I think it kind of misses the point.
I'd like a crack down on misogyny but I don't believe hate crime law is the way to go simply because you get into unintended consequences and I fear it being used in ways that were never considered with a negative impact on women ultimately being the net result.
I just which existing laws were used better with things like coercive control and harressment taken more seriously generally.
I'd also favour a massive overall of the family courts done. The number of magistrates and police who seem completely lacking in awareness coercive control and harressment on sexist lines to control women and are happy instead to actively victim blame is appalling. That just gives the men doing it feel as if they are untouchable and safe from consequences.
A law on misogyny strikes me as window dressing rather than root cause law making which gets to grips with real life issues.
I've heard first hand of far too many cases of women who have had the system used against them by controlling partners, including in cases where domestic abuse and rape has been formally recognised by the justice system.
I fear that misogyny as a hate crime wouldn't stop it and in certain situations would be actively used against women and hate crime is pretty useless to women who are already unable to asset themselves in the existing system family court and criminal justice systems.
For me the whole this is like giving someone a kiss better when they are lying bleeding to death in the road.
I'd rather they tackled institutionalised sexism which leaves women exposed and unprotected in situations which are text book abuse but aren't taken seriously.
Hate crime as we've already seen creates this situation where you create sacred issues which cannot necessarily be fully explored and its important we don't have that fear.
The trouble is that when you say you are against the concept of hate crime, you are regarded as backward. My problem is more to do with the practical day to day aspects of it in law and it not being fully thought out and it letting government off the hook because they then can say 'look how we've made things better for women with this law', when its not really changing much.
Its illegal to rape women. Its illegal to harass women. It still happens and cases are often not taken seriously or go to court (even if a woman reports it) because women don't trust the system or because the process of enforcing the law is so traumatic and littered with a judicial system full of misogynistic attitudes. I don't see how having a new classification changes that.
If I get abuse and threats on twitter, am I going to get it taken seriously? Can i go to the police? I should, in theory, already be able to. Cases have been brought already. But therein lies the problem. Its almost as if you have to be the right type of victim and you have to have the means/status to bring a case in the first place. Woman from a more troubled background? Less so.
It just feels like its a law for the more privileged whilst ignoring the underlying problem which is faced by women who are more likely to face systemic and institutionalised misogyny. Its a cheap 'solutuion' which actually is paying lipservice to a wider problem. As long as the gobby privileged women have a law to protect themselves who cares about the ones who are less articulate and cant afford legal advice or legal aid.
Id much rather MN had something to say along those lines rather that playing the game of pandering to shallow activism (and outright virtue signalling) on social media rather than address more chronic ideas of why women often fail to be able to protect themselves with the laws we have, not because of the lack of law, because because of how you are unable to use the law or enforce the law or the law is used against women because of outdated views.