When laws are impractical to be effective

THE story about an Empangeni mother confronting a man who took a video clip of her daughter (Videoing girls under scrutiny – ZO 4 July), has reference.

The frustrating thing in such instances is the impractical nature of the law.

The police and an attorney emphasise that the public cannot take the law into their own hands by confronting such a man and taking his equipment away to delete the footage.

One understands that, since to simply let the public loose on people who might innocently be filming or photographing something, will no doubt create conflict situations.

Yet, when witnessing a man deliberately filming your teenage daughter, you can bet on it that it is more than an ‘innocent’ act and, as a father, I would want to personally shove the cellphone up the perpetrator’s closest orifice.

The law, however, determines that you can get a protection order or summons the police to the scene.

What a joke!

Since you cannot physically restrain the perpetrator, you therefore have to kindly request that the mischief maker stays put while you summon the court officials and the judge to do something about the situation.

By the time this can happen, you would have had to feed the perpetrator in the meantime – assuming he has agreed not to run off – so that he doesn’t die of hunger.

You do need him alive to answer to his deeds. Sometimes, the law is an ass.

MC ROUX