Misogyny will now be recorded as a hate crime

[Wondermule]

!!

@CardinalLolzy

We need the differentiation between sex and gender, and their corresponding level of risk, to be able to maintain our sex based rights.

I'm not sure 'gender' is interchangeable with 'perceived sex', though. It's an inner sense, so we're told. If the attacker did think the trans woman was of female sex, then it still would be misogyny in my book.
If they thought they were a trans woman, it would be transphobic.
If they thought they were a non-trans male, it would be neither.

Who makes that call, though?

I assume the barristers/judge/jury in the case, if it goes to trial? Same as with other hate crimes.

I am sort of a bit curious now about this "perceived bit" I am assuming that its both the victims perception of themselves, and what they assume the perpetrator perceived them to be, thus the onus is on the victim to argue that the perpetrator shared their perception. In the case of some people where their gender identity doesn't align with their sex they will just have to choose what they think is the more convincing argument about the other's perception to prove it was a hate crime. It would not be convincing the CPS if a person who didn't 'pass' argues it was down to the other person perceiving them to be a woman, and yet I can imagine many such cases will now be reported. And if it doesn't reach the threshold for prosecution (either as a hate crime or simply because no crime was committed) will it still be recorded?

Interesting point though. Is a defendant going to say 'it's not misogyny, because I didn't believe this trans woman to be a woman'? No-one's going to be able to say that in court without some huge penalty, right?

There is a wide range of organisations who support victims and witnesses of hate crime. You can find out more about some of these organisations on their websites

Stop Hate UK
Stonewall
Tell Mama
Community Security Trust
GALOP

And who is going to support us?

Sex or perceived sex - in both cases the crime is driven by a hatred of females. It is the perception of the hater, not the victim and therefore separate from the concept of gender identity.

CardinalLolzy Yep!

I can just see white van man saying "Nah, nope luv I never thought you were a woman" without then raising the suspicion that he's actions were motivated by transphobia. Not many men though are likely to want other men reading how they harassed the trans woman with sexual harassment. And unfortunately I can see some very unwell individuals seeing this as another means to try and validate themselves.

Does that mean misogynistic comments online can be reported as hate incidents by anyone?

SherryPalmer, but in order for a crime to meet the threshold of being both a crime and a hate crime it must be proven to be motivated by hate, and in some cases less easy to see the motivation unless the victim is prepared to assert they believe to be targeted because of a specific characteristic. Well. that's my understanding from CardinalLolzy's link. I could be wrong, I'm tired!

And unfortunately I can see some very unwell individuals seeing this as another means to try and validate themselves.
Well, yes. I think introducing perception will just muddy the waters entirely.

@ErrolTheDragon

If a man commits an attack on a transwoman because of transphobia (or homophobia) , or a woman because of misogyny, then either way he deserves it to be classified as a hate crime and I'm not sure I care if the former gets registered as misogyny rather than transphobia.

It could be either. Depending on whether the attacked person was perceived by the attacker to be a TW or a woman.

As if religion was considered a basis for hate crime when sex wasn't, something which is not even tenuously based in reality when sex actually is. The mind fucking reels.

Sorry, but misogyny isn't actually being made a hate crime. Incidents are just being recorded by the police. If there's any prosecutions they won't get any uplift in the sentencing. This is just an extension of the Nottingham scheme to all police forces as a temporary excercise in gathering data while waiting for the Law Commision to report on Hate Crime legislation.
I'm not at all convinced hate crimes are the way to go.

The 'perceived' bit isn't just about what the victim thinks.

My uncle was hospitalised after being beaten up for being 'al qaeda Muslim scum'.

He's a white British atheist but with his dark colouring he could easily pass for Middle Eastern.

It was still a hate crime because the attacker thought he was beating up a Muslim for being Muslim even though he wasn't.

Stella Creasy campaigned with Stonewall as her first port of call.

Fawcett are at the forefront of insisting that some men are women.

If they are celebrating, I think we can be certain that this will be applied in ways that are not remotely sex-based.

That’s not to say this is a negative thing, but I don’t think it’s safe to assume this is sex-based on the evidence of a single sentence in a report.

IMO hate crime legislation needs to go. The whole thing is a mess. But perhaps if women start reporting every perceived instance of hate it will give the authorities some food for thought, and they might look closer at the whole thing...

If they are celebrating, I think we can be certain that this will be applied in ways that are not remotely sex-based.

That’s not to say this is a negative thing, but I don’t think it’s safe to assume this is sex-based on the evidence of a single sentence in a report.

I agree. I guess they imagine it will work like it does now where they can get the policies around misogynistic hate speech worded as "gender" in the police forces and other organisations.

I think that the change in wording is a good things because it was originally so badly worded that it included men.

I think that hate crime can only be on whether someone is perceived to have that characteristic. The good thing about that is that it includes female people who might not consider themselves to be women (for example Jack Monroe) who also are often victims of this sort of crime.

Stella Creasy confirms it here.

twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/1372288165759827968?s=21

Yay! That's fantastic news. About bloody time.

Well I’m mightily confuddled by this - last night amendment 87B was withdrawn ‘following thoughtful debate in HoL’ but this morning the intent of that amendment is just announced without it being passed by Parliament anyway? And it isn’t clear whether it is sex or sex ‘and gender’?

What is the actual source announcement of this, rather than a media report or tweets?

It's in the Times this morning too

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/misogyny-to-be-classed-as-hate-crime-from-autumn-ztkbztjwd?shareToken=6c8c2fef2dbdde8fde8ff84fad54d114

Cwenthryth I also am confuddled. 87B was withdrawn, which was a big deal because it would have taken female out of DA bill when the majority of crimes in DV situations are against women. The government committed to an We will ask police forces to record crimes of violence where v perceives it as motivated by hostility based on their sex

We will start experimental collection of data this autumn.
The details still to be worked thru. Not exclude gender, but the details still being worked thru Gender wont be excluded but complexity is noted and nothing definite. This is not law

The CPS keep making definitions that are not law and it is time legal definitions were imposed. The conflation of sex and gender and the implications of this are being (always were) understood by government but they may have hoped we would be using, by custom and practice, gender so that the issues associated with these differences would be easier.

Unfortunately women are waking up

'Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford said that the change would be made initially on an “experimental” basis.'

It is not actually law, it is just being trialled. I imagine if we let the momentum over Sarah's death die down they will quietly decide not to implement this into law.

This is the statement in the HoL. Stella Creasey is wrong, Baroness Williams said no decision on terminology has been taken. She also refers to sex or gender or age as characteristics the Law Commission is looking at. She never says sex and gender which if used would muddy the statistics.

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4ab0ed94-985c-4919-97b8-4d2f5ab429af?in=17:30:00&out=17:43:00