Labour want jail time for pronoun refuseniks - DM

[mb2512cat]

In normal times I’d think this couldn’t possibly be true but these days I wouldn’t put anything past Labour once they’re in power.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html

GCAAcademic sgè said a woman is a person who is born a woman, or a person with a piece of paper. This was to Dr Julia Long, at a Fawcett Society meeting yesterday

I have linked the paper with the quote

I know you are very pro Labour so I’ll need more than that as clarification.

My thoughts exactly!

There is much sophistry in the extract.

However, the law is clear. You can aggravate a sentence. You can already do that based on someone being transphobic, and so the writer of the extract presumably did not know that this matter was already covered in law.

Writing political documents is easy. Writing law is much harder.

Sure that GRA was a bugger to get right wasn’t it. It’s working so well for women

And more of the same will be ace.

Poor legislation started this it sure can continue.

And so we might say, where is the gap in the law that exists?

The actual gap is that misogyny is not an aggravating factor in sentencing. It should be, but rather sadly I think it will never be. A lot of crime against women is connected to their sex.

@EasternStandard - the point here is that the writer of the extract did not know that transphobia is already rather well addressed in criminal law. It is. It is actually better than that which applies to biological women.

Thank you.

Sigh.

The point of the paper is Labour are proposing changes in law.

The pro Labour gaslighting doesn’t help.

We know all about disastrous and unbelievably hard to change legislation in the GRA 2004, women are still dealing with the wide reaching consequences. Which are increasing every year.

Transphobia is addressed well in criminal law. Very well. Biological women are not so considered, and they should be.

The gap in the law that exists is for biological women. No government has ever addressed this, left or right.

In order to have a productive discussion, it would actually be good to discuss those differences and what should be changed. Criminal law is really technical.

This proposal has huge issues but given how it reads it is a non starter,

Aha, what Labour are actually saying. Thanks!

I wondered how you could word legislation on harassment on the basis of gender identity without having that apply to all women, and the answer is that they are indeed proposing to criminalise street harassment of women and make misogyny an aggravating feature of crime.

This is actually huge news, but they'll need more cops, more courts, more prisons.

Oh a Daily Mail link. That's seems a reliable unbiased source.

@GunboatDiplomacy - thank you. That is the way I read it because transphobia is already covered in criminal legislation quite well

Good grief, the Leftist Snobbery is out in force today.

If it didn't happen in a newspaper written by the Right Sort (People Like Us), then it's beneath notice.

If you want to see why so many people have given up on Labour, come and see a real time demonstration.

Finding it quite odd that we get so many posters who aren't usually on FWR….

ok who left the back gate unlocked last night

The use of gender means it includes males for the first time

And to take it back to the op no one has provided information to show misgendering will not be included.

But transgender people already have this protection. There is no need to cover gender. It's already covered.

It's all there in the law now

On ‘sophistry’ in pp well yes that’s Labour all round on every policy

But on this, given the GRA and where we are, I’d listen and find out actual plan

Are Labour planning to revoke The Equality Act?

This a a really good piece on why making misogyny a crime based on gender what actually be a huge problem

https://www.filia.org.uk/latest-news/2022/2/7/misogyny-as-a-hate-crime

It's a good start but I want to campaign for people not using "hate crime". It's very confusing!

It's actually - crime committed, sentence aggravated (so increased in seriousness and so greater in length) if there is a relevant protected characteristic which has been integrated into the criminal law.

Transphobia is already covered explicitly.

Biological women are not. They should be.

Fair enough. It's not like there hasn't been plenty of poorly thought-out legislation in recent years with unintended consequences, is it?

I do think, for any incoming administration, a good motto is, don't rush to yet more legislation; rather, try to ensure the laws we already have are applied properly.

Thanks for this. This seems most relevant

SJ – We see a fair bit of police attention being targeted against women who are being very clear that they support women’s sex-based rights, whether by banners, or meetings, or stickers and police investigating what you have written on Twitter. Presumably, if that was felt to be offensive by someone that you were advocating for women’s sex-based rights, could that be considered misogyny? It sounds crazy.

JS – It sounds crazy but that is the route we are going down. I wish people who were supporting the amendment would think about where it might take us. I don’t think it helps things women at all. I think it brings a lot of risks for women and I don’t think people fully understand that.

Why would I oppose making misogyny a hate crime? Surely it’s a good thing? Superficially, it sounds attractive, it sounds like it is fair because there are other hate crimes but I think it is misconceived. People don’t fully understand it and it could take us down the route of a woman who advocates for sex-based rights, for example that a woman’s refuge should not have to admit male-bodied people, that is a hate crime. That is where we are going if this amendment goes ahead.

SJ – At FiLiA, we are aware of that because a session around becoming an activist for misogyny was run by Stella Creasy MP, to learn about it and how they could advocate. We applied for a place and we were refused! So are Women’s Rights charities not allowed to learn about misogyny because it was deemed to be inappropriate?
**
JS – I had a Twitter exchange with Ms Stella Creasy and she was absolutely clear that transwomen would be covered by this law and transwomen can be victims of misogyny.

@duc748 - it's called "fake law" by the Secret Barrister and I agree that there should be much greater thought out proposals on this.

Over the years you can see the criminal law has been adjusted to address trans and other minority groups. But not women. It is a huge gap. A close examination would show structurally biological women are actually disfavoured by the law and the misogyny is written into it.

This is why "VAWG" like "BAME" for me a valueless term. It means tinkering with policy and law instead od looking at the outcomes for women who are victims of crime.