Reader TTS

The Law Commission recently announced that it wants to see misogyny reclassified as a hate crime in England and Wales. The Government’s legal advisers have recommended changes that could see

sex and gender added to the ever-burgeoning group of protected characteristics enshrined in hate-crime law. Race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender status already

have protected status. Should the Misogyny Bill – due its second reading in parliament in January – be passed it will make “motivation by misogyny an aggravating factor in criminal

sentencing”. The repercussions of this legislation could potentially land the perpetrator with a jail sentence of up to seven years if it was determined that the crime was committed by

someone who was motivated by a hatred of women. While I contend that misogyny is a bad thing, we live in a very tolerant society where antiquated and derisory attitudes towards women have

dramatically declined. Due to hard won victories of women’s movements throughout history, sexism is no longer tolerated. Women are free – rightly so – to do whatever they desire. But to make

this outdated belief illegal? This is both illiberal and authoritarian. The state should have no role in policing someone else’s thoughts and beliefs. The very notion goes against the

fundamental foundations of a free and liberal society. A hate crime can be defined as an event that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility towards

someone with a protected characteristic. The College of Policing’s Operational Guidance defines a hate crime as one where: “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their

belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.” This means evidence is not required for an incident to be classified as a hate crime, only the subjective

interpretation from the alleged victim. This has potentially profound effects for a court case. If a man made an unwanted advance towards a woman can we be certain his actions were driven

by one of attraction or one motivated purely by hatred? The bill threatens both freedom and civil liberties. As with the free speech debate I must ask the question: When it comes to

determining what is the correct outcome who do you give the decision to? If the state is going to police our interaction with the opposite sex, how do they know what is in our minds at the

time? This has the potential to completely erode social interaction. People will have to self-censor everyday conversation. To punish people for their comportment – moral or immoral, should

be irrelevant. We already have laws that deal with the most serious of crimes such as sexual assault and domestic abuse. If a person stabs someone, that person should be judged on the

evidence through a court of law. No extraneous punishment should be meted out on the possibility they were driven by misogynistic thoughts. As the list of protected characteristics grows, we

are left with the bizarre position where a (hate crime) law arbitrarily protects some and criminalises others. The ramifications for protest are potentially daunting should this hate crime

bill gain Royal Assent. Will campaigners and activists, who challenge the notion that “trans women are women”, now face prosecution as gender identity is attached to the bill? Advocates of

sex-based rights, who campaign for women’s safety by defending female-only spaces, may face prosecution should this bill pass. This highlights just how divisive identity politics has become.

Perennially oppositional, identity politics has created an antagonistic binary world of victim versus oppressor. By making women a protected group it robs them of legal equality with men.

Fighting hate and prejudice can be done in other ways: such as education and support. In advocating this, the government can create a more tolerant liberal society without undermining

fundamental basic rights, such as freedom of speech and expression. The Commission’s claim that reforms to hate crime laws will “protect women for the first time” may sound like a good idea

at first, but if we want to defend women’s safety, free speech and the right to protest, any freedom-loving individual will see this as a terrible idea. It must be rejected. A MESSAGE FROM

THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to

continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._