Janice Turner today on making misogyny a hate crime

[ErrolTheDragon]

In the Times today.
As usual, a clear piece, and anticipating whining comments from men re wolf whistling etc which hopefully they'll heed (I've not looked at them yet)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/misogyny-is-much-more-than-a-wolf-whistle-378scc9x5?shareToken=7fba47b50fc9d5cb411ff37f1a5fdc3b

I read this a couple of hrs ago. Another great piece by Janice and comments at that point were fairly sensible. I was also heartened by the Twitter replies to the club that was on the verge of signing the footballer. Almost all men being absolutely disgusted by the fact that they'd even consider it.

Great article but the comments have now been swamped with the predictable, “but women abuse too” “not all men” and “why should women have special treatment in law”. Rage inducing. Some very patient commenters keep pointing out that when women kill 2 men a week they might have a point.

Badger

Some very patient commenters keep pointing out that when women kill 2 men a week they might have a point

Fantastic point.

@PurpleHoodie

Badger

Some very patient commenters keep pointing out that when women kill 2 men a week they might have a point

I am going to commit this to memory. I wish I had thought of it earlier this week when an earnest young man told me that men wouldn't NEED to access women's refuges if there were enough for the poor men, who are just as much at risk...

It may not have made the threats to jk Rowling illegal, as they're not a crime in themselves, I guess.

But it would certainly raise the collective consciousness over misogyny in general.

And why wasn't twitter guilty of allowing mass harassment of JK, come to think of it?

It's a persuasive article.

I am going to commit this to memory. I wish I had thought of it earlier this week when an earnest young man told me that men wouldn't NEED to access women's refuges if there were enough for the poor men, who are just as much at risk...

Yes, it's worth remembering that it's not women doing the killing/raping. Men of course, are violent towards other men.

A 'yes, male violence is a huge issue' will sometimes stop the whataboutery.

I'm not a fan of the concept of hate crime - it veers too close to criminalising thought for my liking.
I can see the argument that, since the law does exist, it's illogical and infuriating to exclude misogyny but I'm still lukewarm at best, and sceptical that it wouldn't end up being used against us, especially if the Law Commission is already conflating sex with gender.
But anyone can change my mind, it's Janice Turner.

Hate crime is distinct from hate incidents. Hate crimes are crimes that are already crimes, but if there is a hate element against a protected characteristic, there can be additional sentencing.

Hate incidents are the non-crimes where an incident may or may not have happened for any reason and no intention or distress etc needs to occur.

Yes I know that. I'm still not a fan. I think crime should be about the action, not the thoughts behind it.

If Kate Scottow can be prosecuted for being rude online, I don't see how on earth the tsunami of abuse and threats aimed at Rowling can be lawful? I suppose the difference is that she ignored it.

Also, if soft intel is so key to spotting someone likely to escalate, then I think its reasonable to assume that a man prone to saying horrendously misogynist things is more likely to escalate, than feminists pointing out that there's a conflict when you start demanding male people access women's spaces.

I'm still lukewarm at best, and sceptical that it wouldn't end up being used against us, especially if the Law Commission is already conflating sex with gender.

Yeah, it has occurred to me that if they protect both gender and gender identity (which are the same thing), but not sex, then women are screwed every which way.

I think there's a case for examining the root of where the concept came from. Because it seemed to me that one of the big things that was missed from the Lawrence case was how far corruption may or may not have been the biggest influence behind the actions of the police. From there, the public "got" hate crime as a concept and we were sympathetic to having this addition. But we didn't get anything like as much discussion on police corruption.

I worry that hate crime criminalises thoughts. I am really unsure about adding to hate crime categories before we have a good look at whether or not hate crime as an addition has done much to improve the lives of people. And how far the police should be involved - if at all - in judging people's thoughts.

Surely if it’s a hate crime based off the protected characteristic of SEX then it would cover misandry and well as misogyny. The fact there isn’t much misandry about...

When rape is rarely prosecuted these days, I can’t see that there will be much enthusiasm for a new category of misogyny to be prosecuted either. Recognition that endemic women hating exists is important however.

Weren't Stonewall cheering this on? I don't trust it if so, what's in it for them?

@Floisme

Yes I know that. I'm still not a fan. I think crime should be about the action, not the thoughts behind it.

I agree, I'm not a fan of the concept either.

If we must continue down the hate route I would want to see misogyny in there as it would, as Datun says, raise people's consciousness about it, but also worry that if biological sex isn't clearly spelled out as the relevant characteristic, rather than the nebulous concept of gender identity, this won't end well.

Unfortunately the police are poor at dealing with crimes against women, so I don't think including misogyny will make any difference. The only reason I would agree with misogyny as a hate crime is to highlight how prevalent it is, and how it would put all others in the shade.

Hate incidents need to be made clear as to what they are and how they can be misused. If they are there to show escalation, then they should be a statistic and not recorded against an individual

So are rape threats on twitter a crime or not?

Janice Turner delivers again. It's good to see a lot of the comments are positive too. The White Panther chap's comments though - ugh.

I'm not sure where I sit on this. I do know that there should not be conflation between gender and sex. If it is likely to become a reality then I think we'll have another fight on our hands.

Having a category for misogyny would certainly highlight how much women are victorious of crime but I worry that another law will become meaningless if it's not prosecuted eg like rape.

I am just thinking aloud and will need to think much more on this.

*victims

I think I'm wrestling with whether the hate crime legislation is a good law or a bad one.

I'm not a legal expert and I'd be happy to be persuaded otherwise, but my instincts are that it's a bad law, for reasons described above, in which case I don't see how extending it can be the right thing, however well intentioned the reasons might be.

@yourhairiswinterfire

Weren't Stonewall cheering this on? I don't trust it if so, what's in it for them?

They will support it based on their TWAW mantra so GCs can be accused now of "misogyny" for questioning self-id of TW and their desire to access female spaces.

I keep going round in circles on this one. I can see the justification. For example criminal damage to a Synagogue, Mosque etc with rascist graffiti is different in kind to criminal damage to a community centre both in motivation and impact. Adding a tariff at sentencing seems reasonable from a deterrence point of view.

I do think misogyny is similarly defensible. It's about social norms and equality in the public space and controlling extreme behaviour patterns developing where there is an obvious risk. Crimes against women are turning into an epidemic with the growth of online misogynist propaganda.

Where I have a real problem is with hate incidents.

I haven't looked at the consultation yet but am going to make sure I emphasise that the definition is sex and not gender.

See Cranberries that's very off putting.