Stonewall, attempt 75219 to criminalise women for resisting them

[Artichokeleaves]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59554199

Is this something new or ongoing? Because reading that, it's plain as day that 'stirring up hate' just means women talking on MN and resisting Stonewall.

Not to mention the new catchphrase 'you can believe what you want' (but you can't talk about it, show it or refuse to participate in language and beliefs you don't hold)'.

Time to write to MPs again.

I’ve often wondered this. Also, how Stonewall and its supporters got such power

Movements can't take hold unless they are tapping into deeply held existing beliefs and feelings. Anti-semitism under Nazism was tapping into deeply held existing anti-semitic feelings. Trump was able to tap into existing feelings of alienation and abandonment by from the existing political establishment. This gender ideology has taken such hold as it taps into deeply held world wide beliefs, by men and women, that women are secondary humans, and, from some men, deeply held hatred of women.

I never realised how deep this was or how universal under this ideology came along. In retrospect, we should have focussed more on changing beliefs and attitudes to women (held by men and women). Legislative wins have not changed underlying attitudes to women.

I read everything now, I take nothing for granted and I do not assume lawmakers have my best interests at heart.

@GoodieMoomin

This is what some of us (who think hate crime needs scrapping entirely) were saying. As soon a misogyny becomes a hate crime, it will be used against women, rather than for us.

Yes.

I know people feel like fighting hate crime is a good thing. Or even fighting hate.

Just like they want to stop (real) conversion therapy, or coercive control in relationships.

But making these specific things illegal is not always a straightforward or even good idea. There can be all kinds of unintended consequences.

@Melroses

The gender neutralising thing seems to be sweeping through society without any proper evidence base. It just seems to be accepted as A Good Thing. Where are the studies that indicate this is so?

Dunno.

But I do know there is a well researched whole book that describes why its not good...

carolinecriadoperez.com/book/invisible-women/

making these specific things illegal is not always a straightforward or even good idea. There can be all kinds of unintended consequences.

It was known as hyperactive legislating during the Blair government who saw law making as something to be done as public gesture, message sending, signalling whatever, etc etc instead of a rarely done, carefully thought out and consulted on, impartial process only done when truly necessary. The amount that was dumped on the statute books in a short amount of time was ridiculous, and a lot of it was badly thought out, badly worded and filled with unintended consequences.

Bad law is worse than no law at all.

The commission said extending hate speech laws to cover sex or gender would cover "threatening or abusive material which incites and glorifies violence, including sexual violence, against women and girls

That's pretty much most of modern porn? Can we use this to ban violent porn, then?

@43leftfeet

The commission said extending hate speech laws to cover sex or gender would cover "threatening or abusive material which incites and glorifies violence, including sexual violence, against women and girls

That's pretty much most of modern porn? Can we use this to ban violent porn, then?

Excellent point.

I don't get the point of hate crimes and hate speech legislation.

If someone beats me up in the street (conveniently under a CCTV camera for argument's sake) would he really get a stiffer sentence if he stood in court and told them he did it because I'm a lesbian?

I might feel that's why he targeted me, he might have even told me at the time, as he was beating me up. Does it really matter though? A stranger beat me up. Should I even make space in my head for why?

And where's the proof they've made a blind bit of difference to anyone?

Surely before this kind of legislation existed courts just gave weight to the motivation of the perpetrator. Someone who stole food to eat versus someone who stole a phone to sell. So you could still take racist (for example) attacks seriously without making additional law.

How can we fight misogyny when the most misogynistic thing of all is removing our right to name ourselves as a separate sex class to men.

This. @Whatsnewpussyhat

@FlyingOink

I don't get the point of hate crimes and hate speech legislation.

If someone beats me up in the street (conveniently under a CCTV camera for argument's sake) would he really get a stiffer sentence if he stood in court and told them he did it because I'm a lesbian?

I might feel that's why he targeted me, he might have even told me at the time, as he was beating me up. Does it really matter though? A stranger beat me up. Should I even make space in my head for why?

And where's the proof they've made a blind bit of difference to anyone?

Surely before this kind of legislation existed courts just gave weight to the motivation of the perpetrator. Someone who stole food to eat versus someone who stole a phone to sell. So you could still take racist (for example) attacks seriously without making additional law.

Quite.

This idea that the specifics of someone's subjective internal perceptions should in some way be seen to alter the objective experience of a person they act on is at the heart of this problem. It does not. It makes no difference in terms of your experience or the wrongness of the actions what a stranger was thinking as they mugged you, or what reasons they felt they had. It makes no difference in terms of a female person's objective experience as to what the preferred subjective self identity of the male person may be.

And as you say; it places an unreasonable demand for capacity and care from the person being acted on - who did not consent to be involved in the first place. Not to mention enters into the realms of things being more or less acceptable not based on objective law and justice, but on what happened to be passing through the head of the person acting on someone else, with different grades of law and standards applied to different people based on social ideas of value.

That way madness lies.

Artichokeleaves your version is much better written. Thanks for elaborating, it helped me to focus.

This idea that the specifics of someone's subjective internal perceptions should in some way be seen to alter the objective experience of a person they act on is at the heart of this problem. It does not. It makes no difference in terms of your experience or the wrongness of the actions what a stranger was thinking as they mugged you, or what reasons they felt they had.

Exactly, it’s odd and in my experience police forces are actively pushing you to add a hate element.

There was an incident with my eldest daughter a few years ago when she was early teens. We reported it to the police. While taking her statement the officer was really pushing us to say it was a hate incident based on the fact she has a disability.
Her disability isn’t particularly obvious so what difference does it make? I declined to have it registered as a hate incident.

It was weird!

This is what some of us (who think hate crime needs scrapping entirely) were saying. As soon a misogyny becomes a hate crime, it will be used against women, rather than for us.

This.

Sentence enhancements where victims are vulnerable are fine but non-crimes being elevated to crimes because the 'victim' belongs to a particular group are a terrible idea.

There is also the fact that 'hate crimes' are considered worse and receive a heftier sentence. So currently if someone beat up a transom end because they are trans then this is worse than if someone beat up a woman because she is a woman. Woman are given less value by the criminal system in a direct and quantifiable way. Crimes happening because they women are not as bad. Police forces all over the country reflect this in their policing. A ribbon to an actor is a hate crime so so much worse than a mountain of death threats to a woman.

*transom end = transwoman
Autocorrect error

There's a piece in the Times today - Law Commission recommends stronger protection for GC free speech:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-reform-critics-need-better-legal-protection-ministers-told-rvsb66hg6?shareToken=03fc80437de1da52b2696a59fa1e761d