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

@Antibles

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."

"Sex" is noticeably absent.

I'm also ambivilant on hate crime laws j general. However of we have them then of course sex should be one of the top ones. (Race, disability and sex)

Howver although it's fairly easy for the average person to go a day without being racist (well should be!) Sexism is so deeply ingrained in our society that there would be far to many incidents for the police to even log.

I just don't support hate crime legislation, so I can't support adding anything to it.

It's pretty standard that motivation does play some role in sentencing, and that's appropriate. There are all kinds of motivations for crime and some reflect a more dangerous type of individual. Crimes based on hate aren't the same as crimes based on drug addiction for example, or a kid who vandalises out of boredom isn't in the same situation as one who does it to target someone specifically. A targeted crime against people you don't know might be different than a targeted crime against someone who did you wrong.

But I don't think that differentiating a crime carried out because a person hates Jews is but not a crime carried out for hatred of some other kind, maybe of an individual or some non-identity group, is really right. There is something about naming specific groups that is the problem for me.

@Antibles

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.

Thanks Antibles. That does explain why Janice used TI rather than GR.

Thought there might have been a reason couldn't see her not knowing the difference.

Perhaps the whole concept of hate crimes need a review.

to those worrying about judging thoughts instead of crimes, that's an essential feature of justice. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter and murder. The intent in the latter makes it worse than the former.

That's why the attempt to hide behind "sex play gone wrong," aka "oh, soz, accident!" is so revolting as a cover for murder.

We read intentions all the time, and some really are worse than others.

The question isn't whether intentions matter. It's whether those intentions matter. Is torturing someone for belonging to a given class worse than torturing random human beings?

I'd say yes. It adds an extra layer of injustice to all the layers of pain.

And the other thing I'd say is if you can see why crimes targeted at Jews or Muslims or blacks are hate crimes, but you're dubious when it comes to women, then a) it's precisely to clarify the parallels that we need the hate crime designation, and b) take a long hard look at yourself.

The question isn't whether intentions matter. It's whether those intentions matter. Is torturing someone for belonging to a given class worse than torturing random human beings?

I don’t think it is worse, tbh. I thibk torturing random members of the public is just as heinous as torturing solely women
As said above, I think the punishment should be for the crime, not the reasoning behind it.

The murder/manslaughter example is misleading and irrelevant, because that’s based on whether there was intent to commit the crime in the first place.
That’s different to, to use your example, plan to torture people based on whether they have a certain characteristic or not.

The murder/manslaughter example is misleading and irrelevant, because that’s based on whether there was intent to commit the crime in the first place.

Is this where some of the impetus for collecting 'hate incident' data comes from? Previous statements of hatred showing intent? But if that's the case then (if it's collected) it should be stuff which actually does point to intent shouldn't it? If someone posts that they want to punch a and then does punch a then that shifts the balance of probability to intent rather than accidental unfortunate scrap.

to those worrying about judging thoughts instead of crimes, that's an essential feature of justice. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter and murder. The intent in the latter makes it worse than the former

I think there's a difference though isn't there? Intent is the difference between whether a crime has been committed or not in many situations (it's only rape if the rapist knows he's raping - if he genuinely thinks he's showing his victim a good time and she consented and the jury thinks his perception is reasonable, it's not rape whether or not she consented). The prosecution has to prove intent in that case.

Whereas with hate crime, my understanding is that the perception of the victim is what decides if it's a hate crime as opposed to a common or garden attack. In the investigative stage and prosecution at any rate. I'm not sure what goes on once it gets to court though, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can help? I'm a bit confused about how this works.

I think if we have to put up with hate crime legislation on the books, sex has got to be added to it.

I'm hoping that the avalanche of hate crime on the basis of sex, will force parliament to re-visit hate crime legislation and abolish it altogether. With any luck, it will break the whole system.

I think there's a difference though isn't there?

That was my understanding. Intent refers to the belief of what will happen because of a specific action, motive is why a person considers or carries out that action in the first place. For example, throwing a rock through someone's window because of their race is a racially motivated crime, if the house burns down because the rock damages an electrical socket and causes a short, there would be a disconnect between intent and outcome (i.e. it wouldn't be racially motivated arson). However, if the offender were shown to have researched how to cause a fire by throwing a rock through a window, there could be a case for the intent being arson.

If someone posts that they want to punch a and then does punch a then that shifts the balance of probability to intent rather than accidental unfortunate scrap.

This makes me think of the Sally Challen case. Imagine if she had made a broad comment about how she disliked men on an electronic platform before the death of her husband and had ended up being convicted of a sex-motivated hate crime. Imagine if it became legally prudent to finish any comment about men with 'NAMALT".

This makes me think of the Sally Challen case. Imagine if she had made a broad comment about how she disliked men on an electronic platform before the death of her husband and had ended up being convicted of a sex-motivated hate crime. Imagine if it became legally prudent to finish any comment about men with 'NAMALT".

That's why I didn't say 'posted that they disliked , I said "punch". If people express a wish to commit physical violence, followed by actual violence does that indicate that there might be intent?

Since hate-motivated crimes are a thing in law, then misogyny (or sex, to include the handful of misandrist crimes that the WATMers get themselves so vexed over) should be included.

Most crimes are a combination of thought (mens rea) and action (actus reus ). Laws punish the action but there needs to have been the required intent. Hate crimes don’t punish the thought but any criminal action taken because of that thought. It’s a tricky area because the laws are effectively reflecting the moral and ethical framework in society.

In terms of misogyny I can see one scenario where gender may be relevant. If a trans woman were to receive abuse from someone who assumed she was female not trans arguably that is misogyny. It would be abuse motivated by the perception of the victim as female.

If people express a wish to commit physical violence, followed by actual violence does that indicate that there might be intent?

I thought that was already a feature of the current (non-hate crime related) justice system.

I understand that the system accounts for both intent and outcome.

I think the thing that some people object to about the hate crime legislation is that prejudice about/hatred of some groups of people is being elevated above prejudice about/hatred of other groups of people. We can add sex, but nationality/region is still not there, which is actually a common prejudice. Imagine being beaten up for being French or Welsh or for being a southerner. Ultimately everybody deserves for a crime motivated by prejudice against them to be considered in the same way. Yet the characteristics seem rather based on current identity politics/victim hierarchy only. Add a tariff for hateful motive if desired, but any/all hate, not just some. There's just something off about having special prejudices.

What Antibles said.

I am unsure how I feel about hatecrime/hate incidents in general to be quite honest.

However, while the concept exists, I see no reason AT ALL that sex should be the only protected characteristic not covered. Except for the added work and men kicking off that they can no longer be 'lads' or whatever, which surely cannot be a reason not to include one characteristic?

when women kill 2 men a week they might have a point

Yes exactly. And since there is the legal concept of hate crimes and they don’t include misogynistic ones, an expression of which kills 2-3 women a week, let alone the other forms of physical and mental abuse and harrassment against women, then I will respond to the law commission consultation to say misogyny should be on the list.
Misogyny is the root of VAWG. Other approaches including not having any legally-recognised hate crimes don’t seem to have worked to protect women.
Let’s give this a go.

And as usual a resounding article by Janice Turner who is an absolutely brilliant writer. Thank you for sharing that.

This makes me think of the Sally Challen case. Imagine if she had made a broad comment about how she disliked men on an electronic platform before the death of her husband and had ended up being convicted of a sex-motivated hate crime

Not obvious why the topic of hate crime makes you think of the Sally Challen case. Murder is not on the list of 'aggravated offences' Also, she had received a fairly high tariff (22 years) in the first place - can't have seen it been very much higher.

And look at you with your passive voice - the death of her husband . For the benefit of those that don't know the case, on the subject of the death of her husband, Lady Justice Hallett in the Court of Appeal, gives a more active voice to her account....

She made them something to eat. As he was eating, she took the hammer from her handbag and repeatedly hit him over the head with severe blows. He must have tried unsuccessfully to defend himself because there were nine sites of injuries to his hand and arms consistent with defensive wounds. She then covered his body with blankets and left a note which said "I love you, Sally", changed her clothes and went home.

Excellent article thanks for sharing OP

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

But that's not what happened, jj1968. Harry Miller took the police to court on a freedom of speech issue.

He was harassed by the police after he posted GC tweets. They turned up at his work place. They told him a "hate incident" had been recorded against him even after they admitted he hadn't committed any crime. He had every right to defend himself, and he went to court to do so.

He obviously supports women's rights but this was more on the related issue of free speech and ludicrous 'hate incidents'. He wasn't barging in.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

I completely agree the police over-stepped their powers in visiting his workplace, although as cases of police misconduct go then i've heard a lot worse. And let's not pretend that it's not possible there might well have been a personal dimension to this, it was his former colleagues after all. It wouldn't surprise me if they sent a rookie out to deal with the ex hothead sargeant as a bit of a joke that badly backfired.

But Harry won this part of the case. He could have left it there. But now he is pursuing a challenge to how police record information on potential suspects and what could be included in enhanced DBS checks. This could have major safeguarding implications which he seem entirely unconcerned about.

Harry should quite rightly so be pursuing this. He was told he had not committed a crime, but it would be recorded as a non-crime "hate incident which goes on his record and could prevent him or others from future employment. Bearing in mind these incidents are recorded solely on what the perceived victim has said, it leaves the door wide open for malicious abuse of the policy, potentially destroying people's lives because they can. If someone has been tried and convicted for a hate incident then fine, it should go on their record. But a kangaroo court style recording on someone's record with no clear evidence. Absolutely not. Some people are not even aware this has been placed against their record until they get an enhanced DBS. It makes a mockery of human rights and it needs challenging.

Nice bit of speculation there @jj1968. Remind me, is it slander or libel when it's in writing? Or have you covered your arse with your 'possible' and 'wouldn't surprise me'? Either way, I despise mud being flung randomly in the hope of some sticking.

@karenkanta

Harry should quite rightly so be pursuing this. He was told he had not committed a crime, but it would be recorded as a non-crime "hate incident which goes on his record and could prevent him or others from future employment. Bearing in mind these incidents are recorded solely on what the perceived victim has said, it leaves the door wide open for malicious abuse of the policy, potentially destroying people's lives because they can. If someone has been tried and convicted for a hate incident then fine, it should go on their record. But a kangaroo court style recording on someone's record with no clear evidence. Absolutely not. Some people are not even aware this has been placed against their record until they get an enhanced DBS. It makes a mockery of human rights and it needs challenging.

The police may hold information on any allegation made against someone, without their knowledge and in some cases that may be made available on an enhanced DBS. This is an important safeguarding measure. Often someone reported for inappropriate sexual behaviour may not have technically committed an offence or there may not be enough evidence to arrest and charge. But the allegation is likely to be held on file, and may, in limited circumstances, be shared with a potential employer were that person to seek a job working with children or vulnerable adults. This is an important safeguarding measure. The only difference is that were it an incident involving perceived hatred towards one of the protected strands then it would be called a hate incident in the records. But the police have always held non-crime information, or information on as yet unproven allegations and often the person accused is not aware. This is also an important safeguarding measure. If you reported someone for domestic violence I hope you agree it would not be appropriate for the police to immediately contact the person you had accused and inform them of the allegation.