Notts police to record harassment as a misogynistic hate crime

[grimbletart]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398

Are they the first to do so I wonder?

I understand "hate crime" is reserved for minority groups

Your understanding is wrong.

I'm not sure what this adds. The report states that police already monitor various categories of 'hate crime', including gender identity, and isn't being a woman (or a man) a form of gender identity?

That said, being open specifically about this could help shift misogynistic attitudes, over time.

Then the police can get on to violence against men because they are men: it seems to be a young man thing, to beat up other young men to show how hard you are. DP was attacked over 20 times in his youth, seemingly for no reason other than that he was a lone male picked on by groups of other young males wanting to 'prove themselves.'

Yay for gendered punishments and everything beginning to be based on gender in a time when we're trying to make gender a non issue

Gender is a non issue. Sex is not.

"isn't being a woman (or a man) a form of gender identity?". No it they are forms of sex. Sex, as shown on Buffy's link is not reserved for hate crimes (unless in Notts).

So yes when you are raped it clearly isn't because you are a woman. It's just because you are the nearest available sexual object. Which is comforting.

I think this is a good idea as the incidents which Notts are recording are not treated as hate crimes.

However there seems to be a serious lack of understanding on here, given statements about a white heterosexual male being incapable of being the victim of a hate crime, about what a hate crime is.

From a previous poster - Heterosexual white males cannot be the victims of hate crime, because they have systematically oppressed women, homosexuals and people of colour in the past, and to some extent still do, and never were the victims of systematic oppression at any point in time.

Interesting. Would that rule out white females too, given their part in systematic oppression of black people? We have had slavery and overt racism in the UK in our past. We also have female members of organisations like UKIP and the BNP/National Front.

I think this is a very good idea, not only for the reasons stated above, but because violence and abuse against women is often starts with small acts and escalates into more severe ones. Hence any misogyny should be taken very seriously.

Yep makes no sense to me either. I suspect it makes no sense to Vestal either, hence her earlier statement.

And YY to sweating the small stuff IPitythePontipines.

If this helps to stop the moronic behaviour of some men in public, then I am all for it. Would you be able to film someone on your phone, for example (but not limited to) shouting from a white van, and submit that as evidence?

Yeah, I always have my phone ready for white van man to shout abuse.

Not sure what the answer to your question is Grimarse. Presumably it would be subject to whatever laws surround filming members of the public are, as usual. Is there a point to the question?

Does anyone know the reason why, when hate crime legislation was extended to include the groups who are now covered by it, women/sex was not included? I feel I'm missing something here but I just don't understand why.

Good news.The first reply when the BBC posted this on their fb page says it all really. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1717668058485347&id=1392506827668140

I think some previous points were about balance within the law, and not excluding any group. For example, hate crimes against religious beliefs might impinge far more heavily on some religions than others, but that doesn't mean that the law should not be applicable for everyone. The ratio of religious hate crimes might be split 95 - 5 per cent for Muslims vs Christians, for example. Should therefore the law not be applicable to Christian persecution?

In the same way, a law of hate crimes against either sex might still capture 99 per cent of crimes being committed against women. The law still works, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?

Not sure what the answer to your question is Grimarse. Presumably it would be subject to whatever laws surround filming members of the public are, as usual. Is there a point to the question?

Point being that everyone has a phone camera these days. If such evidence is admissible, perhaps some of the morons will consider this and not bother in the first place. Knowing that they can be filmed shouting, and then a number plate captured may deter some. I asked because I don't know whether such filming is admissible as evidence in court.

I'd like to think that Grimarse, really I would. But given that men get away with rapes that are filmed, I'm thinking not. Also this stuff often happens so swiftly and unexpectedly it would be difficult. It would only be cases that escalate I suspect.

Having said that, a woman did manage to film the street harassment she received in the US (although if I remember rightly it was problematic racially).

This already happens with road rage type incidents - many cyclists wear bodycams that can capture footage of abuse aimed at them. Is that used as evidence? It seems to be the same as cctv footage from shops/homes that can be used in the case of burglaries etc. Perhaps more women should wear bodycams when going about their daily routines?

The other thing about the filming is that harassing women on the street has always been a crime. It's just now going to be classified as a hate crime. So if the possibility of being filmed hasn't put men off yet not sure why calling it a hate crime would make a difference. I suppose that extra stigma may help or reduce the problem?

I think the reason why racially and religious aggravated offences were put on the statute book was as a result of the public concern following the Stephen Lawrence murder.

There was at the time some discussion as to why they were needed at all - it was asked why courts could not simply apply this as another 'aggravating' factor when carrying out its sentencing exercise. Others argued that to substantial increase sentences then new offences needed to be created - see Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In the end, I suppose it was politically expedient to create the new offences.

A hate crime is basically one where the person being attacked is different from the attacker in some way, usually , although not always , in a way which is involuntary and that difference is the motivation or prime motivation for the attack. Not all differences are protected. Not all crimes where the parties are different are hate crimes.

Example 1. A fully able ,white, heterosexual Christian man and a black , disabled lesbian , Muslim, single mother live on the same common stair. He has frequent late and noisy parties- she has cats who pee on the stairs and children who drop litter. They can't stand the sight of each other. If they come to blows it is not a hate crime unless he uses insulting words about her race, religion or disability or indeed she tells him he's a dirty kaffir.

Example 2 A Glasgow Rangers supporter beats up a Glasgow Celtic supporter or vice versa. That is likely to be a hate crime because of the sectarian Protestant / Catholic rivalry. An Aberdeen supporter beats up a St Johnston supporter or vice versa - that is unlikely to be a hate crime as there is no sectarian rivalry between those teams.

Example 3 the 2 teenage girls who were convicted earlier this year of the brutal murder of a vulnerable alcoholic older woman after torturing her for hours did not commit a hate crime. Being a bit odd and being seen as a bit weird is not a protected characteristic.

Example 3 the people who bullied Fiona Pilkington to the point she killed her daughter and committed suicide did not commit a hate crime although the ones bullying her disabled daughter did.

Example 4 anyone regardless of their race, religion or sex attacking a white, Jewish middle class, able bodied man in the UK even a member of the House of Lords , because he is Jewish commits a hate crime.

Example 5 anyone regardless of their race, religion or sex beating up a Goth just for looking after bit funny is not committing a hate crime. Looking at bit odd and being seen as a bit weird is not a protected characteristic.