Janice Turner today on making misogyny a hate crime

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.

That's why the attempt to hide behind "sex play gone wrong," aka "oh, soz, accident!" is so revolting as a cover for murder.

We read intentions all the time, and some really are worse than others.

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'd say yes. It adds an extra layer of injustice to all the layers of pain.

And the other thing I'd say is if you can see why crimes targeted at Jews or Muslims or blacks are hate crimes, but you're dubious when it comes to women, then a) it's precisely to clarify the parallels that we need the hate crime designation, and b) take a long hard look at yourself.

Thought there might have been a reason couldn't see her not knowing the difference.

Perhaps the whole concept of hate crimes need a review.

I just don't support hate crime legislation, so I can't support adding anything to it.

It's pretty standard that motivation does play some role in sentencing, and that's appropriate. There are all kinds of motivations for crime and some reflect a more dangerous type of individual. Crimes based on hate aren't the same as crimes based on drug addiction for example, or a kid who vandalises out of boredom isn't in the same situation as one who does it to target someone specifically. A targeted crime against people you don't know might be different than a targeted crime against someone who did you wrong.

But I don't think that differentiating a crime carried out because a person hates Jews is but not a crime carried out for hatred of some other kind, maybe of an individual or some non-identity group, is really right. There is something about naming specific groups that is the problem for me.

I'm also ambivilant on hate crime laws j general. However of we have them then of course sex should be one of the top ones. (Race, disability and sex)

Howver although it's fairly easy for the average person to go a day without being racist (well should be!) Sexism is so deeply ingrained in our society that there would be far to many incidents for the police to even log.

So, let's see what doesn't carry over from the EA2010:

age; sex; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity.

'Gender reassignment' disappears to be replaced by transgender identity

From the CPS website: "The term 'hate crime' can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity."

It suggests that sex/gender (the two words being used interchangeably these days) be added to the protected characteristics of race, religion, trans identity, sexual orientation and disability.

I think I recall that the protected characteristics in the EA2010 and those in the hate crime legislation are not identical.

I noticed that Panfriedscallops* . It's getting to the stage where I forget the actual protected characteristics as there are so many different terms used.

Loved the article. And I enjoy the way she gets to the heart of the matter but in one para she has used "trans identity" on her list of protected characteristics. I thought the actual protected characteristic was gender reassignment.

....The Law Commission, in a consultation launched this week, is proposing that misogyny also become a hate crime. It suggests that sex/gender (the two words being used interchangeably these days) be added to the protected characteristics of race, religion, trans identity, sexual orientation and disability. Before the harrumphing begins about builders being banged up for wolf-whistling — they won’t be — let’s step back and consider why misogyny has been omitted from this list for so long.....

I'm no expert but a little disappointed if she got it wrong but no one else seems to have mentioned this so I may be mistaken

I liked Janice's article (I usually do) and there were some really thoughtful comments (alongside the normal feminist / woman hating) comments.

Ah ok.

I may be ambivalent about hate crime but not about hate incidents - I think they're a nonsensical, dangerous idea.

It's entirely up to you whether or not you like Harry Miller but as I understand it, he was summoned by the police to have his thinking checked, so not exactly barging in and, from what I've seen, he's been clear that he's coming at it from a free speech point of view.

Sorry you didn't bold, you quoted it. But still puzzled.

No probs Deaconboo

Not sure why you bolded my post JJ - bad laws will get challenged, that was kind of my point.

Amazing how people pop up on FWR to lecture women and feminists on who we should listen to.

I struggle to see how hate crimes add anything to society?

I’m against all hate crime laws on principle.
All humans are supposed to be equal, therefore the same crime should carry same penalty for every human that commits it.
There should not be a hierarchy where a crime against one sort of human (age, race, sex) carries a lower penalty than that exact same crime against another sort of human.

not a fan of the concept of hate crime - it veers too close to criminalising thought for my liking.

This.

I also think it will not be enforced - if rape isn't convicted, how will lesser crimes against women be. Let's concentrate on getting rape and sexual crime conviction rates up.

Misogyny,” says Helen Voce, of Nottingham Women’s Centre, “is the soil in which violence against women grows.”

I think that is a brilliant quote.

I’m also very wary of “hate crime” legislation, I don’t think a crime is better or worse based on what the perpetrator was thinking at the time.