Women need not apply
Another comment on the Get the L Out post:
This is a wider issue with our police and criminal justice system. This is the Advice & Information page of the Sussex Police website. You will notice that the term sex is almost eradicated and replaced by gender. Even for crimes that largely affect women and girls (Domestic Abuse and Rape), there is not one reference to that fact. See the Hate Crime section and note that, despite sex being one of 9 protected characteristics, the abuse of a person based on their sex is not considered a criminal act. And there you have the core of the issue here….men banging on windows and obstructing women is not a criminal act. If any of those women had misgendered any of those men then she would have been guilty of a crime.
This appears to be a standard police Advice page so this is a nationwide problem. When will sex become a truly protected characteristic?
So I went to the page and found the Hate Crime section and sure enough – very first paragraph:
A hate crime is when someone commits a crime against you because of your disability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other perceived difference.
So “gender identity” is the second item and “sex” is nowhere – it’s so minor it’s stowed away (aka invisible) under any other perceived difference. Trans people so vulnerable, women meh.
If that really is how they see it then what their minds were telling them about that meeting in Brighton is that the Trans Activist protesters kicking the windows were like Freedom Riders and the women at the meeting inside were like…Bull Connor and his cops.
It doesn’t always include physical violence. Someone using offensive language towards you or harassing you because of who you are, or who they think you are, is also a crime. The same goes for someone posting abusive or offensive messages about you online.
If it happens to you, you might be tempted to shrug it off. But if you tell us, we can investigate and stop it from getting worse – either for you or someone else.
They can, but they don’t – not when it’s women.
Then they spell it out again.
A hate crime is defined as ‘Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.’
Oh. Um. So…not motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s sex, then?
Can we ask why not?
A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.
Why not sex?
Why is sex simply left out?
It’s appalling.
It is, rather. Those definitions are kinda fucked up, too.
So any crime motivated by hostility toward a transgender person is a hate crime. Hostility is sufficient. Get angry at a trans[wo]man who kicks your dog, so you throw a punch? Hate crime.
The intent of the perpetrator is defined as irrelevant. Only someone else’s perception matters, and it doesn’t have to be the victim or anyone involved in any way. If Joe Shmoe hears about the incident in passing and thinks it’s a hate incident, then it is a hate incident.
It’s ok though because it doesn’t cover women so no worries.
Yes, imagine all the overtime they’d have to put in if they were made to inforce these if women were added to the list of people being protected from actions “motivated by hostility or prejudice.” All the tweets they ‘d have to crack down on, for starters? Doesn’t bear thinking.
Not Bruce, they could start easy – Richard Dawkins. Surely they could handle an elderly scientist.