Andy Burnham defends Home Office booklet urging asylum seekers not to rape women
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/guide-asylum-seekers-abuse-home-office-b3035959.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/guide-asylum-seekers-abuse-home-office-b3035959.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
12 replies
People - We need to teach men not to rape
Goverment - 'hands men info on what rape is and how to not rape people'
People - No, not like that
Handing them out just to immigrants falsely pre-assumes that immigrants are more likely to commit rape; if reducing rape is the motive (rather than bowing to xenophobia), then those pamphlets should be handed out to British nationals too.
Asylum seekers, not immigrants. This is a group that has been brutalised in some form, so are more at risk of passing on the violence.
Then they should be provided with mental health support beyond merely a pamphlet that implies that foreign cultures tolerate sexual assault and rape at higher levels than the UK.
Does the article say this isn’t the case?
No it doesn't. It's just part of a pamphlet informing people of the rules/laws of this country that might differ from their own and it includes the main laws that immigrants have been known to not understand when applying for/given asylum in the UK.
Also, there's no point handing it out to British nationals. If they were raised in this country they should already know what constitutes rape and that it's illegal. A pamphlet isn't going to change that
That's what any reasonable person would infer was the controversy from the headline. The actual controversy is "deport them instead of telling them about inclusiveness." The pamflet also says these are expectations of nationals and who to contact if it happens to them.
Everything in the information is fine, except the bit about "you're not able to photograph people without their permission".
While in the context of the topic that's true, in general you are allowed to photograph people in public. It's what you do and the intent behind taking the photos that matters.
The big concern is that people will think this strict "you can never photograph without permission" take from the Home Office is accurate, and then use it to justify harassment of anyone with a camera that they don't like.
I don't know why you are being downvoted, although publishing photos gets more complex, there is no expectation of privacy in public places in the UK as far as I know.
Isnt the issue that it tells them taking photos of people in public is illegal when it isnt?
It doesn't actually say that if you read it word for word, but the wording in that section is definitely confusing and needs to be revised
It says
It's not only confusing, it's trying to simplify a nuanced law, but coming out with something much more restrictive.