Cu cateva saptamani in urma, Jane Kelly pe TCW a subliniat o tendinta ingrijoratoare a politiei si a procurorilor de a suprapune delictele sexuale banale, cu rezultatul ca (de exemplu) un barbat care a facut o trecere stangace sfarseste cu violatori si pederasti pe infractorii sexuali ”. Inregistreaza-te. Pentru moment, multumesc cerurilor, acest lucru este inca exceptional. Dar pe principiul iezuit bun de „da-mi copilul si iti voi da omul”, cei care se ocupa de universitatile noastre s-au combinat cu o serie de politicieni intr-un proiect destul de alarmant pentru a face acest lucru, sau ceva de genul acesta, norma in invatamantul superior.
Pana in 2016, atitudinea universitatilor fata de comportamentele sexuale a fost in mare parte pragmatica. Ocazional, au intervenit in cazuri grave, ca parte a eforturilor lor generale de a promova bunastarea studentilor, dar, in general, practica era sa lase astfel de probleme la politie. Cu comportamente gresite mai putin grave, acestea ar putea interveni acolo unde problemele erau in mod deosebit de tulburatoare, dar oricat de des nu se implica. Au fost multe de spus pentru aceasta abordare. Acesta s-a ocupat de cazuri egale, fara a permite cozii de bunastare sa bage cainele de educatie si a reflectat o mare parte a vietii in afara universitatii, unde oamenii invata pe buna dreptate cu probleme precum o mana pe genunchi sau un avans amoros nedorit ocazional, fara a face un enorm tam-tam.
Toate acestea s-au schimbat cu un raport din 2016 al Universitatilor din Marea Britanie intitulat Schimbarea Culturii (mentionat aici pe TCW). Aroma acestui document, plina de clisee modeste si uneori destul de alfabetizata, ar putea fi vazuta din cererea sa pentru un angajament „pentru a recunoaste mai intai ca hartuirea, crima de ura si violenta impotriva femeilor reprezinta probleme grave care afecteaza studentii universitari” si „incurajeaza cultura care diminueaza (sic) impotriva comportamentului inacceptabil ”. Inmormantat in jargonul sau academic-birocratic a fost un apel pentru „toleranta zero”. Toleranta zero cu ce? Hartuire sexuala. Sens? Aproape orice, inclusiv fluiere, inuendo sexual, glume si povesti sexuale, privirea cuiva in sus si in jos (nu glumesc) si raspandirea zvonurilor despre viata sexuala a unei persoane. Impreuna cu acest lucru, a trebuit sa existe un sistem birocratic complet pentru tratarea tuturor divulgarilor, si mai mult facut „pentru a reduce barierele in raportare” Puneti totul la capat si aveti un scenariu de cosmar: oamenii au fost incurajati sa raporteze tot felul de comportamente absolut naturale, interzicerea oricarei sugestii potrivit careia unele incidente sunt prea banale pentru a lua act (amintiti-va de „toleranta zero”?) Si o accentuare rezultata. de putere pentru oricine are un topor de macinat sau un scor de rezolvat.
Any hopes that this poisonous document might end in ignominious oblivion has now been dashed. The Guardian complained last week that universities had not jumped to attention and immediately adopted it in full: the somewhat lacklustre Labour MP Lucy Powell immediately echoed it, presumably seeking a soundbite, as did Tory Maria Miller, who unfortunately has swallowed rather more undigested feminism than is good for her. No doubt we will now see further pressure from politicians to cause universities to divert yet more resources from proper education to micromanaging student life and making sure that a due official record is made every time a cantankerous student is looked up and down.
At the same time, a Parliamentary human rights committee was reporting on another festering university sore: that of student unions ‘no-platforming’ and generally making it difficult for controversial (normally but not always Right-wing) speakers to address university societies, and universities occasionally preventing meetings for other reasons. This report admittedly said some of the right things. In particular it correctly blamed intolerance, excessive bureaucracy and regulatory complexity for creating difficulty. It also rightly condemned the practice of demanding prior sight of speeches before allowing them to be given (though whether this will prevent it happening in the future is unclear: student union officers are not known for their scrupulous regard for select committee recommendations).
Dar mai este loc pentru o oarecare neliniste. Comitetul nu a fost convins ca exista o problema grava – o apreciere uimitor de plina de satisfactie, asa cum a subliniat deja Tom Slater din Spiked. Acesta a mentionat numarul mic de discursuri suprimate, iar raspunsul a 25 din 33 de ofiteri sindicali studenti s-au consultat in sensul ca nu au vazut nicio problema de libertate de exprimare. Primul este neconcludent: invitatiile nu vor fi adesea facute in primul rand daca este posibila interdictia. In ceea ce priveste cel de-al doilea, desigur, ofiterii sindicali studenti au fost identificati ca fiind cei care au cauzat problema.
Two other points are worth throwing into the pot.
poze porno cu andra
porno pe camp
porno cu doctori
porno sotie
porno sex.com
filme porno cu mature grase
porno gang bang
porno moldova
korean porno
porno brother sister
filme porno cu dezvirginari
filme porno romana
filme porno in romania
porno matre
y porno
filme porno romantic
porno rominia
jennifer lopez porno
mimi porno
loredana groza porno
One is that, while freedom of speech ‘within the law’ is protected by statute, university and student union speech codes often run counter to this. Newcastle, for example, claims to prohibit ‘transphobic propaganda’. Now, there is no offence of incitement to hatred of transgender people; furthermore, the prohibition could cover entirely good faith criticism of the whole transgender world view. Tellingly, the committee still regarded this prohibition as legitimate, apparently on the basis that it merely prohibited what was illegal already. One’s confidence in the report is not increased by matters like this.
The other was that, while piously calling for measures, including possible prosecution, against student disrupters of meetings (as with events at a King’s College London Libertarian Society meeting a few weeks ago), the options are rather limited. The only offences available are limited to generic public order ones. There is scope for improvement here. It is already an offence (under the Public Meeting Act 1908, originally an anti-suffragette measure) to act in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of any public meeting. There is much to be said for extending this to any lawful meeting held on university premises. If we are going to ask for the suppression of intimidatory tactics, as we should, the least we can do is give universities, police and prosecutors the tools they need for the job.
