Hate Crime: A gendered analysis. What are the key debates?

Back in July 2016, I attended the British Society of Criminology conference in Nottingham and delivered a paper around hate crime and gender. Unbeknownst to me so did a colleague of mine at the University of Sussex; just over the road from me. We both discussed the issues arising from the debate and interestingly came to slightly different conclusions. Subsequently, as we realised we both were interested in the same subject area, we met for a coffee and to talk further about what we had discussed at the conference. It was from these discussions and from the paper I had delivered and the comments that arose from that, that I began to think about the issues in more detail. So it is from this position that I begin this article, looking at the key debates surrounding whether categorising sexism and misogyny as a hate crime under current legislation means that some people are under law, regarded as more equal than others, with privileged legal protection for some but not all victims; or that the current balance is adequate and that categorising sexism and misogyny as a hate-crime would be counter-productive and rather, as Liz Kelly in 2011 states that we need to move away from using the term ‘hate crime’ to one of discriminatory violence, especially in relation to violence against women and girls as firstly it’s more in keeping with EU equality and human rights law, which provides an additional legislative framework to protect women and girls

'Controlling God in the UK: the vexed question of political accountability and faith based groups.

For twelve years New Labour as the governing party of the UK was apparently obsessed with control, ensuring as far as possible that every aspect of government policy remained centrally directed. However, there was also a growth in the use and importance of third sector agencies in the delivery, and latterly, in the strategic development of, public policy. This created an implementation gap in the delivery of policy and a problem in ensuring that key policy makers from the third sector remain ‘on-message’. In this paper we will demonstrate the difficulties that existed in retaining control while decentralising the delivery and development of public policy