The Reasons For Recognising Misogyny As A Hate Crime

This essay will explore and critically analyse the reasons for recognising misogyny as a hate crime. Moreover, this essay will reference current contemporary debates taking place politically, and assessing the practical, political and theoretical challenges that come alongside policing a new protected category within the framework of the law. Misogyny is a broad topic and in order to be recognised, it must first be understood. The term misogyny originated from Ancient Greek word “mīsoguníā” which translates to “hatred toward women” (Chaudhury et al., 2017, p.113). Misogyny can take shape in a variety of forms, extending from patriarchy, gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, objectification and violence against women to list some.

In the United Kingdom, it was only after the release of the Macpherson report on the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence that the concept hate crime gained general discourse (McLaughlin, 2002). According to the the bodies agree on a common definition of hate crime as: “‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ (Home Office, Office for National Statistics and Ministry of Justice, 2013, p.11). At present, the protected categories covered are: religion, race, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability (Crown Prosecution Service, 2020). Actively, misogyny is not included across Britain, although the overview mentions that hostility based on gender, as well as age and appearance can also be considered hate crime although not included within the five categories (Home Office, Office for National Statistics and Ministry of Justice, 2013). Contemporary debates on expanding the definition of hate crimes to include a new protected class i.e. women have taken place. Namely, the Upskirting Bill and a new policy by Nottinghamshire Police.

The Upskirting Bill

The act of upskirting involves offenders taking a photo under a person’s clothing without their knowledge or consent (Gov.uk, 2018). As of 2018, the offence is being successfully prosecuted under the offence of Outraging Public Decency. While, subsequent concerns that not all instances of ‘upskirting’ were covered by current criminal law, members of parliament, and eventually the government took action. The offence of upskirting is one example of a humiliating and extremely intrusive act of gendered specific violence that is targeted exclusively at women. This act is one deeply rooted in women’s’ subordination, and a manifestation of misogyny. The introduction of criminalising the act is an exemplary step in acknowledging misogyny, and supplementary to Include gender within the paradigm of hate crimes.

A notable voice in the discourse is labour MP Stella Creasy. Creasy argued that misogyny should be recognised as a hate crime. The MP put forward an amendment to the Upskirting Bill that would potentially note misogyny as an aggravating factor, which would enable courts to consider when sentencing and obliging police forces to record it (The Guardian, 2018). However, following news of the Law Commission conducting a comprehensive review into hate crime, Creasy withdrew the amendment, stating the proposed amendments to the to the Voyeurism Bill were to categorise that the act of upskirting “does not happen in a vacuum but an environment where women face repeated form s of harassment by those who are hostile to them as women” (Creasy, 2018, The Guardian).

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire Police in 2016 became the first police force in the United Kingdom to recognise misogyny as a hate crime. The force describes misogyny as: ‘incidents against women that are motivated by the attitude of men towards women and includes behaviour targeted at women by men simply because they are women’ (BBC, 2018).

The behaviours classified by the Nottinghamshire police are: groping, whistling, sexual assault, and being followed home to list a few. The policy came in to effect after long running campaign by Nottingham Women’s Centre. In 2018, two years on from the policy’s initiation in Nottinghamshire, Professor Louise Mullany and Dr. Loretta Trickett of Nottingham Trent University published a research report assessing the impact of the policy, officially named the Misogyny Hate Crime policy. The report highlighted key police perspectives on the Misogyny Hate Crime policy. The report demonstrated police were not in favor of the introduction. The four main reasons were:

1. Firstly, police officers reported frustration with the training, noting that there was little human instruction and real-life scenarios to learn from.
2. Second, the inclusion of misogyny to hate crime policy being unnecessary, because the underlying offence would be sufficiently addressed under existing laws. Similarly, had the incident been criminal it would be covered by an existing legislation, for instance sexual assault and battery
3. Third, whether the behaviours were rooted in a hatred toward women and not a different motivation.
4. Lastly, the inclusion resulted in over-recording due to incidents which were not criminal were being recorded. This policy therefore resulted in “net-widening” (Mullany and Trickett, 2018, p.54).

Moreover, resistance to the policy should be taken into consideration but also understood within the context of austerity within the police force, and the requirement for further training (Mullany and Trickett, 2018). Further, an overwhelming number of officers felt that misogyny was not related to a ‘hatred’ of women and understood hate crimes to refer to religion, race, and sexuality. This demonstrates little knowledge regarding the notion of hate crimes by this particular police force. In the same way, conceptual issues of what misogyny looks like and lack of understanding on misogyny. In order to effectively expand nationally, there will need to be substantial change in the training material to if misogynistic crime is to be addressed through policing in the UK. Despite this, a key finding in the report was 95.2% of participants surveyed believed that misogyny was a social problem (Trickett and Mullany, 2018). The attitudes of the public surveyed appears to be a progressive one and an attitude that could potentially be mirrored if this policy is to expanded nation wide. Also, this attitude is a provides legitimacy for recognising misogyny as a hate crime.

Implications and limitations

According to the report, in April 2016 – March 2018, 174 women reported Misogyny Hate Crimes to Nottinghamshire police. Of those, 73 were classified as crimes, and 101 were classified as incidents. While the overall number of offenders who were actually convicted remains at 1. Furthermore, assessing the numbers it is important to consider the effectiveness of this policy in a wider context. The primary intention is to provide victims with the necessary assurance, and support to come forward to the police.

In addition, street harassment is a regular happening for many women. Combined with respondents from the focus groups, interviews and YouGov statistics (End Violence Against Women Coalition, 2016) Whistling and leering emerge as the most frequently experienced forms of harassment, experienced respectively by 62.9 percent and 56 percent of respondents. However, the most striking findings here are the high percentages of women who have experienced harassment at the higher end of the spectrum of crime: unsolicited sexual advances (48.9%), groping (46.2%), sexually explicit language (54.3%), lewd conduct (25.9%). T he harassment of women in public spaces are inherently misogynistic in nature. These behaviours characteristic of Misogyny Hate Crime of pose a threat to the safety of women. Once again, misogynistic harassment is gender-specific to intimidate and threaten the safety of women and is a direct reflection of sustaining a social ladder. Therefore, misogyny should be included within hate crime legislation as women day-to-day existence is threatened. The real life, legitimate implications of misogynistic harassment must be recognised. The consequences of gender-motivated crime are far-reaching pose material consequences. To illustrate this, the most striking finding noted that after an incident of harassment, 15.2% of respondents avoided the area altogether and a further 11.2% proceeded to not go out alone.

Other than the focus groups and interviews, the report relied heavily on online survey tool. Thus, there is no way to know for certain the respondents were indeed women. Furthermore, the lack of BME women represented in the results, is not sufficient to gain an understanding of their experiences and intersection of gender bias, and racism. That being said, the survey was an interesting approach the gauge the general public of Nottingham attitudes to the policy and yielded useful information for in only two years.

Commentary

Although discourse concerning hate crimes has existed within academics, policy and publically since the introduction to legislation post 1999, much of the discussion within including misogyny has been one of controversy. One argument is that gender fails to fit alongside other included categories “powerless minorities” (Choundas, 1995, cited in Gill and Mason-Bish, 2013, p.4). Hate crime legislation in the context of the UK has aimed to protected sects of the public who have historically experienced repression (Gill and Mason-Bish, 2014). Some commentators argue that women are not an oppressed group within society. Thus, igniting debate on the validity of the inclusion of misogyny in the category of hate crime. However, in the context of a patriarchal society, gender-based violence aligns within wider space of ideas of women’s subordination (Gill and Mason-Bish, 2013). The argument is that violence against women such as domestic violence and sexual assault are crimes that are sufficiently tackled by legislation, therefore adding the element of misogyny could potentially result in fewer and lower quality support services available to victims. Also, proving there to be hatred toward women in the case of gender-motivated crime would require a shift in the criminal justice system, from police training, prosecution to educating jurors.

On the other hand, a rather contrasting voice in the discussion argue that there cannot exist one without the other. Schweppe and Haynes (2020) argue that legislation should include gender, gender identity and sex, noting the discussion around hate crime provisions should recognise gender-based violence as misogynistic. Similarly, that gender is a signifier of a structural and systematic power structure of which misogyny emerges. Interestingly, a further argument, that including gender or sex into hate crime legislation is not solely concerned with cisgender women and men alone but transgender and non-binary identities.

Policing misogyny as a hate crime

Policing hate crime against women effectively is not completely impossible. There is contemporary and tangible proof that recognising misogyny as a hate crime would yield substantive change. Prior to Nottinghamshire police was the Merseyside Model. Between the period of 2000 to 2005 there were serious attacks on sex workers in the Liverpool area, which left six sex workers dead. Thus, the following year in 2006 Merseyside police in cooperation with the Crown Prosecution Service treated all crimes against sex workers as hate crimes. Consequently, in 2010 the conviction rate for hate crime offences against sex workers/prostitutes in the area was 84% (Schweppe and Haynes (2020). According to Ellison and Smith (2017, cited in Schweppe and Haynes, 2020), this is due to extensive resources namely monetary dedicated to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

Feminist criminologist Hodge (2011) discussed the issue of gendered hate in her book: Exploring Gender in Hate Crime Law. The author has a particular interest in the relationship between gender and hate crimes. She argued that violence against women is a collective issue for all women. Further, Hodge (2011) argues that violence against women is a critical issue in society in the North American context, which can be argued relevant in the UK also. She states “gender-bias crimes affect women collectively. […] Women are constantly aware of their vulnerability and status as potential victim”. (Hodge, 2011, p.62). Thus, gender-bias crime and harassment against women poses a great threat to women. Therefore, including gender into hate crime legislation would be a means to address this issue. Additionally, Hodge (2011) argues violence against women and even threat of violence affects women as a group.

Moreover, a counter argument that arises in policing is the challenge in determining incidents to be motivated by reasons other than gender hatred. It is yet unclear whether parliament will legislate to add misogyny hate crime as an aggravating factor in sentencing. In addition, there will be a challenge in proving misogyny as an aggravating factor in acts of violence against women. Hence, the burden of proof. A study by Gill and Mason-Bish (2013) explored the possible advantages and potential difficulties of including gender into the paradigm of hate crime legislation. While the paper engages critically, and considers the practical challenges and difficulties, the majority of those surveyed were patrons within violence against women sector, thus in favour of the inclusion based on its symbolism alone than the practical challenges it would cause. Notably one respondent spoke on how violence against women in the forms of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence are a reflection of a patriarchal culture where gender-based prejudices exist.

Misogyny is unlike other forms of hate crime. Therefore, what makes gender specific oppression against women like other historically oppressed groups is the is that it is rooted in prejudice and has legitimate consequences to the livelihood of women. Even so, it is also important to acknowledge that inserting the element of misogyny in cases, for example, domestic violence could potentially undermine the possibility of a conviction (Gill and Mason-Bish, 2013). One respondent, a member of the Welsh Assembly argues it would make it more difficult to gain a conviction, as it would be difficult to prove a ‘hatred toward women’ in court. Therefore, lowering the chance of conviction. Despite the progressive implications of introducing this as a hate crime, there are a number of political, theoretical and substantive challenges.

The Law Commission Report “Hate Crime: should the current offences be extended”

published in 2014 observed the issue raised most was the failure to use enhanced sentencing in certain hate-related offences. In particular, the under-utilisation of enhanced sentencing in cases of homophobic, transphobic and disability hate crimes. This is also an argument that can be used regarding the inclusion of misogyny in hate crime legislation. Furthermore, the report observed that many victims of hate crimes felt the hostility was not investigated, nor demonstrate its involvement in the crime. Additionally, as stated in the report, enhanced sentencing “could be a powerful weapon in the fight against hate crime, but it was being under-used.” (Law Commission Report, 2014, p.12). Subsequently, is worth considering and noting the recent developments in the law since the publication of the review in 2014, as well as the contemporary debates that have unfolded that has influenced the Law Commission conducting a new review into hate crime. Notably, the review will consider following up the sufficiency of protection offered by the law, and consider which protected characteristics to include “crimes motivated by, or demonstrating, hatred based on sex and gender characteristics.” (Law Commission, 2018).

It is also important to note whether the present framework of hatred rimes achieve what it aims to do. Further, whether enhanced sentencing works as a deterrence. Sarah Lamble (2013) states that “Despite popular rhetoric, there is no clear empirical evidence that hate crime laws are effective crime prevention measures.” (Lamble, 2013, p.136). This is due in part, to the legislation emphasis on the logic which presumes acts of violence are governed by “rational, calculated decisions where individuals are fully aware of, and expect to face, the consequences of their actions.”. Therefore, in the context of implementing misogyny as hate crime, will legislative attempts work to simply deter or punish misogynistic crimes against women beyond its symbolic value.

Similarly, in a recommendation by Mullany and Trickett (2018) the Misogyny Hate Crime should be renamed as to be understood by a the public, as the term misogyny was too academic and difficult to understand right away. This would be a potential benefit in a further recognising the nature of street harassment, and other gender-biased crimes and attitudes in society.

Conclusion

Finally, the expansion of hate crime legislation in the United Kingdom to recognize misogyny as a hate crime presents a unique set of challenges, and has ignited much debate. The essay aimed to present with reference to contemporary debates, counter-arguments and statistical figures to argue why misogyny is a threat to women, therefore should be a recognised as a hate crime. It is of great importance to identify misogyny as a legitimate threat to the lives of women, and will need more than police training workshops, but actual education across the board. The Nottinghamshire police introduction of Misogyny Hate Crime policy is a symbolic step to zero-tolerance on violence and gender hostility in the UK. Hodge (2011) argued that violence against women is a collective issue for all women. Likewise, studies such that of Gill and Mason-Bish (2013) provide real-world and valuable insight on that of community based voices working in violence against women efforts as well as, prosecutors respectively. In the same vein, the report conducted by Mullany and Trickett (2018) on the work of Nottinghamshire police is another important and useful resource which has yielded progressive results. Following the recommendations moving forward to expand the framework within police forces across the United Kingdom will potentially create a society where misogyny is not ignored and women’s experiences are validated and recognized. The Merseyside Model is also one contemporary example of the effectiveness of recognising a new category in hate crime. Despite the challenges studies by the mentioned authors, argue that its recognition within the hate crime paradigm e would disrupt the current social order and tackle violence against women in non-violent forms such as, the threat of everyday harassment and more seriously, actual physical harm as no part of society. Lastly, this essay has discussed the discuss the 2014 report by the Law Commission to review hate crime.