Anti-social?
What with curfews and 'spiralling' knife crime I keep hearing the phrase anti-social again and again, yet I've yet to hear anyone truly define it.
So first stop is the Home Office where I find an entire page dedicated to anti-social behaviour and the first sentence -
Anti-social behaviour is any activity that impacts on other people in a negative way.Stop and think about that for a moment - "any activity"?
We get more on the specific What is ASB link
Anti-social behaviour (ASB) includes a variety of behaviour covering a whole complex of selfish and unacceptable activity that can blight the quality of community life.Ah that's better, if wishy-washy, let's combine the two parts into - 'Anti-social behaviour is any selfish and unacceptable activity that negatively impacts the quality of people or community life'; marvellous. Of course this requires a definition of selfish and unacceptable (and community).
Selfish is easy in this context - actions that benefit only the person committing the act; unacceptable however is a tad more tricky the closest I can think of in context is 'not conforming to standard social practices' except that in itself is almost a definition of "anti-social" and thus we start tying ourselves in knots.
It's also interesting to note that in both instances the quotes refer to the plural "community" and "people" are we to infer that if something only affects one person it cannot be deemed anti-social?
So we have a problem with this definition so let's step back and look at the phrase anti-social itself.
It means in this context acting against society. So trying to blow up railway stations bomb motorways or the means of government would be anti-social, but although I'm sure that some would like to include 'youths' hanging around on street corners in this group I can't do it. So we need another tighter definition so let's try 'acting against established society'.
Trouble again, this defines anti-social as acting against the status quo, and still includes the previous lot also with this definition both Martin Luther King Jr. and Oliver Cromwell would be defined as anti-social for going against the established order of segregation and divine right of kings respectively; oops.
So as you can tell I'm having trouble with this. To fit how the phrase is being used my best definition is 'anyone performing an action that would be deemed disagreeable to a majority of people given the context in which it is performed'. Sadly that still covers the thieves, murderers, bombers etc. so - 'anyone performing a non-criminal action that would be deemed disagreeable to a majority of people given the context in which it is performed'.
Pathetic, in order not to lump the litterers with the terrorists I've had to invoke the non-criminal part which just highlights the meaningless of it... you're doing something we don't like, but it's not a criminal offence, but we still want to stop you doing it so um here you go we'll call you "anti-social"; perfect.
6 comments:
Since we have ASBOs I guess there must be a legal definition of 'Anti-Social'. I did have a go at attempting its definition but I still couldn't shake off those terrorists and Oliver Cromwell.
However I have another one for you please define 'job' as in 'My job is a dustman'.
It's part of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. To ask for an ASBO requires
"a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself"
which to my mind is just as bad as the "any activity" from the Home Office.
"Job" in this context - A legitimate recurring activity which you are paid to perform.
"Job" in this context - A legitimate recurring activity which you are paid to perform.
So what about someone who works for a voluntary organisation; or her Majesty the Queen; or is Cllr. Stephen Clee's 'job' Regeneration & Enterprise Chief?
For voluntary work: A legitimate recurring activity which you would normally be paid to perform, but aren't.
Her Majesty receives money from public funds so she's being paid. For Cllr. Clee it depends on whether he's being paid or not.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong — aren't harrassment and intimidation already criminal offences?
It's called assault.
If you want to be scared try reading the sneaky amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 that were added via an Employment Equality amendment.
A 6'6" guy built like the proverbial gets on a train which has only one young female passenger, thus creating an intimidating environment simply be being male - sexual harassment. Well I doubt it would get a conviction, but the base of the law is on the perception of the harassed person.
Post a Comment