make misogyny a hate crime

[changeypants]

i really think it would be a good starting point, and that while it is not, women are disadvantaged in debates such as the trans (non) debate from the off.

i was wondering if any progress had been made and googled upon this from hansard in march this year:

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-03-07/debates/92236C51-2340-4D97-92A7-4955B24C2D74/MisogynyAsAHateCrime

melanie onn for labour makes a detailed and compelling case. check out the very first reply. it would be hilarious, if the real life implications of being a second class citizen weren't so devastating.

My sexual orientation is heterosexual.... is that covered?

Upskirting is illegal in Scotland. It does not matter what the sex or gender of the skirt wearer or the photographer is.

Upskirting is illegal in Scotland.

Somehow unsurprising in the nation of kiltwearers.

For what it is worth I would abolish the concept of hate crime as well. Any act of violence involves hate and the severity of the violence should determine the sentence.

Where the act is verbal it can be covered by threatening behaviour/breach of the peace or similar.

It is a slightly facetious example but a school friend of my son's was beaten up because he was in a "posh" school uniform. I'm not suggesting the boy deserves any special protection because of he looks posh but on the other hand there was (I am assured by my son) no reason for the attack beyond that.

Somehow unsurprising in the nation of kiltwearers

If that is meant to be funny, it isn't.

I'm not a big fan of Holyrood but the
it can occasionally lead the way as they did here and on smoking, plastic bags and animals in circuses.

Men in kilts do have issues with drunk women trying to take photos up them,

So maybe the comment is not as off the mark as one might imagine.

But we don't have hate crimes, do we? We just have crimes. And, if the motivation for a crime is hate of a protected group, it's considered to be an aggravating factor in sentencing.

I think what we need to clarify is the way in which police report hate incidents - with the implication that the hate factor is a crime in itself.

South Park did an episode on Hate Crime a while back.

Token calls Cartman fat. Cartman throws a stone at him in retaliation. Token being black, Cartman is done for a hate crime.

So yes, I agree with Posey - better to get rid of Hate Crime legislation and treat people equally under existing laws.

West yorkshite Police.

One assumes that West Yorkshire Police haven't got much work on their hands so have taken to creating some

Yy. I think they're totally free of rape and grooming.

I think that the hate crime laws were a good thing

As originally they were meant to provide additonal weight to crimes that were committed agianst people because of their race, religion, sexuality etc

That was a good idea - beating someone up because they are gay is shit and causes fear in the community, it acts to oppress groups as a whole

As women we know how this works

However with sex missed off the list, and the oppression olympics, with people being able to self ID as whatever they feel like (I could get beaten up and self ID as something that is on the list and voila hate crime) it all becomes a bit moot.

So maybe it needs to go BUT with the judge able to apply extra if there is a hate element. So eg I would not want to see people who graffitti swastikas on bus stops in jewish areas to simply be done for vandalism. There is a necessity to cover hate somehow, as the impact goes beyond the actual crime, a lot of the time.

Don't know if that all makes sense have tried to set out how I feel.

What's pretty shocking is that are targeting the deaf!

Transphobic gestures?! Do you think it's signing pronouns?

I’d like to see it discussed because I think the discussion in and of itself would be quite enlightening.

I do also have quite a bit of sympathy with the idea of repealing hate crime laws in general - I see the logic there. The basic law should cover that crime in all people.

What to me is the worst case scenario is that some groups retain protected status and others whose rights clash don’t, which can lead to a favouring of one group over another at the expense of that original law that was supposed to be about whatever crime anyway (if that makes sense!) when we cover some groups and not others it does seem to increase the identity politics/tank everyone in terms of how worthy or a victim they are stuff

Men in kilts do have issues with drunk women trying to take photos up them

So maybe the comment is not as off the mark as one might imagine

The 2009 Act was a wide- ranging review of sexual offences including voyeurism. The first version of the draft concering voyeurism where the offence was widened to include taking photographs was criticised during the debate that it did not go far enough to cover the situation where a person attempts to use a camera (eg hidden in a bag) to secretly film up women's skirts

But don't let prejudices and stereotypes get in the way of fact.

As it is the Act makes it an offence whether the camera is hidden or not and whether filming is secret or not.

So it's not illegal to do this to a man in a kilt? I think that's crappy.

Surely this law in Scotland isn't sex based, it must apply to men as well.

If there's one time men in the UK get unwanted and intrusive sexual attention, it's when they've got kilts on and there's drinking going on.

So it's not illegal to do this to a man in a kilt? I think that's crappy

Where did you get that from?

I already said the sex or gender of the skirt wearer and the sex or gender of the photographer was irrelevant. Errol then made a silly comment about it being no surprise it was illegal in a country where men wear kilts. You thought that silly comment had credence.

The committee debating it gave the example of it happening to a woman (ie it was not inspired to protect men)

The Act makes no distinction about the sex of the victim. I quoted the section from the debate in response to ridiculous suggestions by you and Errol about how this law came ìnto being.

That's a godawful infographic. Clearly the money is going into thought policing rather than graphic design.

So far as the first poster I see no reason why cat calling/ verbal sexual abuse should not be reported under its remit (or indeed even bullying of posh, white school boys)

So far as the third a natal woman can identify as cis- gender and report abuse on that basis.

So far as the second one, I think , to answer Posie's question, if abuse is directed at you simply for being heterosexual (admittedly the scenarios are unlikely) you would have as much right as gay or bi people to complain. So that one is inaccurate.

I do wonder how the law would insist it would be gay/bi.... but I'd love to test the law.

Posie, I don't think it can insist. The protected characteristic is sexual orientation, not a minority orientation.

It is the same as people insisting white people can't be the victims of racist attacks or English people can't suffer racism at the hands of Scots. These groups might be the majority group but it doesn't mean they are not protected.

In reality it is unlikely gay people are going to attack you physically or verbally just because you are heterosexual.

Of course. But hate crimes are about my perception as the victim.