Boris Johnson does not support making misogyny a hate crime

[Glasstabletop]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58800328

Shocker.

*Oh I'm so cross. And all the people saying "I'm voting Conservative cos they know what a woman is" - yes they do know and they also make it clear what that woman's place is.

This. I understand Labour v women is problematic, but I think the Tories are a much greater danger to the lives and wellbeing of women.*
This and this and this again.
I am as TERFy as can be but fuck me is voting for the conservatives a huge own goal.

@AlpineSnow

I think Scotland are considering having it as a hate crime

An amendment was suggested by Joanna Cherry to add sex as a category to be protected under the Scottish Hate Crime Bill. It was voted down.

Instead we have a Misogny Working Group who will be considering the issue over the next couple of years and may or may not come up with an action plan. It was requested that sex be temporarily added to the Hate Crime Bill while the Working Group carried out its work. It was, again, voted down.

Matthew Scott (Barrister Blogger) has a useful discussion: The Met has a problem with hate-crime. It can’t explain what it means.

People reading the website, or more likely the extract that has been spread around the internet in the last few days, will quite understandably conclude that it means what it appears to say: that you can be prosecuted for doing something legal because of your “reasons for doing it.” They can hardly be blamed for believing that “thought-crime” is a reality in English law, after all the Metropolitan Police says that it is. They will then either harrumph in outrage, or mock the stupidity of the police and the whole concept of “hate crime,” or perhaps even make silly complaints against people they don’t like in the hope that they will get them arrested for “hate-crime.” Yet racist incidents, attacks on or harassment of Muslims or Jews, or on gay people and so on – in other words “hate crimes” – are all real and serious issues. A foolish and garbled message from the police does nothing to deal with them, if anything it trivialises the problem.

barristerblogger.com/2018/03/18/the-met-has-a-problem-with-hate-crime-it-cant-explain-what-it-means/

For example do you think spray painting "Gaz Love Claire" on a set of shutters should be treated the same way as "(Slur) Go Home"?

We're allowed to not only think, but say or write, all kinds of things. Spay painting them on people's homes is not allowed, Nor is harassing people.

But the idea that something like this will only be applied in these very unsavoury cases is pretty naive I think. What about when someone writes a latter critical of SSM in the local paper, or protests about immigration in fromt of a government building? Or says in a university class that they think women should be encouraged to stay home with infants rather than their dads? Or says at a Pride event that surrogacy is wrong and gay men will just have to deal with it?

Or has some other unpopular opinion that they are putting out in the public discourse?

There is no legal requirement that ideas be put forth in a smooth and kind way, even if we think they should be, and slurs aren't actually illegal to use although they may be against the rules in certain settings.

When you make the spray painting illegal also on account of the content, you are conceptually criminalizing the expression of certain content as well as the other element - in this case vandalism.

Yeah, he’s a dick.

We need more freedom of thought , speech and expression not less.
No we don't need more freedom for people to express hate for women.
If you discussed your hatred of black people you could be prosecuted for inciting racial tension.
If you were a Muslim discussing waging war on non-muslins you'd be prosecuted for terrorism.
Discuss how you want to rape women, in general or specifics and you won't be committing a crime.

Free speech does not mean spouting off any old opinion that pops into your head and especially if that causes harm to a whole sector of society.

The aim of making certain acts illegal isn't entirely to prevent those acts but also to signal they are culturally unacceptable. By refusing to treat misogyny in the same way as other hate crimes we are condoning it. As you can see from the vile things said to women on social media that are left to stand.

@QuentinBunbury

We need more freedom of thought , speech and expression not less. No we don't need more freedom for people to express hate for women. If you discussed your hatred of black people you could be prosecuted for inciting racial tension. If you were a Muslim discussing waging war on non-muslins you'd be prosecuted for terrorism. Discuss how you want to rape women, in general or specifics and you won't be committing a crime.

Free speech does not mean spouting off any old opinion that pops into your head and especially if that causes harm to a whole sector of society.

The aim of making certain acts illegal isn't entirely to prevent those acts but also to signal they are culturally unacceptable. By refusing to treat misogyny in the same way as other hate crimes we are condoning it. As you can see from the vile things said to women on social media that are left to stand.

You might be prepared with the social landscape that comes out of that, though I doubt it. But I wonder if you'd really be happy when someone decides your ideas are the hateful ones.

I don't care if someone decides that my ideas are hateful.
I'm not going to suddenly start using any "ideas" I have to justify to myself why I can start committing crimes against people. Which is what hate crimes are.
Women are routinely harassed, assaulted, and even murdered because some men are raging misogynists. There are Internet forums where men share hatred of women and some of those men have gone on to mass murder. This isn't about banning "an idea". It's about demonstrating that hating women isn't acceptable.

Honestly some people seem quite poorly informed and worried about a figment of their own imagination. "Freedom of speech" isn't what this is about.

Oh - and I'm also not convinced you actually believe the position you are taking so I won't be responding to you again.

Dominic Raab has been on bbc breakfast taking about how misogyny is wrong whether it’s a man against a woman or a woman against a man. The justice secretary doesn’t even know what misogyny is. Talk about depressing.

@QuentinBunbury I don’t think anyone here is disagreeing with you about the problem: that misogyny and misogynistic violence are widespread in this country, practically ingrained into our society. That women and girls get a raw deal. That all forms of misogyny need to be taken seriously.

My contention - and I think of several PPs who you are choosing to ignore - is that making misogyny a hate crime is not the solution. Not because I think it’s not serious, but because I am troubled by the misuse of hate crime legislation, to curtail free expression, and am not convinced there is any evidence that it reduces crime. I would like to see all hate crime legislation repealed.

I am, on the other hand, convinced that better use of existing laws needs to be made. That rape needs to be taken more seriously. That eg the evidencing process needs to be reviewed. That domestic violence needs to be treated as seriously as Street assault. That men who murder women should not be allowed to mitigate their crimes by character assassination of the victim. That street harassment of girls should be prosecuted as CSA. And that the police and judiciary needs a complete review to remove the institutional misogyny embedded within the system, and to increase the likelihood of women and girls being treated fairly.

@QuentinBunbury

Oh - and I'm also not convinced you actually believe the position you are taking so I won't be responding to you again.

That's a rather bizarre conclusion.

I mean do you seriously not see the link between this kind of approach and the way feminists are being silenced? In my country it's actually potentially illegal to make certain arguments about women's rights, because it's hateful.

I am troubled by the misuse of hate crime legislation, to curtail free expression, and am not convinced there is any evidence that it reduces crime
How is free expression being curtailed by hate crime legislation?
Also, "hate" in itself isn't a crime. It's an aggravating factor on other crimes that can then be used to track, analyse and respond to that type of behaviour. Part of the reason misogyny is so widespread is because the invisible. How else would you make misogyny visible to policy makers so it can be reduced?

@PurpleDaisies

Dominic Raab has been on bbc breakfast taking about how misogyny is wrong whether it’s a man against a woman or a woman against a man. The justice secretary doesn’t even know what misogyny is. Talk about depressing.

@LobsterNapkin

I mean do you seriously not see the link between this kind of approach and the way feminists are being silenced? In my country it's actually potentially illegal to make certain arguments about women's rights, because it's hateful.

I agree. Matthew Scott (upthread) covered this well.

Mr Justice Julian Knowles expressed this opinion in Harry Miller's case which was about 'checking Miller's thinking after posting a puerile limerick': “In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”

I can't see any circumstances under which non-crime hate incidents wouldn't eventually be used to control society in an authoritarian way. Pippa Malgrem gave some disturbing insights into some of the potential for abuse for such legislation when combined with some of the surveillance technology tools that already exist in some countries.

We don't have good solutions but our current state of affairs doesn't seem effective.

I'm not convinced making misogyny a hate crime would actually change anything. The laws are already there just not being enforced. I agree with a specific street harrassment law.
Hate crime is too vague. Are victims of domestic violence victims of misogyny - all of them or only some? Would we have a hierarchy of victims?

I think it's a red herring, we need to focus on the whole justice system.