{"id":4651,"date":"2025-02-27T13:32:33","date_gmt":"2025-02-27T13:32:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=4651"},"modified":"2025-02-27T13:32:34","modified_gmt":"2025-02-27T13:32:34","slug":"misogyny-bills-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=4651","title":{"rendered":"Misogyny Bills 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

We know that, de facto<\/em>, we are not all equal before the law. Nevertheless, it was some comfort that, ideally \u2013 in principle \u2013 the idea of equality of all before the law was the acknowledged formal position. Not for much longer, not in the UK. Not in the land of Magna Carta, which enshrined that principle originally. We will shortly have, not just de facto<\/em> bias, but also de jure<\/em> inequality. We are about to enter the brave new world of \u201cgendered law\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is nothing accidental about it. It\u2019s not that a mistake is being made. \u201cGendered law\u201d is the term which is being used at the highest levels of government \u2013 in Scotland anyway. And, as we shall see, England and Wales are catching up fast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The omission of misandry from the proposed Scottish Misogyny Bill has no basis in empirical evidence of prevalence or impact (see my Personal Position Statement on Misandry<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The foolish people who want this Bill either do not understand that it will drive the wedge between the sexes deeper still, further promoting the disintegration of our society, or actually want this outcome. Whether it will reduce the visible behaviours here labelled as misogyny is debatable, but it will certainly increase the invisible, and amply justified, resentment. The Bill is unapologetic, explicit and deliberate institutionalised misandry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No doubt we beleaguered few will mount a response to these misogyny Bills, our resources being, as always, hilariously out of proportion to the opposition. It will be another exercise in utter futility. But push-back is not only motivated by the nobility of pursuing lost, but just, causes. The primary motivation is the necessity of not being complicit\u2026complicit, that is, in the disintegration of our society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scotland<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before I get to the misogyny Bill itself, a brief reminder. You may recall that the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021<\/a> did not include \u201csex\u201d as one of the protected characteristics covered by that legislation. You may also recall that the attempt was made when that Act was being prepared to have misogyny recognised as a specific hate crime. In the event that Act included provision for the inclusion of sex thus: \u201cScottish Ministers may by regulations add the characteristic of sex to the list of characteristics<\/em>\u2026\u201d. You may reasonably ask, then, why this option has not been taken up? I can think of no reason other than because that would be a gender-neutral provision. It would protect men and boys too. I have long been of the view that feminism is not primarily about being nice to women; it\u2019s primarily about crushing men. This would seem to be an example. So, enter \u201cgendered law\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is another salient fact in the context of hate crime, successfully hidden from public gaze, namely that men are the majority victims of hate crime. It wouldn\u2019t do to have that advertised either, would it?  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The public face of the Scottish drive for a misogyny Bill is now of three years duration, though behind the scenes it will have been in preparation far longer than that. I\u2019ll let you wade through the piles of published verbiage yourself, if you wish, before giving a commentary on salient points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Scottish Government commissioned a Working Group on Misogyny and Criminal Justice, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy KC and comprising six women and one man. Their resulting report, Misogyny: A Human Rights Issue<\/a> (henceforth \u201cthe Kennedy report\u201d), \u00a0was published on 8 March 2022. The Scottish Government\u2019s response<\/a> to that report was published on 21 April 2022. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Scottish Government announced a \u201cConsultation\u201d on the Kennedy report\u2019s proposals on 8 March 2023 and this closed on 2 June 2023, Reforming the criminal law to address misogyny: consultation<\/a>. The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) published their response<\/a> to the Consultation on 5 October 2023. The Law Society of Scotland published their response<\/a> on 22 May 2023. Also of interest is the undated document Misogyny Consultation: What do the provisions do, an explainer<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Kennedy report\u2019s title, Misogyny: A Human Rights Issue, is a false flag. If a human rights perspective were used there could be no basis for the exclusion of misandry and the parallel protection of men \u2013 or simply the use of gender-neutral wording. As it is, the Kennedy report\u2019s title should read Misogyny: A Women\u2019s Rights Issue. I am put in mind of the poster campaign many years ago in Edmonton, Canada, in which the posters reading \u201cMen\u2019s Rights are Human Rights\u201d were defaced with the word \u201cwrong\u201d scrawled over them. One concludes that, from this school of thought, men are not human. So it is again here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An FOI asked the Scottish Government to publish the responses to the Consultation. Their answer<\/a> says that they are in favour of doing so, but only at the right time, which apparently is not yet and perhaps not until April\u201924. I leave you to read that FOI response and judge it for yourself. I note only that nearly two years will have passed since the closure of the Consultation. Casual google searches reveal the responses from many of the usual culprits already.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Annex to that FOI<\/a> response is more revealing. I will use this Annex as the source of a brief presentation of the key provisions to go into the Bill. Readers must be aware that there is no published draft Bill at present, still less the final version as it will emerge after multiple amendments. So all sources at present are provisional indications only. The FOI Annex has the merit of being the most recent source, and from the Scottish Government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are five broad provisions for new laws, as follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Misogynistic Harassment offence<\/strong>. This is defined as follows, with quotes in italics for clarity,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c\u2026misogynistic behaviour that is directed at a specific woman or girl, or group of women and girls, which amounts to harassment of that individual or group. This could include shouting sexually abusive remarks to a woman in the street, using abusive language to a woman in the context of unwanted advances, or rubbing up against a woman in a crowded public place<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe misogynistic harassment offence provides that, for the offence to be committed, the behaviour must be directed at a woman or girl (or group of women and girls), at least in part, by reason of their being a woman or girl. It is considered this is a good way of distinguishing misogynistic behaviour \u2013 behaviour that is directed at women and girls because they are women and girls \u2013 from generic abusive behaviour which might be equally likely to be directed anyone, regardless of gender<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Readers will recall the feminist position on domestic abuse is that it is abuse \u201cbecause they are a woman\u201d. They continue to insist on this despite emphatic refutation from studies of the actual aetiology of IPV, not least that it occurs in both directions with comparable frequency and that the motivations of male and female abusers are much the same. The warning in the present context is that a designation of an event as misogynistic, if it is made to rest upon \u201cbecause she\u2019s a woman\u201d, can be conjured from thin air without evidence. Note that the Kennedy report<\/a> positions this perspective as, \u201c\u2026how best to provide protections to women in Scotland\u2026 without creating potentially unrealistic evidential burdens (recognising the centuries old power disparities between men and women)\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This perspective is reflected (for example in the overview of provisions<\/a>) in the claim that \u201cthe misogynistic element of the offence is clearly recognised\u201d in cases \u201csuch as rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse\u201d. Really? Is it still misogynistic when the victim is a man or boy? These statements emanate from a mindset in which male victimisation is not recognised at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the proposals is that incidents leading to criminal charges would apply in private places as well as public places. Quote,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFollowing careful consideration of the circumstances in which misogynistic harassment may occur, with particular regard to how the offence could be committed in an online environment, it was decided that the offence should not be limited to public places. It is not clear why harassment of a woman or girl in a private place should be treated differently from where this occurs in public<\/em>\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Misogynistic Behaviour offence<\/strong>. This is defined as follows, quote,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is not necessarily directed at any particular identifiable victim but is nonetheless likely to harm those who may encounter it. This could include, for example, watching pornography in a public place where it is clearly visible or audible to others, or having loud graphic sexual conversations describing sexual activity with women in a misogynistic or abusive way in a place where others can hear<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note that \u201coffence\u201d has been conflated with \u201charm\u201d; the behaviours described are offensive, but would not have been called harmful until the word \u201charm\u201d became redefined by this same axis of opinion to include offence (cf. \u201cwords are violence\u201d).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs with the offence of misogynistic harassment, the provision restricts the scope of the offence to behaviour that is misogynistic. However, as the behaviour does not require to be directed at a specific victim, a different test is used. The draft consulted on provides that for the offence to be committed, the offence must either be motivated by contempt for, or malice and ill-will towards, women and girls, or it must be of a character such that a reasonable person would consider it to be contemptuous of women and girls.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How can the deliberate, knowing and calculated omission of men and boys from equal protections be anything other than \u201ccontempt for, or malice and ill-will towards\u201d men and boys?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How can \u201ccontempt for, or malice and ill-will towards, women and girls\u201d be made criminal but contempt for, or malice and ill-will towards men and boys remain acceptable?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is an unambiguous, explicit admission that our society does indeed regard contempt for, malice and ill-will towards men and boys to be acceptable. It is a clear admission that our society is endemically, pervasively misandrous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hilariously, Kennedy<\/a> writes, \u201cLaw that is failing half the public is seriously failing<\/em>\u201d. Err, yes. To make that statement consistent with the rest of the report you must understand it to mean \u201claw that is failing the female half of the public is seriously failing (the other half is of no significance other than needing their nastiness crushed out of them)\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once again, private communications will still criminalise you,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs with the offence of misogynistic harassment, it was decided that the offence should not be limited to public places. While the offence may, in practice, be much more likely to be committed in public (or at least, to be detected where it occurs in public) there is no clear policy reason why such behaviour should not amount to a criminal offence solely because it occurs in a place that is not public<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Offence of Threatening or Abusive Communications to Women and Girls<\/strong> which reference rape, sexual assault or disfigurement. I leave you to read the text yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Offence of Stirring-Up Hatred against Women and Girls<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prejudice \u2013 nay, contempt \u2013 is here quite open,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe approach taken to the draft offence provision is modelled on the offences concerning stirring up of hatred on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability, age and variations in sex characteristics. In line with the report\u2019s proposed approach of producing \u2018gendered\u2019 law specifically to protect women and girls, there is one key difference.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast with most of these characteristics, where everyone theoretically has protection (e.g., a person without a religion is protected, a heterosexual person is protected and a person of any age is protected) the provision applies only to the stirring up of hatred against women and girls<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Got that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s nothing accidental about this. The stirring up of hatred against men and boys is deliberately left acceptable. Because they have the power to do so, and they want to.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aggravation of offences by misogyny<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c\u2026 the offence is aggravated if the offender demonstrates contempt or malice and ill will towards the victim based on their being a woman or girl, or, whether or not there is a victim, the offence is motivated by contempt or malice and ill will towards women and girls.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I need not elaborate further.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Protection of Freedom of Expression<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a claim that freedom of expression will be protected. Reference is made to similar provisions within the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021<\/a>, see for example section 4(2). This includes the proviso that \u201c\u2026behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes<\/em> (amongst other things) discussion or criticism\u2026, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult<\/em>\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the Kennedy report, in seeking a definition of misogyny, opined that the definition should \u201csituate misogyny in the relative powers of men and women and reflect the impact on women of this power imbalance\u201d <\/em>and should also \u201cconsider the underlying belief system, or norms, in addition to deliberate, conscious thought at the time of any action or behaviour<\/em>\u2026\u201d. The definition that report then adopted was,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMisogyny is a way of thinking that upholds the primary status of men and a sense of male entitlement, while subordinating women and limiting their power and freedom<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, misogyny is to be defined, according to Kennedy, in terms of the sociopolitical belief of the person in question. Their definition is stated in terms of the thinking<\/em><\/strong> of the person in question, giving the lie to the protestations on pages 10, 11 of that same report. This is the precise opposite of freedom, even of thought, let alone expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not clear how this will turn out in the resulting Act. It is no small matter. If the ruling aligns with Kennedy, and is applicable also in England, it will determine whether this site remains up, and perhaps whether I end my days in prison, as I have long feared I might.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Will the Bill be Enacted?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a virtual certainty. The SNP are 62 of the 129 MPs, and so need only 3 more votes for a majority. There are 22 Labour MPs, 7 Greens and 4 Lib-Dems. One has to expect all these to support the Bill, however it turns out. The 31 Conservative MPs are therefore irrelevant \u2013 and they too would probably support it if it weren\u2019t for the trans element.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

England and Wales<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can anticipate that a Westminster Misogyny Bill will be forthcoming soon. With the Labour Government\u2019s front benches being populated as they are, this is a certainty. Moreover, the leading light, Baroness Kennedy, sits in the House of Lords. So it could be an HOL Bill or a Government Bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ofcom have decided not to wait. They have already launched their own consultation: A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls<\/a> (deadline for responses 23 May\u201925). The Annex<\/a> to the consultation is the best source for what Ofcom is proposing. As with the Scottish Bill it is entirely about safety for women and girls. The approach can be described as \u201cdesigning-out misogyny online\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the same Ofcom whose 2022 report titled Ofcom urges tech firms to keep women safer online<\/a> was entirely slanted towards \u201charms to women and girls\u201d, as its title indicates. Yet the report itself states, \u201cOverall, men are more likely than women to have experienced potentially harmful online behaviour or content in the <\/em>(study period) (64% vs 60%)<\/em>.\u201d Moreover, this finding has been confirmed in Ofcom\u2019s 2024 One Nation report<\/a> (Figure 63) which again indicates that men were more likely than women to have experienced potentially harmful online behaviour or content in the study period (four weeks in 2024) (69% vs 66%). For teenagers that was reversed, but the percentages remain closely comparable (66% and 73% respectively). The 2022 report also concluded that,<\/p>\n\n\n\n