|
Wrong defination of sexual harressment :
"Explanation: It is clarified that it is the reasonable perception of the woman that would be relevant in determining whether any conduct was sexually coloured and, if so, whether such conduct was unwelcome or not. "
Whether a conduct was unwelcome or not can not be judged by just what the women says( her perception ), it has to be judged by the previous circumstances and the circumstances at the time of the said instances, and what is accepted in society. For example : If a women is giving sexual coloured remarks man has to bear it, and if he reciprocate in any way, say friendly way, she still gets the laws to implicate him, only her saying that it was not unwelcome is not enough other previous circumstances should also be seen. If a women wants to marry a man and he do not marry her that does not give the women a liscence to talk to him friendly in group to implicate him in sexual harresmnt cases. So add that previous circumstances will also be seen to determine if the conduct was welcome or not.
Just perception of women is not enough to make a conduct sexual coloured and hence punishment. The word reasonable hear loses the power as it still remains perception of women . Apart from perception of women, things to be seen are what is normal practice in the society, this should be added. E.g. it is becoming increasingly common for women in office to do a handshake with a guest, now if a man has seen this a few times, what is the proof who offered a hand for handshake first, or when this is OK, when the women's perception makes this sexually coloured. So what is reasonably prevelent is also be seen. Both women and man always have the choice to say no to the handshake, or any such request, where does the law comes in picture in all this. Why can not be mature enough to just say no.
This statement should be removed. The sexual harresment has to be proved, everything that a women says that is her perception can not be taken as a word of God and considered fit for sexual harresment punishment.
2. (u) " Hostile Work Environment" is said to be created when any act of Sexual Harassment has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individuals work performance or creating an intimidating , hostile or offensive working environment.
The word "effect" should be removed. If something is not done delibrately, for example if a person did not know that someone was listening to what he said, then he should not be punished for sexual harresment. Also we are trying to take too much liberty out of interactions between two persons, the effect is dependent on that the women percieves which may not be correct, the mans rights has to be taken care of. So the word effect can be delibrately distorted to implicate innocents. Always a women's perseption is correct and a mans is wrong, this assumption by law is wrong. If the women's expectations are unjustified, then it will be wrong to punish the man, saying the effect was unreasonably interfering as per women . If a man or women is listening to a group of songs the women can say one of the songs has the effect of interfering with my thoughts, so effect is wrong and word used should be purpose.
Wording should be
2. (u) " Hostile Work Environment" is said to be created when any act of Sexual Harassment has the purpose of unreasonably interfering with an individuals work performance or creating an intimidating , hostile or offensive working environment.
I overheard at a shop that, We have to understand that in case of eve teasing. If a women goes to court and just points a finger at the man, without saying a single word, the man will be sent to jail immediately for say 3 months. So everyone is already too sympathetic to the women.
|
