Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Extreme misogyny will be classed as terrorism !

171 replies

Omlettes · 18/08/2024 06:24

"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...

The UK Home Office - Latest news, breaking stories and comment | Daily Mail Online

Get the latest news on and from the UK Home Office from Mail Online.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/the-home-office/index.html

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 18/08/2024 07:41

Are you hungover or always such an intentionally uncomprehending sour sack.

You defined nothing. Writing "EXTREME MISOGYNY" in all caps doesn't mean you've defined "extreme misogyny". There wasn't anything to comprehend.

As for the rest, how unsisterly and rude.

LargeSquareRock · 18/08/2024 07:43

When free speech dies, it will go out with a whimper, not a bang because everyone will be applauding laws like these that go after arseholes and will be blindsided when the law goes after them because the precedent has already been set.

I also think the first person charged under these new laws will be a woman referring to a man with a GRC as a man.

Snowypeaks · 18/08/2024 07:46

The devil is in the detail.

We need to see the guidelines before we praise this initiative.

AlisonDonut · 18/08/2024 07:50

Rape, murder... misogyny

MISGENDERING however...EXTREME MISOGYNY

It's all in the redistribution of the language that they have been gearing up over the last few years.

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 18/08/2024 07:51

Careful everyone. You'll end up branded hungover, thick, or a sour sack.

Omlettes · 18/08/2024 07:56

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 18/08/2024 07:51

Careful everyone. You'll end up branded hungover, thick, or a sour sack.

No, just you, mate. You are a stirrer arent you?

OP posts:
quantumbutterfly · 18/08/2024 07:59

We are technically on the same side.....aren't we?

Snowypeaks · 18/08/2024 08:06

quantumbutterfly · 18/08/2024 06:53

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?

The "purpose" is the intention of the original drafters of the law. For example, if there was a 1976 law forbidding communication with an at-risk child or young person by any verbal means, a lawyer might argue that email or text isn't verbal, so should not be covered by the prohibition. The other lawyer might argue that, going by the preamble, the debates in Parliament, the previous legislation it replaced, etc, etc, the purpose of Parliament in passing that Act was to stop communication which could not be easily monitored, so emails and texts should be prohibited.

IANAL, and that may not be the best made-up example but it's my understanding of what the purposive approach means.

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 18/08/2024 08:06

Omlettes · 18/08/2024 07:56

No, just you, mate. You are a stirrer arent you?

Again. This is very rude. I‘m sorry you started a thread possibly thinking everyone would be Super Grateful to Labour but we have all seen the results of ill-defined legislation (Labour legislation to be specific!). So obviously people want the detail. Why would you celebrate something about which you know very little indeed? It defies logic.

Sausagenbacon · 18/08/2024 08:07

Yes, I, for one, feel very cautious about Labour's activities here.

Sausagenbacon · 18/08/2024 08:09

..and don't understand why we should be blind to the implications, just to be good sports.
Thank goodness for mn

RantyMcRanterton · 18/08/2024 08:15

Sausagenbacon · 18/08/2024 08:07

Yes, I, for one, feel very cautious about Labour's activities here.

Yes caution is sensible. Unintended consequences are thing.

AlisonDonut · 18/08/2024 08:15

The wouldn't need a new law to deal with the what was it, 65,000 reported rapes sitting on the system. Or to actually jail rapists and/or paedophiles once found guilty.

Which is why I think this is total bullshit.

quantumbutterfly · 18/08/2024 08:17

Snowypeaks · 18/08/2024 08:06

The "purpose" is the intention of the original drafters of the law. For example, if there was a 1976 law forbidding communication with an at-risk child or young person by any verbal means, a lawyer might argue that email or text isn't verbal, so should not be covered by the prohibition. The other lawyer might argue that, going by the preamble, the debates in Parliament, the previous legislation it replaced, etc, etc, the purpose of Parliament in passing that Act was to stop communication which could not be easily monitored, so emails and texts should be prohibited.

IANAL, and that may not be the best made-up example but it's my understanding of what the purposive approach means.

Yes, that makes sense.

What I take from that is that outcomes then rely on lawyers being able to persuade judges in their interpretations of the law.

quantumbutterfly · 18/08/2024 08:19

AlisonDonut · 18/08/2024 08:15

The wouldn't need a new law to deal with the what was it, 65,000 reported rapes sitting on the system. Or to actually jail rapists and/or paedophiles once found guilty.

Which is why I think this is total bullshit.

Edited

Yes. It has the feel of style over substance.

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 18/08/2024 08:24

The same paper has this:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/17/terror-or-mental-illness-dividing-britains-judges/

"After each attack, specialist officers and the intelligence agenciess_ only have days to decide whether to publicly declare an act of violence a terror attack. The decision is often fraught with difficulties – not least the complexity of trying to understand a suspect’s state of mind in the hours after an attack, without the hard evidence that may later emerge. Police officers, intelligence agencies and judges have strongly disagreed over how some individual attacks should be classified.

The race to decide

Jacques says that with the vast majority of attacks in the UK now launched by lone actors with no formal links to terrorist groups or networks, those decisions are becoming increasingly complex.
“If you wind the clock back to when terrorism was structured and had groups meeting planning and plotting, it was more straightforward to determine,” he says.
“But when it’s somebody you don’t know and an act has happened that looks like it might be terrorism, answering that question really early doors is more difficult.”
In Britain, terrorism has gradually movedd_ away from structured groups like the IRA and al-Qaeda who once directed attacks through formal networks, to individuals acting on personal and frequently chaotic combinations of grievance and inspiration.
Following Isis’ call for global attacks by its followers without seeking permission in 2014, the group’s model of indiscriminate bomb, knife and vehicle rampages has been picked up by a far wider pool of terrorists.
“When you attach yourself to a cause like Isis, then there’s a model, and when someone then copies that well-established model, it’s quite easy to say ‘that is terrorism’,” says Jonathan Hall, the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
“I think the difficulty comes when people haven’t attached themselves to a particular, well-known cause, or if they’ve got lots of different causes, any one of which could appear to be the driver towards violence.”
Jacques says that when potential terror attacks are committed by people who are unknown to the security services, officers have to rapidly analyse a vast amount of evidence, including witness accounts, police interviews with the perpetrator, examination of their electronic devices and their personal background to try to ascertain if they have an ideological motivation.
“It’s such a murky world now,” Jacques says. “You think: ‘How can you define that specifically? Is it an ideological cause? Is it personal grievance, is it mental health, is it a combination of all three?’ Which is another reason why declaration early is less than straightforward.”
Reaching a decision and publicly declaring it is a race against time. Normally, police can only hold suspects for 24 hours without charge, although they can apply to a court to extend the period to four days.
But if the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS))_ decides that it has enough evidence to charge an attacker with murder or attempted murder before counter-terror police have established their motivation, a public declaration will not be made out of fear of influencing jurors at a future trial."

anyolddinosaur · 18/08/2024 08:29

OP's first post ever (or under this username) was 06/07/2024. Were school's out then, universities were.

I'd expect a token number of people referred for real misogyny before it starts to be used against those born female. When TRAs are prosecuted for their incitement to violence and a judge actually convicts them or men are prosecuted for sexual harassment and a judge convicts them maybe some trust could be restored.

Snowypeaks · 18/08/2024 08:40

You only have to look at Spain's domestic violence laws to see how this can go. Because men can declare themselves women, abusive men can identify into DV refuges and as "women", claim immunity from prosecution for their violent acts against their female partner. So women in the DV refuge are put at risk and the abuser escapes prosecution.

That's why the definitions and guidelines matter.

endofthelinefinally · 18/08/2024 08:52

Snowypeaks · 18/08/2024 08:40

You only have to look at Spain's domestic violence laws to see how this can go. Because men can declare themselves women, abusive men can identify into DV refuges and as "women", claim immunity from prosecution for their violent acts against their female partner. So women in the DV refuge are put at risk and the abuser escapes prosecution.

That's why the definitions and guidelines matter.

Edited

Exactly. You have to define "woman" and "girl" first. I don't think this will turn out the way we would hope. Certainly not with Yvette Cooper in charge.

CocoapuffPuff · 18/08/2024 08:55

Yeah, sorry OP but the phrase "once bitten, twice shy" comes to the forefront for me too.

I don't trust any of them, so want it spelled out with clear definitions for terms such as "woman" before I consider it a good thing.

I'm not willing to start being complacent now.

MalagaNights · 18/08/2024 09:16

It's bullshit dangerous type legislation which just signals: 'we don't like bad things', but which you can't write clear legislation to enforce without it being at the whim of whoever has power in the moment.

All attacks on women are already illegal. This is trying to say people who have awful views about women are responsible so we'll make expressing the views illegal.

It's thought policing.
Of 'extreme' views. But who gets to decide what is extreme?

I vote no one, and we stick with making actions illegal not views.

This is isn't news to be celebrated it's dangerous nonsense.

But maybe I'm just a sour sack?

MalagaNights · 18/08/2024 09:17

Even if they clearly defined women as adult human females this would still be dangerous bullshit legislation.

Brefugee · 18/08/2024 09:17

Omlettes · 18/08/2024 07:14

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.

with respect i think you're under thinking.

Time will tell but i'm not overly optimistic that anything will change

CocoapuffPuff · 18/08/2024 09:22

MalagaNights · 18/08/2024 09:16

It's bullshit dangerous type legislation which just signals: 'we don't like bad things', but which you can't write clear legislation to enforce without it being at the whim of whoever has power in the moment.

All attacks on women are already illegal. This is trying to say people who have awful views about women are responsible so we'll make expressing the views illegal.

It's thought policing.
Of 'extreme' views. But who gets to decide what is extreme?

I vote no one, and we stick with making actions illegal not views.

This is isn't news to be celebrated it's dangerous nonsense.

But maybe I'm just a sour sack?

Yes, great point.

We've got laws to protect people from violence and sexual assault. They're barely applied. Fix those fuckers first.

DrBlackbird · 18/08/2024 09:34

I saw the headline (in The Graun) and initially was curious on how this would play out with the genderists and their signs encouraging women to be beaten or raped etc. So it could be a useful law.

Though after reading the more sober comments I am now feeling more cautious. It ought to stop the shouting at LWS events and death threats etc. but will it?

The difficulty is that this law comes after the brainwashing and entrenched misogyny of the genderists takeover of police, govt, health, education etc.

In a way, I wonder if such a law would drive the misogyny into less visible forms?