[Closed] Women only train carriages

[img] [/img]

hels - Member

I am sure he means well (honest) but it is victim blaming

I don't see how it is. I don't like the idea but in itself it's not victim blaming, it's giving people more options. It could easily lead to ghettoisation if done wrong though and for sure that's where victim blaming comes in- "if you didn't want to get sexually assaulted, you should have gone in the women's coach!" But he's talking about a much wider initiative around it too not just a one-element "cure"

As far as enforcement goes, a full size mainline train's about a quarter of a km long with often 1 or 2 members of staff trying to run the whole thing, and between stations it's pretty isolating/enclosing. One carriage is more realistically enforcable with a small staff, and intrusions more easily defined and proven. So I suppose you could say it's[i] pragmatic. [/i] I just hate the normalisation/admission of failure.

But I'm a dude, so, spoke to a colleague who I know won't travel on public transport late at night, she's never had or observed a serious incident but fundamentally feels unsafe, I reckon it's as much a perception thing as the real risk. But she says she'd travel in a female only coach if there was one. Sample of one, conclusive.

Either way there's segregation, it's just that the sort of segregation you get from a woman's carriage still allows them to travel, whereas the sort of segregation from fear means they're not on the train at all. And maybe over time you can fix the underlying cause but do you want to wait years for that when there's a quick if less savoury fix?

Late night trains can be pretty grim for anyone, not just women, better policing and staffing is what's really needed imo. But fear of crime is complicated, just making crime rare doesn't always address the fear. Maybe this as part of a longer term improvement could be effective- don't know. Worth investigating?

It's hardly a new idea:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/women-only-train-carriages-could-introduced-4349573

[i] has also previously shown that 43 per cent of women aged between 18 and 34-years-old living in London had experienced sexual  harassment in public spaces.[/i]

And.

[i] “It is simply unacceptable that many women and girls adapt their daily lives in order to avoid being harassed on the street, public transport and in other public places from the park to the supermarket. This could include taking longer routes to work, having self-imposed curfews, avoiding certain means of transport,”[/i]

That's dreadful. Are Women really having to take these actions, in the UK?
I certainly had no idea, I've haven't witnessed a Woman receiving undesired approach from a man/men so didn't really have an appreciation of the scale.

I agree with CG, as a society we need to sort this and while WoC might reduce a certain number of incidents. I'm not convinced its the solution.

It's been suggested long before Perry, BR used to have them.

In fact Paddick discussed it as a policy in the mayoral elections years ago

Of course every time it's been suggested previously, both left and right said it was a bo*****s idea

Now it's been mooted by St Jeremy of course....

Travelling late on trains is generally nightmarish the drunks are often offensive to most travellers

OK. So a woman doesn't use the "wimmin only" carriage one night. She is assaulted, and it comes to court. What do you think the defence lawyer is going to say to her ?

My money is on: "why didn't you use the womens carriage - it is your fault - carrying that vagina about in public unprotected".

And that ladies and gentlemen is enforced segregation.

Why not bring back stoning for adultery while we are there.

Its well intentioned from what i can see but its up to women to decide if they want this or not as I cannot speak for what makes them feel safe in public.

[i]I'm not convinced its the solution.[/i]

I'm not sure anyone really thinks its the solution TBH, I think like a lot of stuff that comes from Westminster, it's a discussion starter, like we've done here.

Why not bring back stoning for adultery while we are there.

Good point. Women only carriages would be like introducing stoning for adultery.

b r - Member
Sex offences on London’s Tube and train network rose more than 32 per cent to record levels last year, according to figures released earlier this month.

But in context:
BTP recorded 1,399 sexual offences in 2014-15 in England, Scotland and Wales - up 282 on the previous year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33979568

There are +24000 trains running every day.
So simple maths would suggest 1 offence recorded per 6000 train journeys, but add in 2500 stations and you get to 1 offence per 6900 train journeys/stations.

The problem I have with taking it down to stats is that it depersonalises the issue. This isn't about the likelihood that someone gets sexually assaulted, each one of those is a traumatic event that impacts on someone's life and deserves to be considered as a thing not a statistic.

Are segregated carriages the right approach to take, I don't know, but it's worth a discussion if it might mean fewer women exposed to violence.

I've had a few unpleasant incidents on the Tube - don't know any of my female friends who haven't. If I have to get the tube or a train or a bus late at night I will carefully choose where I sit to try and minimise the chance of anything happening. So I'd probably use a women-only carriage, or zone (more likely on the new trains). Likewise, if I'm walking down a street in the dark I will be hyper-aware of who's around and will take evasive action like crossing the road to avoid a single male or group of men. (Men, you can help by making sure you don't accidentally follow a woman on her own - cross the road and it's obvious you're not a threat.)

However I really don't want to have to live like that, so I'd rather they weren't introduced and we didn't try to pretend that it was a workable long-term solution to the issue.

We need to try and improve attitudes as a whole across society, probably starting in schools and with the media.

Sample of one - I've experienced sexual harrassment more than once (from men and women). Come to think of it all occasions were whilst wearing a kilt. I still wouldn't see a carriage to myself on public transport as a solution, and I'm not going to stop wearing a kilt when I want to. I am aware of a friend who has also experienced sexual harrassment (from women) when wearing a kilt.

Ban skirts, I say! Trousers only or clearly everyone of both sexes just gets "a bit rapey".

What would the punishment be for committing an adulterous act in a women only carriage?

I don't see how it is. I don't like the idea but in itself it's not victim blaming, it's giving people more options.

It's a sticky wicket.

Victim blaming implies "it's your fault you were attacked; you deserve to be robbed; you were raped because you were asking for it" which are all bogus. No-one deserved to be beaten senseless, to be sexually harassed, everyone should be allowed to go about their business without someone else giving them a bad day.

However. We don't live in a perfect world. Whilst the onus shouldn't be on a victim to protect themselves from crime, the fact that crime is broadly carried out by criminals who care not for 'should,' it's therefore sensible to minimise that risk.

I've used this analogy before but, say I was in the pub and left my phone on the table whilst I went to the loo, and when I came out it was gone. Did I deserve to be robbed? No. Is it my fault it was stolen? No. Is there anything I could've done to mitigate risk? Wait, actually, yes there was. (Or as a more STW-friendly example; you might well have right of way but that won't do you much good when your bike's under the front wheels of a car.)

We should all be free to walk the streets, to take public transport without being harassed, whether we're female, male or anything else. But until we reach that utopia it's surely sensible to consider all options even if ultimately some of them are really poor ideas, and in the meantime take whatever steps we can to keep ourselves safe.

Now that this thread has run to three pages let's read what he said rather than what was reported:

Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself.

Outrageous!!!

hels - Member

OK. So a woman doesn't use the "wimmin only" carriage one night. She is assaulted, and it comes to court. What do you think the defence lawyer is going to say to her ?

My money is on: "why didn't you use the womens carriage - it is your fault - carrying that vagina about in public unprotected".

And if the judge doesn't instantly rip him a new arse, then that's a wider problem with the court system not with the concept here, should be addressed by that means. Ongoing process I reckon though.

(leaving courts/lawyers aside, I reckon there's a specific sort of arsehole who would see it as an invite/excuse though. And a lower grade of arsehole that's less likely to intervene because she's askin for it, the slaaaag. This becomes a balance of harm thing, don't know how it levels off.

But Hels- what do you say to the woman who won't travel on the train today, but would if there was a woman only carriage. That's who it's supposed to help. WTFU? Throw numbers at her? Take one for the team?

johnnystorm - Member

Now that this thread has run to three pages let's read what he said rather than what was reported:

Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself.

Outrageous!!!
Posted 2 minutes ago

Did he mention stoning women for adultery ?

OK. So a woman doesn't use the "wimmin only" carriage one night. She is assaulted, and it comes to court. What do you think the defence lawyer is going to say to her ?

My money is on: "why didn't you use the womens carriage - it is your fault - carrying that vagina about in public unprotected".

And that ladies and gentlemen is enforced segregation.

That's a very, very good point.

We see this in cyclist accident reports all the time. "Dave, 36, a keen cyclist from Dorset was killed yesterday after colliding with a Ford Transit. [i]The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.[/i]"

Even if it wasn't used as ammo in court (and I'm not convinced that it wouldn't, I think Hels is right), I have no doubts at all that it's how the media would spin it. And then where are we? Neanderthal lads concluding "oh, she's not in the women's coach, she must be well up for it."

[i] nickc - Member
I'm not convinced its the solution.I'm not sure anyone really thinks its the solution TBH, I think like a lot of stuff that comes from Westminster, it's a discussion starter, like we've done here.[/i]

Ok, fair comment. Perhaps I should have said that like others, I agree that segregation doesn't really seem to be the answer.

I agree with Cougar's post at the top of page 3, multi faceted approach to altering behaviour of men who are inclined to behave in such ways.

Not sure what you can do with a heightened or disproportionate fear and threat perception of some people. Just got to try to stop the bad behaviour.

[img] [/img]

Since you'd have to police who goes into a women only carriage then how about just policing the whole platform & train properly.

I'm no expert on train security, but I'd hazard it's easier to police a single carriage than an entire train.

Why not bring back stoning for adultery while we are there.

Dunno about that, but I'd be happy to support stoning for wild exaggeration.

The seem to manage security okay on planes.

And anyway in effect by defining a 'safe' carriage you'd be saying the rest of the train is a free for all, nice 😥

The seem to manage security okay on planes.

That's because being thrown off is a considerably greater deterrent.

And anyway in effect by defining a 'safe' carriage you'd be saying the rest of the train is a free for all, nice

It's not a 'safe' carriage, it's a women-only carriage. If you can't see the difference, I'm not sure I can explain it.

But that does raise an interesting question. Is it particularly wise to encourage all the women who self-identify as "vulnerable" or are otherwise a little nervous of travelling alone at night to sit in one place where all the weirdos know where they are? Carriage 1, women only; carriage 2; sexual predators (buffet next door).

To drag out the cyclists metaphor (as I may have a fighting chance with that one) what you want is more women travelling about at night as they feel safe doing so, in the same way that we want more cyclists on city streets.

Punishing people by forcing them out of public spaces because they can't currently so something every human being has a right to be able to do safely, is not addressing the problem, it is exacerbating the problem.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. If we look overseas to more advanced, forward thinking societies we see that a solution to this problem has already been devised....

[img] [/img]

Scottish Widows has gone a bit OTT.

You do realise those are all men with Uzis under those black dresses.

Not exhaustive, but why not introduce;

Clear tubes for women to walk through from their front door direct to the destination of their choice, be it station/work/coffee shop/mall/park/hairdressers etc.

It would/could look like that old marble helterskelter game from the 70's and keep women segregated from men, and clearly vise versa.

Then each sex could point and laugh at each other for either being "included" or "excluded".

Men and Women are both sexual predators, this isn't a new thing. This has been with the human race since we became the human race. The situation we appear to be in currently is one of threat from each other, be that men/men or men/women or women/men or women/women.

I've no answer other than to implement right now my solution above. 🙄

P.S and can I be allowed a heavy sigh that we are still debating this in 2015.

P.S and can I be allowed a heavy sigh that we are still debating this in 2015.

But Corbyn hasn't changed any of his opinions since the 80s.

can I be allowed a heavy sigh that we are still debating this in 2015.

Of course, and I shall join you if I may. But actually debating it rather than ignoring it is a step forward.

Yup, at least you now have free speech...

You should think yourself lucky 🙄

What's the problem with this? They have their own toilets and changing rooms and the middle lane on 3 lane carriageways seem to be exclusively set aside for women.
Didn't realise Jeremy Clarkson was in the running though.

If we are all using clear tubes to get around can we add some water and turn our cities into an epic waterpark 😀

And the girls can all wear bikinis. Runs off to high five Quagmire

[img] [/img]

😆

Brilliant

Better resolution CCTV with audio and better coverage for evidence gathering and more importantly, increase in officers on trains and platforms, not only a visual deterant to would be offenders, but also there to provide intervention if needed. Education will work on the clueless, but not the determined. Handcuffs and cells are the only way of taking them out of circulation.

If we are all using clear tubes to get around can we add some water and turn our cities into an epic waterpark

Wet t-shirts and better resolution CCTV?

Well, that escalated quickly!

According to my paper of choice whose website I have been reading at lunchtime, Corbyn said women only carriages had been proposed to him by some women, and that it would be considered.

Hardly unreasonable thing for him to say, is it?

Here's what JC actually said (taken from Jeremy for Leader dot com):

[b]End street harassment[/b]
Posted on August 25, 2015
It is unacceptable that many women and girls adapt their daily lives in order to avoid being harassed on the street, public transport, and in other public places from the park to the supermarket. This could include taking longer routes to work, having self imposed curfews, or avoiding certain means of transport.

The excellent work of individuals, campaigns and groups like Everyday Sexism and Stop Street Harassment have highlighted just how prevalent street harassment is and the extent to which many women feel uncomfortable, anxious, and unsafe just going about their daily routines.

If elected Labour Leader I would work with women and women’s organisations to take steps to raise awareness and tackle it. As a start I am putting forward the following proposals:

[b]Working together[/b]
Call regional summits of local authorities, universities, transport authorities, police, women’s organisations and campaigns to stop street harassment to discuss practical steps that will tackle this.

[b]Elected representatives[/b]
Encourage local authorities to appoint cabinet positions for women’s safety.
Create a ministerial role for women’s safety.

[b]Police hotline[/b]
Sexual assault and harassment - such as being followed, groped, and public exposure is under reported. Many women feel intimidated, violated, too upset and worried that they will not be taken seriously by the police. I would look into setting up a hotline, which is run by police but dedicated to reporting harassment and assault.

This would be staffed 24/7 by women, and to which women could text or call to report with the confidence that they will not be dismissed. If a home visit is needed for a statement, this should also be done by women.

[b]Public awareness[/b]
Run an advertising campaign on public transport, billboards, TV and cinemas aimed at combating street sexism, and raise awareness of the effects of street harassment.

[b]Consultation on public transport[/b]
[b]Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself. However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome - and also if piloting this at times and modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest.[/b]

[b]Licensing[/b]
Legislate for tougher rules on what licence holders need to do in case of assault on their premises. Include reporting assault and how to respond to assault in the procedure to get a licence.

[b]Tackle drive-by harassment[/b]
Encourage the roll-out to other areas of the successful Bradford scheme to tackle the harassment of women, and encourage police to use public order laws and legislation protecting people from harassment to target suspects.

Hopefully, despite not reading the OP's link, a few people might read this. Victim blaming...victim blaming everywhere. 🙂

EDIT: and despite it being mentioned 83 times in the thread, no mention of [i]segregation[/i].

@Capt Flash. Indeed. I see some education in my future!

@molgrips indeed, but some suggestions are once looked at with fresh eyes, not very good.

Corbyn said women only carriages had been proposed to him by some women, and that it would be considered.

Hardly unreasonable thing for him to say, is it?

Sounds like the rantings of a hard-left Zimbabwe/North Korean type extremist living in the 1980s to me.

No wonder people are flocking to support Liz Kendall - Tony Blair's favourite candidate.

Here's what JC actually said

Deadly - you've been around here long enough to know that nobody is intetested in facts when there's a good rant to be had !!

@deadlydarcy, I'd suggest more officers on transport at those times he alludes to would be more effective than gender specific carriages. If a woman chooses not to sit in a segregated carriage, she could still be assaulted. A more visible presence from police may deter and/or provide intervention.

Indeed DrJ - been guilty of it myself lots. 😆

but some suggestions are once looked at with fresh eyes, not very good.

Absoultely. So if they are formally looked at, they'll get rejected. Still not seeing a problem? If he starts crusading about it, as seems to be the fashion for politicans these days - picking small issues that they think are populist to distract people from what they are really doing - then he'll go down in my estimation.

Anyway this just goes to show how utterly shit the media are. i's headline this morning IIRC was "Corbyn backs women only carriages". Which is a pretty shitty piece of misrepresentation.

[i] 83 times[/i]

Oh my!

Forgive me if this question has already been asked..... What specifically would the Ladies of STW suggest to Mr Corbin, were they to get the chance?

I would work with women and women’s organisations to take steps to raise awareness and tackle it.

That's the crux of that sound bite for me. He's not saying "I will do [something] regardless" but rather "I'll talk to people who are actually affected to establish the best course of action." The rest of it is our glorious media's lazy journalism. Quelle surprise.

Yeah, well, you can prove anything with "facts". I prefer my opinions to be knee jerk and ill informed.

Create a ministerial role for women’s safety.

WTF? Why not just have a person responsible for peoples safety, oh yeah that'll be the Home Secretary then, two of the last 3 being women.

Jesus this women's safety minister guff is something you'd get from any of the Blair or Cameron governments and Corbyn is supposed to be different and the answer to our prayers!!

Oh my!

Well, using a quick cmd-F, it's more like 20ish I reckon...but I was hoping it might be a bit obvious that I was exaggerating, though perhaps you got a bit excited about having something to pick at. 😀

And despite there being no mention of segregation (for christ's sake, take a look at what real segregation means), or "forced separation", people kept mentioning it.

The text of the statement from JC's website seems altogether reasonable to me. As Cougar has paraphrased, JC will actually talk to women and related pressure groups and say, "Hey, I don't experience this kind of thing on a day to day basis, but you guys are saying you do...so tell me, if I had some kind of power to change things, what would you like me to do?"

Fear not The Brick Dragon is here for you

If it is the sort of guff we get from them then why did neither do it then ?

Sorry the brick damn me and my facts 😳

[i] though perhaps you got a bit excited about having something to pick at.[/i]
No, I'm responsible for at least one use of the 'S' word, so it's a fair cop.

[i] The text of the statement from JC's website seems altogether reasonable to me. [/i]
Yeap.

dragon - Member

Create a ministerial role for women’s safety.

WTF? Why not just have a person responsible for peoples safety, oh yeah that'll be the Home Secretary then, tow of the last 3 being women.

Jesus this guff is something you'd get from any of the Blair or Cameron governments and Corbyn is supposed to be different and the answer to our prayers!!

Calm down. There already exists a Minister of State for Crime Prevention, there is no reason at all why there can't a junior minister for women’s safety.

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state--21

.

Corbyn is supposed to be different and the answer to our prayers!!

Well I suggest that in your case dragon you just carry on voting Tory 💡

Jesus this guff is something you'd get from any of the Blair or Cameron governments and Corbyn is supposed to be different and the answer to our prayers!!

No, it's not.

Cameron/Blair etc would've bigged up a great new policy that solves all the problems and stuck to it. Corbyn is simply saying that the idea has been raised and should be considered.

THAT is the key difference between Corbyn and the rest. Actual rational consideriation and debate, rather than media driven manipulation, ideology and zealotry.

But they are already working on it and with advice from one of the groups Corbyn wants to speak to, see

[url= http://www.btp.police.uk/advice_and_information/how_we_tackle_crime/project_guardian.aspx ]Trasport Police - Project Guardian[/url] which has been running since 2013.

Plus from February:

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/challenging-violence-against-women-and-girls-on-uk-transport ]Government speeches challenging violence against women and girls on uk transport[/url]

damn me and my facts 😈

But they are already working on it and with advice from one of the groups Corbyn wants to speak to

So why are you getting hysterical about it ?

So.. people are already debating something, and Corbyn has simply acknowledged that. And he's a raving lunatic why exactly?

Just playing catch-up and started writing then realised that I would sound like Mary Whitehouse! Some of you may have heard the name, if you're old enough that is. 😉

So.. people are already debating something, and Corbyn has simply acknowledged that. And he's a raving lunatic why exactly?

Because the priority in this leadership contest is to attack Corbyn.

Besides, the other 3 candidates haven't much to say.

realised that I would sound like Mary Whitehouse! Some of you may have heard the name, if you're old enough that is.

Preferred her Experience if I'm honest.

Milky Milky

media driven manipulation, ideology and zealotry

Ohh yeah.. who started that trend..

New Blair wasn't it 🙄 then the fat controller simply continued in the same vein, then post that MilliBilly stepped in very nicely..

and alls well in Politics then because it's still like that, Concubine isn't going to change that either, just use the same templates set out before him.

Can we not thread drift into whether or not Corbyn is the messiah or just a very naughty boy please? There's already a thread for that, and the original topic is really interesting IMHO.

Cougar - that was a pretty good link you posted. Don't see why some of that couldn't be taken and used in senior school.

According to my paper of choice whose website I have been reading at lunchtime, Corbyn said women only carriages had been proposed to him by some women, and that it would be considered.

Hardly unreasonable thing for him to say, is it?

Well he could have said he rejects segregation. What if the stats said most muggings were by blacks and people wanted white only carriages.

Why would it matter if he rejects it? Why would it be the right thing to even show his opinion?

His job as leader would be to listen to those with a stake in it. Not stamp his personal point of view all over it.

IMO this is a lesson in leadership for the rest of the daft sods.

Having read this thread thank you molgrips for a sensible comment.

The laughable part of all this is the media reporting as though its a new policy and law, and the "attacks" by the idiots running against him and in the conservative party.

it shows how bad politics is in the country

What if the stats said most muggings were by blacks and people wanted white only carriages.

Well white only carriages would be pointless as it wouldn't protect black passengers from being mugged.

Hope that helps, don't hesitate if you've got any more questions.

What about gingers?

What if the stats said most muggings were by blacks and people wanted white only carriages.

There is an intrinsic imbalance in gender relations at some level, unlike race relations. The unfortunate fact that women are on average smaller and physically weaker than men has subtle but profound implications to society I think.

Its easier for them to hide in cupboards?

Calm down. There already exists a Minister of State for Crime Prevention, there is no reason at all why there can't a junior minister for women’s safety.

So, you think wimmins safety is only important enough to qualify for a 'junior' ministerial role?

Chauvinist pig!

What if the stats said most muggings were by blacks and people wanted white only carriages.

As long as you make sure they're not forced to sit at the back..

dragon - Member

WTF? Why not just have a person responsible for peoples safety, oh yeah that'll be the Home Secretary then, two of the last 3 being women.

TBH that's not really the Home Secretary's job any more, it's more about blaming foreigners for everything and whenever that doesn't work blaming Wanton Criminality and being Tough On Crime and stamping on some faces forever.

hels - Member

To drag out the cyclists metaphor (as I may have a fighting chance with that one) what you want is more women travelling about at night as they feel safe doing so, in the same way that we want more cyclists on city streets.

Punishing people by forcing them out of public spaces because they can't currently so something every human being has a right to be able to do safely, is not addressing the problem, it is exacerbating the problem.

The problem is, just like with cycling some people have already been forced out of these public spaces. And completely out, not just into the corner. I meant it when I asked, what would you say to the people who stand to benefit from it, the ones who already feel forced out and who it's hardest to help back in? Not just the afraid but the already-victims.

The helmet metaphor's a bit clunky but bike lanes work well I think... Yes sometimes when there's a bike lane, cyclists in the road get a hard time for not being in the cycle lane. It's a real problem. But it gets people on bikes and in cycle lanes, who otherwise wouldn't be on bikes at all. So, balance of harm/benefit, and a pragmatic short term aid for a long term problem

And yes the correct solution is to make the streets so safe and so visibly safe that everyone is happy to ride in them; but that's hard, and takes time, might even be impossible, in the meantime bike lanes can be positive. I hardly ride in 'em and sometimes it's a problem but I'm glad they're there for people who can't or won't ride in the road.

If women only carriages are a good option, then that's pretty shit, it just says so much bad about us. But maybe they are, and maybe it is just shit. Worth finding out?

His job as leader would be to listen to those with a stake in it. Not stamp his personal point of view all over it.

But to a large extent this what Cameron does all the time e.g. selling off the Forestry Commission everyone says 'No thanks', policy scrapped, Cameron attacked for doing U-turn. This is Corbyn doing the same, chuck out idea, everyone says it's rubbish and back to the drawing board we go.

I'll admit that Cameron does do it for some stuff. Bloody Michael Gove is worse.

This is Corbyn doing the same, chuck out idea

It's not Corbyn's policy or even his idea, and he's not claiming it as his idea! The media are attempting to portray it as such though and it's really working.

Why would it matter if he rejects it? Why would it be the right thing to even show his opinion?

In elections the voters like to know the opinions of candidates so they can decide which opinion they like best.