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

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.

Precisely. They have demonstrated multiple times that they don't give a toss about any women apart from those who are useful to their agenda.

I'm worried about what Cranberries says as well. I don't want it twisted and used against women.

I'm still trying to work it out but what would the upshot be of eg someone on FWR or Question Time saying "men are more violent than women" or similar. I just feel like an MRA would try and have a field day with accusations of misandry or hate speech, even though it's the truth.

Hardly anyone took seriously how the GRA would support the current transgender madness. I would just like to do some long range thinking about this.

It's awful, isn't it that what should be a straightforward, well yes, it's good to acknowledge when a crime is exacerbated by misogyny, is actually something that we are desperately worried will increase the misogyny against us.

@Floisme

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.

Well luckily a man has decided for you. If Harry Miller's case is successful then the Nottingham scheme Janice's appears to support recording misogynist hate incidents would be made illegal. So no need for those actually affected by misogyny, or racism, homophobia or transphobia to have a debate. Harry's macho pissing contest with his ex-employers is far more important than women actually deciding whether is this is something they support. What a guy. Keep digging.

Sorry floisme, didn't mean to patronise!

Misogyny,” says Helen Voce, of Nottingham Women’s Centre, “is the soil in which violence against women grows.”

I think that is a brilliant quote.

I’m also very wary of “hate crime” legislation, I don’t think a crime is better or worse based on what the perpetrator was thinking at the time.

not a fan of the concept of hate crime - it veers too close to criminalising thought for my liking.

This.

I also think it will not be enforced - if rape isn't convicted, how will lesser crimes against women be. Let's concentrate on getting rape and sexual crime conviction rates up.

I’m against all hate crime laws on principle.
All humans are supposed to be equal, therefore the same crime should carry same penalty for every human that commits it.
There should not be a hierarchy where a crime against one sort of human (age, race, sex) carries a lower penalty than that exact same crime against another sort of human.

JJ
Harry's case is against 'hate incidents' - thoughtcrime - not actual hate crime, isn't it? 'Hate crimes' are where an actual crime has been committed and there is hate relating to a protected characteristic involved. So not at all what you implied there.

I'm ambivalent on whether the concept of 'hate crime' is a good idea or not, but as it exists there seems no logic to making it apply to the protected characteristics except for sex. If it is added, then I don't see why it wouldn't relate to a misandric crime , should such a thing occur.

@Wildswim

not a fan of the concept of hate crime - it veers too close to criminalising thought for my liking.

This.

I also think it will not be enforced - if rape isn't convicted, how will lesser crimes against women be. Let's concentrate on getting rape and sexual crime conviction rates up.

Agreed. We have already seen how badly hate incidents are managed and how it allows individual police officers to spout ludicrous nonsense and use that to actively criminalise citizens.

I struggle to see how hate crimes add anything to society?

@ErrolTheDragon

JJ Harry's case is against 'hate incidents' - thoughtcrime - not actual hate crime, isn't it? 'Hate crimes' are where an actual crime has been committed and there is hate relating to a protected characteristic involved. So not at all what you implied there.

I'm ambivalent on whether the concept of 'hate crime' is a good idea or not, but as it exists there seems no logic to making it apply to the protected characteristics except for sex. If it is added, then I don't see why it wouldn't relate to a misandric crime , should such a thing occur.

The Nottingham scheme was based on hate incident reporting. I do realise it's not something that has universal support amongst Feminists, and I personally have some reservations over police powers to retain information. What I object to is a man who will never be affected by prejudice due to his sex, race, sexuality or gender reassignment status barging into the debate and deciding for everyone else using Feminism as a shield. I find it astonishing it's been uncritically supported in some quarters, and it makes me wonder what the likes of Dworkin and Firestone would think of this movement that claims their heritage.

Amazing how people pop up on FWR to lecture women and feminists on who we should listen to.

@persistentwoman

Amazing how people pop up on FWR to lecture women and feminists on who we should listen to.

I'm not lecturing you, I just said I find it astonishing, and I do, partcularly given if his case is successful then it could have major safeguarding implications.

No probs Deaconboo

Not sure why you bolded my post JJ - bad laws will get challenged, that was kind of my point.

Sorry you didn't bold, you quoted it. But still puzzled.

@Floisme

Sorry you didn't bold, you quoted it. But still puzzled.

Just because you said Janice Turner, who seems to support the Nottingham scheme, might change your mind, not a criticism of anything you said. It's too late if Harry wins his case. It's been decided for you.

Ah ok.

I may be ambivalent about hate crime but not about hate incidents - I think they're a nonsensical, dangerous idea.

It's entirely up to you whether or not you like Harry Miller but as I understand it, he was summoned by the police to have his thinking checked, so not exactly barging in and, from what I've seen, he's been clear that he's coming at it from a free speech point of view.

I liked Janice's article (I usually do) and there were some really thoughtful comments (alongside the normal feminist / woman hating) comments.

It's been decided for you.

Was there any indication women were going to be consulted anyway?

Loved the article. And I enjoy the way she gets to the heart of the matter but in one para she has used "trans identity" on her list of protected characteristics. I thought the actual protected characteristic was gender reassignment.

....The Law Commission, in a consultation launched this week, is proposing that misogyny also become a hate crime. It suggests that sex/gender (the two words being used interchangeably these days) be added to the protected characteristics of race, religion, trans identity, sexual orientation and disability. Before the harrumphing begins about builders being banged up for wolf-whistling — they won’t be — let’s step back and consider why misogyny has been omitted from this list for so long.....

I'm no expert but a little disappointed if she got it wrong but no one else seems to have mentioned this so I may be mistaken

@ErrolTheDragon

It's been decided for you.

Was there any indication women were going to be consulted anyway?

Well I think if Harry was genuinely motivated by a desire to support feminist aims then he might have opened this up for debate within the GC movement rather than unilaterally charging in with a case that could prove detrimental to women. He could have left it at PC Gul, he got his dig in at his ex-employers and made his point but it seems that wasn't enough.

I noticed that Panfriedscallops* . It's getting to the stage where I forget the actual protected characteristics as there are so many different terms used.

It suggests that sex/gender (the two words being used interchangeably these days) be added to the protected characteristics of race, religion, trans identity, sexual orientation and disability.

I think I recall that the protected characteristics in the EA2010 and those in the hate crime legislation are not identical.

From the CPS website: "The term 'hate crime' can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity."

So, let's see what doesn't carry over from the EA2010:

age; sex; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity.

'Gender reassignment' disappears to be replaced by transgender identity