To think that violence against women is a hate crime?

[Wandawomble]

AIBU - it’s not a hate crime
YAIBU - it is a hate crime

I think so many of us are upset by the constant news of women being assaulted, raped and murdered - and the horrific statistics about the majority of young women in the UK having been sexually harassed. (Guardian link below)

I am a BAME woman and I experience misogyny in the same way that I experience racism, if anything the misogyny is worse. I do not feel safe walking home late, I have had multiple attacks on my physical body by men because of my sex and multiple attacks of my body because I am brown.
It is no different except with being a diminutive female - I have been more easily overpowered and the sexual assaults have been much much worse. So how is this not a hate crime?

I was pulled into a strangers car on the way to school once and assaulted because of my female body. Can you imagine how I feel about my daughter walking to school? I do not understand how any person can not see this as hate towards women. It is certainly not love.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/10/almost-all-young-women-in-the-uk-have-been-sexually-harassed-survey-finds

WHO says 1 in 3 women globally experience domestic violence. www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

@LaceyBetty

Does adding hate to a rape charge raise its tariff?

Yes.

How do you know this when it's not law? Rape is rape and the sentence won't be increased because a man has raped a woman. That's bloody illogical nonsense.

@Moomin12345

At the end of the day, what's in a name?

The naming it, at law, means the hate aspect can be added as a aggravating factor - particularly relevant in sentencing.

I disagree. The recent sentences for murdering women in the UK have been laughable. I'd first remove the pathetic diminished responsibility/manslaughter defense. Recent examples : the guy who strangled his mistress because she had texted his wife and the guy who killed his wife of over 40 years in the heat of a moment both got laughable sentences because they just lost their cool. It wasn't because these men were hating females, it was because they were nasty aggressive pieces of work. The lenient sentences show that men are not held responsible for not being violent so apparently it's up to women in their lives not to bait them

Removing diminished responsibility/provocation as a defence is dangerous for women.

The "battered women" defence relies upon reducing murder to manslaughter on grounds of provocation/diminished responsibility. Do we really want women who have endured years of abuse and finally snap to be treated more harshly?

I agree 100% that the law does not treat women fairly though and that needs to change. Cases like Sara Thornton's show exactly how much worse women are treated, it is an old case now but still illustrates the point well.

This is a ridiculous assumption. If you allow this then you would have to call anyone beating up a man whether the perpetrator is male or female, and in the name of equality, a hate crime. Men rape women for a multitude of reasons, from the serial killer to the man who has sex with a drunk woman. Basically youre saying a man who snatches a bag is committing a hate crime because it's from a woman? There is just no logic.

A man may rape and steal from a woman because he feels he is superior and has a right to take what he wants. Not because of hate but because of entitlement. Entitlement isn't hate.
The same man may beat up a gay man because he hates gay men because they are an affront to his sense of male entitlement.
Example 1 is about societies treatment of men and women and instilling a sense of superiority into men and denigrating women's value.
Example 2 is a hate crime because it's based on the mans perception of gay men

It is society we need to be changing and attitudes, not trying to make an attitude society instills in men at every level into a nonsensical and unworkable law. How would you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man raped a woman because of misogyny?

How do you know this when it's not law? Rape is rape and the sentence won't be increased because a man has raped a woman. That's bloody illogical nonsense.

@anamazingfind

You need to do some research. It's not illogical in the least. Lots of aggravating factors are considered when sentencing for any crime.

If a crime is proved to motivated by hate and the victim against whom the crime was committed is protected under hate crime legislation (eg race, religion, sexual orientation) then the judge has the ability to impose a much higher sentence. If a racialised person is physically assaulted and the prosecutor can prove it was motivated by the hatred of that race (not just a run of the mill mugging for example), that will be an aggravating factor and the sentence may be increase beyond the typical maximum. If a synagogue is burnt down because the perpetrator hates Jewish people and not just because he likes setting fires, the sentence could be harsher.

If a man rapes a women and the prosecutor can prove the motivation was hatred of women, that should be an aggravating factor permitting a higher sentence. Sex is conspicuously absent from hate crime legislation.

@anamazingfind

This is a ridiculous assumption. If you allow this then you would have to call anyone beating up a man whether the perpetrator is male or female, and in the name of equality, a hate crime. Men rape women for a multitude of reasons, from the serial killer to the man who has sex with a drunk woman. Basically youre saying a man who snatches a bag is committing a hate crime because it's from a woman? There is just no logic.

A man may rape and steal from a woman because he feels he is superior and has a right to take what he wants. Not because of hate but because of entitlement. Entitlement isn't hate.
The same man may beat up a gay man because he hates gay men because they are an affront to his sense of male entitlement.
Example 1 is about societies treatment of men and women and instilling a sense of superiority into men and denigrating women's value.
Example 2 is a hate crime because it's based on the mans perception of gay men

It is society we need to be changing and attitudes, not trying to make an attitude society instills in men at every level into a nonsensical and unworkable law. How would you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man raped a woman because of misogyny?

You really don't understand the concept of a hate crime do you? Part of it is proving the motivation was hate.

@araiwa

So what will change going forward if they are classed as hate crimes?

Stiffer sentences.

Hatred of specific groups is an aggravating factor and judges can issue more severe sentences when the motivation for a crime against the person is motivated by hatred of that group.

No but it would be possible to make the presence of a hate crime an aggravating factor for sentencing.

At present it would be an aggravating factor for rape if there was violence or if say race hate was a factor. You could add misogyny to the definition of hate crime so that hatred of women as a class would be considered at sentencing.

That wouldn't mean all rape was a hate crime. A man who was on a date with a woman and didn't take no for an answer when she'd invited him in would have committed a rape that wasn't a hate crime, but an incel with violent misogynistic content on his computer who raped a woman to punish her for the behaviour of all women would be a hate crime.

Beating up a gay man isn't a hate crime, but beating up a man because he's gay is.

@anamazingfind

This is a ridiculous assumption. If you allow this then you would have to call anyone beating up a man whether the perpetrator is male or female, and in the name of equality, a hate crime. Men rape women for a multitude of reasons, from the serial killer to the man who has sex with a drunk woman. Basically youre saying a man who snatches a bag is committing a hate crime because it's from a woman? There is just no logic.

A man may rape and steal from a woman because he feels he is superior and has a right to take what he wants. Not because of hate but because of entitlement. Entitlement isn't hate.
The same man may beat up a gay man because he hates gay men because they are an affront to his sense of male entitlement.
Example 1 is about societies treatment of men and women and instilling a sense of superiority into men and denigrating women's value.
Example 2 is a hate crime because it's based on the mans perception of gay men

It is society we need to be changing and attitudes, not trying to make an attitude society instills in men at every level into a nonsensical and unworkable law. How would you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man raped a woman because of misogyny?

What? Both of your examples are based on the man's perception of his victim. And in your second example you state that the hate crime is directly because gay men challenge the assaulters entitlement, so why is entitlement not a contributing factor in your first example then?

Basically youre saying a man who snatches a bag is committing a hate crime because it's from a woman? There is just no logic. - you're right, there is no logic to that, which is why no one has made that argument.

Hate crimes are comitted against protected groups by members not of that group - so a woman killing a man or a man killing a man would not be classed as a hate crime under the change of law that the OP is proposing.

Further, how is anything proved beyond reasonable doubt - with evidence. Plenty of men spew their hatred for women online, are party to incel groups, vocalise their targeted hatred both to their victim and the world at large - evidence would be possible in a number of cases. How do you think it is proven that a murder due to the person's race is a hate crime? It would follow the same process.

Finally, the law and what is and is not legally acceptable plays a huge part in changing societal attitudes.

Basically youre saying a man who snatches a bag is committing a hate crime because it's from a woman? There is just no logic.

Of course not. Noone’s saying that at all.

@Lexilooo

No but it would be possible to make the presence of a hate crime an aggravating factor for sentencing.

At present it would be an aggravating factor for rape if there was violence or if say race hate was a factor. You could add misogyny to the definition of hate crime so that hatred of women as a class would be considered at sentencing.

That wouldn't mean all rape was a hate crime. A man who was on a date with a woman and didn't take no for an answer when she'd invited him in would have committed a rape that wasn't a hate crime, but an incel with violent misogynistic content on his computer who raped a woman to punish her for the behaviour of all women would be a hate crime.

Beating up a gay man isn't a hate crime, but beating up a man because he's gay is.

That was in response to @anamazingfind

I know this has been posted already but I’ll post it again.

This is what the law CURRENTLY says a hate crime is:

'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.'

OP’s perfectly valid point is that ‘sex’ is missing from that list.

@Karmakarmachameleon

Basically youre saying a man who snatches a bag is committing a hate crime because it's from a woman? There is just no logic.

Of course not. Noone’s saying that at all.

If he made a habit of snatching bags from women, and only from women, and because they were women and he is targeting them for that reason, rather than because he wanted to steal bags, then yes that is a hate crime.

And deciding that is no different for the police than when they have to decide if a black person who's beaten up has been beaten up because they were black or for some other reason. That's the police's job.

@Karmakarmachameleon

I know this has been posted already but I’ll post it again.

This is what the law CURRENTLY says a hate crime is:

'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.'

OP’s perfectly valid point is that ‘sex’ is missing from that list.

And part of the prosecutor's job is to prove that the motivation of the perpetrator was hate. It's rarely easy, but no reason for it to be harder in the case of hatred of women then, say, the hatred of a gay people.

"Sex is conspicuously absent from hate crime legislation."

Yes, it is. And it shouldn't be. It's hard to escape the conclusion that the reason it is excluded is because violence against women because they are women is so prevalent that it would cover such a high proportion of violent crimes perpetrated on women. That, however, is not a good enough reason to exclude it. (I realise you aren't saying it should be excluded, LaceyBetty!)

@Seasidevibes

I do not think you are being unreasonable at all, l think all women in England have suffered misogyny from men, but my feelings are BAME women may experience more misogyny/violence than than white women. I find that in this country men think they have a right to police and comment about what we wear without repercussions, and if you dare stand up for yourself you are seen as uppity, stuck up, can’t take a joke, can’t take a compliment, should be grateful for the attention 🙄 It’s a complex subject, but as females we are always policing how we behave to stay safe or not to offend people.

I suspect you're right, @Seasidevibes. BAME women are targets for both misogynists and racists, so more likely to encounter someone who hates them.

@WhyIsMyKitchenSoCold

Very good point; it's like people are admitting that hate crimes motivated by sex are so prevalent that they are insurmountable. But obviously if something is not classed as a crime it will always remain insurmountable, so the answer is not to bury our heads in the sand.

@Karmakarmachameleon

I know this has been posted already but I’ll post it again.

This is what the law CURRENTLY says a hate crime is:

'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.'

OP’s perfectly valid point is that ‘sex’ is missing from that list.

This is why I don't agree with hate crime laws: the emphasis on what is "perceived" to be the case. It's reliant on feelings. I think a huge part of the trouble women are in at the moment with the trans lobby pushing ever further into women's spaces is because of the same mentality: feelings over facts.

I don't agree with the concept of hate crimes.

Very good point; it's like people are admitting that hate crimes motivated by sex are so prevalent that they are insurmountable. But obviously if something is not classed as a crime it will always remain insurmountable, so the answer is not to bury our heads in the sand.

I agree with this.

This is why I don't agree with hate crime laws: the emphasis on what is "perceived" to be the case. It's reliant on feelings.

It is not the victim's perception of the motivation for the crime that is the deciding factor. The prosecutor has to provide that the motivation of the perpetrator was hate. Motive is always part of any criminal prosecution.

Surely all violence is a hate crime...

@Amichelle84

Surely all violence is a hate crime...

It's not.

Amichelle84
Surely all violence is a hate crime...

Of course that isn’t the case. Burglars mostly don’t even know the owners of the houses they target. It’s about greed and entitlement.

Sorry, I should have used an example of a violent crime that’s not hate based. Armed robbery of a bank or post office would be a better example.

Drunken fight in a pub because a woman knocked over your pint? Not a hate crime
Vandalism of property owned by a Sikh family because you're a bored kid with nothing to do? Not a hate crime
Stabbing a black kid as part of a dispute over gang territory? Not a hate crime
Beating up a gay man because you want his phone? Not a hate crime

But if any of those happen because the person has one of those characteristics it's a hate crime. Identifying whether that was the motive is not easy, I agree, but that isn't to say we shouldn't try.

But how do you prove hate was a motivating factor?

Basically you can't. So a pointless law that will tie up the legal profession for days trying to argue the point. What rapist is going to say I raped her because I hate women? Its ridiculous.

Just because you try to put a label on a criminal it doesn''t mean its proveable in law.

The majority here are putting forward perfectly reasonable feelings about crimes against women, but LEGALLY what is going to be proveable beyond reasonable doubt?

Much more sensible would be to campaign for longer sentences for violence against women, not the pitiful ones currently in place.