Creasy - making police record misogny

[transdimensional]

The Guardian has reported ( www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/05/labour-mayors-back-plan-to-make-police-record-misogyny-as-hate ):

"Labour’s metro mayors have united behind a parliamentary proposal from Stella Creasy to force the police to start recording misogyny as a hate crime.
...The Creasy amendment would not make misogyny a hate crime, but would oblige forces to record crimes where misogyny was a factor.
...“What the police have said, literally, is, ‘If we recorded it, we will have to do something about it.’ And you think, yes, that’s absolutely the point,” said Creasy."

So a modest step but definitely worth while.

Good, but it should be and we still all should push for it to be a hate crime

Sounds good. I'm not certain how I feel about this whole hate crime problem, but if they are going to record and/or prosecute on that basis, there is a lot of misogynist crime around.

I would rather see the hate crime stuff looked at in its entirety. I feel as though one more hate crime category would push us even further down the route of 'no free speech'. However, if we have to have the rest, we for sure need this one. Saw Stella speaking in parliament with her young baby. Lovely it was

Huh. Can JKR record each of the ‘cunt’ tweets as separate hate incidents? That’ll shore up the statistics nicely.
Creasy is still in my bad books for her view of women and girls as collateral damage in the fight for trans rights though.

It totally needs to be a hate crime.
However... the entire world is full of so much misogyny the police wouldn't be able to even address half of the complaints....

I would rather see the hate crime stuff looked at in its entirety. I feel as though one more hate crime category would push us even further down the route of 'no free speech'.

This.

The hate crime enhancement to sentences where a victim is vulnerable is reasonable (e.g. disabled person who is targeted because they are disabled).

The lowering of the criteria for whether something is a crime when it effects someone of a protected category is a terrible idea which is in part responsible for the institutional capture of some police forces.

donquixote - sorry, I should have said hate speech, definitely didn't mean hate crime.

Hate crimes should only be actual crimes committed due to the victims protected status.
Eg. A man punching another random man who happens to be gay. Crime.

Man punches a man he knows to be gay whilst using homophobic language. Hate crime.

Non of the 3rd person being offended by something someone else read online or hurt feelings nonsense.

Hm. I'm opposed to the whole principle of 'hate crime'.

But yes, as it stands, having 'misogyny' excluded from the category means women are in a uniquely disadvantaged position.

Hate crimes should only be actual crimes committed due to the victims protected status.
Eg. A man punching another random man who happens to be gay. Crime.

Man punches a man he knows to be gay whilst using homophobic language. Hate crime.

None of the 3rd person being offended by something someone else read online or hurt feelings nonsense.

This seems about right.

We all know it won't happen though, the sheer scale of misogyny would make it unenforceable.

@highame

I would rather see the hate crime stuff looked at in its entirety. I feel as though one more hate crime category would push us even further down the route of 'no free speech'. However, if we have to have the rest, we for sure need this one. Saw Stella speaking in parliament with her young baby. Lovely it was

I agree with this. I think there are myriad problems with the UK's justice system, one of which is derisory sentences as exemplified by the Worbuoys case. Another is that a significant percentage of crimes never result in a prosecution. I think there are serious problems with the hate crime category because of its subjectivity and its threat to freedom of speech. Dunno about this

I'm really disappointed to see that the campaign for making misogyny a hate crime have replaced the 'a' in woman and man with an x in their tweets.

The founder describes herself as an 'inclusive feminist' in her Twitter bio.

If we cannot name or define the different sex classes, then how can we acknowledge sex based hate crime?

If misogyny is to be included as a hate crime (and the dictionary definition of misogyny is 'contempt for, or ingrained prejudice towards women') against women, then how would campaigners square including men in this category?

I've not really been following this campaign, but just wondering if the issue around the campaigners' definition of 'woman' has been discussed previously?

Much as I loathe misogyny I think this is problematic.

The argument in Harry the Owl's case was that you can't have a non-crime hate crime. I don't see that this is any different. I want to see less misogyny, but I don't want to be part of a society where people are criminalised for wrongspeak.

I'm really disappointed to see that the campaign for making misogyny a hate crime have replaced the 'a' in woman and man with an x in their tweets.

ah, I'd missed that. Silly me. So misogyny is wrong, but only when applied to wxmxn?

But yes, as it stands, having 'misogyny' excluded from the category means women are in a uniquely disadvantaged position.

This. I wonder if there is a case for class action - it seems like direct discrimination under EA. They are deliberately excluding a protected characteristic because there are SO MANY crimes against that protected characteristic and because of it.

The benefit might also be that because misogyny is so rife, doing so might actually result in the idea of 'hate crime non-crimes' being re-thought in it's entirety which I think would be a good thing.

@transdimensional you might think it's a great step, I don't, its yet another slap in the face of women that says....you just aren't worth it. In fact I'll go further it entrenches the fact we are not equal. Hate crime legislation is a mess, we already know that some hate is considered greater than others and this creates a 2nd class of hate...and who will be deciding whether or not it gets recorded...only one of the most structurally misogynistic gang of them all, the police!

I'm really disappointed to see that the campaign for making misogyny a hate crime have replaced the 'a' in woman and man with an x in their tweets.

The founder describes herself as an 'inclusive feminist' in her Twitter bio.

If we cannot name or define the different sex classes, then how can we acknowledge sex based hate crime?

Yes, I can see it going that way. It would be about "gender". So potentially misgendering an MTF trans person on social media would count as "misogyny" as well as "transphobia".

It won’t help women, because we’ll still be told that it isn’t a crime, so the police will ignore it. It will, however be a great help to male bodied people who identify as trans, because they can claim that ‘abuse’ for themselves. I’ve already seen the nonsense transmisogyny term being used, so they can claim that you not only committed ’transphobia’ against them, but misogyny too. 🤷‍♀️

I remember we raised these questions when Stella was coming to do a web chat.

Cross post.

Great minds think alike

The Creasy amendment would not make misogyny a hate crime, but would oblige forces to record crimes where misogyny was a factor.

That would certainly be interesting. If a man kicks his wife, is that a hate crime motivated by misogyny? Or is it just because he hates his wife, that one individual woman, rather than women in general? What if a man rapes a woman? Is that a crime motivated by hatred of women? (I'd argue that yes, it is.) What about crimes of harassment and stalking? Are they motivated by misogyny? What about when a man murders a woman? Is that a hate crime? Or only if he calls her a "bitch" first? What about so-called "honour" killings?

Frankly, I'd argue that pretty much any crime of violence that men commit against women is motivated by misogyny. I doubt it will be a popular opinion in judicial circles, though. Good luck to Creasy if she can get that one through.

Yeah, I'm not really on board with this. As much as it pisses me off that other protected characteristics have hate crime legislation and women don't, I don't really see how it helps deal with the overwhelming scourge of VAWG and the complete failure of police and criminal justice system to believe women and to prosecute perpetrators. When the conviction rate for rape is so pitifully low, how does it help to have an aggravating factor of "hate crime"?

"Hate" is an odd way of framing a lot of these things. I'm not sure how useful it is as a concept in criminal justice terms.

Stella Creasy is very TWAW so I wonder how that fits with this push for misogyny to be classed as a hate crime. Would the sexual harassment of a TW in a public place come under the misogyny hate crime or transgender hate crime? Or both? Or would it depend?

Genuine question. Just trying to figure out in my head how to make sense of the concept of misogyny when the category of "woman" is open to those who are born male.

The hate crime laws put me in mind of the blasphemy laws which were (rightly in my opinion) got rid of in 2008 because, if I remember correctly, it was pointed out that only Christians were protected and people reasonably asked for it to include other religions. So the whole thing was scrapped. Now women are reasonably asking for protection under the hate thing maybe again the whole thing will be scrapped as it almost certainly would mean a lot more work for the police etc...

Just (wishful) thinking out loud.