column

I do not know a single woman who is in public and has not yet received insulting or threatening messages, including fantasies about what would be sexual with her if the author would one day meet her. It is a pest that these messages are part of everyday life for many women. You can ignore them, you can answer them, you can try to bring them to the display, you can make art out of them or talk about them in public, but you can hardly get rid of them. And sometimes the trouble really starts when you resist.

The Austrian former Greens MP Sigi Maurer has received this kind of mail and made it public. She had run past a beer shop in Vienna in May and shortly thereafter received news from the shopkeeper's Facebook account. She looked at his penis as if you were going to eat it, and next time she could "put it in his mouth without words and suck him down to the last drop." Although she has a fat butt, "but since you are prominent, I like to fuck you in your fat ass."

Maurer tweeted a screenshot of the news, with the name of the man and the address of his business, she wrote: "Now I have the feeling that his business is not very successful, but maybe in a city full of hipsters It's good to know which female-despising asshole you buy your beer from. "

Now Sigi Maurer should answer to the court, because the shopkeeper not only says that he did not write the news to Maurer himself, but finds that he also suffered economic and "immaterial damage". Maurer himself wrote on Twitter, the shopkeeper demanded 20,000 euros for the material damage and 40,000 euros "for the insult suffered", plus legal costs. (The detailed story can be found here.)

The right not to be silent

Maurer's legal options, however, are limited because private messages of this kind are not yet punishable in Austria. Since she has published the screenshots, it is disputed whether she is allowed to do so, or whether she thus creates a pillory or lynching justice to the rule of law.

There were also these kinds of allegations during the #metoo debate when women told stories on the internet about what had happened to them, and others said that they should clarify these matters legally instead of naming alleged perpetrators on the Internet. Only: Sometimes there is no legal clarification. Not everything that is perceived as harassing or violent is a criminal offense. And even if there is an offense, it does not exclude to additionally tell in public.

Maurer has done exactly what was recommended to many women in the #metoo debate: to defend themselves quickly in the event of harassment and not to complain years later. Years in which the alleged perpetrator has time to continue doing exactly as before.

It is always good to go through the possible legal ways to fight against harassment. Nobody has a duty to do that, because it can be very grueling to do that, it takes time and energy, and bad luck, even money. But everyone has a right not to be silent. But sometimes the way the law provides is very short.

The good of written hate messages

Now you could say that Sigi Maurer could have made the case public without naming the actual name of the shopkeeper. But why should she? To protect someone she believes has sent hate messages to her? Why would she want to protect such a man more than the women who could also be molested if they came near this beer shop? Another woman wrote to the same store on Twitter: "Every time I passed this shop ..., I was stupidly turned on / staring."

Sigi Maurer has made public the evidence she has for her case. That's the only good thing about written hate messages, compared to verbal harassment: it's easier to capture them. Anyone who speaks of a "pillory" here says nothing more than: Shut up and accept that others are just like you.

(More about the action "Germany speaks" can be found here.)

The pillory is an instrument of embarrassment. Sexual harassment is also such an instrument. Who insults women in the way that Sigi Maurer happened, and how it happens to many women every day wants to keep them small and humble.

No proof, but striking

The shopkeeper's guilt has not been proven, even if his reaction does not make him look good. The statement on his Facebook page that someone has been stranger to his computer is written in the same style as the news itself, with idiosyncratic punctuation, and that's not proof, but conspicuous. Maybe the man is innocent and the special style of writing invades anybody entering his shop like a demon, but even then he could have behaved differently to Maurer than to show them and say "offended".

Much has been talked about whether Sigi Maurer has behaved wrong, but what about the shopkeeper, who could have said: I am sorry that someone has written you something from my computer, that should not happen again. Instead, he behaves like the many others who want to silence women. Like someone who did not expect women to fight back.