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...

From what I gather it is going to be mainly implemented in schools to refer boys to PREVENT if they watch Andrew Tate.

Not a word on the rape of girls in schools though. What even is a 'girl' anymore? Who knows.

I’m glad the goverment have begun this conversation. It does seem to be aimed at the Andrew Tate type of person and I’m very glad to see it may be treated the same as terrorism because it bloody well is.

Thank you for the link @Omlettes

The rape of girls should be treated as a crime already. And if it can also to be linked to extremes misogyny then hopefully the culprit will get even longer in person with this new law.

I came on to say this.

Its already illegal to rape women, its already illegal to sexually assault women. But even very clear cut cases often don't make it to court. There was the "sexsomnia" case recently and the woman who was SA'd on a train but the magistrate "didn't want to ruin the perpetrators lives". Who are the extreme misogynisits in that situation? Its easy to picture them as creepy weirdos in their mums basement posting horrible memes. But the magistrate etc were even worse. There is such a huge backlog in the courts at the moment, especially for rape, that I dont think potentially introducing more crimes would help.

What would be helpful is if existing crimes were taken more seriously - I do think that domestic violence, rape etc function very similarly to terrorism in some ways and maybe it should be possible to prosecute them as such in some cases. e.g. the grooming gangs apparently did work more like terrorist/extremist networks do than "regular" (uurgh) child SA networks. So having that as a potential angle might help it be taken more seriously in the future.

But I don't think we need new thought crimes.

The idea a man should get longer for rape because he has some vile views about women than a man who rapes someone but his views aren't known/ relevant is absolutely fucked up.

He might be a sadistic pervert but he didn't follow Andrew Tate so he's not as bad as that bloke?? Seriously?

It's dangerous stupidity to think we should police and punish people for their views and not their actions.

It's stupid shit that just makes people feel better until the reality of a police state becomes evident.

Instead let's find and lock up the men who harm women and children.

Yes, some pps are right - there are several issues.

1. Are laws policing speech a bad thing in themselves?
2. Are there concepts which are or should be undefinable in law (eg hate, harm)?
3. How could laws be abused by bad actors in the future?

Misogyny is at its worst and most toxic certainly in my lifetime.
But if we want to send the message that misogyny is not to be tolerated, then as a pp said - let's use or improve the legislation we already have to show that women are valued as equal human beings.
Prioritise the prosecution of rape and SA.
Take domestic violence and general MVAWG seriously.
Reform the police.
Look at the care women receive in hospitals, especially maternity care.
Tackle the sex pay gap.
Clamp down on much harder on porn and CSA.
Use the Malicious Communications Act to actually protect women from vicious online abuse.
There must be more examples, but above all - define women and girls as human females and shore up women's single sex spaces. Give women back the right to define ourselves as a discrete group of human beings not support or service animals for men.

So far.

Terrorism laws have form for being used in ways far removed from their original intention because they've been badly written, ill defined and far too broad in scope.

In theory it's good news, but in practice? I will reserve judgement for now rather than getting too excited.

Why would you celebrate something about which you know very little indeed? It defies logic.

I think this an unfair comment in that, on the surface, why wouldn’t we celebrate something putatively in support of women? Especially as it is seemingly in response to the recent tsunami of evidence pointing to how misogyny has become epidemic?

Okay, it’s coming from the political party who has attacked its own GC members and includes Lisa ‘men should be able to go to women’s prisons’ Nandy amongst others, true. But it can start a conversation can’t it?

Reading this account of the magistrate who declined to accept the version of events of a pregnant woman who was sexually assaulted on a train, I have to wonder

• what constitutes extreme misogyny
• why restrict concerns to young men when older men are practising this in plain sight (lauded and pillars of the community for it).

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5144388-violence-against-women-on-uk-trains-is-increasing-no-wonder-when-courts-often-seem-more-concerned-about-the-impact-on-perpetrators-than-their-victims

You don't think this is something that needs some careful thought? You are clearly under thinking and making yourself look a bit foolish in the process tbh.

RedToothbrush

indeed.
Perhaps another poster can help me out but I seem to recall that terrorism laws have been used against women for expressing GC views.

I am in favour of the possibility of referring boys who are fans of Andrew Tate to PREVENT, ditto men who are domestic abusers because the link to terrorism is established.

What I would not think is fair is that we should have to "pay" for that by giving up rights - accepting that men are women and boys/girls/anyone being referred to PREVENT for expressing sex realist views.

Yes. That is the point of my post.

They have hit upon social media posts as being an easily evidenced way of clearing up crime and making themselves look great rather than doing the work of investigating actual crimes against women and girls.

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

Exactly my thoughts. Strange how misogyny is bad as soon as police, gov't, schools, NHS, charities, publishers, arts organisations etc etc start to believe men are women. Very very strange, that.

There are some thread where i really can’t tell

The tide is turning slowly back in favour of women’s rights and yes there need to be some major clarifications to this and no the government position of any government since GRA has not been logical… but this is still something to welcome.

Every time I hear people saying misogyny powers shouldn’t be in place because ‘this will benefit men’ I think well, the present situation isn’t exactly benefiting women is it?

So I very much welcome government concerns about extreme social media fuelled misogyny. When has that ever happened before? Never.

So let’s not chuck this rare level of concern out with the bath water- as OP says let’s write to our MPs to say that women need this concern because a pornified internet culture is putting them at a new level of risk- but that we are concerned that a subset of men who are gender identity advocates will seek to weaponise any new powers against women.

Use this opportunity to force this discussion out into the open, in conventional politics circles. This drafting is not being written in to assist TRAs. Everyone really knows what a woman is: If there’s a loophole TRAs could use, then we should demand it be closed. Sunlight and fresh air. That discussion could be useful and pave the way for a lot of other discussions in this area too. So let’s have it. This is something to celebrate.

I think it is absolutely fine to disagree with something and back it with arguments and STILL be in the same side obviously!!!

And i agree that I’m not sure how well this new law will work if there is no definition of woman

I hope it might be reassuring to note that the BBC coverage of this issue shows the government are thinking about misogyny linked to violence. That’s not the only way misogyny blights women’s lives obviously but let’s take it for a good start.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c15gn0lq7p5o

TRAs threaten women with rape and violence all the time. Women simply don’t threaten any of that to those men. So this law is obviously not being drafted intended to benefit men. Let’s point out to MPs the obvious concerns about cynical manipulation of this, but let’s also applaud a new government for making security in women’s lives, even in just this one aspect, a priority within their first 100 days.

I haven't read any of the details yet but the first thing that sprang to mind was

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5143847-taiwan-tries-to-silence-fair-play-for-women

What’s that quote about be careful what road you build and who will use it.

I agree.

But the drafting and wording is important.

We know that in terms of coercive control, using the system against a victim is a known technique.

Therefore I'd like to know what protections there will be based on sex not gender for this change as not to expose women to abuse from loopholes.

Prevent is around how children are sucked into and groomed to have certain beliefs that can lead to extremist harm - which would be sexual violence against women and girls in this instance.

Yes it was muddled with GC views in one school and a child was referred to prevent for protesting he wasn't queer, he was gay. Despite not being covered by prevent guidance.

The gov is going to have to really really clear and specific about what is and isn't prevent worthy here.

The Jewish child was later referred again for saying he wished Hamas were gone.

There's a very limited understanding of some of these issues amongst some teachers and they need to get it right. Misusing the process could do more damage and completely undermine its purpose.

There was also a complete lack of investigation and evidence gathering by the school, which shows weak understanding of safeguarding.

However, in the end, those at senior level in the school who did understand did step in and resolve the issue.

Tate is complex as some of what he says is similar to Peterson around men becoming more responsible for themselves etc which is what so many are / were attracted to. I had a conversation with a "GC" mother who vehemently defended Tate as her son got so much from him.

There is a severe lack of good role models for many young boys and male teens beyond the world of sport.

Every time I hear people saying misogyny powers shouldn’t be in place because ‘this will benefit men’ I think well, the present situation isn’t exactly benefiting women is it?
What if it only benefits men in practice? The misogynists in the police, the legal system, education and sport aren't going to magically disappear or change their minds.

It would be great to have a discussion and air our concerns about the definition of women and girls in law. But what if the stance is no debate? Baroness Kennedy, of Scottish Labour is adamant about the inclusion of men who claim to be women in their proposed misogyny law. We are right to be cautious.

There is a history of TAs using legislation which is ostensibly for the benefit or protection of women as a Trojan Horse to remove our rights to definition and non-discrimination. The issue I have is not sharing protection with men - I would be happy for the definition of misogyny to include acts directed at women & girls AND at men/boys the perpetrator believed to be women in the case of non-face-to-face interactions. What I don't want to see is any legislation or guidelines used to cement the idea that a man is a woman. That could be the covert aim.

We have laws. The issue, IMO, is that the police decide which laws they will enforce, who they will identify as victim/perpetrator according to their personal beliefs/ideology/opinion. Ditto the judiciary/CPS. So we have men abusing and assaulting women with impunity and women being locked up for taking a photograph of a sticker, for example.
Shop lifting, car theft, burglary, money laundering, tax evasion, drug dealing. All out of control.
The number of rapes and sexual assaults in the NHS and in schools is huge. A recent article in the BMJ on this topic was absolutely shocking, but nothing further has been published or discussed.
Enforcing the existing laws equally without discrimination would be a good start.

The balance behind these ideas is to prioritise debate and critical thinking (in teaching staff and pupils) so that children can openly discuss ideas without fear of retribution and persecution which in turn can lead to more radicalism.

Terrorism laws have form for being used in ways far removed from their original intention because they've been badly written, ill defined and far too broad in scope.

Quite, Red I recall a previous terrorism law brought in during the Blair era that was all the above and resulted in Councils going after people for putting the wrong thing in their bins under that law.