When Keir met Pink News
Why women can’t have nice things.
Yeah let’s really buckle down and get to work punishing women for “misgendering” men. That’ll make the world a better place.
Sir Keir Starmer strikes again. At the very moment when the government is falling apart, and thousands of women desperately want to vote Labour, he has reminded us that we can’t trust him or his party. It’s not just that he made an appearance last night at an awards ceremony organised by Pink News, an organ despised by many feminists for its relentless promotion of misogynist gender ideology. That was bad enough, but Starmer also took the opportunity to make a series of wild promises to the adoring audience, including one on ‘hate crime’ that constitutes a direct threat to free expression.
Especially disobedient women’s free expression.
Hate crime legislation is already a problem, allowing individuals to make complaints to the police about things that aren’t even crimes — being ‘misgendered’, for instance. The fastest-growing area of complaints is ‘transgender identity’, which rose by 56% in the year to March 2022. There is ample reason to worry about how the existing law is being used but Starmer wants to double down, saying “it’s time for tougher hate crime laws so every LGBT+ crime is treated as an aggravated offence.” It went down a storm with his audience, but raises the prospect of law-abiding people facing an aggravated sentence for a social media post that uses the ‘wrong’ pronouns.
Also I wonder if Starmer has ever urged making every misogynist crime an aggravated offense. I have to say I doubt it. I don’t think misogyny is on his radar, just as it’s not on that of Pink News, or Peter Tatchell, or Owen Jones, or Jolyon Maugham, or Billy Bragg, or Philip Pullman.
At the same time, Starmer threw a sop to women, saying he would “uphold the Equality Act,” including its provision for single-sex spaces. Though some Labour supporters have welcomed this part of his speech, they’re clutching at straws. You can’t uphold the right to single-sex spaces while also allowing any sexual predator to acquire a legal document that says he must be treated as a woman, even though he has a male body. Refuges and services that refuse access to trans women might win a case in court, but the prospect of fighting a costly legal action will make it easier to just give in.
Which will make it easier for women to just give up.
I recall Left media saying that Jordan Peterson was being ridiculous, alarmist, and bigoted in fearing that people would face criminal charges for using the “wrong” pronouns.
I also recall more than one trans person claiming that a transwoman is of the female sex.
No need to worry about the Equality Act if you have all the words.
Okay legit cross-pond confusion, here. In Britain, is “Hate Crime” a noun unto itself, instead of a noun with an adjective? In the US, the term refers very explicitly to a crime that can be shown to be motivated by hatred against a particular group–and thus, it’s never a “hate crime” without first being an actual crime. So, since painting graffiti on a building is already a criminal action, painting a swastika on a synagogue can be charged as a hate crime, with extra penalties.
But here, he’s talking as if there is a category of offenses that are, in and of themselves, considered “hate crimes”. Am I reading that right?
Freemage #3: no, it’s the same here: there has to be an underlying crime that is aggravated by hate. Stonewall, however, have been busy muddying the waters for the last few years, so “hate crime” has taken on a life of its own, to the point that even people who should know better — *cough*Starmer*cough* — fall into the trap.
Regarding ‘misgendering”: I also refuse to acknowledge the appellation “sir” when attached to people like Starmer or any Tory MP. I wonder if they’ll consider making “mistitling” an offence as well?
#3 Freemage,
Legally speaking “hate crime” needs to be an actual crime which is then modified if it is determined that it is motivated by hate. This is just the same as the US and other jurisdictions. However, the media and many unqualified commentators are referring to the hate as if that was a crime in and of itself. I have to say that I think that this is deliberate on the part of many on the TRA side, who wish to use the law to harass people that disagree with them.
In the UK we also have something that the Police describe as a “hate incident”, which is not an actual crime. That hasn’t stopped them from going around interviewing feminists about comments and posts on social media that have been reported by others.
It is quite chilling how merrily people are curbing their own freedom of expression and speech just to punish people they don’t like.
I live in the US, and I have an amateur interest in this legal topic. I like the question in #3 answered in #4 and #5. In this thread, I can agree with #3, #4, #5 that define a “hate crime” to mean (A) an actual or underlying crime that is (B) aggravated or motivated by hate. My comment writes “(A)” and “(B)” and italics to mark this framing.
Consistent with this framing, the Scottish Parliament enacted the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, where Section 4, Offenses of stirring up hatred is here. It creates new (A) actual crimes that include being “abusive or insulting” when these new crimes are (B) aggravated “to stir up hatred” against certain groups.
My amateur reading of Joan Smith reporting yesterday is that Keir Starmer told Pink News he will create new (A) actual crimes like insulting and “misgendering” to be treated as (B) aggravated. In practice, I expect police to arrest people for (A) such new actual crimes, and the legal system to sort out their (B) motivations later in court.
A speech chilling waste of time and money.
I’ve been reported to the police more than once for ‘non-crime hate incidents’. Once, it was for being on a bus.
Nothing ever came of them, as far as I know, but it’s possible I have a note on my record that would come to light in the event of a DBS check.