The Trivialisation of Sexual Harassment

No civilised country in the world tolerates sexual harassment. In most nations, people who commit sexual assault against women usually end up getting a far worse punishment than the law demands. If imprisoned, they are likely to find themselves at the bottom of the pecking order, experiencing far worse treatment at the hands of other inmates than what other criminals receive.

Of course, the majority of men in society are fine with this fact; all of us have a mother, sister, wife, or daughter, and any clear message that their safety is paramount is welcomed. 

In light of this, however, why is that a recent Transport for London (TfL) poster campaign against sexual assault on the London underground has received so much backlash, both from the press as well as Twitter commentators? We might find our answer in examining why the essence of this modern branch of authoritarianism is so obnoxious.

The Watering Down of Definitions 

Through activists’ constant watering down of definitions, we have reached the point where the statement “Bob has sexually harassed Lisa” now requires further questioning. Has Bob pushed Lisa against the wall and groped her, or has he just stared at her while on the underground without doing much else? Both of these actions of course differ in severity, but thanks to the rhetoric of the social justice crowd could now qualify as “sexual harassment.”

By watering down these definitions constantly, social justice has disincentivised people to believe the severity of these so-called vile actions when they occur in society. Just as the word ‘racist’ now describes any person who does not appreciate the new Lord of the Rings series for its progressive cast, it could also describe a KKK member who has burned down a black man’s house.

As such, people who are genuinely interested in combating racism or sexual harassment are posed with a much tougher time as more and more people become disincentivised to pay attention to the important issues; a case of the boy who cried wolf, if you will. 

Ambiguous Rules

The concept of intrusive staring is one of the most subjective and ambiguous things that you could ever hear about. How can one even prove if a person is staring or not? In this article, we hear from a woman who posted a viral TikTok message because a person was staring at her in the gym. In reality there was a TV above her head, and he may have been watching that rather than her.

But what if the woman refused to apologise and this happened in the London subway. How would the man prove to the police that he wasn’t staring? How would the woman prove that he was? How is such a system even remotely fair? How many seconds are we allowed to look at another before it is considered staring? None of these things are obvious, and I don’t think they are meant to be.

All of these rules are meant to create a society of paranoia, where people are discouraged from trusting strangers. It thus comes as no surprise that when people are actually assaulted on the underground, no one rushes to help. In case you are wondering, no this is not normal; in my country, bystanders would have immediately acted to help. But in a London-like culture, people do not trust or care about each other anymore.

The Normalisation of Snitching

TfL’s campaign encourages bystanders who notice someone committing the act of “intrusive staring” towards another person to call a hotline and ask for help. Let us imagine a situation where a man is on the train, and a woman looks at him. A bystander accordingly phones the authorities to inform them that the gentleman is in trouble.

How would the bystander know whether or not the man is bothered by the stare? Why should the authorities even want to waste their time like this?

Snitching was prevalent under the Iron Curtain, a society which I lived under. This is why eastern Europeans and East Germans are far more distant and reclusive people than those in West Germany and Western countries. They grew up in an environment where they had to be careful in every gesture and everything they said. People preferred to be quiet if they had nothing to say than to say anything at all and to keep their head down at all times as it was a more safe way to navigate through society.

Are There Not More Important Issues?

How much police time is wasted tackling trivial issues of the type raised by TfL? The last time I recalled, London is suffering a “stab epidemic,” where actual assault and rape is rife across the city. You would think that the police would prioritise those issues first before wasting their time with people who “stare.”

Sadly the people behind these adverts, those responding to the hotlines, and everyone else involved in campaigns like TfL’s are paid by the government. In other words, it is the British taxpayer paying for these trivial services.

With this in mind, it would be interesting to see how much London’s anti stare campaign actually cost, who exactly profited, and how effective anti-stare hotlines were at actually lowering sexual harassment.

Sargon of Akkad’s beautiful review of the movie Demolition Man describes the type of dystopian society we find ourselves in now. Every act, every gesture, even a mere stare, is regulated by the government. The role of the state has become that of a nanny, and grown adults are treated like children and constantly told to behave.

Groping someone is harmful, and there is no doubt it should be illegal. But to simply stare at someone is not harm. Like the moral conclusion of Demolition Man, people should be allowed to act in any way they choose as long as they are not harming someone. Police should focus on spending their limited resources on tackling real issues, and taxpayer money should be spent on more worthwhile things than inefficient virtue signalling campaigns.