Stella Creasey is on a guest post invoking SEX as a protected characteristic for legislation!

[BarrackerBarmer]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts/3355761-Stella-Creasy-guest-post-If-MNers-act-today-you-can-help-make-street-harassment-a-hate-crime

Right now!

A violent bloke sees a crossdresser walking down the street and beats him up. The bloke thinks he has seen a failed, probably gay, man and thinks the crossdresser is an abhorrent aberrant. The crossdresser thinks the bloke got violent because he saw a woman he didn't like.

What hate crime has the bloke committed? Misogynistic? Or homophobic? And does it matter whether the crossdresser defines themselves as trans or does not define themselves as trans? And if it does matter, how could the bloke have known how the crossdresser defined themselves? So why is the perception of the victim the only factor of relevance?

It's ludicrous.

I mean, we all agree the crossdresser shouldn't have been beaten up and the violent bloke should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But surely the court case should illuminate what actually happened and what the motive for the crime was?

LOL. I see rat is now on the NSPCC thead going on about how we have shut down another important thread. Naughty women, asking questions that people find awkward. Ducking stools for you lot

There's a problem though isn't there? If aggressive threatening behaviour is punished, women have a job on our hands to say men are being aggressive and threatening to us, not just being 'complimentary' or 'slightly awkward suitors'.

Hate crime/speech is a bit of a tough one. There needs to be particular deterrents against people going out of their way to target people, there should be tough punishments. Throwing a brick through a mosque window should be treated more seriously than throwing a brick through - say WHSmiths, because it is intended to intimidate a community, not just an act of random vandalism.

So, if I understand this right, and Creasy did really not consult with women's groups (?) but with stonewall.... that speaks for itself, really.

This is either some part of the larger attempt to redefine 'woman' (like in Scotland fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/), or just an easy way to gather browny points with voters and the stonewall crowd.

Then the Green Party Scandal hit, which gave the whole wider issue of self-ID and safe guarding a disturbing 'some furries wear nappies, get over it'-spin. It was so disturbing, indeed, that as a consequence Caroline Lucas even talked about meeting one of those unspeakable women's groups.

And suddenly it hit Stella: that a misogyny law without input of any women's group might not be a good look if the winds, indeed, change- in this potentially new climate, that apparently doesn't generally equate women with boundaries summarily to the KKK anymore.

Time was short, and the easiest way to check the 'dialogue with women box' - without any hazzle that might alienate stonewall - was going on mumsnet the day before D-day.

And suddenly it hit Stella: that a misogyny law without input of any women's group might not be a good look if the winds, indeed, change- in this potentially new climate, that apparently doesn't generally equate women with boundaries summarily to the KKK anymore.

Time was short, and the easiest way to check the 'dialogue with women box' - without any hazzle that might alienate stonewall - was going on mumsnet the day before D-day.

Exactly - it is 11th hour stuff.

Why the fuck does no one think to consult with women over anything?

What is wrong with Parliament? FFS!

Why the fuck does no one think to consult with women over anything?

Because we don't give the 'right' answers to questions asked.

Spot on deepwatersolo

In diiscussion about the possibility of mysogyny as a hate crime, its important to be aware of those within NUS and Labour who are keen for a focus on 'trans-mysogyny'.

That photo on the twitter link..that looks like the exact same panel they had for discussing womens rights (with the exception of the person second from right). I remember that as I was so shocked that it appeared the panel was entirely made up of male people. Will have a search on twitter later for that one, I commented on it at the time.

Throwing a brick through a mosque window should be treated more seriously than throwing a brick through - say WHSmiths, because it is intended to intimidate a community, not just an act of random vandalism

You are comparing apples and cucumbers. Throwing a brick through a WHS Smith window is a crime against property- possibly with a view to theft.

If the WHS was a small , local branch and the brick was thrown to intimidate the owner and staff it is a crime against them and a crime against property. The mosque is the same.

Politicians need to come outside of their Westminster/Twitter bubble. If you are legislating in ways that affect women, you have to speak both with and for them. Trans voices are important too, but Transwomen don't speak for women.

Top of the class deepestersolo

deepwatersolo!

Actually whether it was a local branch isn't relevant- if the incident endangered staff.

What is the difference between throwing a brick through the mosque window and the idiotic class warriors a couple of years ago who attacked Fortnum & Mason?

What is the difference between throwing a brick through the mosque window and the idiotic class warriors a couple of years ago who attacked Fortnum & Mason?

Without being too outing, my family was mistakenly targeted for a hate crime some years ago. I remember thinking 'weird - what gave them that impression?' and of course the fall out was in a lot of ways devastating for a number of years. But if it hadn't been a mistake, it would have been so much worse I think, I would still be looking over my shoulder, worried that I'd be targeted again. As it happened, I thought - well, that isn't going to happen again.

'Hate' is all about targeting specific groups and that they live in fear because of it. Societies have to take a strong position against that sort of thing, to send out a message that racism, etc are not tolerated.

This is probably why there's been heel dragging around including sexism/misogyny - because so much of society is actually framed and bolted together by sexism it would be hard to draw the line.

I think there should be a different wording of the law around hate crimes though - it is confusing and open to wide interpretation. Hate speech in particular.

I missed the Stella Creasy thread entirely.

Can someone let me know whether she was alerted to the fact that if there was widespread Stonewall support for making misogyny a hate crime, it will be used as a weapon against women?

I don't think it would be a popular, or enforceable, law to be honest.

I would love to see misogyny treated more seriously, though.

I don't know if that was pointed out, as posts were disappearing within seconds of being posted. One of the mods was definitely on high alert. I have never ever seen a thread like that before, and I still cannot believe 2 longstanding members were banned over it..seems maryz was banned for asking why the mods were gaslighting. They deleted a few of her posts then undeleted them and claimed they were never deleted in the first place.

They deleted a few of her posts then undeleted them and claimed they were never deleted in the first place.

What!

Did they have more than one mod, then?

A few weeks ago I had a post deleted, and had two mods emailing me independently, contradicting each other.

I would love to see misogyny treated more seriously, though.

Well that would be progress. However look at the reactions below from all the entitled males and their media outlets. I am curious what motivated Creasy - a set up / opportunist but ill thought out or just dislikes other women

Quotes from newspapers:

Telegraph (No): Don’t make misogyny a hate crime – women would weaponise it

Independent (yes but ie no): Making misogyny a hate crime might be a good thing, but we must be realistic about what this means. It’s important to remember that victims are entitled to a level of professionalism and support that, in reality, isn’t always available.....
a study conducted in 2016 revealed that 85 per cent of young women had experienced sexual harassment in public places and almost half had experienced unwanted sexual touching – and the extent to which such behaviour has become normalised in society is disturbing .

BBC (pro self id): The amended law would allow a sentencing judge to take into account if the offender "demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim having (or being presumed to have) a particular sex characteristic".
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said of Ms Creasy's amendment: "We already have robust legislation that can be used to protect women from a range of crimes. "We are determined to see the upskirting bill passed as soon as possible, to better protect victims and bring offenders to justice."

Urban Dictionary (NO): misogyny - The hatred of women Many countries around the world exhibit misogyny by Q February 15, 2005
Like 1164 Dislike 3422

I would just like to add that, yes, they did delete, then reinstate, then deny they had deleted.

They then banned me, despite agreeing on thread I hadn't broken any guidelines [baffled]

I have received no email, no warning, and no reply to the email I sent them.

Bloody hell Mary. Hopefully they've got it sorted, after having a few meetings this morning.

I suspect they wanted to avoid a repeat of the NSPCC thread.

The real kicker, for me, is that answering simple questions is the way to stop people relentlessly asking them.

Did they have more than one mod, then?

It wasn't one of the mod team. It was Kate, a senior member of staff, I believe. She sounded seriously, seriously pissed off on that thread because it had gone so awry.

It was an avoidable disaster from start to finish. Given the Challenor stuff and the NSPCC running away rather than answer questions on here both happening so recently, Creasy should have been briefed as to the likely response to her guest post so that she had a response ready. Then all this could have been avoided.

No offence to Kate, but I think the mod team, being more used to interaction with MNers, would have had more success mediating that thread.

I would just like to add that, yes, they did delete, then reinstate, then deny they had deleted.

This would automatically result in you feeling gaslighted.

It's entirely understandable.

It sounds to me as though they had more than one mode and a mistake was made.

I seem to remember the emails I was getting sometimes came from a person, sometimes came from HQ, and didn't always tally.