Stella Creasey is on a guest post invoking SEX as a protected characteristic for legislation!

And suddenly it hit Stella: that a misogyny law without input of any women's group might not be a good look if the winds, indeed, change- in this potentially new climate, that apparently doesn't generally equate women with boundaries summarily to the KKK anymore.

Time was short, and the easiest way to check the 'dialogue with women box' - without any hazzle that might alienate stonewall - was going on mumsnet the day before D-day.

Exactly - it is 11th hour stuff.

So, if I understand this right, and Creasy did really not consult with women's groups (?) but with stonewall.... that speaks for itself, really.

This is either some part of the larger attempt to redefine 'woman' (like in Scotland fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/), or just an easy way to gather browny points with voters and the stonewall crowd.

Then the Green Party Scandal hit, which gave the whole wider issue of self-ID and safe guarding a disturbing 'some furries wear nappies, get over it'-spin. It was so disturbing, indeed, that as a consequence Caroline Lucas even talked about meeting one of those unspeakable women's groups.

And suddenly it hit Stella: that a misogyny law without input of any women's group might not be a good look if the winds, indeed, change- in this potentially new climate, that apparently doesn't generally equate women with boundaries summarily to the KKK anymore.

Time was short, and the easiest way to check the 'dialogue with women box' - without any hazzle that might alienate stonewall - was going on mumsnet the day before D-day.

There's a problem though isn't there? If aggressive threatening behaviour is punished, women have a job on our hands to say men are being aggressive and threatening to us, not just being 'complimentary' or 'slightly awkward suitors'.

Hate crime/speech is a bit of a tough one. There needs to be particular deterrents against people going out of their way to target people, there should be tough punishments. Throwing a brick through a mosque window should be treated more seriously than throwing a brick through - say WHSmiths, because it is intended to intimidate a community, not just an act of random vandalism.

LOL. I see rat is now on the NSPCC thead going on about how we have shut down another important thread. Naughty women, asking questions that people find awkward. Ducking stools for you lot

I mean, we all agree the crossdresser shouldn't have been beaten up and the violent bloke should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But surely the court case should illuminate what actually happened and what the motive for the crime was?

A violent bloke sees a crossdresser walking down the street and beats him up. The bloke thinks he has seen a failed, probably gay, man and thinks the crossdresser is an abhorrent aberrant. The crossdresser thinks the bloke got violent because he saw a woman he didn't like.

What hate crime has the bloke committed? Misogynistic? Or homophobic? And does it matter whether the crossdresser defines themselves as trans or does not define themselves as trans? And if it does matter, how could the bloke have known how the crossdresser defined themselves? So why is the perception of the victim the only factor of relevance?

It's ludicrous.

I think I would do away with hate crime and push for adequate and forceful policing of agressive and threatening behaviour.

This sounds completely sensible.

Apart from possibly a robbery going wrong I can't think of any situation where beating someone up isn't motivated by hate.

Also this.

I think it is fair enough that if someone beats up a bloke for 'looking gay' it should be a hate crime

What if someone beats up a bloke just for looking a bit odd? Or just for the fun of it? In the examples I gave if the Goths, poshcschoolboy and homeless man had been gay you think that is a hate crime but not if they are straight?

To paraphase Gene Hunt - can you give me an example of beating someone up because you really like them?

Apart from possibly a robbery going wrong I can't think of any situation where beating someone up isn't motivated by hate.

I can’t take Creasy seriously.

The lifetime of harassment and misogyny we experience from puberty, is exactly why so many of us are against the GRA changes.

I don’t see how she doesn’t understand that?

How can she be so unsupportive of women and then ask for our support. At the eleventh hour.

If she was any women’s champion she’d be on this a lot sooner. I just don’t buy it.

I think I would do away with hate crime and push for adequate and forceful policing of agressive and threatening behaviour.

Me too

Ha, I was thinking about the Gene Hunt quote earlier. Quite ridiculous that one of the most appallingly sexist and homophobic characters of recent times should be the vehicle to point out that violence and threats are wrong whatever motivates them.

Why exactly is the beating of a man by a racist tangibly worse than the beating of a woman by a misogynist? There are all sorts of evil motivations in the hearts of human beings. We already make a distinction between deliberately killing and accidentally doing so, and I genuinely think we should not attempt to clairvoyantly discern the reasons for attacks and threats beyond establishing motive.

Re Creasy, the thing worth bearing in mind is that she goes for very, very soft targets as a way of raising her own profile and looking like she is a fab campaigning backbencher.

What sane person is really going to argue in favour of payday loan companies or upskirting? Or against equal NHS access for NI women?

Essentially she argues for motherhood and apple pie, gets her face all over the papers and TV, doesn't draw ire from any reasonable quarters, and steadily raises her profile.

I don't think we'll ever see her putting her head above the parapet where it really counts.

That's not to say that the causes she espouses aren't worthy - I just wish she'd use her ability and education to tackle the really tough issues too. But she won't.

I was thinking of that very line, hackmum.

I'm not sure what I think about the notion of hate crime either. I think categorising certain behaviours as clear criminal offences and prosecuting them properly will do the job.

Really the problem is that the police do not take seriously racist/misogynist/homophobic incidents etc - that's why the concept of hate crime was introduced.

I think it is fair enough that if someone beats up a bloke for 'looking gay' it should be a hate crime. Just as burning down a shop and writing "burn in hell [insert racial slur]" should be treated as hate, because it is the intent of the perpetrator is what is the issue. They are the sort of person that hate people of a particular group so much they would commit arson or battery to vent that hate.

My fear in all this is that women with penises will exploit this law for validation and waste lots of police time, whereas women and girls will continue to suck all the abuse back up as normal, because of our conditioning.

Also, I think "women" like Paris Lees actually like sexual harassment and would find being called a 'dirty slag' as they go about their business wonderfully validating, so it wouldn't surprise me if such people would be very much opposed to making misogyny a hate crime.

I can just imagine the scenario where a "woman" puts in a complaint of misogyny, and the perpetrator says "no I hate them because of the gender reassignment and homophobia, not because I believe they are a woman guv".

It leads to absurdities.

Beating up and kiling a Goth boy and beating up and severely injuring his Goth girlfriend; beating up a schoolboy wearing the uniform of a private school ; urinating over a sleeping homeless man were not hate crimes- no matter how much the perpetrators really hated Goths, posh boys and homeless people.

These are real examples.

I didn't see the thread but wonder is this legislation which, if passed, might redefine women & female for the rest of Uk in the way the Scottish bill did in March?
fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/

Yes...we become so PC that everyone is walking on egg shells for fear of inadvertently committing a hate crime.

I've been saying for ages that it's stupid to classify hate incidents and crimes on perception of the victim alone for ages.

The whole notion of hate crime is slightly dodgy, I feel. I'm reminded of that episode of Life on Mars where the John Simm character says, "This could be a hate killing" and Gene Hunt says, "As opposed to one of those I-really-like-you killings"?

In diiscussion about the possibility of mysogyny as a hate crime, its important to be aware of those within NUS and Labour who are keen for a focus on 'trans-mysogyny'.

Allegations of this have been used within NUS by those who identify as transwomen (including non-binary tranwoman) against transmen.

Recent Young Labour meeting on this topic shortly before Jess Bradley's suspension from NUS with Bradley, Lily Madigan and Eden Ladleye (NUS LGBT+ Woman's Place officer)
twitter.com/HWGYoungLabour/status/1020009994471854081

Exactly, Rosemary. It's stupid.

If hate crime is based on the perception of the victim, then can I say that having my purse stolen last week was an anti Semitic hate crime because I feel Jewish ( even though I’m not )? Can I redefine the word “Jewish “ in my own way ?

How can my mugger prove that he didn’t know I was Jewish ? Or do I have to prove that he thought I was Jewish ?

How does it work ?

And not two for ages. Christ, I'm nigh on illiterate, aren't I?

chucking out time

I've been saying for ages that it's stupid to classify hate incidents and crimes on perception of the victim alone for ages. On that basis, every drunken dust up at pub chucking out crime could be classified as some form of hate incident if the victim felt so inclined. So I'm against anything that cements this further.

I wonder if that's why Creasy didn't want to answer the questions posed in the other thread (ie because the answer might lead women not to support the proposal).