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.

I'm not bothered about any of your men. I'm a feminist on the MN feminism board. My concern is women.

Fair enough, not your best counter argument but here you go.
man A kills woman B because he doesn't like her football team.
man C kills woman D because he doesn't like that she is a lesbian.

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

<also a feminist on FWR>

Because misogyny is a problem and misandry isn't?

Clutching. At. Straws.

Also that was quite gross and unnecessary to read.

Thank you. ❤

I hope you are right. I suspect you are not.

"Also that was quite gross and unnecessary to read."

It was supposed to be. That is the point. Misogyny is gross and it's rooted in our bodies, in reducing us to the base of our bodies.

Yes. So why not make it a hate crime?

I'm not saying don't make it a hate crime.

I'm saying don't make it a hate crime in a legal and social context that is busy divorcing womanhood from the female body, because you haven't got a firm basis on which to say this grossness is misogyny.

Sorry, I don't agree. I think everyone knows what misogyny is and everyone agrees what you wrote is misogyny.

The proposal is to make misogyny an aggravating factor - that means a defendant has already been found guilty and a judge decides what to add on to sentencing. Judges would recognise misogyny even if a jury might not.

For me the two main elements of this are 1) more severe consequences for misogynists and 2) gathering data on the misogyny women face so that it can't be minimised.

Everyone knows what a woman is and everyone knows what misogyny is. And yet, there is a consolidated social and political movement to pretend the first statement is not true. This movement cannot allow a definition of misogyny that relies on a definition of woman they cannot acknowledge.

You think it's far fetched, clutching at straws.

And indeed, underneath everyone does know what a women is.

And yet, trans identifying men have been placed in women's prisons.
Trans identifying men compete in women's sports.
Trans identifying men speak for women on IWD.
Trans identifying men commiting violent male crimes are reported as women.

There was a time we'd have said anyone suggesting these things would happen was Clutching. At. Straws. And yet they happened.

If a man kills a woman because she is a Lesbian, that is homophobia. A Hate Crime in the UK. It could also be classed as misogyny. I am unaware of any equivalent systemic oppression and violence against supporters of a particular football team.

I'm not opposed to supporters of West Bromich Albion making such a case, but it's nothing to do with feminism and women's rights.

This movement cannot allow a definition of misogyny that relies on a definition of woman they cannot acknowledge.
And this is where the issue is.
You don't need to "define a woman" to define misogyny. It's a logical fallacy.

In the case of racist hate crime, have we "defined a race"? No we haven't. The victim says whether they think if it was motivated by hate, the police record that, the judge or magistrate considers it and adds to the sentence (or doesn't). No need for a nailed down definition of misogyny.

You're wrong.
The Sentencing Council has produced guidance as to how the Courts should deal with a Prosecution’s application for an uplift in sentencing.
The Court should not conclude the offending was aggravated by hate without first putting the offender on notice and allowing the defendant to challenge that allegation.

Hate crime cases aren't heard in magistrates court. A jury has to agree guilty of crime and hate element.

It isn't just a matter of victim's perceptions.

I'm.not sure how that is relevant to trans issues?

In the case of racist hate crime, there is not a concerted movement to change the general accepted understanding of race to something unrelated.

This is not the case for misogyny, where there is a highly motivated number of activists who see it as their duty to challenge instances of the "wrong" version of womanhood, especially ones that "move the needle" in the public eye.

There's a big difference between everyone knowing what a woman is in practice, and a judge being prepared to make a legal judgement that rests on a transphobic reading of womanhood. And given that juries are already more than willing to give rapists every possible benefit of the doubt, and given women's everyday experience of men and indeed women finding reasons that what looks like sexism could actually have been entirely innocent, I don't have much confidence in juries being happy to label misogyny when they see it either.

I don't have much confidence in juries being happy to label misogyny when they see it either.

That's why we need it to be explained to them in terms of the law. But first it has to be made law.

Juries won't be labelling it. It is an aggravating factor. It will be the judge or magistrate adjusting a sentence for misogyny.

I'm not against the law. I'm against it being a law that does not explicitly include hateful references to or acts against female biology as misogyny.

As a thought experiment, imagine what the reaction would be from the various TRA and TRA-aligned orgs and commentators if female biology was explicitly included in this putative law. Can you really see Starmer's Labour saying "No, we all know what a woman in. The biology stays"? It would be a massive fudge, just like the GRA.

I'm not sure why you're so determined to miss the point I am making. I don't believe that we should punish people
less because the particular brand of hate they have is not one that has been "recognised".

I have been using examples that are currently part of the law.

Misogyny is a massive problem & I am opposed to it in all its forms (why I'm here) however I am opposed to hate crime in general.

I'm against it being a law that does not explicitly include hateful references to or acts against female biology as misogyny.

If it didn't include those things, it wouldn't be making misogyny a Hate Crime.

Oh I agree. But as the rest of my post says:

As a thought experiment, imagine what the reaction would be from the various TRA and TRA-aligned orgs and commentators if female biology was explicitly included in this putative law.

Can you really see Starmer's Labour saying "No, we all know what a woman is. The biology stays"?

It will be a massive fudge, just like the GRA.

I mean, I really hope I'm wrong, but they've not done much to suggest they have the balls or ovaries so far.

I have not missed your point. Your focus is on the man and what he deserves.
The man who kills a male football supporter.
The man who kills a male homosexual.
The man who kills a female football supporter.
The man who kills a lesbian.

How can you say you're opposed to misogyny in all it's forms if you can so easily dismiss and minimise its existence, equating it to an imaginary scenario about murderous football rivalry?

Why is all about what the man deserves, not justice for his victims?

This refers to your claim
The victim says whether they think if it was motivated by hate, the police record that, the judge or magistrate considers it and adds to the sentence (or doesn't). No need for a nailed down definition of misogyny.

For a jury to find guilt they need a clear definition. I haven't seen a definition that I consider robust enough for a legal system.

Why is all about what the man deserves, not justice for his victims?

Sorry, I should have said: Why is it all about your imaginary man deserves and not about justice for real alive women now?

Men commit 99% of violent crime 🤷‍♀️

Why is the victim who is not of a recognised group less deserving of justice?

Justice should be blind & equal.