For some months now I have been hearing about a proposed bill heading to the Taiwan Parliament that would impose a large fine (30,000 Taiwan dollars, about 940 US dollars) on "anyone attempting to prevent breastfeeding in public." Breastfeeding advocates the world over have heralded this bill as a model for laws elsewhere. However, I have been unable to find a copy of the proposed Taiwanese law. Before I support penalties, I want to know what conduct is being outlawed. Is the Taiwan bill going to impose this fine on owners and employees of public accommodations or will anyone be subject to it? What constitutes "preventing" breastfeeding? Should a store owner who harasses a breastfeeding customer in any way be fined? In my view, absolutely. Public accommodations enjoy certain benefits from the state and are regulated so that they can be truly public. Should a passerby in the park who makes a rude remark be fined? In my view, no. Regulating speech is dangerous business. If I limit your ability to say things with which I disagree, you may limit my ability to say things with which you disagree. Down that road, I don't get to say much.
But this post isn't really about what conduct should be fined and what conduct should be endured. When I find out what the Taiwan law actually says, then I'll see if it is appropriate to go on about free speech and the need to suffer fools in order to protect our own rights. This post is about what I found in my search for the text of the Taiwan bill.
Back in 2004 the Scottish Parliament was debating the ultimately successful passage of a bill imposing a large fine on stopping a woman from breastfeeding a child under age two in licensed premises (what would be called "public accommodations" in the U.S.). Now this is my kind of law. And this was also my kind of debate. A representative of the National Childbirth Trust said:
We therefore welcome this landmark legislation, which will establish a mothers' right to breastfeed her baby whenever and wherever they are together and convey the message that breastfeeding is a positive choice to be supported by society rather than discouraged.
I admit, the little hairs on the back of my neck go up every time I see breastfeeding described as a choice. After giving birth, one can choose not to breastfeed but lactating happens when you give birth. But otherwise that statement is right on: mothers must be able to breastfeed their babies wherever they are. However, there was a statement in the Scottish Parliament that day I find more interesting and certainly more memorable. Then-Member of the Scottish Parliament Carolyn Leckie said the following; suitable for framing, T-shirt or refrigerator magnet:
All right, some U.K. friend is going to have to tell me what "advertising hoardings" are but Leckie makes a great point with a suitable amount of outrage. It isn't breasts people object to – just breasts with children attached to them.
“Advertising hoardings” are billboards–the honking great colorful advertisements along the sides of freeways designed to distract drivers from what they are supposed to be doing–tits being a great way to accomplish this!
On Facebook it’s reportedly nipples that are objectionable to FB’s management, whether visible or with children attached to them.
And I continue to appreciate the woman who suggested that if breastfeeding offends a person, they should feel free to put a blanket over their head.
Claire Winstone´s last blog ..The Relationship between Artificial Oxytocin (Pitocin) Use at Birth for Labor Induction or Augmentation and the Psychosocial Functioning of Three-year-olds
Twitter: Jakearyehmarcus
Thanks Claire!
Facebook image posting policy is not limited to nipples. See my posts on this, particularly “It’s All About the Areola.” http://www.sustainablemothering.com/2009/01/03/it-is-all-about-areola/
The Taiwanese parliament is not likely to give a crap about the Anglo constitutional principles of protecting free speech (let alone the ‘slippery slope’ argument or providing adequate notice of the conduct being prohibited by a law. This law prohibits not only the prevention of public breastfeeding but also the “attempt” to do so. It’s an “inchoate” offense, if my 27 year old memory of criminal law serves me (Jake knows this stuff better than I). Thus, it is totally up to the police to decide whether you were attempting to do the bad thing, which by definition in this scenario DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN. It’s a bad law. PERIOD. It threatens punishment for attempting to do something that is so vaguely described that you really can’t be certain what would offend the law itself. So, as a model for a totalitarian state, it’s probably not bad.
Twitter: Jakearyehmarcus
Got a link to the text of the law Steve? The descriptions in the press are too vague for me to come to any conclusions about what it actually does.
“After giving birth, one can choose not to breastfeed but lactating happens when you give birth.”
And THAT is why I like you. Breastfeeding is NOT a choice – it is a biological component of pregnancy (I wouldn’t say birth, but our breasts often begin leaking before birth). Women can certainly stop themselves from lactating, but if they don’t, their body will just do it anyway.
I always relate this to menses. Women can find a way to prevent their period (hormones, hysterectomy) but if they do nothing, menstruation will simply come. It’s like breathing. It’s not a choice. To NOT do it would be a choice.
oh, but I forgot to say that I think even the public should be subjected to some sort of punishment for harassing a breastfeeding mother. Free speech only goes so far. Harassment is nothing more than telling somebody something they don’t want to hear, but it’s still a crime. Perhaps the harassment could be civil, instead of criminal, but people still need to be aware that there are repercussions for treating breastfeeding mothers like criminals. I think it causes a lot of harm to those mothers, and babies.
Twitter: Jakearyehmarcus
@theFeministBreeder Actually when “harassment” is a crime it consists of far more than “telling somebody something they don’t want to hear.” That alone would not be a crime in the U.S. Here is a link to one of Pennsylvania’s “harassment” laws for example: http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.027.009.000.html . It is particular kinds of speech plus specific intent plus some other conduct.
I think someone saying, in a non-threatening way, “I think you should not breastfeed here” is rude and wrong but, if said by someone who has no power over you (not an employer or an owner of a public accommodation), is and should be perfectly legal.
Well, “power” can come in many forms, which makes me think of a few recent incidents. In Lincoln Park over the summer, the harasser stood over the mother yelling at her telling her she was calling the police and threatened to have the mother arrested. That’s threatening behavior, and it shouldn’t be tolerated. Her “power” was that she could dial the phone, and have the police (who may or may not know breastfeeding laws, like the stupid police who answer the Denny’s call last year) sort out whether the mother should go to jail or not. Now, of course WE know the mother couldn’t be arrested for breastfeeding in public in Illinois, but is there nothing to stop this woman from getting up in this mother’s face, in front of her children, threatening to have her sent to jail? People should have the right to walk freely in public spaces without being threatened by other ignorant people. This kind of thing makes a mother scared to leave the house with her baby, and certainly contributes to the early cessation of breastfeeding.
People are free to be sexist and racist in the privacy of their own homes, but when you start approaching random people on the street and yelling in their faces over a sheer hatred of their difference, it’s time to call the police on THEM. Women and children need to be protected from this hate speech and harassment.
Twitter: Jakearyehmarcus
Looking at the harassment statute I linked to, you can see there are lots of words in it that are subject to interpretation. Whether the Chicago park incident was harassment under the law is a good question. It might not have been. I don’t feel threatened by being yelled at by most people but many people do find all yelling threatening. I feel comfortable yelling back but many women don’t. The lines have to be drawn somewhere that leaves as much freedom as possible.
If a statute is going to limit speech near a breastfeeding woman, it would need to be very carefully drafted to speech that is actually dangerous. Being yelled at is not in and of itself dangerous. I know how harmful it is to women who are trying to breastfeed in peace but limiting the speech of sexists and racists is no more legitimate than limiting my speech. Does yelling at a breastfeeding woman create a physical danger? Generally, no.
People are not just free to be racist and sexist in their own homes. They are free to be racist and sexist anywhere as long as they are not in space owned by someone else or are employers or owners of public accommodations.
The language in the Pennsylvania law makes me think that a lawyer could have argued harassment in the case of the Rogers Park mom –
A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures;
I would argue that this person intended to harass (annoy, alarm) the breastfeeding mother with threats of imprisonment – and whether the threat was empty or not could not have been known by the mother because she may not have known Illinois law. If the mother felt that she and her child were in danger of facing charges, then the attacker has achieved her goal.
I’m not saying a comment overheard may constitute harassment, but getting in somebody’s face certainly should be. It’s intimidation. And not everyone can (or should be expected to) yell right back. Now, of course that’s what *I* would do – I’d probably phone the police myself so they could explain The Right to Breastfeed act to her. However, we can’t expect everyone to handle threats with returned force.
Well, at least *I* don’t think so. It’s still open to interpretation.
@Jake, just FYI: to an infant, their mother being yelled at can feel like a physical threat because the child has no way of knowing whether there is a limit to the hostility and “violence” of the yelling. Babies are dependent on their parents to protect them and a parent being yelled at involves the possibility of danger both to mother, and to baby. So even if yelling doesn’t generally present a physical danger, it is perceived as such by the baby, hence mothers being afraid to leave their homes with their babies. The yelling causes very real distress in babies and we know from research that the more often an infant produces stress hormones the more the developing nervous system tilts in the direction of hypervigilance/fight/flight/freeze, etc.
Claire Winstone´s last blog ..Stunning Picture of a Stunning Circumstance!
Twitter: Jakearyehmarcus
@TheFeministBreeder and @Claire, I know that for the mother and the baby it feels (and often is) threatening. The difficulty is in the standard of proof. I had to deal with similar language in Protection from Abuse cases. Convincing a judge that someone felt threatened because the person was too close or to loud or had been violent in the past – difficult beyond reason. I worked with a woman who was yelled at by mall security who moved in very close. She ultimately weaned her son out of fear she would reexperience the trauma. There is no question in my mind that it is assault. But writing a statute that refers to speech alone (as the Taiwan statute might – honestly I still haven’t see the language) is not the solution. For a public breastfeeding statute to protect without unconstitutionally limiting speech it would need to describe more than speech. There is a place between speech and actual physical contact that is indeed more than speech and is threatening and dangerous.