By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Belgian man convicted for sexism, will be jailed if fine isn't paid, Under new law.

 

I find this...

Funny. 10 16.39%
 
Absurd. 20 32.79%
 
Scary. 16 26.23%
 
Sexist. 7 11.48%
 
Indifferent/comments... 8 13.11%
 
Total:61
John2290 said:
Peh said:

Ah common. Comments like yours are the reason why this law exists in the first place in Belgium. People are still being way to far right in the spectrum of modern times.  

It doesn't matter if you label the times as modern, reality doesn't change just from willing it to do so and this law is shear force akin to how religious fanatics would enforce their dogma, it doesn't nor will it in the future change the reality of the situation, woman are not as physically strong as men in general, it's just biology and unless women start taking male hormones that reality isn't going to change no matter how much people try to ignore it, alter peoples perceptions or clamp down with laws . Also, People aren't "being way to right", the left just keeps on picking up the goal posts and dragging them so far beyond liberalism that more and more people who would have been thought to be liberal are left in the same spot, with the same beliefs and political views yet they are now classified as right. Their views and politics hasn't changed in reality, just the perception of them. 

I think an issue is that you believe that leftists are liberals or want liberalism. Leftists are anti-liberal as that is a capitalist ideology.



Around the Network
John2290 said:

"A man has been convicted of sexism in a public place for the first time under a new law in Belgium.

The law exists since 2014. Only one person got convicted in almost 4 years time. So you're making a huge deal out of something that's barely newsworthy.



StarOcean said:
Louie said: 

 

That’s literally all there is to being a feminist. If you think there’s more to it than that, you have problems, bud. And of course I’m a mens right activist. You know that spreading your legs in New York subways can get you fined or even pulled off a train? That law only applies to men. That’s an unfair law. I’m also very much pro-fair social system. And being for a fair social system hardly qualifies anyone as a Democrat. 

So you’re essentially saying it is a political view that women get equal rights to men? That’s not a political stance, that’s called being a sexist, still. If you are among the people who think feminist means dying your hair blue and cutting it short while advocating for the “some are more equal than others” approach -I had better not ever see any hypocrisy over how you feel about gun owners, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc that all have bad and extremists among them. Feminism and feminists are different things. Ones a concept which I highly doubt you don’t support. Feminists are people, many of them flawed and have warped ideas of what feminism truly is.   

Well, so we basically agree but argue over semantics then? That's fine with me. I still wouldn't call myself a feminist because modern day feminism goes way beyond arguing for equal rights, as you pointed out in your manspreading example. It's not people like me who dragged the word "feminism" through the mud, it's the radical people who will define feminism as equality between the sexes and then say we can only reach equality by making laws against manspreading (happened in Madrid and Berlin, too) and banning grid girls in Formula 1 (thus, taking away women's right to choose their job, based on a political opinion).

I get what you are saying about real feminism but when those radical people make the laws (and at least in Germany, are among the heads of three major political parties which constitute 40% of the parliament seats), maybe the dictionary needs to change its definition then. Or we should politely ask the radicals not to identify as feminists, but that won't be happening I think. 

And I absolutely think that "women should have the right to vote in a democracy" is a political view. It may be a well-established view that doesn't get debated anymore, but sure it is - it answers the question how our political system should work, after all. It also stems from the traditions of liberalism and social democracy (in Europe), which are two of the big political ideologies of the past few hundred years (besides conservatism).  Of course, I was actually talking about radical feminism and if you want I can change my argument to this: "Radical, third wave feminism is a political view and shouldn't be treated as gospel or taught in schools, just as we shouldn't teach social democracy or communism or nationalism as being 'correct' in schools." But again, now we are arguing over semantics and definitions. It's a fun discussion, nonetheless! 



Conina said:
Aeolus451 said:

Which ones protect all speech including hate speech or offensive speech?

If that's your definition (you can talk about anything publicly without any exceptions), then no country I know of has freedom of speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

That is the definition of free speech and the US protects it. Some dems are trying to change that.



John2290 said:
RolStoppable said:

I don't understand your line of reasoning. You talk about what a sane person would do, but then immediately proceed to call something a problem that isn't an issue for any sane person.

Well any sane person would choose to pay the 3000 but not all may have it or might have to choose the jail time. Besides that, It is an issue, it's a law that is so vague it could be used to convict anyone. It can be abused to readily and for any interaction, what sane person want to allow laws to exist that can be used against them when they do no wrong?

How do you know how vague the law is? Have you read the law text in whole and know which factual prerequisites and proof are necessary to file a complaint? As far as I've read, the hurdles are quite high and due to that only two dozens complaints have been registered since 2014 and many of those couldn't be checked (lack of proof or the insulter couldn't be identified).

John2290 said:

This man spoke his mind and he is getting punished for it, no one was hurt regardless of the wording of the law, If you can get fined or sent to jail for speaking your mind, speaking out of anger or a slip of the tongue under the pretense that a persons dignity might be hurt then that is bat shit crazy and regressive and it screams of abuse or power when use between a citizen and a police officer.

If "speaking your mind" includes insulting other people on a personal level and in public and that can be proven, I'm fine with a fine for that. Perhaps more people think first and talk later if such a law exists. If they didn't learn some manners from their parents and/or teachers, maybe they have to learn it later the hard way by a fine and the discussion culture gets a bit less toxic. 



Around the Network
John2290 said:
Peh said:

Ah common. Comments like yours are the reason why this law exists in the first place in Belgium. People are still being way to far right in the spectrum of modern times.  

It doesn't matter if you label the times as modern, reality doesn't change just from willing it to do so and this law is shear force akin to how religious fanatics would enforce their dogma, it doesn't nor will it in the future change the reality of the situation, woman are not as physically strong as men in general, it's just biology and unless women start taking male hormones that reality isn't going to change no matter how much people try to ignore it, alter peoples perceptions or clamp down with laws . Also, People aren't "being way to right", the left just keeps on picking up the goal posts and dragging them so far beyond liberalism that more and more people who would have been thought to be liberal are left in the same spot, with the same beliefs and political views yet they are now classified as right. Their views and politics hasn't changed in reality, just the perception of them. 

We make our own reality.

The less muscles presented in the feminine body is not the issue here, at all. What else do you think makes us so distinctive from other living organism on this planet which are way stronger than we are? Our intelligence. What we can't solve with physics we use tools. A taser would suffice in such a situation. Too bad none of these women had one.  

Do you know where the term "right" origins from and what I am even implying? I don't think so. 

Also, a law will be made if there is a need to protect people from other ones. Otherwise, there is no reason for it. Seeing that Belgium went the mile in creating this one and seeing it being actually applied by your OP, shows what kind of mentally some people hold out there. It's actually really sad. 

Last edited by Peh - on 18 March 2018

Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Well in certain parts of the world if you insult a police officer you get shot and if your skin tone is too dark you get killed, I don't see the big deal here. People act in this thread as if you can insult cops willie nilly and not face any concequences



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

John2290 said:
RolStoppable said:

I don't understand your line of reasoning. You talk about what a sane person would do, but then immediately proceed to call something a problem that isn't an issue for any sane person.

Well any sane person would choose to pay the 3000 but not all may have it or might have to choose the jail time. Besides that, It is an issue, it's a law that is so vague it could be used to convict anyone. It can be abused to readily and for any interaction, what sane person want to allow laws to exist that can be used against them when they do no wrong? This man spoke his mind and he is getting punished for it, no one was hurt regardless of the wording of the law, If you can get fined or sent to jail for speaking your mind, speaking out of anger or a slip of the tongue under the pretense that a persons dignity might be hurt then that is bat shit crazy and regressive and it screams of abuse or power when use between a citizen and a police officer.

You know what, you talk of the issues that someone who would have to pay the fine will have to pay, yet at the same time seem very apathetic to the issues that women have to face and overcome merely because of their gender.



Have some decency and you won't get fined. I really see no problem with this nor is it comparable to religious dogma.



John2290, your signature is always such a perfect followup to every one of your posts. Thanks for leaving it there to provide levity.