Janice Turner today on making misogyny a hate crime

Thanks Molesmokes for tagging me.

I can indeed confirm that 12 pages of my tweets now sit on the data base of the Wiltshire police to say I have 'posted hatred' about Jewish and transgender people. Of course, I have not and if anyone wants to see the 12 pages I will send you the PDF and you can make up your own mind. DM me your email address.

I only found out about this as a Twitter account - set up to harass me in September 2019 - boasted about it in June. I therefore made a Subject Access Request in July and a complaint to the Information Management Team. They have rejected my request for deletion but agreed to record a 'disputed information marker' against the record. I have therefore complained to Professional Standards who are ignoring me so it seems likely I will have to go for judicial review.

The basis of my complaint is
They have ignored the evidence of malice
They have recorded 12 pages of repeated and anodyne tweets (including comments about my dog likeing cheese)
They have refused to tell me to whom this information will be disclosed and in what circumstances
they have refused to tell me what crimes they suspect I will now escalate to commit
They have recorded this 'offence' against a large amount of personal data without informing me

I think the chilling effect of this is immediately obvious. I pose zero risk of 'hate' crime against anyone. But I am not going to stop making public comment on the laws of this country as it is my protected Article 10 right to do so.

This is interesting. My ex is recorded as having a non crime abuse incident when the police came to our house. I had been to the police but the said it would be very hard to press charges.
If non crimes are wiped from police records it will be harder to protect my child from him if he takes me to court for contact.
I don’t know what to think about this but a man can absolutely destroy his partner’s life and not be prosecuted for any of it. It feels wrong.

If I recall correctly, the rationale for recording “non-crime hate crimes” aka “hate incidents” on a person’s file is “preventative policing”, ie. to prevent “escalation” to an actual crime motivated by “hate”.

In Harry’s case, this was the explanation given by the police for their active intervention. The same with Maggie Nelson, when she wrote about bones in her archeology blog, saying that sex could be determined from skeletal remains.

However, the police are not routinely using “hate incidents” to try to prevent “escalation”. This is detailed by Sarah Phillimore ( @spero ) who only discovered that the Police had logged a “hate incident” against her by making a Subject Access Request:

“I have been recorded by my local police as hateful”

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3982831-I-have-been-recorded-by-my-local-police-force-as-hateful?pg=1

This is a completely different issue to the recording of allegations of sexual assault that would show up on an Enhanced DBS Check. The recording of these sorts of incidents is the safeguarding measure arising from the Ian Huntley “Soham Murders” case.

The “hate incident” recording arises from recommendations in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, as a measure that is supposed to result in police intervention to try to prevent “escalation” to a Hate Crime.

I have tagged Sarah and hope that she, being a Barrister, will confirm or correct my understanding.

If I am correct, then the Freedom of Speech issues in Harry’s case have no bearing on the Safeguarding measures put in place after the Soham Murders.

As far as Hate Crimes and Hate Incidents are concerned, it seems to be a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

I am not convinced by Janice Turner’s article. Is there any evidence that Hate Crime legislation has actually resulted in a decrease in physical assaults or murders of people with characteristics that are currently covered by the Act? Or of other crimes aggravated by “hostility”?

What are the costs of benefits, if there have been any? Not just diversion of criminal justice resources but particularly the criminalisation or tarring of reputations due to perceived “hostility”?

There are horror stories like the woman who beeped someone to get a move on when they were faffing around at a petrol pump and holding up the queue - resulting in a “racist hate incident” on her police record. Darren Grimes has just been interviewed on Triggernometry and mentioned how he has been routinely targeted for homophobic abuse - but if he were to be punched in the face he wouldn’t care why , that it should be enough that it is a crime to punch someone in the face.

The fantastic work of “We Can’t Consent To This”, to get a ban on the “Rough Sex Defence” for murder, is a much better example of a new law, dealing with a loophole that has enabled men to get away with murdering women.

No need to attempt to add “aggravated by misogyny” - murder is murder and a woman’s life should not be valued any less depending on whether a general “hostility to women” could be proved.

wecantconsenttothis.uk/press

Good to see that this thread has been bumped. Janice's article is well worth reading as are many of the comments underneath.
And great to raise the issue of Harry as his incident has done so much to highlight the insane levels of regulatory capture to the public in general alongside the hilarious outcomes of some of the "training" courses provided for the police by some very odd lobby groups - ie the infamous "I’ve been on a course and what you need to understand is that you can have a foetus with a female brain that grows male body parts and that’s what a transgender person is".
Let's see how long we can keep this one going as the more sunlight, the better - for both misogyny and Harry.

Nice bit of speculation there @jj1968. Remind me, is it slander or libel when it's in writing? Or have you covered your arse with your 'possible' and 'wouldn't surprise me'? Either way, I despise mud being flung randomly in the hope of some sticking.

Harry should quite rightly so be pursuing this. He was told he had not committed a crime, but it would be recorded as a non-crime "hate incident which goes on his record and could prevent him or others from future employment. Bearing in mind these incidents are recorded solely on what the perceived victim has said, it leaves the door wide open for malicious abuse of the policy, potentially destroying people's lives because they can. If someone has been tried and convicted for a hate incident then fine, it should go on their record. But a kangaroo court style recording on someone's record with no clear evidence. Absolutely not. Some people are not even aware this has been placed against their record until they get an enhanced DBS. It makes a mockery of human rights and it needs challenging.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

I completely agree the police over-stepped their powers in visiting his workplace, although as cases of police misconduct go then i've heard a lot worse. And let's not pretend that it's not possible there might well have been a personal dimension to this, it was his former colleagues after all. It wouldn't surprise me if they sent a rookie out to deal with the ex hothead sargeant as a bit of a joke that badly backfired.

But Harry won this part of the case. He could have left it there. But now he is pursuing a challenge to how police record information on potential suspects and what could be included in enhanced DBS checks. This could have major safeguarding implications which he seem entirely unconcerned about.

What I object to is a man who will never be affected by prejudice due to his sex, race, sexuality or gender reassignment status barging into the debate

But that's not what happened, jj1968. Harry Miller took the police to court on a freedom of speech issue.

He was harassed by the police after he posted GC tweets. They turned up at his work place. They told him a "hate incident" had been recorded against him even after they admitted he hadn't committed any crime. He had every right to defend himself, and he went to court to do so.

He obviously supports women's rights but this was more on the related issue of free speech and ludicrous 'hate incidents'. He wasn't barging in.

Excellent article thanks for sharing OP

This makes me think of the Sally Challen case. Imagine if she had made a broad comment about how she disliked men on an electronic platform before the death of her husband and had ended up being convicted of a sex-motivated hate crime

Not obvious why the topic of hate crime makes you think of the Sally Challen case. Murder is not on the list of 'aggravated offences' Also, she had received a fairly high tariff (22 years) in the first place - can't have seen it been very much higher.

And look at you with your passive voice - the death of her husband . For the benefit of those that don't know the case, on the subject of the death of her husband, Lady Justice Hallett in the Court of Appeal, gives a more active voice to her account....

She made them something to eat. As he was eating, she took the hammer from her handbag and repeatedly hit him over the head with severe blows. He must have tried unsuccessfully to defend himself because there were nine sites of injuries to his hand and arms consistent with defensive wounds. She then covered his body with blankets and left a note which said "I love you, Sally", changed her clothes and went home.

And as usual a resounding article by Janice Turner who is an absolutely brilliant writer. Thank you for sharing that.

when women kill 2 men a week they might have a point

Yes exactly. And since there is the legal concept of hate crimes and they don’t include misogynistic ones, an expression of which kills 2-3 women a week, let alone the other forms of physical and mental abuse and harrassment against women, then I will respond to the law commission consultation to say misogyny should be on the list.
Misogyny is the root of VAWG. Other approaches including not having any legally-recognised hate crimes don’t seem to have worked to protect women.
Let’s give this a go.

I am unsure how I feel about hatecrime/hate incidents in general to be quite honest.

However, while the concept exists, I see no reason AT ALL that sex should be the only protected characteristic not covered. Except for the added work and men kicking off that they can no longer be 'lads' or whatever, which surely cannot be a reason not to include one characteristic?

What Antibles said.

I understand that the system accounts for both intent and outcome.

I think the thing that some people object to about the hate crime legislation is that prejudice about/hatred of some groups of people is being elevated above prejudice about/hatred of other groups of people. We can add sex, but nationality/region is still not there, which is actually a common prejudice. Imagine being beaten up for being French or Welsh or for being a southerner. Ultimately everybody deserves for a crime motivated by prejudice against them to be considered in the same way. Yet the characteristics seem rather based on current identity politics/victim hierarchy only. Add a tariff for hateful motive if desired, but any/all hate, not just some. There's just something off about having special prejudices.

If people express a wish to commit physical violence, followed by actual violence does that indicate that there might be intent?

I thought that was already a feature of the current (non-hate crime related) justice system.

Most crimes are a combination of thought (mens rea) and action (actus reus ). Laws punish the action but there needs to have been the required intent. Hate crimes don’t punish the thought but any criminal action taken because of that thought. It’s a tricky area because the laws are effectively reflecting the moral and ethical framework in society.

In terms of misogyny I can see one scenario where gender may be relevant. If a trans woman were to receive abuse from someone who assumed she was female not trans arguably that is misogyny. It would be abuse motivated by the perception of the victim as female.

Since hate-motivated crimes are a thing in law, then misogyny (or sex, to include the handful of misandrist crimes that the WATMers get themselves so vexed over) should be included.

I think there's a difference though isn't there?

That was my understanding. Intent refers to the belief of what will happen because of a specific action, motive is why a person considers or carries out that action in the first place. For example, throwing a rock through someone's window because of their race is a racially motivated crime, if the house burns down because the rock damages an electrical socket and causes a short, there would be a disconnect between intent and outcome (i.e. it wouldn't be racially motivated arson). However, if the offender were shown to have researched how to cause a fire by throwing a rock through a window, there could be a case for the intent being arson.

If someone posts that they want to punch a and then does punch a then that shifts the balance of probability to intent rather than accidental unfortunate scrap.

This makes me think of the Sally Challen case. Imagine if she had made a broad comment about how she disliked men on an electronic platform before the death of her husband and had ended up being convicted of a sex-motivated hate crime. Imagine if it became legally prudent to finish any comment about men with 'NAMALT".

to those worrying about judging thoughts instead of crimes, that's an essential feature of justice. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter and murder. The intent in the latter makes it worse than the former

I think there's a difference though isn't there? Intent is the difference between whether a crime has been committed or not in many situations (it's only rape if the rapist knows he's raping - if he genuinely thinks he's showing his victim a good time and she consented and the jury thinks his perception is reasonable, it's not rape whether or not she consented). The prosecution has to prove intent in that case.

Whereas with hate crime, my understanding is that the perception of the victim is what decides if it's a hate crime as opposed to a common or garden attack. In the investigative stage and prosecution at any rate. I'm not sure what goes on once it gets to court though, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can help? I'm a bit confused about how this works.

I think if we have to put up with hate crime legislation on the books, sex has got to be added to it.

I'm hoping that the avalanche of hate crime on the basis of sex, will force parliament to re-visit hate crime legislation and abolish it altogether. With any luck, it will break the whole system.

The question isn't whether intentions matter. It's whether those intentions matter. Is torturing someone for belonging to a given class worse than torturing random human beings?

I don’t think it is worse, tbh. I thibk torturing random members of the public is just as heinous as torturing solely women
As said above, I think the punishment should be for the crime, not the reasoning behind it.

The murder/manslaughter example is misleading and irrelevant, because that’s based on whether there was intent to commit the crime in the first place.
That’s different to, to use your example, plan to torture people based on whether they have a certain characteristic or not.