Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 06, 2021, 09:57:11 AM
-
Not something the UK Justice Secretary understands
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/dominic-raab-called-out-bbc-presenter-misogyny-men-women-1234742?ito=twitter_share_article-top
-
I would laugh, except it isn't funny.
-
The Tory party. They just keep on giving.
-
Not something the UK Justice Secretary understands
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/dominic-raab-called-out-bbc-presenter-misogyny-men-women-1234742?ito=twitter_share_article-top
Raab is clearly an idiot in not recognising that misogyny is a term that applies to hatred or contempt towards women or girls. However there are some broader issues that are relevant in terms of whether or not the scope of hate crimes should be extended.
The first is that misogyny, in its definition is not necessarily about men demonstrating contempt for women, its definition also applies to circumstances (perhaps rather rarer) where women demonstrate contempt towards their fellow (excuse the gendered term) women.
Also were hate crimes to be extended then presumably it would follow the same approach currently adopted but add an additional 'protected characteristic' from Equalities legislation. In this case that would be sex - so a new hate crime would apply to any circumstance where an individual has:
1. demonstrated hostility based on sex or
2. been motivated by hostility based on sex
So this would apply not just to hostility towards women by men under those definitions, but also women towards men etc. And while it can be argued that the former is much more common than the latter, from the perspective of an individual person the impact of that hostility may be just as negative and therefore as deserving of protection under hate crime legislation.
The analogy is that there is legislation on hate crimes based on race - they don't just apply to hatred from white people towards ethnic minorities but also apply similarly under circumstance where hatred is directed towards white people from ethnic minority groups or individuals.
So I suspect that any extension of hate crimes (not that Rabb nor Johnson appear to want it) should be on the basis of sex, rather than only protecting women from hatred from men.
-
I am uneasy about the whole idea of hate crime. Hate crimes are not new crimes; acts which before were legal: they are aggravating factors on acts that have always been illegal. Murder, rape, violent assault, etc. are all terrible crimes, but they are not more terrible because the culprit committed it from religious or racial hatred of the victim.
-
I am uneasy about the whole idea of hate crime. Hate crimes are not new crimes; acts which before were legal: they are aggravating factors on acts that have always been illegal. Murder, rape, violent assault, etc. are all terrible crimes, but they are not more terrible because the culprit committed it from religious or racial hatred of the victim.
I agree.
-
I am uneasy about the whole idea of hate crime.
So am I, but I'll give a rationale for why they are treated differently.
Suppose I'm robbed in the street. It goes wrong and I end up being murdered. The motive was money. Unfortunately, it happens sometimes. It's tragic for me and my friends and family, but that's that.
If my friend who is Jewish is murdered and a Star of David is carved on his chest, the motive is hatred against Jews. The crime will cause an increased level of anxiety and fear in the Jewish community. They could all be targeted for such crimes.
The argument goes that the victim of the the crime is not the only one that suffers but everybody in the class against which the hate was directed has increased fear as a result and the perpetrator must pay for that too.
I think there are some problems with that argument, but it sort of works.
-
...
The argument goes that the victim of the the crime is not the only one that suffers but everybody in the class against which the hate was directed has increased fear as a result and the perpetrator must pay for that too.
I think there are some problems with that argument, but it sort of works.
But it's a bit more than that .. apart from when looting robbers do not encourage others to rob, and the ostensible motive is material gain; as you say victims may be physically injured by accident or carelessness.
But with hate crimes the motive is to directly injure, victimise and abuse members of particular groups and to encourage others to do likewise. A direct invocation to widespread social breakdown.