Other sexual violence news stories

// 17 March 2008

The first charges have been brought on Jersey. Gordon Claude Wateridge has been charged with sexual assaults of girls between 1969 and 1979 when he was warden at Haut de la Garenne.

Oklahoma has decided that a man putting his camera up a girls skirt isn’t a criminal offence. So much for our right to safety! Or as the District Attorney put it – “How do I go back to this victim and tell her she has no expectation of privacy to her private parts in a public place?”

Meanwhile an American Airlines passenger has had to sue the airline for failure to protect her from a fellow passenger who masturbated over her whilst she slept and ejaculated in her hair. The Airline claims it’s staff took “appropriate action” – I wonder whether that was to pass him a tissue afterwards and offer another cup of tea? Because it certainly wasn’t to stop him or to have him arrested on landing. The airport staff had to do that.

Comments From You

Tazia // Posted 17 March 2008 at 10:45 pm

Well, who would have thought, in Oklahoma of all places.

The Information Commissioner in Britain has allowed secret filming in store & changing rooms.

(the police can’t do it but the average store owner can)

& legislative prohibition, unless sexual intent can be established, it isn’t a crime and so it may not necessarily even be a breach of privacy.

The Sport and the Star were (surprisingly) not the primary lobbyists for the ultra weak legislation.

So, Oklahoma & Britain.

Alex Corwin // Posted 17 March 2008 at 11:43 pm

I hate the idea that any man thinks that he as the right to take my picture without my permission, and it actually makes me feel sick that every time I wear skirt (or I guess by default any top that shows even a little cleavage) a might might take a photo. I was once in a bar with a large group of friends and someone took a photo down my top (I was turned away from them talking to some else and didn’t realise) and although it was deleted and laughed off I felt very violated by it.

But more positively Japan made it illegal to sell phones where the camera noise can be turned off, to stop men taking covert pictures up women’s skirts on the underground/ in public.

Tazia // Posted 18 March 2008 at 3:52 am

I think that might be a manufacturers agreement. What you describe is ersatz-prohibition.

It is not possible to effectively prohibit voyeurism, groping or child pornography in Japan, that simply isn’t a working target for this generation.

Amelia // Posted 20 March 2008 at 12:27 am

It would be possible if they decided it was important enough. Japan’s more focused on whether or not to change its constitution to allow the existence of a Japanese army than on the status of women. As it is, the only steps they’ve taken are scraping at the tip of the iceberg, like the loud shutter noises on camera phones or women-only carriages on trains.

And yet, in Japan you can reasonably expect to walk down the street and not encounter guys shouting, “Get yer tits out!”

Have Your say

To comment, you must be registered with The F-Word. Not a member? Register. Already a member? Use the sign in button below

Sign in to the F-Word

Further Reading

Has The F-Word whet your appetite? Check out our Resources section, for listings of feminist blogs, campaigns, feminist networks in the UK, mailing lists, international and national websites and charities of interest.

Write for us!

Got something to say? Something to review? News to discuss? Well we want to hear from you! Click here for more info

  • The F-Word on Twitter
  • The F-Word on Facebook
  • Our XML Feeds