TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 52, 29 August 1925, Page 15

TOPICS OF THE DAY

(By "M.H.C.)

A very interesting Bill is the one drafted by an English association for moral and social hygiene and introduced into the British Parliament by Lady Astor under the "ten minutes rule," and asking for a select committee to consider the Bill. A writer in "Time and Tide" makes the following remark, which seems, from general reports, to, be a just one: "Lady Astor is one of the few whose horror of injustice does not seem to get blunted by familiarity." This saying brings to mind how many men have gone into Parliament full of enthusiasm (apparently) and ready to do battle for the oppressed, and to try to remedy flagrantly wrong things—but, alas, before the second session there is a great fall from the heights, and he seems to be "blunted by familiarity" and ceases any effort, just drifting along the stream of everyday things in Parliament, which are to do with everything but humanity, as a rule. The Bill which the association has drafted appears 'o be directed against the grossly uneven laws which govern street behaviour and ethics. Under Lady Astor's Public Places (Order) Bill all the sections which create for police court purposes a special claBS of persons called "common prostitutes" are repealed, together with other sections of Bills which have the effect of .enabling either men or ■women to be arrested and convicted for street accostation on police evidence alone; a method of conviction which is not only most unfair in itself but also, as Lady Astor pointed out, puts the police into an almost intolerable situation as having to adjudicate on what one person might. say to another when no complaint is made by the person accosted. The two simple straightforward clauses which are suggested in place of the unpopular ones are as follow, and seem to include all .that is necessary to keep order in the streets, without penalising any class or sex: — "Every persoii who, in any street or public place, wilfully causes annoyance to any person by words or behaviour shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for each ' offen<:e. Any constable or other peace officer may arrest without warrant any person committing an offence against this Act, provided that no person shall be taken into custody for sufch offence except upon complaint by or on behalf of the person aggrieved." It will be seen, therefore, that under the new Bill anyone annoyed ■would have the right of redress, but no person could be convicted except on the evidence of the annoyad party.

Lady Astor made one of her clear and well-directed appeals in support of the Bill, and said : "Our present laws go right in the teeth of British justice, in two i expects. First, they discriminate against cue particular class of persons; and, secondly, they permit the conviction of a person for a offence on the evidence of one police officer alone, with no evidence as to whether .annoyance has been caused, or how it was caused.

. . . It is'equally, unjust for a man or a woman to be convicted on the evidence of a single person." Lady Astor recalled the stir there was over the cases which occurred in Hyde Park, when some men were convicted of annoying women. These convictions, some of them were quashed on appeal, and it was universally agreed that where there was a charge involving so serious a stain on * man's character the evidence of the person annoyed should be obtained. The promoters of the Bill, remarked Lady Astofc agreed with that sentiment, but also were sure that the law should in all cases be applied to women as well as men. She told the House that each year between 5000 and 6000 women were convicted and branded under the existing laws. "We have tried appeals to these, rescue homes, and detention," «aid_ Lady Astor, "but we have always denied to them what every woman in the country should have, and that is common justice. I feel quite certain that there is not a member in this House who wishes to deny to any woman, no matter whom, common justice, and I do thjnk that it is time we amended this -law, not only for the women themselves, but for public decency and order in our streets." It is to be hoped that this effort for« plain justice will not meet that Die-Hard opposition, which is so powerful in the present Parliaments, and that the power for one man to get a conviction for a person on his own • unsupported evidence will be withdrawn. .

Some trenchant.' remark* by a. woman writer cm the subject of "Snobs Behind the Counter" deserve .mention. The fact that there are snobs who are on the public side of the counter has'often been demonstrated and commented upon, also the fact that some women are cruelly careless about the trouble they give to shop assistants in the way of "looking over" quantities of goods, and then going off without buying anything, leaving the unfortunate assistant with a heap of things to put back, in place, and with her time wasted so.that she cannot «how a good percentage of work for the day. But the other side of the story, and a just and reasonable one, is shown in a little story of snobbish treatment of a plain, elderly, and cheaply dressed woman who went to a jshop for the great and unusual pleasure of buying horself a new ,hat. Her appearance caused her to be summed up as a "dowd," and her unassuming manner as "nobody much" ; and the customer finds ft difficult to get the attention of any of the "youns ladies" who are engaged In earnest discussions about other people's business. They shift her on, one to another, nnd the remark that she wants something not expensive causes a "sniff" indescribable, and she wander* off to another less fashionable shop. Here she finds n "real lady" that is a gentlewoman at heart behind the' counter, one who smiles kindly upon her, and appears to take a personal interest in the inexpensive hat, which is finally bought with a great deal of pleasure. The writer is of opinion that if the shopper is showily dressed and vulgarly imperious in manner, the same girls behind the counter would have given her their best service, and ns tho modest shopper paid ready money, and did not loftily order goods to be put down in an already swollen account, she had leas civility. And perhaps she wtus right !•