Extreme misogyny will be classed as terrorism !

It's bullshit dangerous type legislation which just signals: 'we don't like bad things', but which you can't write clear legislation to enforce without it being at the whim of whoever has power in the moment.

All attacks on women are already illegal. This is trying to say people who have awful views about women are responsible so we'll make expressing the views illegal.

It's thought policing.
Of 'extreme' views. But who gets to decide what is extreme?

I vote no one, and we stick with making actions illegal not views.

This is isn't news to be celebrated it's dangerous nonsense.

But maybe I'm just a sour sack?

Yeah, sorry OP but the phrase "once bitten, twice shy" comes to the forefront for me too.

I don't trust any of them, so want it spelled out with clear definitions for terms such as "woman" before I consider it a good thing.

I'm not willing to start being complacent now.

Exactly. You have to define "woman" and "girl" first. I don't think this will turn out the way we would hope. Certainly not with Yvette Cooper in charge.

You only have to look at Spain's domestic violence laws to see how this can go. Because men can declare themselves women, abusive men can identify into DV refuges and as "women", claim immunity from prosecution for their violent acts against their female partner. So women in the DV refuge are put at risk and the abuser escapes prosecution.

That's why the definitions and guidelines matter.

OP's first post ever (or under this username) was 06/07/2024. Were school's out then, universities were.

I'd expect a token number of people referred for real misogyny before it starts to be used against those born female. When TRAs are prosecuted for their incitement to violence and a judge actually convicts them or men are prosecuted for sexual harassment and a judge convicts them maybe some trust could be restored.

The same paper has this:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/17/terror-or-mental-illness-dividing-britains-judges/

"After each attack, specialist officers and the intelligence agenciess_ only have days to decide whether to publicly declare an act of violence a terror attack. The decision is often fraught with difficulties – not least the complexity of trying to understand a suspect’s state of mind in the hours after an attack, without the hard evidence that may later emerge. Police officers, intelligence agencies and judges have strongly disagreed over how some individual attacks should be classified.

The race to decide

Jacques says that with the vast majority of attacks in the UK now launched by lone actors with no formal links to terrorist groups or networks, those decisions are becoming increasingly complex.
“If you wind the clock back to when terrorism was structured and had groups meeting planning and plotting, it was more straightforward to determine,” he says.
“But when it’s somebody you don’t know and an act has happened that looks like it might be terrorism, answering that question really early doors is more difficult.”
In Britain, terrorism has gradually movedd_ away from structured groups like the IRA and al-Qaeda who once directed attacks through formal networks, to individuals acting on personal and frequently chaotic combinations of grievance and inspiration.
Following Isis’ call for global attacks by its followers without seeking permission in 2014, the group’s model of indiscriminate bomb, knife and vehicle rampages has been picked up by a far wider pool of terrorists.
“When you attach yourself to a cause like Isis, then there’s a model, and when someone then copies that well-established model, it’s quite easy to say ‘that is terrorism’,” says Jonathan Hall, the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
“I think the difficulty comes when people haven’t attached themselves to a particular, well-known cause, or if they’ve got lots of different causes, any one of which could appear to be the driver towards violence.”
Jacques says that when potential terror attacks are committed by people who are unknown to the security services, officers have to rapidly analyse a vast amount of evidence, including witness accounts, police interviews with the perpetrator, examination of their electronic devices and their personal background to try to ascertain if they have an ideological motivation.
“It’s such a murky world now,” Jacques says. “You think: ‘How can you define that specifically? Is it an ideological cause? Is it personal grievance, is it mental health, is it a combination of all three?’ Which is another reason why declaration early is less than straightforward.”
Reaching a decision and publicly declaring it is a race against time. Normally, police can only hold suspects for 24 hours without charge, although they can apply to a court to extend the period to four days.
But if the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS))_ decides that it has enough evidence to charge an attacker with murder or attempted murder before counter-terror police have established their motivation, a public declaration will not be made out of fear of influencing jurors at a future trial."

Yes. It has the feel of style over substance.

Yes, that makes sense.

What I take from that is that outcomes then rely on lawyers being able to persuade judges in their interpretations of the law.

The wouldn't need a new law to deal with the what was it, 65,000 reported rapes sitting on the system. Or to actually jail rapists and/or paedophiles once found guilty.

Which is why I think this is total bullshit.

Yes caution is sensible. Unintended consequences are thing.

..and don't understand why we should be blind to the implications, just to be good sports.
Thank goodness for mn

Yes, I, for one, feel very cautious about Labour's activities here.

Again. This is very rude. I‘m sorry you started a thread possibly thinking everyone would be Super Grateful to Labour but we have all seen the results of ill-defined legislation (Labour legislation to be specific!). So obviously people want the detail. Why would you celebrate something about which you know very little indeed? It defies logic.

The "purpose" is the intention of the original drafters of the law. For example, if there was a 1976 law forbidding communication with an at-risk child or young person by any verbal means, a lawyer might argue that email or text isn't verbal, so should not be covered by the prohibition. The other lawyer might argue that, going by the preamble, the debates in Parliament, the previous legislation it replaced, etc, etc, the purpose of Parliament in passing that Act was to stop communication which could not be easily monitored, so emails and texts should be prohibited.

IANAL, and that may not be the best made-up example but it's my understanding of what the purposive approach means.

We are technically on the same side.....aren't we?

Careful everyone. You'll end up branded hungover, thick, or a sour sack.

Rape, murder... misogyny

MISGENDERING however...EXTREME MISOGYNY

It's all in the redistribution of the language that they have been gearing up over the last few years.

The devil is in the detail.

We need to see the guidelines before we praise this initiative.

When free speech dies, it will go out with a whimper, not a bang because everyone will be applauding laws like these that go after arseholes and will be blindsided when the law goes after them because the precedent has already been set.

I also think the first person charged under these new laws will be a woman referring to a man with a GRC as a man.

Are you hungover or always such an intentionally uncomprehending sour sack.

You defined nothing. Writing "EXTREME MISOGYNY" in all caps doesn't mean you've defined "extreme misogyny". There wasn't anything to comprehend.

As for the rest, how unsisterly and rude.

Thank you for the article @Omlettes I’m not hungover 😁

Christ, I hope not.

I hope this is the good news it looks to be but the police need to get their own house in order first of all by severing links with Stonewall, Pride et al (see the Surrey thread) so that what @Snowypeaks says doesn’t become the case. In addition they need a far more robust screening process to ensure that men who commit domestic violence or who are sexual predators are never allowed into the police force.