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.

Legislation that sentences people for bad crimes rather than intent?

For deeds not words?

And that stops putting dangerous men straight back on the streets?

Yes please!

Yes really 🤷‍♀️
Of course data should be collected but it shouldn't make a difference to the punishment etc

😁

Has this ever happened or is it purely theoretical?
As opposed to the unquantifiable women affected by misogynistic crime every day?

It is the very definition of "what about the men?" Time was this sort of thing got short shrift on here, because it's anti-feminist.

I'm not sure you've read my posts properly.

It is a sex based crime (biological sex, not fun sex) because all rapists are men

Therefore I think it could be exempted so as to not create a hierarchy of victims. Actually it would be nice if we did something effective about rape full stop.

Why are you so keen to argue that women shouldn't benefit from the same laws that are already in place to signal no tolerance for other types of discrimination?

So a crime motivated by something else (the fact she thought he was stealing her work) that was committed over 60 years ago in a different country demonstrates it necessary to also legislate against misandry while dealing with misogyny, which causes countless women to experience various levels of harm every day in the UK.
Gotcha

Why can't we for once just do something for women?

Also it doesn't look like it was associated with SCUM but nice try. I'm pretty good at spotting mens rights propaganda.

The sooner it happens the better.

There was no chance of it happening when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister as his behaviour was misogynistic or worse.

I think you're putting words into my mouth. I just answered your question.

That's a false dichotomy. No one is saying these women should not have a voice. We are saying they should not have the only voice. Activism for cross sex identities and rights, mainly by incorrectly presenting these demands as analogous to LGB or feminist causes, has resulted in GC perspectives being excluded and therefore groupthink on trans issues by those who are heard.

And not even that but in Scotland the only groups invited to be part of the conversation by the Government all receive funding from the SG which is contingent on them having 'inclusive' policies (I.e. self id in prisons and refusing to provide single sex rape crisis provision). There was no opposing views permitted. Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, was only invited to speak at Stage 3 of the GRR bill and after public opinion forced it.

Cometh the legislation, cometh the accusations. We don't know what this "misogyny" hate crime will be or what people will make of it.

And you reckon we're just going to have to legislate against misandry as well, are we? OK then, here's a sex-based example for you: a woman kills her abusive husband and is found guilty of a hate crime because she was heard to say "all men are bastards".

Wonder how long it will take before equality slips in a hate crime of "misandry"? I reckon about two months after misogyny.

Most people didn't predict what a fuckup gender self-id was going to be for women. The women who realised and tried to warn were told they were making a fuss over nothing, that this never happens, that it only affected a teeny number of people, that it was happening anyway, that it was just a bureaucratic nothing, that women were being petty and that everything from electoral reform to climate change was more important.

And then of course a lot of it did happen, and it continues to happen, with women fighting frantically just to roll back to the level of misogyny we had before and no worse.

So I've become mistrustful of well-meaning but badly thought out proposals for legislation. I'm not a legal expert but you'd better make sure that it is better for women and that you have a good hard listen to the legal experts and knowledgeable people (including Conservatives) who says it isn't and their reasons before you decide. .

In that case I'm not sure we disagree then :-) I was originally replying to Meadow' post further up: it said misogyny should be made a hate crime.

But it seems even the UK Law Commission are using that that when what they're actually discussing is whether misogyny should make existing offending a hate crime. That's loose language by the Law Commission and it's misleading.

As for Scotland, well, they're doing all sorts of ideological, impractical things up there.

So I've become mistrustful of well-meaning but badly thought out proposals for legislation.

Same.

I think it would help to read the whole conversation to fully comment. It was quite a complex conversation that can't be boiled down to "false dichotomy" on the basis of one reply.

Scotland is not an irrelevance to England and Wales.

It's a warning.

I'm not sure who you are replying to. I 💯 agree there is no need for a hate crime of misandry. It would be ridiculous.

That's what I thought! I thought we were on the same page about it.

The different legislation in Scotland is confusing this I think!

I thought I was replying to you, when you asked "Has this ever happened or is it purely theoretical?" but things were a bit embedded by then so I was mistaken(!)

But even if you think there's no need for an aggravating crime of misandry and it would be ridiculous, and even if I think so too, well we might find a lot of other people disagree. If we can have misogyny then why not?

I did read it thanks. I also know how to suck eggs, in case you felt like offering any advice in that area.

Your post claimed posters "don't want "middle-class, IDPol-espousing women who are anti-GC" involved in legislating for women" and were "Excluding certain types of women based on their politics"

Please post what you think was said prior to that which invalidates my point that interpreting other posters saying the groups consulted came from a narrow range of people as them saying certain groups should not be consulted at all is setting up a false dichotomy between GC posters who want to "exclude certain types of women" and the current position where it is GC voices that are excluded, when the real improvement is to have a range of voices which is what the posters were actually proposing.

I am a feminist. My feminism centres women.
Not men.
Not men that I agree with.
Not fear of men.
Not even men who say they're women.
Definitely not men who "are only trying to protect" women.

I can see the benefits for women of making misogyny a Hate Crime, of dedicated courts to deal with the disgusting backlog of rape cases, of cross party cooperation on how best to protect women and children. I am not frozen or governed by fear that some blokes might benefit.

If it happens, we'll fight it. It's the feminist way.

No it doesn't only have to happen once. I don't think you understand misogyny and it's cost.

I don't think it's a coordinated attack on GC women. I do fear the intersection of well meaning misogyny legislation and a social environment where the basis on which a person is understood to be a woman is not universal will have unintended results.

"Mlud, members of the jury, I put it to you that although my client admits he did indeed throw tomato juice over Ms X's white jeans and lead the chant of "on the rag, on the rag" , this behaviour, while admittedly assault, can hardly be considered misogynistic, since we as a civilised society rightly acknowledge menstruation is not an perogative only of women, nor is it in any way expected that all women will have the type of body that menstruates"

"Sorry luv, I know he called you an uppity bitch who needs a slash to match her gash, but you were wearing an obviously unfeminine outfit at the time so it's unlikely he perceived you as a woman. It's not a hate crime"

My fear is that the things that can be accepted as clear misogyny will exclude things that are based in women's biology or directed at female people, which leaves very little.

Of course it should. If someone is inherently hostile to the point of being violent to over 50% of the population, they should face increased sentences. They should not be released until they are capable of managing their rage.

My objection is to all hate crime legislation.

man A kills man B because he doesn't like his football team.
man C kills man D because he doesn't like that he is gay.

Both A & C should be punished, I don't believe that man A deserves a lesser punishment.