11–20 of 27 posts
Another case of judges writing their own laws.
Isn’t that a feature of the british legal system?
[a]: Whether it's a feature to you or not doesn't change that it's a feature of the system
> a stupid bald c** and threatened to deck me The "harassment" part makes sense at least. > and it related to the claimant’s sex I'd have assumed "sexual" meant relating to sex (intercourse), rather than relating to sexes (male/female). I think the relevant act would be: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26
No, sexual harassment is any form of it that references the sexes (male/female), otherwise garden variety misogyny (e.g. "women are bad at X", "X is bad at Y, because she's a woman") wouldn't be considered sexual harassment.
> Finn claimed that he was called a “bald c---” and was also threatened by his shift supervisor, Jamie King, in a dispute in July 2019. Why does it need to be sexual harassment? It's obviously harassment either way.
Having something you can't change (or is part of your gender identity) be used as part of a harassing statement makes it worse than a usual insult.
2nd kings 2: 23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. So basically, "little…
Another way to view it, from the observations relayed, is that somebody was called "bald head" and they replied with a curse. Coincidentally, 42 children couldn't escape two rather quick bears. Correlation does not imply causation, right? :^)
> Finn claimed that he was called a “bald c---” and was also threatened by his shift supervisor, Jamie King, in a dispute in July 2019. Why does it need to be sexual harassment? It's obviously harassment either way.
It's sexual because it related to a prominent quality of one sex: badlness in men. If the genders were different and 'she' was called a 'skirted c---' it'd obviously be sexual harassment no? Having something you can't change (or is part of your gender identity) be used as part of a harassing statement makes it worse than a usual insult.
> a stupid bald c** and threatened to deck me The "harassment" part makes sense at least. > and it related to the claimant’s sex I'd have assumed "sexual" meant relating to sex (intercourse), rather than relating to sexes (male/female). I think the relevant act would be: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26
> I'd have assumed "sexual" meant relating to sex (intercourse), rather than relating to sexes (male/female) No, sexual harassment is any form of it that references the sexes (male/female), otherwise garden variety misogyny (e.g. "women are bad at X", "X is bad at Y, because she's a woman") wouldn't be considered sexual harassment.
Misogyny is not identical to sexual harassment, they are two different things with some overlap.
EDIT: would downvoters (or downvoter + socks) like to explain their disagreement? I'm happy to be corrected.
Another case of judges writing their own laws.
Isn’t that a feature of the british legal system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sexual because it related to a prominent quality of one sex: badlness in men. If the genders were different and 'she' was called a 'skirted c---' it'd obviously be sexual harassment no? Having something you can't change (or is part of your gender identity) be used as part of a harassing statement makes it worse than a usual insult.
But alopecia, although affecting more men, also affect some women so it's not an exclusively male characteristic..