This Guardian interview bothered me re misogyny and hate crime

[Howmanydays]

do-long-jail-sentences-stop-we-ask-the-expert

I don't believe custodial sentences are often the best sentence, that's not the issue. For assault/harassment etc here is an automatic uplift for homophobic or racial elements. Why is it just when it's against women we start questioning the point of there being a specific crime or uplift.

''Think back to the campaign about upskirting – a terrible thing to happen, I agree with it being prosecuted. But some would say there were already laws to deal with it.''

But women used to complain and were told there was nothing the police could do, that photographing someone under their clothes was not an offence, hence the campaign.
Its why there have been other campaigns, about coercive control, and strangulation for example. Crimes against women just aren't treated seriously; even when they lead to physical harm, or death.

It's also about the message that is sent to society and how that affects the attitude that people hold towards women. I say people because women with internalised misogyny can end up unwittingly enabling the abuse of misogynist men. Misogyny not appearing on the list of hate crimes whilst hate crimes exist is really only something that could happen in a world where misogyny is so deeply entrenched many refuse to see it!

Has hate crime law been effective against reducing crime and changing people's attitudes towards other protected characteristics? I'd be interested to see data.

Anecdotally, I don't hear "gay" used as an insult any more, great. But at the same time it's becoming socially unacceptable to defend exclusively same sex attraction, which is horrifyingly regressive.

As a disclaimer, I am not a fan of these kinds of hate crime designations. I think they aren't that useful and they are prone to misuse.

However, I think part of the issue with it in terms of things like upskirting is how we decide what motivates certain types of crimes.

So, for a simple example that people might think of with hate crime, say beating someone up because they are black, or bombing some sort of worship building of a particular religion. These things are done because the person has some strong animus against this group - hatred. The law is supposed to recognize that besides the primary crime - assault, bombing - there is an element of hate against an identity group that is especially heinous.

In this other instance, you are saying that the reason someone takes illegal photos up a woman's skirt is because he hates women. That's arguable though - the main reason for doing it might be because he gets a sexual kick out of it, or will later looking at the photos. It's not done to "get" women, it's done for sexual fulfillment. He may not give a crap about women, or respect them, but the motivation is basically satisfaction of a physical urge.

I think that probably complicates a lot of these kinds of specific crimes against women. Domestic abuse for example. Is it about hating a woman in particular, or about bullying your sexual partner who happens to be a woman because you are heterosexual. It's not like there isn't DV in homosexual relationships, and yet we don't usually say it's due to misandry or misogyny.

If hate crimes or legislation about hate is going to be meaningful, it's going to have to be pretty specific in terms of being the fundamental motivation, rather than sex or mugging or whatever.

I think the name 'hate crime' is shorthand for behaviours that includes contempt, othering, or not seeing the other person as fully human.
It focusses on how they impact the victim.
The fact the perp doesn't actually feel hatred is irrelevant to the victim. They have been targeted because of how the perp feels towards members of a group who have a protected characteristic.