Hate crimes against men

He was an absolute wankbadger.

Hordes of women sticking their hands down the front of his trousers uninvited. Yeah.

Jeremy doesn’t sound very impressed

That jerk on Jeremy Vine said that women being weaker than men was sexism. And he keeps going on about hordes of women sticking their hands down his trousers on nights out. Yes - sure they do.🤨

On Jeremy Vine R2 right now.

Well good luck to the Law Commission in its quest to find whether there ought to be crimes motivated by hatred of the male sex.

The problem is with the word 'hatred' and its definition. The term is straightforward when considering race, religion, and sexual orientation. The prosecution can prove it and the CPS applies for an 'uplift' in the sentence.

'Hatred' is not the right term when it comes to crimes against children, old people, and women. The perpetrator is more likely to be targeted because of an imbalance of power and their vulnerability.

'Hatred' is not the accurate term when it somes to attacks on people who are targeted because of their occupations - teachers, police officers, A&E staff, social workers, MPs, taxi-drivers, bouncers, prostituted women and so on.

Hopefully, the Law Commission won't be have its hands tied by the word 'hate' but can think outside the box.

I don't see the problem with including men.
It can't take too many resources to include men, and will result in hardly any cases.
It'll remove the MRA argument about them being the oppressed ones for no real impact.
I thought people on here were generally in favour of hate crime laws? I've certainly seen people calling for crimes against women to be recorded as hate crimes.

Specifically protecting Goths makes more sense than specifically protecting men. Goths have actually been murdered for being out and about while Goth.

I saw this on BBC Breakfast this morning. They led with 'hate crimes against men may become a thing' and then sort of trailed off with 'oh, and also maybe misogyny, and ...um...hate against minority groups like Goths'.

I was absolutely dumbfounded.

Men and goths.

I also think that unprovoked attacks on someone on the basis of a particular characteristic should be treated more harshly to illustrate that it's totally unacceptable.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand your logic. Is there a situation where an unprovoked attack would be acceptable?

If you commit a crime, your motives should be relevant only in so far as proving you were the person who committed the crime. If a person is killed because they are black, it is not more 'aggravated' simply because of that motive. If a person is killed because they are a woman, it is not more 'aggravated' by that. If a person is killed because someone wants their money, or someone is very angry, it is not more aggravated by greed or anger. All are appalling crimes that should be adequately punished.

You are absolutely spot on, Floral - the whole notion of hate crime is fundamentally flawed. If a man kills his wife, does it matter whether he killed her because she wouldn't cook his dinner, because he was after her money or because he just generally hated women? The crime is the same.

floral I disagree. It's about recording the motive for a crime. At the "lower" end of the spectrum (verbal abuse, for example) I think it is more serious to shout e.g. racist abuse at someone than call them a generic insult.
I also think that unprovoked attacks on someone on the basis of a particular characteristic should be treated more harshly to illustrate that it's totally unacceptable.

Goodbye point about backlash nobody -I think that 'the powers that be' trying to appear concerned by pushing 'PC' language etc has contributed to the rise in populism and violence.

I tend to agree FloralBunting. The whole hate crime legislation is a complete mess especially since they've included 'incidents'. It needs to be rethought on a 'standards of public behaviour' line which covers everyone. No one should suffer bullying in public spaces - that's the real issue. It being about specific groups is what causes the backlash.

I am not too sure how I feel about the motivation for a crime making it somehow 'worse' -on the one hand it can 'feel' worse, but on the other hand I agree with floral that it is the criminal act itself that's important.
I can see it may have been useful in tackling crimes against specific groups eg racism, but now the concept has been diluted -much like the use of the term 'privilege '

I'm intrigued about what constitutes a hate crime against men. My suggestions, off the top of my head so far are:

Expecting them to act like adults in the home i.e. 50% of housework without moaning
Being paid the same as women for the same job
Forcing them to support their children financially
Being prosecuted for rape
Being prosecuted for sexual assault
Being convicted for either of the above

No, I don't think it's sensible at all and actually just exposes the flawed thinking around this whole topic of hate crime.

If you commit a crime, your motives should be relevant only in so far as proving you were the person who committed the crime. If a person is killed because they are black, it is not more 'aggravated' simply because of that motive. If a person is killed because they are a woman, it is not more 'aggravated' by that. If a person is killed because someone wants their money, or someone is very angry, it is not more aggravated by greed or anger. All are appalling crimes that should be adequately punished.

Recording the motives is useful in being able to direct public policy so that protection is given and things are taken more seriously, but specifying that the same crime is worse because of the motive is ridiculous.

And this review of hate crime just shows that, because to be fair they have had to include men in the classification of sex-based hate crimes.

All it shows is that there shouldn't be special characteristics that give extra badness to criminal acts. Protection against discrimination, laws against harrassment should be perfectly adequate along with the existing laws against assault, rape and murder.

They are taking the piss by including misandry as a hate crime, but by doing so, they are showing the whole thing up for the facade it is.

I mean seriously, violence against women is not adequately dealt with because the already existing crimes of abuse, assault, rape and murder are not actually prosecuted properly, adding another crime to the statute books is going to dick all in changing that. It will require much harder work than a new law to be ignored.

But doing the work is too hard, so let's just call the crimes we already belittle and ignore 'hate crimes' so we can continue to ignore them but say we did something.

Yes aak. Will calling out misogyny become classed as misandry?

One step closer to the eternal incelMRAF4J goal of making saying no to sex with any wanker who asks for you it a hate crime!

I see the logic there aspie and you're right, it just feels disingenuous in the context of what's happening at the moment.

This is just sensible isn’t it? What it means is adding ‘sex’ as a category to the hate crime legislation. It would be unacceptable to add it for one sex and not the other.

I agree. If sex is a protected characteristic then it applies to both sexes, whatever the relative prevalence of anti-woman crime and anti-men crime.

If crimes against men who identify as women are recorded as hate crimes and crimes against men who identify as men are not it prioritises gender identification over sex.

Had the news on in the background (not really listening) but this jumped out and made me WTF?
This screams of a direct push back at women standing up for ourselves.

I had thought that categorising something as a hate crime was intended to protect vulnerable groups. As floral said, how on earth are men considered a vulnerable group?

For single bias incidents, about 26% of all singly gender-motivated hate crimes in the United States in 2016 were against men.

Not a particularly helpful set of statistics but the FBI goes to some lengths to discuss their hate crime data and what it doesn't cover. When I looked:

Single-bias incidents (Based on Table 1.)

Analysis of the 6,063 single-bias incidents reported in 2016 revealed that:
...
0.5 percent (31 incidents) were motivated by a gender bias

*Gender bias (See Table 1.)

There were 36 offenses of gender bias reported in 2016. Of these:

26 were anti-female.
10 were anti-male.

The 31 then 36 number seems to be related to single bias incidents and offences by bias motivation within other incidents. So, yes, 10/36 is approx. 28%.

This is just sensible isn’t it? What it means is adding ‘sex’ as a category to the hate crime legislation. It would be unacceptable to add it for one sex and not the other.

Just seen it on the telly news. Joanna Gosling used a quote about it being about 'protection for all vulnerable and minority groups'.

I'm sorry, but what? 'Men' are a vulnerable or minority group in what way, shape or form?

Clearly a silly way to frame the discussion by the BBC, but then, given how bloody ridiculous the BBC are right now, perhaps not surprising.

Invisible1234,
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?

Stella Creasy is championing this and she is also believes trans ideology.

This is to assist self - ID.