Extreme misogyny will be classed as terrorism !

[Omlettes]

"Extreme misogyny will be treated as terrorism for the first time to combat the radicalisation of young men online, according to reports."
Government plans will look to tackle violence against women and girls in the same way as Islamist and far-Right extremism, amid fears that current Home Office guidance is too narrow."

Wow, and its the full moon and all...

And thats not all, JK Rowling has only gone and done an interview in the Times.

Happy bloody Sunday!

web.archive.org/web/20240818051747/www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/jk-rowling-harry-potter-interview-5g2f6msvw

We need to see how they're defining "man" and "woman", then. For starters. And then what "extreme" means as regards "misogyny". If misogyny includes men then we are absolutely fucked.

Crivvens, who will implode first, the traliban or 'the establishment'?

Can't see your times archive link, maybe I'll buy a Sunday paper for the first time since uni.

It seems to be centring around incel / Tate ideology from what I’ve read thus far.

SEEN in journalism on the misogyny plans:

x.com/journalismseen/status/1825039355590672774?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/journalismseen/status/1825043826404176019?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/journalismseen/status/1825046002925007101?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Yes there is always that issue.

I was told years ago that English/Welsh law is primarily interpreted literally ( although even the definition of the word literally is under attack ), or failing that, when words are ambiguous you take a 'purposive' approach. What was the law intended to remedy?
My understanding was that European law was primarily interpreted purposively, I thought perhaps as a result of the complexity of codifying disparate legal systems. It is, I'm afraid, a very superficial understanding but it leads me to wonder..whose purpose?

Im fully aware of that, but since we are turning things round more and more , and after all the recent deadly attacks on women I welcome it because it makes a statement of intent.
Im not going to let you get me down.

This may not be good news, depending on what the definition of "women and girls" is, as ResisterOfTwaddleRex says.
It could mean people being referred to Prevent for saying a man is a man.

On the results of these plans:

https://x.com/alessandraaster/status/1824912509607830001?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

https://x.com/famedtrust/status/1824906079920116212?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Great if this ^ doesn't get some of us down. Others of us who've experience in child safeguarding and in speaking up in that environment about gender ideology will see this for something quite different.

See my response to that, it is good news in the bigger picture, in response to the increasing attacks on women.
There are likely to be some cases, but they will fade along with the ideology.
Symbolically this is huge.
Its the first time sexism has been put onpar with terrorism. It sends a big message about boundaries to the Incels of this world.
Eitherway Im not going to let the over concern sour it for me.

Nor should we put our concerns on hold becase TRAs might try to sour it for us.
That means, they win.

I think the Government believes it can distance itself from child transitioning while continuing to further - as far as possible - the TA agenda against the reality of sex and the rights of women. I don't believe there has been a change of heart, but there is a willingness to compromise or at least mitigate the least defensible aspects or consequences. The problem for us is that sex realism and women's rights are all or nothing. There is no middle ground on what a single sex space is, or what a woman is.

Well hooray and bugger in equal measure.

I think a 12 yo lad was referred to Prevent for saying there were two sexes and that he was gay but not Queer. Harry of Fair Cop got involved

Can't find the links now but if this is the way it is used things aren't looking bright.

Youre overthinking and giving them too much credit, but you are entitled to your worries, but Im still not going to let you sour it.

There are likely to be some cases, but they will fade along with the ideology

Sorry what? So it's OK if some children and some women get hurt or dragged through Prevent or prosecuted because it'll be for The Greater Good? I can't get on board with that, no.

Gee you didnt let your imagination run wild did you🙄
Defcon 5 in one jump

There's a piece on ITV's website about extremism in general, the question is are women who turn up to an event to discus the realities of sex the one's thought to have the extremist belief's or are the thugs who turn up to protest the event, with their sign's calling for violence, the extremists?

Will Labour go after the far left with the same zeal they went after the far right?

I'm betting no.

Cooper pledges crackdown on ‘hateful beliefs’ to counter extremism | ITV News

OK, help me out then. What does "There are likely to be some cases, but they will fade along with the ideology" mean? In a wider context, we've seen "some cases" that people thought would "fade" (Post Office, organised CSE) but have been indicative of deeper, rooted corruption. Let's not let this begin on bad definitions that will mean TRAs getting their Christmases all at once.

😁 when GC women don't know whether to put their faith in the lawmakers ..

I'm not overthinking - I'm just refusing to get excited until I can see the detail of what is intended and who is protected. This whole genderist movement has been meticulously planned for decades and the modus operandi has been to hide dangerous and potentially unpopular anti-women or anti-reality measures in a popular package.

Just as the aim of anti-conversion therapy legislation is to put "gender identity" into law, the aim of a measure like this could be to establish that men are in fact women. As to how many cases there would be of misogyny compared to gender blasphemy, that would be in the hands of teachers, the police, etc - professions which appear to be captured by the ideology.
We could end up actually worse off but expected to applaud something that undermines us and pretend that it is tackling the actual problem of misogyny. "What's your problem", they'll say. "What more do you want?"

It says EXTREME MISOGYNY does it not?
Therefore some Tra might try to use it, but since no woman ever has been guilty of EXTREME MISOGYNY then correctly calling a man a man is unlikely to be afforded much traction, especially now, meanwhile we are have increasing murderous attacks on groups of women because they are women by Incels emboldened by Tate etc.
This sends a message that has never been sent before- ever.
I appreciate you will continue to argue the toss but I disagree.
Have a lovely Sunday.

So it means writing words in all caps without defining those terms?

What a time to be alive.

Yes Ive heard that argument multiple times.
Ill leave you to it, and dont forget to write to Yvette Cooper with it otherwise your concerns are pointless.

Christ, I hope not.

I hope this is the good news it looks to be but the police need to get their own house in order first of all by severing links with Stonewall, Pride et al (see the Surrey thread) so that what @Snowypeaks says doesn’t become the case. In addition they need a far more robust screening process to ensure that men who commit domestic violence or who are sexual predators are never allowed into the police force.

Thank you for the article @Omlettes I’m not hungover 😁