Cross party support to make misogyny a hate crime

[CassieMaddox]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c899nxwz3y3o

Reform and Conservatives not interested, natch.

But this is great news. Looks like it will happen, and about bloody time.

You are surely taking the piss by linking to these fruitbats who do not even know what a woman actually is?

Yes lovely Mr. Lammy didn't really MEAN it of course, now move along, nothing to see here.

Do you think? Being picked out because of your race is worse than because you have bad zits, or like to read a lot and seem like a nerd, or because you are risch and nicely dressed?

There are any number of reasons why a person might get picked out as the victim of a crime. Some might be more emotionally difficult than others, and that will also vary a lot depending on the individual.

This kind of list doesn't really have the capacity to navigate any of that. Plus it's very difficult to show motive anyway.

which encourages lobby groups to push for more and more characteristics to be added to this list because it carries weight and clout.

I think this is something that doesn't get talked about enough. When certain groups get preferential or better or stronger responses due to identity characteristics, it's really problematic.

(And actually, I think there is a very strong argument that if misogyny is to be included in a list like this, you also need to include misandry. )

The thing is that judges already have the ability to understand the motives around the crime within sentencing. But that does not give special considerations to groups that have leverageable social or political identity - which is a good thing.

I think it's a fair question to ask if the whole concept of 'hate crimes' isn't a bit dodgy. Social problems are rarely because there's insufficient legislation; we surely already have enough laws on the Statute Book. I've seen a parallel argument made about 'terrorist' offences.

transmisogyny

Fucks sake, just when you thought it couldn't get anymore mental 😒

But the public understanding is: it didn't get passed because it's no big deal and women should just put up with it.

And if TLC was properly invested in making misogyny illegal, they could simplify the hierarchies of crimes within this area. It is possible. Those cursory words on Gov.uk come over as: ladies, stop fussing. A much clearer public statement needs to be made that specifies that acts of misogyny fall under existing crime laws and will be dealt with as crimes when reported. A statement that encourages women to feel they have a right to safety and equality and freedom not one that implies this will not be forthcoming. Because we don't, do we?

I'm white, and if I ever catch myself thinking people are finding racism where it isn't intended, I substitute the words 'white people' for 'men' to see if I feel similar vulnerabilities or inequalities or grievances. And I usually do.

https://thefeministbookshop.com/products/a-short-history-of-trans-misogyny

You can buy this lovely tome from the 'feminist' bookshop!

"Hate crime" means an act by the criminal that would be a crime anyway, but which has, for example, racism as part of what the criminal actually did. There is no stand-alone offence of "hate crime" or for that matter "racism". And that's why what is actually being suggested is that misogyny be a factor that makes a criminal's crime a "hate crime" in the same way that is already the case for racism.

I agree with you that racism and misogyny are similar in that they are both outlooks / patterns of behaviour. Where I disagree is how you criminalise that. Crimes are very specific things. They have to be so that the law doesn't overreach and capture behaviour that wasn't intended to be caught. That is why the formula the law uses is existing crime + protected characteristic such as racism = hate crime.

See these, for example. They're very specific and defined:
-----------
Theft Act 1968 (England and Wales)

8 Robbery.

(1)A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

9 Burglary.

(1)A person is guilty of burglary if—

(a)he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or

(b)having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.

Crimes Act 1961 (NZ - I chose this one as the 1861 UK legal definition of is very Victorian and wordy and the offence of murder under English law isn't defined in statute)

193 Assault with intent to injure

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, with intent to injure any one, assaults any person.

167 Murder defined

Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases:
(a) if the offender means to cause the death of the person killed:
--------

Misogyny......? What's captured? Misogyistic speech? Thoughts? Gestures? I can imagine everyone in the court taking off their wigs and scratching their heads. Making it a crime is up there with claims that tax avoidance can be abolished. It's not as easy as that: you're wanting the law to do something it's not designed to do.

I totally agree. It's a Utopian urge which always lead to dark places.

The Fawcett Society? Fruitbats??? Agree or disagree with them, they are certainly not fruitbats when it comes to feminism.

But then I expect no better from FWR, feminism and women's rights went out the window here a long time ago.

They are though.

This !!!!
I'm sure there was a discussion on this topic a while back: though it sounded like a brilliant idea, it would be twisted to supporting TWAW and result in it being another stick to beat GC women with

Yes. They are.

And actually, I think there is a very strong argument that if misogyny is to be included in a list like this, you also need to include misandry.
What? There is no such thing as "misandry". It is a made up term by men who don't like women talking about the wide scale discrimination against them.

Great post

Trans misogyny is a similar term to "misandry" - made up by men who don't like women talking about their oppression. It is totally irrelevant to a conversation about whether misogyny should be a hate crime.

I do however think if a TW was attacked because they were perceived by the attacker to be female the hate crime marker of misogyny should apply. In the same way that a homophobia hate crime marker would apply if a straight man was beaten up because he was perceived to be gay by his attacker.

I don't think the OP was the first person to use the words purity spiral on this thread, funny how you didnt pull that poster up. The OP does have a point though. So tight is the purity spiral on FWR that even the Fawcett Society doesn't fit.

150 years of women's rights activism to be dismissed as fruitbats?

Opposition to dedicated courts to clear the disgusting backlog of rape cases?
Opposition to making misogyny a Hate Crime?

What feminism is this?

Sorry, I don't understand.
The cross party proposal is to make misogyny a "hate crime" like racism. I.e. an aggravation to an existing offence.

It's a bit confusing because pp started talking about Scotland where there are specific crimes of misogyny. But I think meadow was talking about the hate crime proposal for England and Wales.

FTR, I was talking about England and Wales.

That's what I thought so Tom's reply confused me. Easily done though 😂

"Reform and Conservatives not interested,"

Not surprised at all.

You are talking fucking bollocks again, Cassie. Stop making shit up.

There is one clear difference between a concept like racism and a concept like misogyny. The former can be against anyone - we all have a race. A crime against a white person perpetrated because of racial hatred of white people is as legitimate a use as a crime against an Asian person or anyone else. It's is saying that we think crimes committed due to racial hatred are worse.

The comparator here would be crimes committed due to hatred of people for their sex - male or female. Otherwise we are saying crimes committed due to hatred of women are worse than other reasons, but a crime committed due to hatred of men is just like any other, normal crime.

This is out of line with the way we treat these kinds of special groups under the law in other cases and there is good reason why we do it the way we do.

Oh dear. Have I touched a nerve?
Please can you describe what a hate crime motivated by "misandry" would look like? What types of crime? How would you prove it?

Misogyny is a unique crime, yes. As all humans have a sex, there are only 2 sexes and only one of those two is oppressed and discriminated by all human societies. Misogyny is a feature of humanity, not a bug. Whereas misandry is made up to obfuscate that feature.

Very strange to be arguing about what misogyny is on a feminist board. How times change.

Also your analogy falls down a bit. Better ones would be disability and homophobia. We all have a sexuality, but there is no hate crime for straight people. Some people are disabled. There is no hate crime for able bodied people.

People with vaginas deserve their own category of hate crime without men getting all sensitive about it.