Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Belgium’s ban on sexist insults
Daily Mail ^ | 3/16/14 | Paul Donnelley

Posted on 03/16/2014 9:18:17 AM PDT by Impala64ssa

Under new laws it will be against the law to mock a stay-at-home father or a woman in sexy clothes Legal protections will help men but are mainly for women# Generic comments will be allowed but not those aimed at an individual. Mocking a stay-at-home father or insulting a woman for wearing revealing clothes will be illegal in Belgium under sexism laws unveiled yesterday.

Sexist comments in the office, on the street or online will be punishable by courts in what is thought to be the first legislation of its type.

Equality minister Joelle Milquet said shaming a man for being a house husband will be banned, but added that the legal protections were designed mainly for women.

Men do not realise that women hear sexist remarks on a daily basis,’ Miss Milquet told a Brussels newspaper. ‘These little insults shouted out at women by groups of youths … are trivialised in our society.

This has to stop. A woman is not a sexual object.’

Such comments about men or women in general will still be allowed, but those found guilty of sexism towards an individual will be fined.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: belgium; feminazis; liberalfascism; speechcodes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: BwanaNdege
A woman is not a sexual object.

A remarkably idiotic statement, if taken literally.

The vast majority of women (and men) want to be sexual objects at some time to at least one other person.

I do, BTW, agree with the authors of this law that our society is WAY too far down the road of viewing women primarily as sexual objects. You can see it on this forum, for example, in the sometimes disgusting comments denigrating women for not meeting some standard of pulchritude.

Not everybody can be Sarah Palin. :)

If we're going to put down women with whom we disagree, it should be for their policies, not their appearance.

21 posted on 03/16/2014 11:47:02 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Women put down women far more and far worse than men do.They shred the dress and mannerisms of other women especially co-workers,and all this is done behind the targets back.

I believe it was called being “Catty” as opposed to “Bitchy” in that bitchiness is just mean, while cattiness is often clever and witty and not always mean.

To ensure that appearances do not contaminate our opinions
may I suggest that we apply a hot poker to everyone’s eyes,thus scoring instant equality.


22 posted on 03/16/2014 12:13:42 PM PDT by managusta (The first sign of maturity is the discovery that the volume knob also turns to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
If we're going to put down women with whom we disagree, it should be for their policies, not their appearance.

Excellent! And the converse is true also. Eye candy is nice, but brain & heart candy are better and often improve with age far more than the eye candy aspect.

23 posted on 03/16/2014 4:03:03 PM PDT by BwanaNdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RightGeek

Hey dude, this mutton, not cotton.


24 posted on 03/16/2014 4:21:51 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson