What @EngenderScot found through a review of the evidence was startling.

Not only have hate crime laws completely failed to serve women, but they’ve actually made criminal justice bodies like police and prosecutors more sceptical about misogyny.

This is because of gender relations. Men and women’s lives are so interconnected that police and prosecutors think it’s implausible to talk about sexist harassment as “hate”-based.

Feminist violence against women experts are also sceptical about “hate”, although for different reasons.

@ProfLizKelly writes about the way that “hate crime” overlooks the context of violence against women, including its power relations. http://www.troubleandstrife.org/new-articles/the-trouble-with-hate/

All of this confusion and tension means that hate crime laws don’t work for women at the most basic level.

New Jersey has had a hate crime statute for 20 years. There have been fewer than one complaints each year of gender/sex-based hate crime.

A two year pilot in Nottinghamshire, which included training for police and stakeholders by expert violence against women organisations saw one single charge. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fd74b5ffd756c1ce4dbdd27/t/600eb1b6d7b0ac5d70bb07ae/1611575737635/Misogyny+Hate+Crime+Evaluation+Report+June+2018.pdf

Women quite reasonably think that a new law would do *something* additional to respond to misogynistic harassment.

Unfortunately, hate crime laws like Scotland’s don’t create new offenses. The “aggravation” approach we are taking means that if a crime of (for example) breach of the peace was aggravated by sex that wouldn’t necessarily increase the sentence or change the outcome.

But there are another three reasons why we think including sex in the current Hate Crime Bill could be harmful.

First, the aggravation model means that some incidents of rape or domestic abuse would be labeled by the law as hateful and some would not.

This risks undermining our policy commitment to an explanation of men’s violence that includes patriarchy and women’s subordination.

Second, there is consensus among international women’s rights bodies that laws on violence against women should pay attention to patriarchy + women’s inequality.

A sex aggravation wouldn’t do this. It would potentially include misogyny + misandry and ignore power as a factor.

Third, there is a lot of confusion about how this Bill would work. The energy that could go on implementation would be much better spent on a law that actually works for women.

Scotland’s women’s orgs have advocated for good feminist laws that tackle men’s violence.

These concerns have been part of the discussions we have been having with women and women’s organisations over the last five years. They are also reflected in @SWCwomen’s systematic consultation with women in Scotland. https://www.scottishwomensconvention.org/files/hate-crime-response-2019.pdf

I really do empathise with the women who care about women’s rights and wish we could act now on misogynist abuse and harassment.

I have huge respect for @HumzaYousaf, @aewingmsp and the rest of the @SP_Justice Committee for committing to a slower, more complex path.

Whatever ultimately happens with the Hate Crime Bill, the opportunity to think about how Scotland’s laws could respond to misogyny is an exciting one.

You can read @EngenderScot’s very initial thoughts from 2019 on all of this here: https://www.engender.org.uk/content/publications/Making-Women-Safer-in-Scotland---the-case-for-a-standalone-misogyny-offence.pdf

Some amazing work on misogyny is being done by: @VeraGrayF @DrHannah @ProfLizKelly @kate_manne and Laura Bates @EverydaySexism