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...

The law is only as good as how it is applied and enforced.

See implementation of 'stonewall law' and how women who do not have money and the willingness to go to court do not have protections they legally have in actual law.

Completely this

Interestingly there was a review of prevent a year or so ago and it specifically linked to a report on the issue of feminists being able to express gender critical views.

But that hasn't trickled down to the coal / chalk face

That's the thing, isn't it? Even if bad or unlawful decisions to prosecute are corrected eventually, the process is the punishment. The process can be used oppressively.

As with everything Labour. It’s going to be a case of let’s see

lawcom.gov.uk/reforms-to-protect-disabled-and-lgbt-victims-criminalise-extremist-misogynist-incel-hate-material-and-safeguard-free-speech/

This was it.

It's quoted in the 2023 review of Prevent, in relation to "incel culture."

Page 53, 4.56, as a reference, ref 89. (Not quoted wrt GC views.)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e26968d3bf7f17385a3421/IndependentReviewwofPrevent.pdf#page56

Regardless of the intent (and coming from Labour I have no illusions) we know this will only be enforced to benefit those men who claim to be women.

I'm cautiously optimistic on one level about Prevent taking incel culture seriously enough for it to be classified under its extremism remit. My last Prevent training was under a year ago and I had a respectful discussion with the officer who held the session, raising my concerns about the steep rise in misogyny I've observed in young men. Misogyny was not included in the presentation materials and he was receptive to my reasons why it should be.

I'm not talking about foolish sexist ideas here, I'm talking absolute seething hatred of women and girls manifesting as resentment, sexual assault, stalking, viewing violent pornography and femicide. When this crosses over into how boys interact with female staff and girls, it becomes very problematic in terms of how those young men can access education. My emphasis is on keeping women and girls safe from violent young men, while attempting to educate the misguided and groomed young men away from (obviously) Tate et al.

Is more legislation the way to go, given how cack-handed this new government is in the implementation of existing laws? Probably not, but being finally able to report / label obvious misogyny in the same way as racist and homophobic incidents are reported internally, with the same consequences, is possibly a step forward. However, getting a decent definition of misogyny from the party that can't define women isn't a hopeful start, is it?

RIP mother in law jokes.

I am not mourning the loss of mother-in-law jokes.

I will watch and wait about this, but as pp said, there are already laws that are ignored or not applied consistently. And so many sexual assault/rape trials where the perpetrator gets off or gets such a light sentence that it is meaningless - i would like to see those sentences and the judges/magistrates applying them being sanctioned, harshly. As pp said: that is vile misogyny if plain sight.

I am very suspicious of the tendency to class more and more things under headings like "terrorism". It generally seems to be a way for states to avoid normal boundaries in the law that keep them from overstepping their authority.

But also - it does zero to get at the root of whatever the problem is.

I don't see this as being in any way effective either. If people are committing acts so significant they could be classes as terrorism they are already illegal.

I await the first conviction. With any luck it'll be one of my exes.

I saw this today and wholeheartedly welcome it @Omlettes.

I’ll just once again encourage anyone with views on this proposed new law, whatever your views are- to put your concerns in a short polite email to your MP. Any cohort of new MPs and any new government need steering by lobbying in the right direction. They’re starting to do it now and but will need guidance based on constituents’ views and experiences. Just write to them.

If enough of us do it, then it will force the question back to TRAs to make the case in public, in the media and most relevantly in Parliament, for why men should be able to misuse legislation that is specifically designed to support women against misogyny.

As we have seen, every time you expose these TRA arguments to public scrutiny, they just crumble apart. The simple act of asking questions creates yet another golden opportunity for the general public to say WTF and to see the injustice. More and more women will then join with their own stories of men appropriating what is not theirs.

Look at what’s being seen now with the Olympics, how that has started a national debate about protecting women’s sports.
Just keep at it. Everybody knows what a woman is really. This is how we wiill start to reverse institutional capture.

I'm more thinking, we live with misogyny every day, I've no idea what they define 'extreme' as. Will it be the quick cop a feel? The lifting a woman out of the way of the freezer as the man wanted to be in there, the upskirting, the casual sexual assault, the wolf whistle.

Whatever it ends up meaning, will we recognise it as extreme? Will we really take it to court knowing the ridicule we'll suffer?
Is it going to be an extension <<<wrong word but meh>>>> of law, of the process, like murder is wrong and off you go to your court case, but you did the murder for hateful reasons, let's add on some jail time for that.

Will women go to court for this?
Will there be different definitions depending on if a woman or a man is doing the misogyny? I bet there will be.

Sigh, I'd like to be so happy about this, I just cant.

I assume this is done to try to address the Incel movement and dangerous idiots like Andrew Tate who radicalise men and try to stop teenagers getting sucked into this, especially though social media.

I think it is a welcome step.

Of course we need to see how this is implemented.

SlothToes

That's good advice and I will contact my MP.

But you are assuming that the Govt have not already made up their minds and will actually listen. You are discounting the possibility that Cooper et al want to add men to the class of women. That they see it as a good thing. This is what I have had in the past from my MP. My local Labour Party just think I'm too stupid or too selfish to understand how necessary it is to recognise MCW as women. They are nice, but have a case of tin ear on this subject.

Scottish Labour are dead set on including men in the definition of women for their misogyny law.

What we saw at the Olympics was the IOC doubling down, muddying the waters, skirting the issue and saying things that you would only know to be untrue if you were one of us. Mainstream media following the IOC's narrative and refusing to ask the important questions. Misinformation all over social media.
Did the govt have anything to say about this? Are they defending FPfW against a foreign state?

Of course, I could be wrong. But history suggests otherwise. So until I see the detail of what is being planned, I will not celebrate or congratulate.

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.

Off the top of my head (and with a bit of brain fog so I might not be 100% clear in my explanation):

Yup, sadly I’ve realised that modern bureaucratic politicians believe (like Genderists and other SJWs) that words create reality so banning words they don’t approve of will fix things that are wrong in the world. I would prefer to ban actions rather than thoughts because (being a sex-realist) I’ve been on the receiving end of thought policing and shunning (and I’ve seen multiple nasty cancellations). I wouldn’t wish this treatment on my worst enemy and I don’t believe it’s an effective means of dealing with important social issues that need addressing. It’s made me value freedom of speech even more than I did in years past.

I don’t want people like Tate influencing other men to treat women badly, and to think of us as lesser than men, but with all the laws created to police speech, ideology, and political views in the last two decades there has also been mission creep. The legislation has served to allow the police to use the law to punish people for their views and speech rather than encouraged the police to investigate people who are terrorists or terrorist supporters. The police prefer to go for easy targets, hence we’ve seen sex-realist women being interviewed and kept in cells overnight because the police disagreed with their political views but we’re not seeing the police targeting men who download CSAM, or men flashing in public places, with the same amount of vigour.

I don’t know what the answer is but I don’t trust increasing bureaucracy to be the right solution. I think that improving investigation and charging of crimes against women and children using existing legislation would be more effective as a deterrent and I think doing as much as possible to kill off pornography would also be more useful.

Have to say I have a bad feeling about this (Starmer is chomping at the bit to bring in authoritarian laws).

Using women as an excuse to limit free speech will not go well for women, sites like mumsnet could be shut down or forced to shut down this part if they include men in the definition of women.
And MRAs, though there are millions of holes in their toxic arguments, they still have a rights. I believe the answer to toxic speech is countering them with more speech

Sites like mumsnet will be shut down and the reaction will be WoMeN WaNtEd ThIs WoMeN dEsErVe ThIs and it will be seen as women's problem and not taken seriously. You just end up with different sides played of against each other.

I would welcome more attention paid to the links between e.g. DV and terrorism and maybe taking existing crimes more seriously. I actually think if the UK police can see a link between e.g. child sex grooming and extremist ideologies that threated UK security, they are more likely to take the former more seriously.

ALso - it is puzzling that if a man kills a lot of people because he thinks they are infidels thats terrorism. But if he kills a lot of women/girls because they are roasties/whores etc it isn't.

Well I for one think it's welcome news. As for the details, we'll just have to see what is involved.

I dont have high hopes, not because its Labour or any other angle, but because as a concept Prevent hasn't really worked.

There is a huge difference between an organised group with a set of beliefs trying to recruit new members, and open discussion (particularly SM) which then means some individuals take those ideas and often misuse them, because of their own personal issues (remember how many "terrorist" reports are characterised as "lone actors"). And also, if you feel alienated from society because of discrimination whether sexism, racism, and so on, and you start making loud declation saying how awful the state is, or the legal system or whatever, is that something that should be covered by Prevent. I can see, even without the trans agenda, many, many men saying that feminism is too extreme and anti men.

Secondly its just seem totaly hypocrasy. It was decided misogyny wouldn't be seen as hate speech, and now suddenly its so bad its going to be included in the Prevent programme?

What Prevent is, is basically an acknowledgement that society as a whole doesn't have the same influence on all people. So rather than looking at how society had failed, it says those who didn't respond are "bad" people and society will through Prevent re-educate them in a more hyper version that what transpires in a day to day way.

As suggested by PP, if misogyny is so awful why haven't politicians, the legal system, etc., done more to clamp down on it. Our whole culture is permeated by it, and if anything we live in a more sexist society. Have you ever seen a politician stand up and say anything about this. They can make emotional speeches about domestic violence, but never talk about why this happens. And at the same time they close women only services. NB this is NOT because of trans issues but because those taking the decision do a "cost benefit analysis" and because women have not value the analysis ignores their / our needs. (Its been in the news that yet another women's refuge that has been funded by the local council for decades will no longer be funded as it isn't a priority.) Dont ever forget the TRAs are partly as sucessful as they are because behind them are the for longer standing MRAs who now have an additional "legitimate" reason to say the sex class of women can be discriminated against.

Sorry that was a bit off topic, but to return to Prevent:

But its biggest flaw, as we know from the abuse of hate speech, organisations being Stonewalled, that it is based on people who are more than likely out of their depth to take decisions about how "bad" is this "bad" person.

Not saying this is the best analysis but article points out it is flawed from the start. If you substitute the word Muslim for gender critical women / girls it is a chilling idea. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/fundamental/prevent/

It's worth reading p 51-53 of this report. It makes it clear that it's very hard to describe incel culture as terrorist and the reasoning why. (But that may be based on current descriptions of terrorism.)

I feel uneasy about how this will translate into real world impact and what the unintended kick back could be. It's very clear something needs to be done for women and girls but there needs to be more clarity around how this will actually help.

There is a huge difference between an organised group with a set of beliefs trying to recruit new members, and open discussion (particularly SM) which then means some individuals take those ideas and often misuse them, because of their own personal issues (remember how many "terrorist" reports are characterised as "lone actors").

There is a category labelled MUU, mixed, unstable, unclear ideology. At one point in 2019 50% of referrals were under this category. Within it incel related things and school massacre fixations, (and many things that weren't appropriate for prevent) which the report describes as outwith the terminology of what terrorism is.