A New Trophy for the Thought Police

Excitement was growing in the Yaxley household as we awaited the announcement of the 'Sexist of the Year' nominee. All eyes were on me, wondering if I would make the cut alongside other esteemed figures, such as Andrew Tate, Richard Madeley, and a thoroughly decent individual in Swindon who made the astonishing assertion that women tend not to have penises.

In fact, my expectations were low; after all, these glittering gongs are usually awarded to those who excel in their field. Although most feminists may dislike these men, their undeniable services and their dedication to gender-based mockery are deserving of recognition. It is awarded for a lifetime dedicated to winding up feminists. I've been remiss in this area of expertise; I will try harder next year.

The bookies' favourite this year however is a man from East London. The unnamed man—I assume he does not want to take all the credit for himself—found out he was nominated when he was thrust to the forefront of the Redbridge Council's crackdown on harassment for catcalling a woman in public. 

As part of the council's crackdown on naughty words, enforcement officers are patrolling the multicultural streets of Ilford to catch people who say things to women. And they are serious. According to council leader Jas Athwal, "We're reclaiming our streets for our local communities and ending the culture of misogyny...women and girls have an absolute right to walk our streets without being catcalled and harassed by men and working with the police, and we are showing zero tolerance." The man was fined £100 and told to pay within 28 days or face a potential prison sentence. His crime? Saying a few words that someone found offensive. 

As always, well-meaning but inappropriate responses come from the worst examples. Zara Aleena was 35 when she was murdered in Ilford. The then-Home Secretary, Priti Patel, hinted at plans to allow the police to crack down on wolf-whistling, catcalling, and other forms of street harassment. 

Street harassment is rare. Whistling builders and people who stare may make women feel uncomfortable, but when they are challenged, the man will usually shut up. We must celebrate those women. Modern feminists, however, seem to believe that words pose an existential threat to women's safety. It is infantilisation and implies that women need special protection in order to go about their daily lives.

But that's not all. Feminists like Labour's Stella Creasy have long campaigned to make misogyny a hate crime. The bill, which was rightly shelved, sought to make motivation by misogyny an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing. If a person was found to have committed a crime motivated by hatred of women, the perpetrator could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison. 

A hate crime is an act perceived by the victim or another person to be motivated by hostility towards a person with ‘protected characteristics’. Victims do not have to justify themselves or provide evidence, and police officers do not have to challenge this. It is a subjective, perception-based crime and can be detrimental to judicial proceedings. If a man makes an unwanted advance towards a woman, how can a jury know if his behaviour is driven by attraction or hatred? We wouldn't. The hate crime law arbitrarily protects some and criminalises others. 

Cases like Aleena's are tragic but rare. But instead of pointing this out, campaigners and activists are calling for more legislation and demanding more protection. Policing bad language is now seen as preferable to focusing on serious sexual assaults, where the prosecution rate for rape is so low as to be nonexistent. This led to a sign over a bus shelter in Ilford, stating that “making sexist comments is now an offence.” I assume that's what progressives call progress?

It would seem these censorious new laws and police powers are perfectly fine with identitarians, so long as the state determines they're people it doesn't like. The definition of catcalling is different from a compliment, as it is given by a stranger rather than a friend. In other words, it's okay to say whatever you want as long as you know the other person. 

We should always be sceptical of the authority to protect anyone—man or woman—from language. The state should not be policing someone else's thoughts and beliefs. It's tantamount to thought-policing and goes against the fundamental foundations of a free and liberal society.