AIBU to think it's time to make misogyny an jmprisonable crime?

[Scammersarescum]

After reading this horrendous article about religious groups spending vast amounts to remove women's rights?

Isn't it time to make these people accountable and punish them?

I'm trying to imagine the absolute uproar if this was targeted at another group that regularly encounters oppression. Yet this will be shrugged off by most and ignored.

Incitement to religious hatred is a crime so why isn't incitement to hate women?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/sep/11/religious-groups-christians-islamists-catholic-billions-counter-gender-equality-sex-education-lgbtq-equal-rights

Do you think prosecutions for hate speech are 'thought crimes'. For example, the people who were recently prosecuted for inciting violence against Muslims and asylum seekers, were found guilty of 'thought crimes'.

If misogyny become an offence, do you think people would be prosecuted for thinking things?

Hate crimes against a "sex" or "gender" should be considered protected characteristics and subject to prosecution if used, in the same way as other protected characteristics.

But what's the definition of hate crime? If I challenge a biological male, who identifies as transwoman, in a female sex segregated facility and ask him to leave, is that a hate crime?

That will no doubt become a crime if misogyny became an offence

What are you basing this on?

The recent Scots Hate Crime Bill already has a provision to add "Sex" as a Hate aggravator, which is where the upcoming "misogyny" will fit in.

In order for something to be a Hate Crime, it must be a criminal offence in the first place. "Hate" is simply an aggravator on top. There is no suggestion whatsoever that misogyny itself will be made a criminal offence, rather, it will be added to the list of already existing Hate aggravators.

Considering that "Transgender Identity" is already a Hate aggravator across the UK, if simply objecting to the presence of trans people was going to lead to arrests for hate crimes, then that would be happening already. It isn't a criminal offence though, which is why nobody is being arrested and prosecuted for hate crimes. That won't change one iota once "sex" or specifically "misogyny" is added, because that does not add any new criminal offences, just Hate aggravators.

No, because Hate is an aggravator to an existing criminal offence.

In your example, there is no criminal offence, so there can not possibly be any Hate Crime.

Again, "Transgender Identity" is already a Hate Aggravator, so if people were going to be arrested, charged with Hate Crimes, and prosecuted for doing what you are describing, it would already have been happening.

If this came in with the current lack of definition of gender, sex etc and the legal fiction of the GRA then women could be arrested under misogyny laws for saying that trans women are men.

Eg careful what you wish for

Which "misogyny laws"?

Adding misogyny as an aggravator does not create any new laws, and it does not create any new criminal offences. It does not make misogyny in itself a criminal offence.

In the context of Hate Crime, nobody talks about "Religion Laws", or "Sexual Orientation Laws".

@XDownwiththissortofthingX Women have been arrested for the thought crime of "being untoward towards paedophiles" , a disabled woman for stickering , for having a poster on a door and several others. The fact that these rarely make it to court and in one case the barrister actually told their clients to drop their non existent case is irrelevant - the process is the punishment.

If you define this as hatred towards the sex class of women then yes. If you include anyone who wants to say they are female then no.

Police need to enforce the existing laws and judges need to actually convict those who incite violence against women.

If you define this as hatred towards the sex class of women then yes. If you include anyone who wants to say they are female then no

Again though, this is not how Hate legislation works. You do not need to "define" anything because everyone is automatically protected by the same laws.

To go back to a point raised earlier; "mistaken identity". This is ultimately irrelevant. No matter how unlikely it is that someone is mistaken for something they are not, the law still protects them in the event that they are. As a white, indigenous, atheistic Scot with no outwardly sign of religiosity, I think it vanishingly unlikely anyone would ever attack me in the mistaken belief I am a Muslim, but regardless, if they did they'd still be charged with a hate offence, "religion" being the pertinent aggravator, which is an example of why victim status is irrelevant, and why the law does not, by necessity, define or include/exclude precisely who can be the victim of specific hate offences.

What you are describing above is a misapplication of law, which I completely agree is unacceptable, but that is a problem rooted in failure of those charged with upholding law to understand it and apply it correctly.

A handful of examples of law being misapplied does not mean the law itself is broken or unworkable, especially when you consider the number of successful Hate convictions balanced against the instances where police get it wrong and investigate an "offence" when none has taken place.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX Trans people often insist proudly that they "pass" - when it is apparent that they dont. Telling them they dont would be interpreted as a hate crime.

There are no successful "hate crime" convictions for crimes against women and far from a few examples of cases where the courts get it wrong. There were many cases of strangling being put down to "rough sex" . It only became a specific crime on 7 June 2022.

I've no idea how many successful hate convictions there are because the police still record " wrongthink" as a hate crime.

Your arguments remind me of this part of 1984 "to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies"

Trans people often insist proudly that they "pass" - when it is apparent that they dont. Telling them they dont would be interpreted as a hate crime

"religion" is currently a Hate Aggravator. Claiming God does not exist is not "interpreted as a Hate Crime"

"Transgender Identity" is currently a Hate Aggravator. Telling trans people they don't pass is not "interpreted as a Hate Crime".

Again, for anything to have hate component, there needs to be criminal offence to aggravate, and telling someone they do not pass is not a criminal offence. Adding "sex/misogyny" as an aggravator will change absolutely nothing about that.

There are no successful "hate crime" convictions for crimes against women and far from a few examples of cases where the courts get it wrong. There were many cases of strangling being put down to "rough sex" . It only became a specific crime on 7 June 2022.

There are plenty of documented cases of women being the victims of Hate crimes, just not with the aggravator being "sex" or "misogyny", which is precisely why its well past time these were added, and good news that it's on the cards across the UK.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/uk-mother-arrested-and-locked-in-a-cell-after-calling-a-transgender-woman-a-man-on-twitter/5YKPOVDBLMNJXF5MHEP4TJSJBM/

And the process of arrest is part of the punishment

A report by the inspector of constabulary (about hate crimes) found officers were taking actions that ‘may appear to contradict common sense’ and incorrectly classifying some incidents.

"Hate crimes" need to be abolished completely if the police are too stupid to handle it.

Surely you could say that about any law that isn't handled correctly. Perhaps they need training.

They need to weed out the misogynists - but then there might not be a viable force left.

This is the crux of the problem. One member of the police said that if they brought in misogyny as a crime, they wouldn't have time for anything else.

You should not imprison someone for a belief. The favored beliefs fall in and out of fashion. Anyone at any moment could end up subject to this style of policing.

what you can do is make it illegal to actually discriminate against someone because of their sex.

Someone is free to walk around spouting off that girls should not get an education. If they actually block a girl from getting an education, then prison should be an option.