Labour’s Hypocrisy 

Apart from its decade-long love affair with Tony Blair, the British electorate hasn’t allowed the Labour Party anywhere near its boudoir for the best part of half a century. It’s been a feature of successive Labour Party Conferences to promise the moon and stars—safe in the knowledge that a delivery date is extremely unlikely to be requested. Jeremy Corbyn knew this when he attempted to woo the voters with universal free broadband; the scrapping of tuition fees; 30 hours of free childcare; and the renationalisation of every inch of England’s green and pleasant land.  

Fast forward to 2024, however, and with the Tories 20 points behind in the polls, even Keir Starmer’s charisma bypass cannot be guaranteed to prevent a second fling with Labour this century. As the party makes preparations for government, this week’s Labour Party Conference in Liverpool deserves to be met with a heightened measure of scrutiny.  

Kicking things off on Sunday was Labour deputy leader, Angela Rayner, who has re-emphasised the party’s desire to criminalise ‘misogyny,’ which campaigners and MPs have had in their sights for at least the past decade: 

“We’ll make misogyny a hate crime, toughen sentences for perpetrators of rape and stalking, and halve the level of violence against women and girls” she said.   

To be fair, this isn’t exactly news. Even David Cameron was keen to sign up to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, which sought the eminently sensible criminalisation and up to five-year jail term for stalking. The problem for most Brits however, is that such legislation usually spills over into the ridiculous: the promise to criminalise wolf-whistling and sexist comments, terms which are open to almost limitless interpretations.  

Largely on the back of the despicable murder of Sarah Everard by former police officer Wayne Couzens in 2021, the campaign has gained considerable traction; predominantly through the efforts of Labour MP Stella Creasy, who wants to see misogyny elevated to a hate crime like racism or homophobia.  

First and foremost, the very notion of ‘hate crime’ is an anathema in itself. ‘Hate’ is not a crime; crime is crime. And yet, where crime is committed against those with ‘protected’ characteristics (race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or gender identity), judges have the power to increase the sentence as a result. I genuinely fail to see why the mugging / stabbing / rape of an individual without protected characteristics is any less serious that the mugging / stabbing /rape of someone blessed with such a victim status. If nothing else, surely this means that those hellbent on mugging / stabbing / raping, will simply seek out straight, white males, with a view to enjoying a more lenient sentence? Perhaps that’s the point.  

Moreover, I confess to finding myself deeply uneasy about such ‘progressive’ desires. It should hardly need pointing out that this does not mean I wish to see women harmed. My concern is that such legislation, however honourable the pretext, will serve only to further pollute the minefield of legal social interaction between the sexes by penalising the law-abiding citizen. This nitpicking will draw attention away from the criminal, whose actions are already proscribed by law. It must also be said, the Left has an obvious proclivity for extremely low-hanging fruit when it comes to crime.  

Take a look in the mirror

But anyway, let’s hear the deputy leader’s speech before we start tearing it down: 

As expected, the Rayner speech is bad; so bad in fact, it’s conceivable she actually wrote it herself. “The battle isn’t won” she claims, “There still aren’t enough women around the table.” Really? The last general election saw the highest number of female MPs ever (34%), while female Labour MPs actually outnumber the men. How many more was she hoping for?  

“Labour is the party of equality. Of the Equality Act. Of Equal Pay. Of Sure Start. The next Labour government will fight for every girl in this country to have a bright future. To stand up for every woman. To break the glass ceiling and the class ceiling.” Indeed, that must be why the Conservative Party has had three female leaders and prime ministers, and the Labour Party has had none.  

“Picture the scene. A baby boy is born. Destined for Eton, or Harrow, or Winchester. Then PPE at Oxford. When he walks into the Houses of Parliament, he feels no imposter syndrome. Only the feeling that he is home. He is exactly where he should be. He doesn’t struggle to make his voice heard.” Again, we know what Rayner is getting at here. But perhaps she should remind us (and herself) who the worst performing educational demographic is across the nation. It’s working-class white boys, by a country mile.  

To be fair to Rayner, times change and the law must keep up with them. There are crimes against women (and crimes generally) which did not exist in the past. There was obviously not much need for laws against ‘upskirting’ 100 years ago, but undoubtedly there are now. The law will obviously have to evolve, but surely this should be performed on an egalitarian basis? Isn’t that what a ‘party of equality’ wants? And yet, we do not see misandry anywhere near the docket, despite the fact that men come in for their fair share of hatred. Male conservative MPs for instance, receive the lion’s share of online abuse, but you won’t hear any stories about that.  

Furthermore, what precisely is the definition of misogyny that we are seeking to criminalise? Is it stalking and sexual assault, which are already criminal offences, or is it seriously asking a woman for her phone number without first gaining her permission to do so; or ‘staring’ which would be impossible to police? As a sincere matter of cross-party unity, it would be nice to be able to rule out feminist hatred of men as a motivator in these proceedings, so that everyone could work together to enhance the legal framework for protecting women and the citizenry generally.  

Of course, while any legal definition of misogyny is flawed before it gets off the ground, the real problem with such legislation is the Labour Party itself. First of all, there’s Keir Starmer’s repeated charade of pretending not to know what a woman is, and the attempted silencing of MPs like Rosie Duffield for failing to pretend, by trans activists and fellow Labour MPs. Then there’s the Labour councils who covered up child grooming; the Crown Prosecution Service under Starmer which failed victims; the Labour MPs who think victims should shut up for the sake of diversity, and a party which now dares criticise the Tories for their inaction on the matter. Labour may (accurately) identify misogyny as a vote winner, but their track record in this department is nothing short of reprehensible.  

The good news for Rayner, Creasy, et al is that they are likely to get their way by hook or by crook. Even with the Conservative government rejecting the opportunity to make misogyny a hate crime earlier this year, Stella Creasy is confident that the campaign will achieve its goals directly or indirectly. For example, 11 of Britain’s police forces are already treating misogyny as a hate crime and tracking the data, which is precisely the outcome Creasy wanted.  

Whether such criminalisation will genuinely serve to protect women remains to be seen. With an already myopic constabulary busy recording non-crimes, adding further hate crimes to the charge sheet will surely mean even less time spent policing real crime. Sure, we’d be spared the savagery of the wolf-whistlers, but how much time does that leave bringing genuine offenders to book?