The wordings are, too precise, which made the holes, easy for the perps to escape through, because this is still, all new to the country, and so, there will be, more amending this, first, "rough draft" I'm sure!  Off of the Front Page Sections, translated…

The legislature had three sessions in discussion, and finally passed the "Anti-Stalking, Anti-Harassment" law, hoping to give a fuller legal protection to women who are helpless, who are being stalked, or sexually harassed.  It's just, that having a strict definition of the law, it may create holes in the security nets of the society, and add to the debate of gender equality.

The DDP's insistent on adding "gender-relatedness" to eight of the types of stalking and sexual harassment, limited the realms of protecting the victims in sum, and, in reality, the law couldn't, protect those who are, truly in need of the law to protect them.  Because, if the stalker denied having any relations with "sex or gender", and the stalked couldn't provide any physical evidence of being stalked, then, it can cause the cases to become, dropped, or, turning the amendments into only, theories.

Especially, from the research of Modern Women Foundation, fifty-seven of the technological stalkers belonged to the group of strangers or unknown individuals, and, these aren't related directly to the precise uses of words of "relating to sex or gender", and, this would cause the means of protection to become, pointless, and the victims still couldn't get the help they need in time.

The DDP's insisting on the verbatim "sex or gender-related", not willing to let the laws "cover everything"; the Department of Police however, worried that if the laws were too generalized, it may be a breach of personal freedoms.  But, restricting the definition of "stalking" in the frames of "sex or gender", it's not only, useless, and pointless, it also clearly, doesn't match up with what the public note as stalking.

For instance, if the loan sharks tagged along the debtors, or if an enemy or a bad neighbor zooms in on the victim, or the paparazzi the P.I. followed an individual long-term, or stalking due to religious, nationality, or handicaps, along with other reasons, all of these, are against the individuals' wills, to the point of making the targets fearful, but, it's unrelated to "sex or gender", and there's NO laws against them, this sort of a differential in treatment, surely, it's not what the society expects to see.

And so, this is how there are the holes that these perps can squeeze into, in the wordings of the law, because the law is written, too specifically, too detailed, on WHAT constitutes as stalking, that's why, it will make ways, for those who are now, going to be able to, legally stalk their victims, and these "perps" won't get punished, because their actions don't "comply" with the "terms" of the written law on anti-stalking.

 This free site is ad-supported. Learn more
​