Help Stella Creasy make misogyny a hate crime

As long as we define hate crimes then misogyny should be among them. Need proper definition though.

Given we have a misogynist as Prime Minister, I wonder what chance it has of becoming law though. I wonder what arguments he will get his supporters to use against it.

Hmm... Stella Creasey’s very first meeting when discussing this was Stonewall. If anyone is going to support her, it would seem to be wise to check and double check the terms and conditions. There’s a good chance it’ll be designed to support men more than women.

How can you make it a crime to hate women when your definition of women includes men?

Bear in mind: those busily pushing to subordinate female people in law to male people all flapped flags and made media-pleasing noises for the 100th anniversary of the suffragette achievement of the vote.

The hypocrisy and lack of conscience or integrity is hard to get your head around I know, but females really don't need more politician crafted pretty packaging to fight their way through. They just need prejudice against females to stop being so fucking fashionably acceptable.

I don't want misogyny to be a hate crime.

FWIW I agree with Bunting

There is no need for new and exciting laws. There is a crying need for existing law to be policed thoroughly and properly, without prejudice or partiality, even when the victim of a crime is female. The institutionalised, currently very fashionable prejudice against females that pervades government, police and everything currently needs confronting. Tucking it nicely behind a new, shiny, carefully pomo'd and worded new law will do nothing except hide it better.

Misogyny should be a hate crime definitely. Incitement to violence maybe but Non crime hate speech shouldn't even be a thing in a liberal society.

What BabyItsAWildWorld said really. The notion of “hate crimes”, which aren’t actual crimes, is dubious. It creates a dangerous category of wrong-think, weaponises misunderstandings and hurt feelings of the malicious, wastes police time and suppresses freedom of speech.

A former Australian Attorney-General opposed a similar bill on the grounds that people had a right to be bigots. It didn’t go over well at the time, but I’m not sure he was wrong, in retrospect. (mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-24/brandis-defends-right-to-be-a-bigot/5341552?nw=0)

I don’t enjoy men calling me names, but the problem is not their speech, but the ways society shaped their attitudes to women. Bridling their tongues won’t change their hatred of women.

I don't want misogyny to be a hate crime. Hate crime legislation was originally intended to add an aggravated element to things which were already crimes.

Until all rapists are prosecuted with vigour and energy, I fail to see how adding an aggravating element of 'misogyny' is going to do anything but create some photo ops for gurning MPs with an eye to their 'legacy'.

Agree with pps who question the definition of misogyny and how it WILL be abused to attack women and women’s speech.

Don’t trust her or Labour as there is a certain type of ‘woman’ that they prioritise and consider worthy of protection, and it isn’t the adult human female kind.

How vocal has SC about the misogynistic abuse Rosie Duffield had been victim of?...?

Get rid of all hate crime, get rid of the thought police and investigate and prosecute crimes properly.

Or from "non-binaries" and any other "gender"?

When I read about this before the specific wording was that it was only if the misogyny came from men, so I assume all the misogyny, hate and violent/sexual threats on Twitter and elsewhere from some transwomen/transwomen activists towards women would not be included.

Sorry, that sounded ruder than I meant; that wasn't aimed at you highame

Somewhat fed up and tired of everything constantly being termed regarding the real humans. Less bothered what Creasey wants to call male people than whether she's gynephobic.

her definition included TWAW

Yeah, I'm done with that phrase having any meaning in terms of the problem for female people.

What I want to know is does Creasey admit that biological females are a thing, and equal in her interests and representation with that she gives to biological males.

Stella was in talks with Stonewall not long ago and the impression was that her definition included TWAW

I'm afraid I agree, as seems evidenced with the scots group looking into this and their collective bias/conflict of interest - someone somewhere has decided to get onto the concept of misogyny and own it and bury it quick, before female people get to use it as a means to stand up to what is being done to female people's rights under law in the UK.

So yes: it will be a committee that defines very carefully what misogyny is, much in the way that words like 'kindness' and 'woman' are subject to politically forced redefinition:

It will ensure that it is male centric and gynephobic in its bias and remit

and it will mostly serve to silence and punish female people from questioning, protesting or resisting the agendas of males.

I used to think I was cynical, but frankly at this point there's nothing left I could invent that would be more cynical than what's happening in the SNP and everywhere else.

I have a caveat and shall now argue with myself:

I am opposed to hate crime in its entirety. However, for as long as it exists as a legal concept, women need to be under it for protection. My thoughts are that should misogyny become a hate crime strand, (even if this is a potential weapon that might be used by bad players against women) it ALSO may function as a halter upon the 'hate speech/hate incidents' of men (all varieties) against women. And there are more women to report hate crimes against us than there are men prepared to tell us what bitches and terfs we are.

My ultimate hope is that the flawed system of hate crime is dismantled. But so long as it stands, it is a weapon in the hands of men whilst women are disarmed.

Just thinking out loud.

As I understand it, the reasoning for the concept of “hate crimes” to exist in the first place, is to allow the police to keep track of groups harbouring hateful attitudes towards others based on some characteristic.

Misogyny would then include considering women lesser, and misogynist hate crimes should include considering women’s particular woman related concerns less important than issues affecting men.

In that case, if you consider it possible for someone to hatefully see women as less-than, the concept of “c*s privilege” is rendered misogynist.

The entire collective of all police forces are guilty of treating women as less vulnerable if they have vaginas than if they have dicks, and allowing a dick holder to intimately search non-dick holders if they are deemed by the police to have a shared, gendered soul essence, is misogynist.

For misogyny as a hate crime to work in practice, the police would have to start by policing itself. Which they aren’t going to do.

Ah cross post with Barracker

It wasn't long ago that SC was pushing this on Twitter and deleting anyone who mentioned biology, boundaries, privacy and how this affects their daughters.

It did not go well for SC and if this passes it won't go well for women. We'll all end up in court for not using preferred pronouns.

I'm with Barracker, Mama and Floisme.

My immediate thought was what Barracker has already said.

Ive spoken to Stella Creasy a few times. Shes the type to piss on your leg and tell you its raining.

I'm not a fan of criminalising thoughts. And the argument that it's happening already so we might as well extend it further does not enthuse me either.

Who else suspects that misogyny will end up being used as a weapon to prosecute a woman (gynae) for hatred of a man (no gynae, no miso-gyny)?

How does she define misogyny?

I also think if the person pushing the legislation intends that it can be used for 'self identifying women' then that's got unintended consequences that that person clearly can't see. So that's a no from me.

The whole concept of Hate Crime is deeply flawed.
I don't want anything to do with it.