In today’s Straits Times, an article, ‘Magistrate’s complaints on the rise’:
Examples of frivolous complaints [emphasis mine] seen by lawyers included one filed by a parent upset with another after their teenage sons fought, and another by a woman harassed by a former boyfriend’s numerous calls.
Then, there was the case of a man harassed by his girlfriend’s suitor, who sent him obscene messages.
The court spokesman said many simply see the process as a means of settling their grievances.
Can we get this straight?
It is not frivolous to expect legal protection from harassment.
It is not frivolous because, oh, ‘they had a relationship and lovers’ tiffs are lovers’ tiffs’.
It is an egregious ignoring of real and valid societal concerns, such as protecting real, valid, actual human beings (ergo, women) from abusive behaviour.
This must be an act of supreme cognitive dissonance for the author to use the word harassed without thinking that harassment means a disturbing, discomforting, threatening act or series of acts, and instead using the adjective —
what was it?
— right. Frivolous.
Rape is about power. Abuse is about power. Harassment is a form of abuse.
Also, if one’s former partner is harassing one’s current partner, as in the second example cited, then yes, that too is not frivolous. It describes a dangerous individual who claims ownership of his ex-girlfriend, dehumanising her, and behaving violently towards her current partner.
These are Things That Are Not Frivolous, brought to you by the letter F.