freedom of speech, so that offensive dinner table comments made in private are not be classed as hate crimes.
All well and good, but very difficult to actually enforce.
Wasnt sarah murdered by a serving police officer who tricked her into believing made up covid arrest rules 🤔, i dont see how her case has anything to do with cat-calling its more on the police for employing psychopaths.
Either way its just going to sap even more recourses from police forces who currently dont have enough time to police criminals becasue they have to deal with all the mental health and petty civil dispustes 😬.
I will avoid them at all costs, no eye contact and I will never offer to help them. They can change their own flat tyre.
What’s all this about an “Incel Movement”? Do these people pushing for this law and the person who wrote the article really think there is such a thing?
Sounds like a bunch of hysterical over-reaction from /r/TwoXChromosomes, not serious lawmakers.
I’d be surprised if this wasn’t covered by existing legislation in the same way as online abuse is already covered, but some people are clamouring for it.
So is this going to be a gender-neutral law, or not? There’s been a few different variants proposed, some which are usually described in terms of misogyny but appear to be gender-neutral in the text.
Our existing equality laws are not limited to certain demographics, this one should not be either.
Cool. Also can we deal with the issue of assaults and attacks on men as well? Seems like a pretty big number. How about we do both at the same time….
All well and good making new laws, meanwhile the criminal justice system is crumbling to bits due to chronic underfunding. A huge backlog of cases in the criminal courts continues to build, so victims, witnesses and people accused of crimes wait years for their trial, if they even get one. Crimes committed today are unlikely to be tried until 2025. So maybe they should think about fixing that first.
Several laws are already in place which cover this.
Specifically the public order act and the protection from harrassment act spring to mind immediately.
I complimented several women yesterday, all comments were well received. If one woman objected, would that make me a pest?
What the hell does cat-calling have to do with Sarah Everard?
Beside that point I do feel it’s truly embarrassing that there need be such a law.
Of course this is hard to enforce but it’s also about giving off a message in society. Because as of right now, pestering women is legal. If a cop witnessed it there would not even be a legal precedent to stop it from happening.
I don’t see the need for this. Harassment is already harassment which is already illegal. The problem today is not that there aren’t laws to deal with harassment, it’s that it’s almost impossible to enforce and there’s a culture that it’s ok. Addressing the latter is likely to have better results than the former.
And we should always remember that it isn’t just “women and girls” who get unwanted sexual attention. They may be in the majority of cases, but I’m uncomfortable with the emphasis of this discussion just being about them. Men can be harassed too (particularly if they’re in kilts, as some others have posted about already) and the way it’s currently presented will make them feel they won’t be taken seriously if they report it.
Clickbait bollocks law that will never be actually implemented but purely exists for a telegraph sunday headline
Great, even more misandric bullshit from the government.
> A Whitehall source said: “The Law Commission is not going to class misogyny as a hate crime because it would be ineffective and in some cases counterproductive.
> “But it will call for a public sexual harassment offence, which doesn’t currently exist. It thinks this fits with other work the Government is doing on criminalising intimate image abuse and will be more productive and **better in protecting women**.”
Because fuck men right? If these kind of laws are needed, then they should be universal. There’s no good reason for this to be focused on women.
given the tone and pestering done by tv licence goons at peoples front doors, i dont see how this would be enforceable even if the plod had the manpower.
Are we reaching the point where it will become illegal for men to simply approach women on nights out? Dear Christ what a bleak picture that is.
I will only support these kinds of initiatives if it cuts both ways – why is it legal to pester a *man* in the street? Surely we should be implementing gender-agnostic rules instead of just white knighting to protect women?
Oh, and from what’s been said about Sarah Everard by her family and friends, I have a very hard time in believing she would support much or indeed any of this.
Isn’t it already outlawed in a sense? Anti harassment and disturbing the peace laws, etc.?
I do wish those annoying women would stop pestering me
I wish there was a law protecting me from chuggers on Elvet Bridge, the cunts.
For a moment I thought it was referring to Pritti Patel and that it was about time.
I remain disappointed.
Hey if it cuts down on that crap by 10 percent, especially if all they do is catch one or two of the most aggressive ones a year while using a minimum of manpower, I would say it’s a win. Might even prevent a couple of rapes just by having the law on the books. Certainly can’t hurt.
To the people saying “this isn’t helpful” you may not have been to the police before with something like this. You’re often told that there’s nothing that can be done unless they’ve gotten physically violent or there’s a pattern of harassment.
Women are often told that things have to be “worse” in some way for it to be taken seriously. If this helps with that mentality I’m all for it.
Yeah this has been necessary for a while. It’s not like the prisons are suddenly going to be crammed full of millions of misunderstood lads who took a bit of banter too far, it’s more a case that men need to learn that certain types of behaviour are not acceptable.
We’ve tried doing nothing, and expecting men to act appropriately, it hasn’t worked. So here we are.
How about a law to stop pestering people altogether? No more sexual harassment, charity muggers, cold callers, pushy salespeople, persistent beggars or con artists. The sooner ‘no means no’ applies to all aspects of life the better off we’ll all be.
What about literally everyone else? Is it so hard to make universal, gender neutral laws these days which doesn’t value certain people more than others?
I would pay good money to watch police run sting operations and bust hooligans
So am I in danger of getting arrested if I attempt to flirt with someone?
How will they enforce this law exactly? I hope “Pestering” is not what actually makes it into the law itself, because it’s a word that can be interpreted very broadly. You can ask a woman for directions and be “pestering” her, according to her – so off to jail you go.
I view this favorably. While I do agree that this is difficult to enforce …etc and what other redditors have already pointed out. It sets the tone for these kinds of things. An actual law prohibiting pestering women in the streets means that the government is taking a ‘legal stance’.
Also – the fact that this law will come into existence does not mean that pestering will end, it means that women will have more legal recourse in case they wish to bring this to the attention of a court.
This is already a criminal offence and would fall under breach of the peace. Further legislation is a pointless distraction from trying to bring about real cultural change.
Does this apply for trans-women as well as we are the most hated and attacked group in the country
>would create two-tier sentencing, depending on whether a sexual offence was shown to be a hate crime.
But sexual violence is a hate crime ? It’s driven by misogyny.
I don’t understand the point of this. Police barely bother when women and girls are raped. It’s hard to imagine they will lift a finger for this so why even pass the law?
35 comments
By
Charles Hymas,
HOME AFFAIRS EDITOR
3 December 2021 • 9:30pm
Pestering women in the street or in pubs and making lewd comments at them could become an offence under plans to criminalise “public sexual harassment”, which are set to be announced next week.
A government-commissioned review of hate crimes will call for public sexual harassment and inciting hatred against women to be made criminal offences as part of an overhaul of laws to protect women and girls against violence.
But the review by the Law Commission – the body responsible for framing hundreds of the UK’s laws – will reject demands for misogyny to be made a hate crime because it believes it would be ineffective, according to Whitehall sources.
The new offence of public sexual harassment is seen as a more effective way of protecting women against violence than classing misogyny as a hate crime alongside race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity, Whitehall sources have said.
The Law Commission also decided it could make it harder to prosecute crimes such as domestic abuse and would create two-tier sentencing, depending on whether a sexual offence was shown to be a hate crime.
The move will be part of a week of government crime announcements, which include a crackdown on drug gangs, a new law to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, and prison reforms to reduce reoffending by getting more inmates into work.
A Whitehall source said: “The Law Commission is not going to class misogyny as a hate crime because it would be ineffective and in some cases counterproductive.
“But it will call for a public sexual harassment offence, which doesn’t currently exist. It thinks this fits with other work the Government is doing on criminalising intimate image abuse and will be more productive and better in protecting women.”
The Law Commission review of hate crimes was ordered three years ago by Sajid Javid, then Home Secretary.
It has since become even more important following the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by Wayne Couzens, a serving Metropolitan Police officer, which sparked a huge national debate on violence against women.
Sarah Everard’s death sparked widespread protests on the issue of women’s violence
Sarah Everard’s death sparked widespread protests on the issue of women’s violence CREDIT: Tolga Akmen/AFP
In the wake of Miss Everard’s killing, ministers said they would consider if there should be a new offence of street harassment that would criminalise explicit sexual and abusive behaviour or comments made in public.
Draft legislation prepared by campaigners covers behaviour including intentionally pressing against someone on public transport, persistent sexual propositioning or cornering someone, making sexually explicit comments, leering at a person and cat-calling.
It makes clear that police and prosecutors would have to show the behaviour would cause “harassment, distress or alarm” with an intent to “humiliate or degrade” an alleged victim.
Dr Charlotte Proudman, a barrister who helped draft the proposed bill, said it would also have to be in the public interest to prosecute.
“It could be someone shouting degrading, humiliating comments with lewd language to a woman walking down the street that makes them feel unsafe,” she said.
“If someone came up to you in a pub, didn’t leave you alone, made foul comments about your body, and was persistently following you around, maybe that would be captured.”
It is understood ministers are in favour of the new offences proposed by the Law Commission, as long as it can be shown that they plug gaps in current laws for common assault and public order breaches. Recommendations made by the Law Commission are generally accepted by the Government.
Priti Patel said earlier this year that police must “raise the bar” by taking harassment and flashing of women more seriously after Ms Everard’s death.
The Home Secretary said verbal or physical abuse of women in the street were not “low-level” crimes and could lead to more serious offences. Ms Everard’s killer had previously escaped prosecution for alleged flashing offences.
Wayne Couzens, Sarah Everard’s murderer, had escaped prosecution for alleged flashing offences
Wayne Couzens, Sarah Everard’s murderer, had escaped prosecution for alleged flashing offences CREDIT: Metropolitan Police/PA Wire
Nimco Ali, the feminist campaigner advising the Government on its violence against women strategy, said new legislation was needed to show such behaviour was unacceptable.
“It’s like seatbelt laws or the smoking ban. In order for social norms to change, you have to have legislation and then society will police it,” she said.
But the decision not to make misogyny a hate crime is likely to face a backlash from women’s groups, as it would have enabled police and prosecutors to ask for tougher sentences for some crimes against women.
The Law Commission is also expected to propose extending the offence of “stirring up hatred” to include provoking violence on the grounds of gender.
That is partly in response to the Incel movement – involuntarily celibate men, some of whom have been responsible for violent and fatal attacks on women.
It will also strengthen protections for freedom of speech, so that offensive dinner table comments made in private are not be classed as hate crimes.
All well and good, but very difficult to actually enforce.
Wasnt sarah murdered by a serving police officer who tricked her into believing made up covid arrest rules 🤔, i dont see how her case has anything to do with cat-calling its more on the police for employing psychopaths.
Either way its just going to sap even more recourses from police forces who currently dont have enough time to police criminals becasue they have to deal with all the mental health and petty civil dispustes 😬.
I will avoid them at all costs, no eye contact and I will never offer to help them. They can change their own flat tyre.
What’s all this about an “Incel Movement”? Do these people pushing for this law and the person who wrote the article really think there is such a thing?
Sounds like a bunch of hysterical over-reaction from /r/TwoXChromosomes, not serious lawmakers.
I’d be surprised if this wasn’t covered by existing legislation in the same way as online abuse is already covered, but some people are clamouring for it.
So is this going to be a gender-neutral law, or not? There’s been a few different variants proposed, some which are usually described in terms of misogyny but appear to be gender-neutral in the text.
Our existing equality laws are not limited to certain demographics, this one should not be either.
Cool. Also can we deal with the issue of assaults and attacks on men as well? Seems like a pretty big number. How about we do both at the same time….
All well and good making new laws, meanwhile the criminal justice system is crumbling to bits due to chronic underfunding. A huge backlog of cases in the criminal courts continues to build, so victims, witnesses and people accused of crimes wait years for their trial, if they even get one. Crimes committed today are unlikely to be tried until 2025. So maybe they should think about fixing that first.
Several laws are already in place which cover this.
Specifically the public order act and the protection from harrassment act spring to mind immediately.
I complimented several women yesterday, all comments were well received. If one woman objected, would that make me a pest?
What the hell does cat-calling have to do with Sarah Everard?
Beside that point I do feel it’s truly embarrassing that there need be such a law.
Of course this is hard to enforce but it’s also about giving off a message in society. Because as of right now, pestering women is legal. If a cop witnessed it there would not even be a legal precedent to stop it from happening.
I don’t see the need for this. Harassment is already harassment which is already illegal. The problem today is not that there aren’t laws to deal with harassment, it’s that it’s almost impossible to enforce and there’s a culture that it’s ok. Addressing the latter is likely to have better results than the former.
And we should always remember that it isn’t just “women and girls” who get unwanted sexual attention. They may be in the majority of cases, but I’m uncomfortable with the emphasis of this discussion just being about them. Men can be harassed too (particularly if they’re in kilts, as some others have posted about already) and the way it’s currently presented will make them feel they won’t be taken seriously if they report it.
Clickbait bollocks law that will never be actually implemented but purely exists for a telegraph sunday headline
Great, even more misandric bullshit from the government.
> A Whitehall source said: “The Law Commission is not going to class misogyny as a hate crime because it would be ineffective and in some cases counterproductive.
> “But it will call for a public sexual harassment offence, which doesn’t currently exist. It thinks this fits with other work the Government is doing on criminalising intimate image abuse and will be more productive and **better in protecting women**.”
Because fuck men right? If these kind of laws are needed, then they should be universal. There’s no good reason for this to be focused on women.
given the tone and pestering done by tv licence goons at peoples front doors, i dont see how this would be enforceable even if the plod had the manpower.
Are we reaching the point where it will become illegal for men to simply approach women on nights out? Dear Christ what a bleak picture that is.
I will only support these kinds of initiatives if it cuts both ways – why is it legal to pester a *man* in the street? Surely we should be implementing gender-agnostic rules instead of just white knighting to protect women?
Oh, and from what’s been said about Sarah Everard by her family and friends, I have a very hard time in believing she would support much or indeed any of this.
Isn’t it already outlawed in a sense? Anti harassment and disturbing the peace laws, etc.?
I do wish those annoying women would stop pestering me
I wish there was a law protecting me from chuggers on Elvet Bridge, the cunts.
For a moment I thought it was referring to Pritti Patel and that it was about time.
I remain disappointed.
Hey if it cuts down on that crap by 10 percent, especially if all they do is catch one or two of the most aggressive ones a year while using a minimum of manpower, I would say it’s a win. Might even prevent a couple of rapes just by having the law on the books. Certainly can’t hurt.
To the people saying “this isn’t helpful” you may not have been to the police before with something like this. You’re often told that there’s nothing that can be done unless they’ve gotten physically violent or there’s a pattern of harassment.
Women are often told that things have to be “worse” in some way for it to be taken seriously. If this helps with that mentality I’m all for it.
Yeah this has been necessary for a while. It’s not like the prisons are suddenly going to be crammed full of millions of misunderstood lads who took a bit of banter too far, it’s more a case that men need to learn that certain types of behaviour are not acceptable.
We’ve tried doing nothing, and expecting men to act appropriately, it hasn’t worked. So here we are.
How about a law to stop pestering people altogether? No more sexual harassment, charity muggers, cold callers, pushy salespeople, persistent beggars or con artists. The sooner ‘no means no’ applies to all aspects of life the better off we’ll all be.
What about literally everyone else? Is it so hard to make universal, gender neutral laws these days which doesn’t value certain people more than others?
I would pay good money to watch police run sting operations and bust hooligans
So am I in danger of getting arrested if I attempt to flirt with someone?
How will they enforce this law exactly? I hope “Pestering” is not what actually makes it into the law itself, because it’s a word that can be interpreted very broadly. You can ask a woman for directions and be “pestering” her, according to her – so off to jail you go.
I view this favorably. While I do agree that this is difficult to enforce …etc and what other redditors have already pointed out. It sets the tone for these kinds of things. An actual law prohibiting pestering women in the streets means that the government is taking a ‘legal stance’.
Also – the fact that this law will come into existence does not mean that pestering will end, it means that women will have more legal recourse in case they wish to bring this to the attention of a court.
This is already a criminal offence and would fall under breach of the peace. Further legislation is a pointless distraction from trying to bring about real cultural change.
Does this apply for trans-women as well as we are the most hated and attacked group in the country
>would create two-tier sentencing, depending on whether a sexual offence was shown to be a hate crime.
But sexual violence is a hate crime ? It’s driven by misogyny.
I don’t understand the point of this. Police barely bother when women and girls are raped. It’s hard to imagine they will lift a finger for this so why even pass the law?