A panel of three judges in the UK have ruled that the term “bald” constituted sexual harassment during an unfair dismissal case.
Workers in the UK will now have to be careful about the banter they partake in with their fellow employees, with a panel of judges ruling that the use of the term “bald” was sexual harassment while deliberating an unfair dismissal case.
The three ruling members of the panel — who acknowledged their own follically challenged craniums during the ruling — concluded that the term was an insult disproportionally levelled at men, and as such constituted sexual harassment.
According to a report by The Telegraph, the panel found in favour of Tony Finn, who was allegedly referred to using the term “bald” by factory supervisor Jamie King during a row which broke out on the shop floor of a cask making company in West Yorkshire.
Having also been referred to as a term beginning with the letter “c” which was euphemistically referred to as being of “Anglo-Saxon” origin, Mr. Finn alleged that he was the victim of sexual harassment, a claim that the panel of three judges found to be substantiated.
“It is difficult to conclude other than that Mr King uttered those words with the purpose of violating [Mr Finn’s] dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him,” The Telegraph notes the judges as ruling.
“In our judgment, there is a connection between the word ‘bald’ on the one hand and the protected characteristic of sex on the other,” it continued, before also noting that while women can also be bald, the three judges could “vouchsafe [that] baldness is much more prevalent in men than women”.
“The tribunal therefore determines that by referring to the claimant as a ‘bald c—’ … Mr King’s conduct was unwanted, it was a violation of the claimant’s dignity, it created an intimidating environment for him, it was done for that purpose, and it related to the claimant’s sex,” the ruling concluded.
While the UK has now become infamous for its censorship laws which frequently see the likes of transgenderism-sceptical feminists and edgy comedians receive visits by the police, authorities in the country now seem like they want to expand censorship even further when it comes to the digital sphere.
Seemingly not happy with the country’s draconian “hate speech” laws, senior politicians such as Home Secretary Priti Patel and Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries now want to see so-called “legal but harmful” content be preemptively censored by social media giants, all in the name of “safety”.
“There is lots of content on social media that is illegal and harmful to children,” said one Whitehall insider on the push by Boris Johnson’s government for further speech controls.
“We want to give [the UK government’s media regulator] powers to require companies to mitigate harm on their platforms,” they continued, referring to plans allowing the UK government to criminally sanction big tech bosses who don’t sufficiently censor content on their platforms.