Hate Crime & Misogyny

On Wednesday 17th March, the government announced that from autumn 2021 it would ask police forces across England and Wales to record misogyny as a hate crime. Forces will be asked to identify where a person believes a crime has been prompted by “hostility based on their sex”.  This should feel like a massive win for the Violence Against Women and Girls movement, but this issue is complex.  Below we have outlined; what a hate crime is and the pros and cons of making misogyny a hate crime.

What is a hate crime?

Five specific characteristics are protected under hate crime laws at present. But not all characteristics are protected equally.

There are 4 ways in which the criminal law addresses hate crime.

1. Aggravated offences: Certain existing offences (including assault or criminal damage) can be racially or religiously aggravated. If a person commits one of these offences and, in doing so, demonstrates, or was motivated by, hostility on the grounds of race or religion, that offence becomes a separate and additional ‘aggravated’ offence.

2. Enhanced sentencing powers: There are special sentencing powers which allow for any offence to carry a larger sentence if it involved hostility on the basis of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.

3. Stirring up hatred offences are separate offences prohibiting a range of conduct that is either intended or likely to stir up hatred on grounds of race, or intended to stir up hatred on grounds of religion or sexual orientation.

4. Racist chanting at football matches is also a specific offence.

Which characteristics are protected by the various hate crime laws?

Misogyny Hate Crime

The government has asked the Law Commission to consider whether sex or gender should be included as a 6^th characteristic to be protected by hate crime laws. This is commonly referred to in the media as ‘misogyny hate crime’.

Some police force areas, such as Nottingham, currently record offences that are motivated by hostility against women. The government recently announced plans to ask all police forces on an experimental basis, to “identify and record any crimes of violence against the person, including stalking and harassment, as well as sexual offences where the victim perceives it to have been motivated by a hostility based on their sex”.

This does not change the law or offer women/girls any further protection, but simply allows data to be collected around these types of incidents.

In the meantime, the Law Commission is considering reforms to hate crime laws following a public consultation: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/

There is a lot of debate over whether including sex/gender/misogyny within a hate crime framework is a good idea. We summarise the key pros and cons below:

Pros:

Including gender/sex/misogyny within hate crime legislation will:

• Provide women with greater protection against violence and harassment.
• Support the collection of better data on non-criminal forms of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG).
• Respond to widespread support from survivors.
• Acknowledge the root causes of VAWG.
• Connect women’s experiences across the continuum of sexual violence and abuse.
• Help change attitudes and supports prevention.

Cons:

• Women will not be provided with greater protection against violence and harassment, as is claimed by many campaigners. Unless gender/sex hate crime becomes a standalone offence (which we do not believe is proposed), women will receive the same legal protections as they currently do, after reforms.
• Greater evidential burdens will be created for already difficult to prosecute VAWG crimes. Proving hostility/prejudice on top of consent in sexual violence cases for example, would make convictions harder to obtain, particularly given that most offences take place in private and therefore do not have any witnesses as to the motivations of the offender.
• Many VAWG cases do not enter the criminal justice system. There are many reasons why women and girls do not report violence and abuse. Black and minoritised women and girls can feel criminalised on reporting, in addition to facing other barriers[1]. In addition, many reported crimes are not prosecuted and therefore a hate crime framework is not helpful.
• Data collection. It is argued by many that including sex/gender as a protected characteristic would support better data collection on non-criminal forms of VAWG. However, the evaluation of recording misogyny hate crime in Nottingham showed no change in reporting levels, and so did not aid better data collection. This argument also further risks a system whereby only police reported incidents are seen as representing women’s experiences[2].
• Gender/sex hate crime would not acknowledge the root cause(s) of VAWG, which are structural and complex, not individualistic. “Too often, men’s violence is positioned as an ‘isolated incident’ perpetrated either by ‘deviant’ individuals or by normal men ‘made deviant’ by extremes of emotion generally caused by women, whether that be sexual arousal, or anger, or jealously. Though there may of course be perpetrators who are driven by thrill and fear, if not outright prejudice and hatred, we know this is the exception rather than the rule”.[3] There is a risk that focussing on individual hostility will erase efforts to show that VAWG is about male domination over women based in patriarchal structures.
• Promoting rape myths. As set out by Vera-Gray and Fileborn: “Most forms of VAWG are perpetrated by those closest to us, partners, relatives, friends – positioned in relationships of intimacy, trust and care (Horvath and Kelly, 2007). Known perpetrators are unlikely to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, and even if they are, it is even more unlikely that they would be perceived to be either by ourselves or by society at large. The motivation of hostility then is more likely to be applied to stranger perpetrators, and here we see the hate crime frame as propping up harmful myths about VAWG”.[4]
• Victim-survivors ability to frame and recover from their experience. Many victim-survivors do not see their experience as rooted in hate/hostility, and asking them to could add additional barriers to reporting and making sense of violence and abuse in journeys of recovery[5].
• The hate crime framework does not facilitate the necessary understanding of VAWG as a continuum and risks creating a hierarchy of harm. Rather than connecting women’s experiences, as some claim would be a positive effect of the reforms, the opposite could be true – further siloeing experiences and moving further away from an intersectional view of VAWG. “While the siloed effect caused by hate crime provisions applies generally, it is particularly problematic in relation to VAWG as it runs directly counters to the widely accepted continuum model of sexual violence, developed by Liz Kelly (1988). The continuum model recognises the interconnection between all forms of sexual and gender-based violence, and does not assume their seriousness or harm based on a presumed hierarchy of motivation. Such a model is opposing to misogyny hate crime both conceptually, and in practice, something that has been acknowledged by campaigners”.[6] A hate crime framework may result in there being distinctions made between ‘misogynistic’ and ‘non-misogynistic’ crimes against women, which erases the structural inequalities which underlie all forms of VAWG.
• Intersectionality. Linked to the above point, the hate crime framework does not permit a sufficiently intersectional approach to VAWG. “Concepts around hate crime are clumsy, partly because they are based on simplified notions of identity. The understandings and meanings of hate crime are, therefore, inconsistent and do not offer a sufficiently inclusive and complex understanding of the intersections between violence, equalities and human rights”.[7] Gender essentialism is not helpful in an approach to combat VAWG as women’s experiences are dependent on the intersection of their race, class, religious beliefs and sexual orientation, among other factors. As Vera-Gray and Fileborn argue, “adding another category to hate crime provisions is additive rather than intersectional and risks a hierarchy of harm”.[8]
• Changing attitudes. Many claim that the proposed reforms would hold symbolic significance. However, this has not been the case, for other forms of hate crime based on existing protected characteristics, where there are still high levels of offences being committed.

Further information

Law Commission consultation on hate crime reforms: www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/

Recording misogyny hate crime in Nottingham: www.nottinghamwomenscentre.com/nottinghams-story

Stop Hate UK: https://www.stophateuk.org/

[1] See: Giorgia, H. Many women of color don’t go to the police after sexual assault for a reason. The Guardian, 25 March 2015. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/25/women-of-color-police-sexual-assault-racist-criminal-justice; Imkaan. (2018). From the Margin to the Centre: Addressing Violence against Women and Girls Alternative Bill October 2018. Available at: https://www.sistersforchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/82-Imkaan-alternative-bill.pdf.

[2] Vera-Gray, F. and Fileborn. B. (forthcoming) ‘Hiding the harm? An argument against misogyny hate crime’ in Catherine Donovan, Edward Hall, John Clayton (eds) Geographies.

[3] Vera-Gray, F. and Fileborn. B. (forthcoming) ‘Hiding the harm? An argument against misogyny hate crime’ in Catherine Donovan, Edward Hall, John Clayton (eds) Geographies.

[4] Vera-Gray, F. and Fileborn. B. (forthcoming) ‘Hiding the harm? An argument against misogyny hate crime’ in Catherine Donovan, Edward Hall, John Clayton (eds) Geographies.

[5] Gill, A, K. and Mason-Bish, H. (2013). Addressing violence against women as a form of hate crime: limitations and possibilities. Feminist Review 105, Pp 16.

[6] Vera-Gray, F. and Fileborn. B. (forthcoming) ‘Hiding the harm? An argument against misogyny hate crime’ in Catherine Donovan, Edward Hall, John Clayton (eds) Geographies.

[7] Horvath, M., Kelly, L., (2007). From the Outset: Why violence should be a priority for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, pp 5.

[8] Vera-Gray, F. and Fileborn. B. (forthcoming) ‘Hiding the harm? An argument against misogyny hate crime’ in Catherine Donovan, Edward Hall, John Clayton (eds) Geographies.