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.

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.

Does the UK have a problem with crime against men due to hatred of men? How many are raped? How many are murdered each year by those who hate men?

Is this a "what about the men" post @TempestTost?

I'm quoting myself to say that What feminism is this? is not a rhetorical question.

This

Surely most violent crimes are motivated by hate - why does it make a difference if it's hatred of that one person or the "type" of person?

This is how misogyny as a hate crime will be used against women; Maya Forstater is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police for writing about a patients right to consent vs a male GP's right to have his sex recorded as female and give intimate examinations - and give an interview describing how that makes him feel.

https://archive.ph/gZUqS

@TooBigForMyBoots

I'm quoting myself to say that What feminism is this? is not a rhetorical question.

I'm aghast, TooBig. Arguing against proposed misogyny laws because ... Labour, and Cassie. That's all it is.

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

You can say women and girls. It's ok.

I'll never forget that the silly bugger thought a man could grow a cervix,that's for sure.

That's not fully true is it. The tweet implies the doctor is a sexual abuser, names them and prints their photograph. Its pretty irresponsible and unnecessary.

I don't think anyone anywhere has said it's a misogynistic offence though. In fact I don't think we'd even know about it if Maya hadn't tweeted about it herself.

Think she's been a bit reckless in this case but I also think the Internet has messed up people's brains so they think it's fine to call others sex abusers on the basis of nothing.

You can see above that as soon as I do, posters ask "and how are you defining women?"

You forgot the need to include "misandry" too @NefertitiV

Although I note that no examples of "misandry" have yet been given.

You must need a lie down @CassieMaddox.

You're never off this board. Your posts are very dictatorial. Do you ever hear yourself?

PS I am not and have been a "person with a vagina".

"Politicians can enhance their credentials by wringing their hands and sounding tough on ‘hate crime’ but rather than helping people be and feel safer there’s a strong possibility that focusing on them too much will only serve to make us more fearful of others, and feed a culture of competitive victimhood (misandry as a hate crime, anyone?) This legislation looks like a sensible tool for creating a more cohesive society. Is it possible that it is now breaking us apart?"

https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/22/hate-crime

A hate crime of misogyny will be used by men who demand we call them women, against women.

How delicious it would be to have oneself validated as a woman under a misogyny law, weaponise self declared vulnerability and also be able to put evil non-compliant females in their place all in one go.

Irresistible to some I'd say.

I don't think it matters if it's relatively uncommon.

If you are writing a new piece of legislation, you can easily word it as "hatred against someone's sex" or mention both sexes or whatever.

That then covers all possible scenarios just in case it actually happens sometimes.

If someone thinks we should raise awareness of just how disproportionate male violence towards women is, that is perfectly legitimate, but why should it make any difference to (perhaps very rare) cases when the situation is reversed?

Someone doesn't get treated the same way as a victim because the crime is relatively rare in that direction? Why is that appropriate?

I would say the same for sexuality. In theory, (even if it doesn't happen in practice that you can find), someone could be attacked for being straight, and yes that should be covered just in case it actually happens. You don't wait for cases before changing the law, when it's such a simple legislation detail anyway.

I have two thoughts on this...

Partly I would agree with you, and what we need is just tougher punishments for violent crime in general. Hatred isn't a worse motivation than "fun" for attacking someone.

But then on the other hand, you could argue that the legislation helps to send a useful message in society, that you can't target people for such reasons and it will not be tolerated. Although maybe just a tougher approach in general would work just as well, or even better.

Misogyny is a very specific issue that is only directed at women. Watering it down to include men is 1) unnecessary and 2) misogynistic in itself.

Imagine the proposed "misogyny" hate crime as a single sex space. No men allowed. Stop campaigning for them to be included in something for women only.

All of the parties that support making misogyny a hate crime also support self ID.
Under their rules, making misogyny a hate crime will stop women being able to discuss misogyny even if they are repeating the words men used themselves, about situations in which women need to give consent.

I define woman as adult human female but as I'm nothing to do with the implementation of this law that is completely irrelevant.

It is relevant if you want to protect adult human females. Because unfortunately we are likely to end up with a "misogyny" law that protects transwomen from any adult human females who argue that transwomen are not women and need to be distinguished from women for the sake of women's safety, privacy, dignity and autonomy.

That failure to protect women may not be most people's intention but it is some people's intention, and if that's the effect then intended or not it's bad news for women (the adult human female sort)

I don't think anyone is above the law, even gender critical women.

If no-one is above the law then we need to be extra careful not to create bad laws by accident.

As do the Fawcett Commission, as linked.

The Fawcett Society don't define woman as "adult human female" and they don't seem to mind what happens to women when society fails to make that distinction. So they're contentious, not authoritative.

What? This makes no sense to me at all I'm afraid. I think I need a tangible example of what you are worrying about.

I meant my personal definition of woman is irrelevant to how the legislation is drafted because I'm nothing to do with it. Responding to a PP who asked me what my definition was. It was a straight answer to a direct question is all.

This is a good example of people really stretching to see a problem where there isn't one. The most likely "problem" is a TW might be able to get a crime against them recorded as a "hate crime" on the basis of "misogyny". Seems unlikely as they could already use gender identity. And there has to be a reportable crime for this to occur.

Conversely it gives GC women a better option to report TRAs threatening to choke them with their lady dick. But noone seems that fussed about how the law might protect women.

meant my personal definition of woman is irrelevant to how the legislation is drafted

Can you see how nonsensical that is?

it gives GC women a better option to report TRAs threatening to choke them with their lady dick.

The NHS told a patient she wasn't raped as there were no men on the ward.

Regarding the NHS point, that is completely irrelevant to whether misogyny should be a hate crime

Regarding the definition of woman, I was answering a question directly asked of me - pp asked "how do you define a woman?" No, I don't think saying what I said is "nonsensical". It's a totally reasonable answer Even if I answered "I define "woman" as a lump of green cheese" it makes no difference to how the legislation is drafted. Because I have no influence on that.

Rather than make it personal, better to focus on what the actual problem is. So far it seems to be a combination of "I don't like the idea of hate crimes" (fair enough, not an opinion I agree with) and "the Left will use it to attack women". As the hate element is a corollary to an existing crime, and as trans people already have that option using transphobia, I'm not sure that's a particularly likely outcome. Like I say, in the meantime it would give women an extra option to respond to the specific misogyny they face and I think that's a good thing.

I think toobig asked a good question- what is this feminism, where measures that protect women are being discounted out of hand because of the source?

Really? A hate crime has broader effect beyond the individual victim targeted.

Having this distinct category of crime and subsequent data helps a society recognise if it has a problem with racism, homophobia etc. Of course it's needed! It's not just something recently made up by the woke!

The definition of misogyny in any legislation will include 'percieved to be a woman'.

I smell bullshit and a way for certain types of politicians to manufacture more and more meaningless legislation.

I agree.

Is there any evidence that making misogyny a hate crime would lead to fewer women being raped and murdered?

I actually agree with a Misogyny Bill. I've said that one should be brought up here for ages. I would have preferred it to be included in the Hate Crime Bill but apparently that was a step too far.

However, if the Police are basically saying they disagree with it and aren't really going to take it seriously, it's all a bit academic, isn't it?