Search

"Sexual Harassment in the UK Parliament: Lessons from the #MeToo Era" by Christina Julios is a comprehensive book that examines the impact of the #MeToo movement on the male-dominated culture of legislatures, with a focus on the UK Parliament. Julios analyzes specific cases of sexual harassment in British politics and explores the broader sociocultural, historical, and legal contexts of sexual harassment in British society. The book also discusses the efforts made by the UK Parliament to address sexual harassment and reflects on the lessons learned from the #MeToo movement. Overall, this well-documented book provides valuable insights into the intersection of gender and power in politics and contributes to the scholarship on gender and politics in the UK and the Global North. [Extracted from the article]

Since the #MeToo movement, several countries have taken steps to address sexual harassment in politics (for example, the United States, United Kingdom and Canada). While researchers have evaluated the electability of candidates accused of sexual harassment, less is known about what the public thinks should happen when elected officials engage in this behaviour. Utilizing an innovative module from the 2019 Canadian Election Study, we assess the steps voters believe legislatures should take when an MP sexually harasses someone. Our results demonstrate that a vast majority of the public believes that MPs should face consequences when they commit sexual harassment, including potential removal from office. We also find that women are more likely than men to believe MPs should be punished when they are accused of sexual harassment. These findings have relevance for legislatures globally, revealing the importance of transparent, independent processes to address harassment and violence in the political sphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Canadian and British Houses of Commons have both recently adopted formal rules to address the problem of sexual misconduct in their parliaments. Using Feminist Institutionalism, we examine how these rules have been constrained or enabled by parliamentary privilege in both countries. As a result of their divergent historical approaches to privilege, we argue that the British House of Commons' new rules are better suited to address this issue relative to its Canadian counterpart. This outcome has differential consequences for women and minorities who are the most vulnerable to abuse in each parliament. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]