Why the discrepancy between protected characteristics in the Equality Act and the five types of hate crime!

[MrsFButton]

The Equality Act’s protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

While the CPS lists five types of hate crime: Race, Religion, Disability, Sexual orientation, Transgender identity.

Does anyone know why there's a mismatch?

I meant ? not !

Not sure I understand the question - protected characteristics usually relates to the information gathered and stored about someone and how those characteristics might inform a decision or mean you are treated differently - ie if under 18 you'd be put in a 'youth' cell if arrested, guardian informed etc
Hate crime is a separate entity

The two things are nothing directly to do with each other. They are from completely different pieces of legislation. Indeed, there isn't just one type of 'hate crime' per se in law.

The point point of the EA is to make certain types of discriminatory behaviour unlawful.

Hate crimes is really an administrative term primarily for crime monitoring, so it's about the perception of the person reporting.

It is also used as a catch all for when crimes against certain groups are punished more severely (e.g. to discourage racially motivated violence).

I'm a layperson as far as the law is concerned. I thought that as both are to do with discrimination that there would be some consistency and it seems odd to me that not all of the "protected" characteristics are protected from hate crime.

Many women don't want hate against women to be a hate crime as it will be used by men who say they are women.
Also I think the police would be over run with hate crime reports if sex was included.

I believe most hate crimes are covered by other types of crime so there is confusion as to why we have hate crime laws.

Why would GC people oppose that?

Filia covered this in one of their podcasts- made me think

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/filia/id1461524178?i=1000550272584

I think ultimately it can backfire /double edged sword

Thanks, that looks a really helpful link

Because it would likely be used as a stick to beat women with and it probably wouldn't make any real difference to actual women's lives.

unherd.com/thepost/dont-make-misogyny-a-hate-crime/

I thought that as both are to do with discrimination that there would be some consistency and it seems odd to me that not all of the "protected" characteristics are protected from hate crime.

A perfectly reasonable expectation, OP. Especially given that women and old people are many times more likely to be victims of violence than to commit acts of violence — the most blatant and harmful expression of hate.

One of the reasons many women didn't support the legislation was that it proposed a bizarre definition of 'misogyny' that included gender. Women could have ended up being prosecuted for misogyny for misgendering.

The real reason it didn't pass is likely to be the fact that 'gender' has no legal definition. How can you codify something you cannot define?

''The Law Commission has published its report on misogyny and hate crimes. It states:
The Law Commission has recommended that “sex or gender” should not be added to the protected characteristics for aggravated offences and enhanced sentencing as it would be ineffective at protecting women and girls and in some cases, counterproductive.''
www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4420293-Law-Commission-and-misogyny

If our police forces had to really focus on misogyny; and if every woman and girl reported their experience of misogyny, and the names involved; then the police would have so much work to do, they'd have no time for anything else.

With regard to the change from “gender reassignment” to “transgender identity” this change reflects the changes in the demands from, and response to, the trans lobby. It’s the direction transactivist lobby groups want to move in: from a specific action (gender reassignment implies a process and some actual activity) to the much more nebulous idea that a person can have an internal identity and that has to be respected, regardless of the fact that it is impossible to prove in any way. The hate crime legislation came later, making the direction of travel clear.

If you look at many Stonewall influenced Social Media/equality and diversity policies, you will often see they use a mishmash of the EA characteristics and the hate crime laws, because the hate crime laws are much more beneficial and broader in their definition.

Much more beneficial to the trans lobby, that should say: not in general.

I agree with Dolores. Everyone knows we cannot afford misogyny to be a crime, we would not have enough police, and certainly not enough police who weren’t guilty of it themselves.

@Pri0n1 has nailed it.

And lets face it most women can’t even get a conviction when they’ve been raped so chances of getting a conviction for misogyny must be even more unlikely. Or perhaps they think misogyny would be easier to prove than rape. It sound to me a bit like making “intrusive staring” on public transport a crime.

For "shitting on trans people", read "saying no to the transactivists about anything "

A lot of women do support the proposal that crimes against the sex class that is women by men should be a hate crime. A few women who have names but aren't really part of women's activism somehow took it into their heads that it wouldn't help women.

They used all sorts of wimpy arguements about how it wouldn't be effective in practice, but then you could say that about racism being a hate crime.

If we allow the pathetic standards of law and order forces (predominantly white men) to be the benchmark by which we aim to achieve anything, why are we bothering with any campaign that forwards women's rights. That's like saying they will always win.

The most significant part of having misogyny as a hate crime would be that the state, through a law, recognises that this is an actuality. And just as the EA allows women only services based on biological sex, there is no reason why misogyny as a hate crime could be the same. To say it would be misused is again accepting that Stonewall etc., have women the arguement.

It is hard to understand how any women who claims to be a feminist would not think that hatred of women should be acknowledged.

At least 2 police forces have implemented this locally and felt that it helped women come forward.

I would take anything that comes via FiLia with a pinch of salt as it is far more likely to be motivated by them wanting to be "in" with the notable names than an proper political analysis. Dont let others curate your feminism for you!

Here are some who argue for it, those the best arguement might be that Priti Patel opposes it:

www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/misogyny-as-a-hate-crime-what-it-means-why-it-s-needed

eachother.org.uk/making-misogyny-a-hate-crime-is-long-overdue/

www.centenaryaction.org.uk/news-and-comment/misogyny-should-be-a-hate-crime

www.womenscentrecornwall.org.uk/information-support/guides/misogyny-as-a-hate-crime/

Thank you @IwantToRetire .