Misandry Included In UK Hate Crime Law Review

[Costa Fierro]

Alongside misogyny and ageism:

Hate crimes are offences motivated by prejudice against someone's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity.

But should other so-called "protected characteristics" be included as well?

Last month, it was announced that a review by the Law Commission would look at whether offences driven by misogyny - dislike, contempt or ingrained prejudice against women - should be treated as hate crimes.

And now it's emerged the same review will also consider the opposite - crimes motivated by misandry - hostility towards men.

Ageism and hatred of certain alternative cultures, such as Goths or punks, could also be included in future.

The Law Commission - an independent body that looks regularly at laws and whether they need to be updated - began its review of hate crime following a campaign by the Labour MP Stella Creasy.

She wanted misogyny to be recognised in the same way as racial or religious hatred because of the high levels of harassment that girls and women suffer.

As for why hostility against men is being included too, Home Office Minister Baroness Williams says the government always responds to what "the public and other organisations are telling us". And it appears at least some feel misandry is an issue.

She said the government wasn't telling the Law Commission to recommend that misandry be included, but was simply asking for its view on the matter.

"It may well be that particular strand is not necessary to take forward, but we are asking them to look at it," she added.

Interesting news from the United Kingdom seeing misandry included as part of a government review into hate crime legislation. I'm amused that the BBC is downplaying the level of support for this inclusion, but that doesn't surprise me given the current political climate there. Still, I hope that they see fit to include misandry as a hate crime, although I have my doubts that whatever recommendations will be made will likely not include misandry. But it's a step in the right direction at least.

So, what do we think? Is misandry a problem? Is it worthy of being labelled as a hate crime?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Good

[Belantica]

Well then, I guess this will get the sect of the SJW community that hates guys to not preach their hate.

Gotta raise the standard somehow.

[Ithreland]

The concept of a "hate crime" makes no sense to me. If someone wants to kill someone else for w/e reason, there's generally some sort of "hate" involved, whether it be based in a group or just that individual. Being an "age/sex/other group"-ist isn't going to change what they did, just give them incentive. Discrimination seems like more of a tort* than a crime.

*- civil wrong that isn't a breach of contract.

[Arkhane]

I highly doubt misandry laws will be held in equal regards to misogyny. If it ever comes to a man accusing a woman of misandry and her defending herself by counter accusing him of misogyny, it's clear who the court will favor.

[The Philippine Islands of Luzviminda]

Well I am generally against the outlawing of "hate crime" in the first place but at least they made equal for both sexes

[The New California Republic]

If hatred towards women is not tolerable, then by the same measure hatred towards men shouldn't be tolerable either. Maybe it will finally put an end to the misandry that occurs daily on Loose Women...

[Ifreann]

The concept of a "hate crime" makes no sense to me. If someone wants to kill someone else for w/e reason, there's generally some sort of "hate" involved, whether it be based in a group or just that individual. Being an "age/sex/other group"-ist isn't going to change what they did, just give them incentive. Discrimination seems like more of a tort* than a crime.

*- civil wrong that isn't a breach of contract.

The idea is that if you commit a crime against someone because of their perceived membership in some group, that inherently threatens all other members of that group. If someone kills a man because he is a man, that threatens all men and is thus a more serious crime than if someone killed the same man for some other reason.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I like equality

[FelrikTheDeleted]

If hatred towards women is not tolerable, then by the same measure hatred towards men shouldn't be tolerable either. Maybe it will finally put an end to the misandry that occurs daily on Loose Women...

>when one of the panelists encourages women to have affairs
Yeah, that show was blacklisted in my books.

[Holy Tedalonia]

The concept of a "hate crime" makes no sense to me. If someone wants to kill someone else for w/e reason, there's generally some sort of "hate" involved, whether it be based in a group or just that individual. Being an "age/sex/other group"-ist isn't going to change what they did, just give them incentive. Discrimination seems like more of a tort* than a crime.

*- civil wrong that isn't a breach of contract.

The idea is that if you commit a crime against someone because of their perceived membership in some group, that inherently threatens all other members of that group. If someone kills a man because he is a man, that threatens all men and is thus a more serious crime than if someone killed the same man for some other reason.

The crime isnt more serious, rather that the crime has the potential of happening again. Due to the clear hostility and motive. You are convicting a man of his motive, alongside his breach of contract. I do not see it fitting for a man to serve more jail time, because his motive was less desirable then most.

[The Huskar Social Union]

If hatred towards women is not tolerable, then by the same measure hatred towards men shouldn't be tolerable either. Maybe it will finally put an end to the misandry that occurs daily on Loose Women...

>when one of the panelists encourages women to have affairs
Yeah, that show was blacklisted in my books.

Never watched the show but wat

[Dumb Ideologies]

It should be included, but if it ever gets close to being implemented, radical feminists will Twitter campaign the same day under the "ironic" hashtag #killallmen, making inflammatory statements about all men being potential rapists and abusers, claiming misandry doesn't exist, and that it can't be a thing because men have "systemic advantage". As always, a bunch of so-called respectable moderates will follow lemming-like, it'll trend, and then the government will fold out of fear of the bad optics. Because of the lack of a political condemnation or police response, the concept would be terminally undermined, buried and nothing would come of it.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

>when one of the panelists encourages women to have affairs
Yeah, that show was blacklisted in my books.

Never watched the show but wat

Amirite? I’ve only watched it a couple times, but I never watched it again after that. I think it was the panelist named Janet that said it.

[Ifreann]

The idea is that if you commit a crime against someone because of their perceived membership in some group, that inherently threatens all other members of that group. If someone kills a man because he is a man, that threatens all men and is thus a more serious crime than if someone killed the same man for some other reason.

The crime isnt more serious, rather that the crime has the potential of happening again. Due to the clear hostility and motive.

"The crime isn't more serious, rather the crime is [more serious for these specific reasons]"

You are convicting a man of his motive, alongside his breach of contract. I do not see it fitting for a man to serve more jail time, because his motive was less desirable then most.

Bully for you. So do you want people who get into traffic accidents to be in prison alongside terrorists? Crashing a car into someone is surely the same crime, no matter the motives, right?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Never watched the show but wat

Amirite? I’ve only watched it a couple times, but I never watched it again after that. I think it was the panelist named Janet that said it.

I googled and apparently it was Janet Street Porter. She always was a bit of a fucking rocket from what i saw of her.

[Holy Tedalonia]

The crime isnt more serious, rather that the crime has the potential of happening again. Due to the clear hostility and motive.

"The crime isn't more serious, rather the crime is [more serious for these specific reasons]"

You are convicting a man of his motive, alongside his breach of contract. I do not see it fitting for a man to serve more jail time, because his motive was less desirable then most.

Bully for you.

We gauge the seriousness of a crime, based on results- not on motive. It’s why mass murders tend to be treated as worse than a single murder. However additional crimes based on motive, is questionable at best.

[Ifreann]

"The crime isn't more serious, rather the crime is [more serious for these specific reasons]"

Bully for you.

We gauge the seriousness of a crime, based on results- not on motive. It’s why mass murders tend to be treated as worse than a single murder. However additional crimes based on motive, is questionable at best.

So you're proposing a radical alteration to the law to eliminate the distinctions between murder and manslaughter and legal homicide?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Seems reasonable.

[Avaerilon]

While I think sometimes the term 'hate crime' is misused, at least there's a glimmer of hope regarding equality between men and women in that regard. Too often a significant number of radical feminists will claim "misandry doesn't exist." Now to get working on some of the other areas of UK law that are not equal (like the sexual assault perpetrator/victim definitions).

[Crookfur]

If it does get included, which it likely will, any legislation will not specify misogyny nor misandry but simply refer to crimes motivated by the victim's gender.

They simply can't do it any other way without being quite rightly drowned in court cases brought under equality legislation.

[Luminesa]

It should be included, but if it ever gets close to being implemented, radical feminists will Twitter campaign the same day under the "ironic" hashtag #killallmen, making inflammatory statements about all men being potential rapists and abusers, claiming misandry doesn't exist, and that it can't be a thing because men have "systemic advantage". As always, a bunch of so-called respectable moderates will follow lemming-like, it'll trend, and then the government will fold out of fear of the bad optics. Because of the lack of a political condemnation or police response, the concept would be terminally undermined, buried and nothing would come of it.

It’s Britain, and May and Corbin aren’t known for having spines as far as I remember. The moment someone gives them an angry glare they’ll probably cower and give them what they want.

[Vassenor]

But I thought the government was supposed to be institutionally misandrist and would never ever ever do a thing like this.

[Estanglia]

Good.

[Holy Tedalonia]

We gauge the seriousness of a crime, based on results- not on motive. It’s why mass murders tend to be treated as worse than a single murder. However additional crimes based on motive, is questionable at best.

So you're proposing a radical alteration to the law to eliminate the distinctions between murder and manslaughter and legal homicide?

Those are types of crimes, not additional. The seriousness of the crime is based on results. Motive effects the type of crime, or if they should be convicted at all (i.e. Accident). Hate Crime is a additional, “slap on the wrist” for having naughty motives, which is not necessary, nor is it even important in the grand scheme of things.