Castellammare di Stabia appears eager to join the forces in the West cracking down on free speech and expression. The city is moving toward the passage of a blasphemy law — the subject of prior columns and blog entries on a trend against free speech in the West. The city is also planning to ban miniskirts, sunbathing, and playing football in public places. If nothing else, the move will finally give the Taliban a seaside vacation spot to get away from it all.
The move to ban revealing clothing and criticism of religion is supported by the church. The local priest Don Paulo Cecere insists that it is not only good for local morals but it is “a way of combating the rise in sexual harassment.” Wouldn’t it be better to just punish men who cannot be around a women in a miniskirt? This is the same logic of Islamic extremists who insist on mandatory coverings for all women regardless of their beliefs. It suggests that sexual harassment is due to the fact that women dress in provocative ways.
A seaside city in Italy is planning to ban miniskirts and other revealing clothing to improve what the mayor calls standards of public decency.
Mayor Luigi Bobbio insists that his prohibitions will “restore urban decorum and facilitate better civil co-existence” — presumably by forcing people to dress more alike and speak alike on subjects of religion. Ironically Bobbio is part of a party called the “People of Freedom” — a center-right party that appears to honor freedom in its breach.
Source: BBC
Jonathan Turley
We can compare societies, but how so you judge ours to be better?
How about wearing miniskirts (even if male) without the fear of being stoned to death?
Banning miniskirts….Ok…and then…came the spider and sat down beside her….then what happens next….
Miniskirts aren’t the cause of sexual harassment, but they are a contributing factor. I see no problem with eliminating contributing factors.
“playing football in public places.” ?
Daniel,
So, you’re o.k. with banning public parking because it contributes to car theft?
Miniskirts contribute to sexual harassment? Really, Daniel? Really? A miniskirt? Are you really going to defend that men are so weak, so immature and so distracted by 5 additional inches of exposed leg that they can only barely prevent themselves from sexually harassing a woman and that coupled with any other “contributing factor” (like what, breathing?) is just too much for males to endure? Perhaps you should have posed the question: “Or is it just me?”
Rcampbell,
Heck, I have a feeling that if Eve had been more sensibly dressed, half of humanity would still be in a certain garden.
Banning anything in Italy is like demanding that dogs can’t bark. I hope they feel self-ritious for their public orders. They have just made sex more appealing, as though there was a vacuum that needing filling.
rcampbell,
I thought sexists were the cause of sexual harassment.
Some men are always looking for excuses for their inappropriate behavior. (Please note that I said “SOME” and not “ALL” men.)
I’m ok with banning contributing factors. They don’t cause the problem, but they provide a more suitable environment for that kind of behavior. Miniskirts don’t “make” men do anything, however, but it is a fact if a woman wears modest clothing, she will less likely be a victim of sexual harassment. Men are still responsible for their actions, however, and are not “made” to do anything by a miniskirt.
I’m thinking about calling the CDC and WHO for I believe there is a global pandemic … a flu virus for which a vaccination must be developed before mankind finds himself back in the stone-age.
This virus, CIR2E (Conservative Irrational Reaction 2 Everything), eats peoples brains until they are no longer capable of making rational decisions. It attacks adults, irregardless of their station in life, and renders them blithering idiots within days of the initial infection.
Symptoms appear differently in different people but eventually manifest as:
1. fear of any religious or secular group to which the patient does not belong
2. fear of any woman with sex organs
3. fear of homosexuals
4. fear of any liberal form of anything
While we wait for a vaccination to be developed the CDC needs to issue outbreak alerts and distribute emergency preparedness information as CIR2E appears to be causing a global influenza pandemic.
It’s not fear. It’s preservation.
How about we ban sunbathing and miniskirts for ugly people and blasphemy for good looking people.
That even sounds half-reasonable to me… tourism could flourish and the physically less fortunate would have something to stick to the others.
Daniel,
Why do I get the feeling that the small print of “I’m ok with banning contributing factors” reads, “as long as it doesn’t effect me?”
Daniel,
Preservation of what? Traditional moonbathing? Grandma skirts? Maybe we can replant the woods that once occupied vatican city.
Don’t be scared to elaborate. We’re not psychics here.
Secondly, the term preservation is all about fear, fear of loss.
You make as much sense as you make. Words. On. Post.
Any law, decision, or moral judgment we make is discriminatory. It’s bound affect someone adversely. That doesn’t mean we should stop making laws, decisions, or moral judgments. It does mean we should consider the effect. The people in this particular place have considered the effect and decided the outcome was better than the discrimination it would create. We all have to realize that continually creating new “rights” is actually destroying existing freedoms. If there is anything to be called a community and not an agglomeration of hedonists, “rights” must be argued and thought out, and “rights” cannot always win. Otherwise, my neighbor will be my dictator.
Daniel,
“…it is a fact if a woman wears modest clothing, she will less likely be a victim of sexual harassment.”
Is it a fact? Has a scientific study been conducted on the subject of sexual harassment using two different groups of women–one group of wommen wearing mini skirts and a control group wearing “modest clothing?”
A thought to ponder: If women wearing mini skirts have dimpled thighs due to large deposits of cellulite are they more or less likely to be subjects of sexual harassment than gals with great gams?
*****
Thanks for the chuckle, Blouise.
A scientific study is not needed to figure this out. All you need is some experience in the workplace. people are the same everywhere.
Daniel,
That is some nice pseudo philosophical rationalization. Good bare assertions, a sprinkling of loaded language, and great piece of moral relativism as a garnish.
So, about banning public parking spots? Or for that matter VCRs? Hmmmm access to computers is a contributing factor to online crime? I guess you’re against that too.
Daniel
1, October 25, 2010 at 2:06 pm
It’s not fear. It’s preservation.
=========================================================
Preservation of what? Certainly not the freedom of wearing a mini-skirt or the right to choose one’s own wardrobe ….
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
” We all have to realize that continually creating new “rights” is actually destroying existing freedoms. “(Daniel)
============================================================
In this case was the mini-skirt a right or a freedom? Since it was existing before the new law was created ….
Daniel,
I worked for many years. I know women who never wore mini skirts who were subjects of sexual harassment. Those same women didn’t wear tight-fitting sweaters or expose any cleavage either. I wonder why they were harassed???
Daniel
1, October 25, 2010 at 2:40 pm
A scientific study is not needed to figure this out. All you need is some experience in the workplace. people are the same everywhere.
===============================================================
I don’t think so … you are very different from me ….
and from me…
Daniel, I have to wonder where you stand on women in the workplace…
“access to computers is a contributing factor to online crime”
If, for the reasonable outcome of less pornographic influence in our culture, we decided as a society to ban or limit access to certain sites or computers, the byproduct of that decision would be discrimination. Either we take a moral stand or we let others take their moral stand. Either way, discrimination happens.
However, I would absolutely have a problem with government deciding these things for the people. The people should limit themselves.
Blouise,
No, see your freedom to wear what clothing you want ends where his temptation begins.
I mean, there’s no excuse for his actions, except what you’re wearing.
Also, because it seems appropriate…
It’s not my decision to make. That’s my point. It’s all of ours. We should allow these societies to be autonomous, ,and make their own decisions. We shouldn’t be offended by these things, we should understand them. If you don’t like it don’t live there.
Daniel has one valid point; that there are some abhorrent things in a society that we simply have to hold our collective noses and edure—-like Libertarians and teabaggers and Republicans. But certainly not miniskirts. Miniskirts didn’t drive our economy into a deep ditch or start wars or run the national debt through the roof by borrowing/spending policies.
Miniskirts are bad–but bikinis are even worse!
This one’s for you, FF LEO:
Blame the victim. Admonish or legally sanction the victim. Let the agressor off the hook by assuring that the law doesn’t make them take responsibility for their actions. She asked for it.
I’ve heard it before. Same ol’ same ol’.
The propensity to reinforce stereotypes: we named it sexism in the 60′s and refereed to those that practiced it chauvinists.
A bit of history to back up the “same ol” claim.
Thanks Ms. EM, an upgrade from Suzy Snowflake…
how about if we take responsibility for our own actions and stop trying to say “they made me do it”.
do most sexual attacks take place at beaches and swimming pools?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/8087349/Italian-Mayor-bans-skimpy-clothes.html
I find it strange that most of these comments are about the idea of a mini-skirt ban, when what I find most appalling about the topic of this article is the passing of blasphemy laws. Really? Are people’s religious beliefs teetering so precariously that they cannot withstand someone speaking out against them, and so they have to be protected from someone uttering their personal opinion by a bona fide law against it? Really? I’m glad there’s no blasphemy law in my country, because I’d end up in jail for sure.