Hate crimes against men

I think it is absurd to suggest that misandry is a hidden epidemic, that it happens regularly or needs specific legislation to reduce it. I think that any legislation to address misogyny would have to be based on sex as a protected characteristic, which would mean that hatred of men could also come under that category. I think that actual examples would be vanishingly rare

If misogyny is made a hate crime then logically misandry must too. I agree examples will be rare.

The only real life example I can think of was a rather horrid older woman I used to work with who behaved appallingly to young male trainees. Although her behaviour was already covered by existing law on assault and sexual assault- as are most of the examples given by Quentin.

Cat calling could be dealt with under general public disorder/harassment where offensive or aggressive language or behaviour is used, without it being made a "hate crime".

QuentinWinters, I'm very sorry that you attribute cognitive limitations to anyone who doesn't precisely obey and fall into line with your personal views on a particular issue. Your life must be very hard.

You are just being deliberately obtuse now. Can't argue with stupid.

I suppose I should have said a protected characteristic but I was already worrying about being too wordy.

I was referring to the comment about targeting women for muggings, but cross posted.

Again I must apologise for being unclear, I was saying that wouldn't meet the definition of a hate crime.

So in the case of misogynistic hate crime, catcalling women on the basis a man decides he likes her boobs, or rubbing against her are a just because he can, or raping her because she is wearing a skirt and he fancied it would all meet your definition

Certainly, if having a particular type or size of breast, wearing a particular skirt or being obese (in your last example) becomes defined as a protected characteristic, those would be hate crimes. They are still crimes (though you'd likely be hard pressed to secure a prosecution for the final one, I'm not a solicitor so I couldn't comment professionally), they're just not currently hate crimes under current or proposed legislation.

the significance of a hate crime is that it overtly targets a characteristic over which the victim has no control. This seems to me to be incredibly psychologically damaging
Yes gronky
So in the case of misogynistic hate crime, catcalling women on the basis a man decides he likes her boobs, or rubbing against her are a just because he can, or raping her because she is wearing a skirt and he fancied it would all meet your definition.
And yes it is psychologically damaging to women to be subjected to this kind if thing on an ongoing basis and never to know whether the man you are alone with is as decent as he seems or whether he might sexually assault you. Or whether when you go out you look nice or are going to encourage handsy men like flies to honey. Or whether if you dare to go fora run some random driver is going to make you feel ashamed by shouting "fat slag" out of his van, just because he finds it amusing to pass judgment on women who dare to be out in public.

Hopefully you get misogynistic crime now.

I was referring to the comment about targeting women for muggings, but cross posted.

I can't see how that would ever make it a hate crime? If it's just opportunity, and there were no aggravating characteristics based on the victim's sex?

Sorry if that part wasn't clear, the part about that occurring in tandem with an unpleasant message specifically highlighting an innate characteristic about the victim is what would make it a hate crime to me.

I think that any legislation to address misogyny would have to be based on sex as a protected characteristic

I fully agree, again, sorry for being unclear. I also believe that any legislation should be equal in defining sex as a protected characteristic rather than specifically legislating against misogyny or misandry. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a 'hidden epidemic' but I would venture that it's likely under reported, considering the same rate of under reporting for domestic violence where men are the victim. On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not able to comment on it in fine detail since I will, by definition, never directly experience it and (hopefully) will never be involved in its commission .

Gronky I can't see how that would ever make it a hate crime? If it's just opportunity, and there were no aggravating characteristics based on the victim's sex?

I think it is absurd to suggest that misandry is a hidden epidemic, that it happens regularly or needs specific legislation to reduce it. I think that any legislation to address misogyny would have to be based on sex as a protected characteristic, which would mean that hatred of men could also come under that category. I think that actual examples would be vanishingly rare.

Burgling a home and leaving a steaming turd on the bed is a hate crime.

I feel it's an unpleasant thing to do (and a crime), leaving it with a gender/racial/religious slur scrawled on the wall would make it a hate crime. To me, the significance of a hate crime is that it overtly targets a characteristic over which the victim has no control. This seems to me to be incredibly psychologically damaging.

I think I see what you mean assassinated -it's about it being a motive rather than the actual crime. Still feels uncomfortably close to 'thought policing' to me though.

I've only skimmed the thread, dont think anyone has linked to the perhaps more sensible coverage in The Times

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ageism-and-misogyny-could-be-made-hate-crimes-zvv0005mj?shareToken=2369fa93744e92bc2954f42a4bfa4c34

Regarding those having difficulty imagining, who entirely dispute the possibility of or who minimise misandric hate crime (or potential ones in countries without those laws on the books) I would like to point out that we are at the same disadvantage that men have when trying to understand misogynistic hate crime: we don't directly experience it and we're (generally) good people.

By the latter, I mean that (I'm generalising here but I think it's fair) the majority of people here aren't planning or have experience in committing misandric hate crimes. I don't believe the two happen at the same rate but I do still believe both happen.

I also find it (saddeningly) interesting where the demarcation is being made between a hate crime and one facilitated by demographic differences. For example, a robber might be more likely to target women because they're, on average, physically weaker and more likely to carry valuables in an easily accessible hand bag (I'm not saying all women carry hand bags and all men don't but, I think it's a fair generalisation to say that those carrying hand bags, large purses ect. are more likely to be women) but that doesn't make their robberies a misogynistic hate crime.

Criminalising 'dislike' on any basis = creating thought crime

The hate is not a crime in itself. If there is a 'hate' element in the perpetrator's motivation, the prosecutor can ask for a 'sentence uplift' which is an increased punishment for the crime.

Burgling a home is a crime.

Burgling a home and leaving a steaming turd on the bed is a hate crime.

The victim’s identity should be irrelevant but sometimes the motivation goes beyond just wanting what someone else has.

I think we should drop ‘hate crime’ but I think there’s a difference between stealing bread because you are hungry and stealing bread because the baker’s a Jew and you think he shouldn’t be opening his shop on a Sunday.

Hey, Scott, dude, you might want to notice which position I'm arguing for, where the thread is posted and the context of the thread title, which is that a hate crime review is being reported with the bizarre lead in of 'hate crime against men'.

As in, I don't agree with the idea of 'hate crime', this section is FWR, specifically Feminist Chat, and it's pretty bloody odd that something is being made out to be an enormously prevalent issue when actually, it's not at all clear that there is misandrist hate crime anywhere.

But I'm sure you need to tell us how feminists really need to be concerned about male suicide and men being trained culturally to not cry etc. So I'll let you crack on with that. It's not my focus, or an issue that is obviously feminist, but, you know, you've got something to say, and we all know how hard it is to stop a man speaking of he really feels he must.

Is it criminalising dislike though? These are treated as aggravating aspects of a crime, not crimes in themselves, I though? So a judgement on the severity of the crime - an assault is considered aggravated if the target was racially abused/targeted because of race for example.

Criminalising 'dislike' on any basis = creating thought crime

Creasy's idea was to criminalise misogynist hate crime. Including misandry is the government proposal. Not sure if Creasy has weighed in on that yet?

No; Stella's proposition was to criminalise hate crime based on the protected characteristic of sex. A very different thing and, as we now see, comes with many unintended consequences.

Which makes it all the more stark that women interrogating Stella on such unintended consequences were banned by MN for so doing.

1 when you single out specific motives for crimes it's profoundly unhelpful, particularly because you get a whole crowd of people wondering why their special bone of contention doesn't get extra special status.

2 Instead, the entire story has been presented as the patently ridiculous notion that men need extra specific protection (from themselves??!!!) which has just made a mockery of the whole damned thing.

And women are still being murdered and raped and it's being ignored, downplayed and not prosecuted.

Your second quote proves your first, although probably not in the way you intended.

You did happen to notice that the thread was called Hate Crimes Against Men didn't you?

Dislike based just on the specific characteristic, rather than a general dislike, I would think.

The inclusion of goths would have to be done somehow with wording to indicate someone was a member (or perceived member) of a distinct sub-culture. So if that was included, it would cover emos, goths, punks, etc etc.

Dislike counts as hostility? !

CPS defines hate crime as

‘Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.’

‘There is no legal definition of hostility so we (ie the CPS) use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.’

www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime

So, be friendly, or else !

(Incidentally, what about emo’s? Aren’t they as oppressed as goths?)

Lass, well, quite. People have all sorts of pathological dislikes that motivate them to violence.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine, that's the kicker, isn't it? If this was in any way about actually protecting the vulnerable, the news would have been framed by looking at the actual vulnerabilities that need protection.

Instead, the entire story has been presented as the patently ridiculous notion that men need extra specific protection (from themselves??!!!) which has just made a mockery of the whole damned thing.

And women are still being murdered and raped and it's being ignored, downplayed and not prosecuted. Don't look at the man behind the curtain.

I'm finding it very interesting that most of the coverage of this is focusing on misandry and Goths - misogyny gets barely a mention.