Following a review, the government will soon introduce a new law criminalising misogyny and treating it as a form of extremism.
Having read the announcement made to that effect by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, I immediately went to my trusted dictionary to look for a tight definition of the new crime.
After all, the old legal principle states that “ignorantia juris non excusat”, meaning you can have your collar felt without realising you’ve broken the law. I found that out a few years ago when a French cop fined me for speeding.
He refused to accept my claim that I didn’t know the posted speed limit was in kilometres, not miles. Pull the other one, mate, he said in French, it has les cloches on. That’ll be 80 euros, merci beaucoup.
Hoping to avoid such embarrassments in the future, I read the definition of misogyny with extra care. Here it is: “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women”.
I instantly took stock of my feelings. Do I dislike women? No. Do I despise them? Far from it. Do I have ingrained prejudices against them? Not at all. I heaved a sigh of relief and wiped my brow.
In the process, however, I realised yet again that I dislike, despise and have an ingrained prejudice against tyrannical laws. Which this one is, in spades (before a chap in blue knocks on the door, I must disclaim that the last word has no racial allusions whatsoever).
If asked what the opposite of a tyrannical state is, most people will mention the rule of law. That’s not quite true.
Stalin’s Soviet Union had a law, Article 58 of the Penal Code, criminalising criticism of communism. That was the law cited in millions of indictments, with any punishment up to the death penalty providing the full stop. And Hitler’s Germany was ruled by the Nuremberg Laws, among others.
Looking at those two examples, we can refine our understanding of the opposite to tyranny. It’s the rule of just law, not any old one. If a law isn’t just, it’s a factor of despotism.
Having thus agreed on the terminology, let’s take a closer look at the proposed legislation. The dictionary identifies misogyny as something one feels, not does. And feelings and thoughts are only ever criminalised by despotic regimes like Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany.
One hopes that even a Labour government wouldn’t go so far as punishing people for what they feel. Hence the legal definition of misogyny Miss Cooper sees in her mind’s eye has to be different from the dictionary one.
Since she has manfully (womanfully?) resisted the temptation to divulge the specifics, we can be excused for indulging in conjecture.
Suppose a man does something nasty to a woman because he is a misogynist. Let’s say he beats her up and/or rapes her and/or kills her. If so, the full weight of the law should crush him to pulp, but which law? Putting it another way, would such a criminal go unpunished in the absence of a misogyny law?
No, he wouldn’t. We already have laws against violence, rape and murder. That makes the proposed law redundant, which is to say unnecessary, which is to say introduced for reasons other than legal ones.
So what’s Miss Cooper’s definition of misogyny? The only answer I can think of, and please feel free to make your own suggestions, is that her definition is open-ended. Misogyny is anything the government says it is.
A builder wolf-whistling at a passing woman, a man asking a woman not to trouble her pretty little head about something, a chap telling a dumb blonde joke in a pub, a pundit arguing that women shouldn’t be on active police duty – they may all be treated as criminals if such is Miss Cooper’s wont.
Not only is this law potentially tyrannical, but it’s also discriminatory. For the sake of equity, it ought to be counterbalanced with a law against misandry, hatred of men. Without conducting an extensive survey, I’d venture a guess that such feelings are at least as widespread as their opposite.
In fact, we are witnessing a growing feminisation of life and whole professions, such as medicine, football commentary and even policing. Masculine personal pronouns are being banned – any close examination of people who decry gender-specific pronouns will show that it’s mostly masculine pronouns that they abhor.
Traditional male virtues, such as physical strength, courage and steadfastness are dismissed as macho posturing designed to oppress women. Men are even denied exclusive ownership of their primary sex characteristics. How fair is that?
Miss Cooper explained that there has been a rise in extremism “both online and on our streets” that “frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy”, and misogyny is one manifestation of that worrying trend.
Again, a precise definition is lacking. She then said that a review is required of the rise of Islamism and far-right extremism, which is fair enough.
Yet that statement is again woolly. ‘Islamism’ is a copout word used by those who fear that saying ‘Islam’ would be politically incorrect. Actually, when it comes to misogyny, the difference between the two seems to be imperceptible.
There are many passages in the Koran that advocate beating disobedient wives, or tell women to cover their faces, keep silent and lower their eyes in the presence of men, and so on. Polygamy is also allowed, while polyandry isn’t.
But never mind Islam. St Paul, the author of much of the very Christian New Testament can be construed as being a rank misogynist too.
To wit: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2: 11-15)
Should reading this passage as a lesson in church be criminalised or just cancelled? If the latter, let’s also cancel Alfred Lord Tennyson who wrote this subversive verse:
Man for the field and woman for the hearth:
Man for the sword and for the needle she:
Man with the head and woman with the heart:
Man to command and woman to obey;
All else confusion
Can Tennyson’s title of Poet Laureate be revoked posthumously? Should he be expunged from all libraries? Don’t ask me. Ask Yvette Cooper, she’ll tell you.
She’ll probably repeat what she has said already. The review, at the end of which the misogyny law beckons, will “identify any gaps in existing policy which need to be addressed to crack down on those pushing harmful and hateful beliefs and violence”.
That’s another telling illustration of the socialist take on legality. Miss Cooper lumps together “hateful beliefs” (that is, thoughts and feelings) and “violence” (that is, actions). This reminds me of her socialist ancestor, Lenin.
He was once pondering the draft criminal code submitted for his comments. One article specified the death penalty for those who “aid and abet the restoration of capitalism in Russia”. Lenin, who was educated as a lawyer, looked at the text and felt something was missing, though he wasn’t quite sure what. Then it struck him.
Lenin took out his blue pencil and wrote above “aid and abet” the words “or are capable of aiding and abetting”. And behold, it was very good. Now every Soviet citizen could be shot according to the new law.
Lenin didn’t edit that text for legal reasons. The law has no value in a despotic state other than being an instrument of its despotism. That’s why one distinguishing feature of many tyrannical laws is their vagueness and open-endedness.
They aren’t there to protect people against the depredations by man or state. They are there to enable the state to put its foot down whenever it feels like it.
When the law starts acting in that capacity, you know the rule of just law is no longer in force. In that respect, the difference between Lenin and Cooper is that of degree, not of kind. Actually, Lenin has one important advantage: he is dead, while Miss Cooper is still alive and very much active.
The U.S. first instituted hate law crimes within the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The idea attracted a lot of attention in 1998 after the brutal murder of a young man in Wyoming, which coincided with a major deviant-sexuality movement. The idea that a crime is more or less serious depending on the perpetrator’s motivation is, as the author states, not a matter for the law.
Will these misogyny laws stretch their tentacles into pornography or prostitution? Or are those now considered female empowerment?
P.S. As with most social issues, the creators of South Park had something to say about this. See their episode from April 2000, Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime 2000. The show is not for everyone, and each episode starts with the disclaimer that it should not be viewed by anyone.
I used to enjoy “South Park”. It ought not to be viewed by anyone, just as William Dunbar and Jonathan Swift ought not to be read by anyone.
Did you ever watch “Veep”? Some of the later episodes were based on the ridiculous idea that the Democrats might choose an airheaded Presidential candidate for no better reason than that she was both female and black, so it’s obviously not at all relevant to contemporary politics.
The real misogynists are the feminists. They’re the ones who have reduced many if not most of the fairer sex to a rabble (you may have noticed that I like that word) of tattooed, pierced, sexually promiscuous, foul-mouthed scum. In other words, they’ve reduced many if not most women to the level of the worst kind of men. They have reduced many if not most women to a level of degradation previously unknown not only in Christendom, but in any civilisation I’ve heard about, with the possible exception of the temple prostitutes of ancient Tyre and Sidon.
I say over and over, “many if not most,” but thank God and the Mother of God for the exceptions! Today as always there are still more good women than good men.
Is St Paul a misogynist? He teaches husbands to love their wives as Christ loves his church. I say that St Paul is a philogynist!
“Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan” – not das Ewig-Mannliche.
Exactly! I have tried to raise my boys with the understanding that if feminism means to reduce women to the roles of men, it is a farce, or worse. Why is it that the best that women can aspire to is manhood? Birthing, raising, and teaching the next generation is far more important than slaving away for a wage trapped in a cubicle. Freedom? Oppression? The words are misunderstood.