Make Misogyny a Hate Crime
Liberal Democrat · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Liberal Democrat’s policy “Make Misogyny a Hate Crime” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Personal liberty & free speech — Hurts
minor · moderate confidence
Making misogyny a hate crime expands the criminal law's reach over speech and conduct motivated by hostility toward women, with a vague and undefined trigger. The main liberty cost is a chilling effect on expression and the risk of overbroad prosecution given that neither 'misogyny' nor 'hostility' has a settled legal meaning.
The evidence
- The policy commits to making misogyny a hate crime and providing police and prosecutors with resources and training to prosecute all hate crimes. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “Make misogyny a hate crime and give police and prosecutors the resources and training they need to prevent and prosecute all hate crimes while supporting survivors.”
- If implemented through legislation, crimes motivated by misogyny could attract enhanced sentencing, extending state punishment beyond what existing offences attract. — lordslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “crimes motivated by misogyny could be subject to tougher, "enhanced" sentencing, acknowledging the additional harm caused when someone is targeted for their gender”
- Proving misogynistic hostility as an additional element is seen as an evidential burden that complicates prosecutions, especially for private offences. — gov.uk (media) — “Proving "hostility" motivated by misogyny, in addition to the existing elements of a crime, is seen as an "evidential burden" that could complicate prosecutions, especially since many offenses occur in private without wi…”
- The independent Law Commission concluded after a three-year review that making misogyny a hate crime may be 'more harmful than helpful' and 'counterproductive in some respects'. — gov.uk (media) — “the independent Law Commission concluded in December 2021 that making misogyny a hate crime may be "more harmful than helpful" and "counterproductive in some respects" for tackling violence against women and girls”
Biggest unknown: How courts and prosecutors would define 'misogyny' and 'hostility' in practice — a narrow interpretation targeting violent conduct would have a much smaller liberty cost than a broad one that sweeps in offensive speech.
Our reading: O10 scores the liberty cost of new state coercive powers over speech, conduct and bodies — separate from the safety benefit (O5). This policy creates two O10-relevant effects. First, expanding hate crime law to cover misogyny extends criminal liability into the domain of expression and attitude. Hate crime law in England and Wales attaches enhanced penalties — and can attach criminal liability to otherwise lawful speech — where 'hostility' toward a protected characteristic is demonstrated. As E18 shows, 'hostility' is not defined in law and spans a very wide range of mental states including 'dislike' and 'prejudice'. Combined with the absence of any settled legal definition for 'misogyny' itself (E17), the boundary of what speech or conduct becomes newly criminal or subject to enhanced punishment is genuinely unclear. Undefined legal tests with broad everyday meanings create chilling effects on expression, which is a direct O10 harm. Second, the policy commits to resourcing and training police to enforce this expanded framework (M), meaning the chilling effect is backed by real enforcement capacity, not merely nominal law. The Law Commission — the independent statutory law reform body — concluded this approach could be 'counterproductive' (E20), and the evidential burden of proving misogynistic motivation for existing offences is flagged as a real procedural complication (E11). These concerns relate primarily to O5/O9, but the same definitional vagueness that complicates conviction also makes the scope of criminalised expression unpredictable from a liberty standpoint. The magnitude is minor rather than moderate because: (a) hate crime aggravation already exists for other characteristics, so this is an extension, not a novel architecture; (b) purely private beliefs are not criminalised, only demonstrated hostility in the commission of another act or in public expression; (c) Nottinghamshire's pilot produced very few convictions (E13), suggesting enforcement is sparse in practice. The direction is nonetheless 'worsens' because the liberty cost of vague, expansive criminal standards over expression is real even at low conviction rates — the chilling effect operates independently of conviction volumes.
Crime, justice & national security — Mixed picture
minor · moderate confidence
Making misogyny a hate crime could increase reporting by women and validate their experiences, but the Law Commission and major specialist women's organisations warn it may actually make convictions harder for serious crimes like rape and domestic abuse. The net effect on safety and justice outcomes is genuinely contested by credible, independent bodies.
The evidence
- The policy commits to making misogyny a hate crime and giving police and prosecutors resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes while supporting survivors. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “Make misogyny a hate crime and give police and prosecutors the resources and training they need to prevent and prosecute all hate crimes while supporting survivors.”
- Avon and Somerset, which adopted the category locally, reported over 800 gender hate crimes in three years with almost 90% of victims being women. — whiteribbon.org.uk (media) — “Some police forces that have adopted this locally, like Avon and Somerset, reported over 800 gender hate crimes in three years, with almost 90% of victims being women”
- In Nottinghamshire's pilot, only one perpetrator was convicted in the first two years where misogyny was flagged, suggesting convictions remain very rare. — repository.londonmet.ac.uk (academic) — “In Nottinghamshire's pilot, only one perpetrator was convicted in the first two years where misogyny was flagged”
- The Law Commission concluded after a three-year review that making misogyny a hate crime may be 'more harmful than helpful' and 'counterproductive in some respects' for tackling VAWG. — gov.uk (media) — “the independent Law Commission concluded in December 2021 that making misogyny a hate crime may be "more harmful than helpful" and "counterproductive in some respects" for tackling violence against women and girls”
- The Law Commission found no expert stakeholder organisations focused on protecting women and girls could agree on a model. — gov.uk (media) — “They found no expert stakeholder organizations, even those focused on protecting women and girls, could agree on a model”
- Proving hostility motivated by misogyny is seen as an evidential burden that could complicate prosecutions, especially where offences occur in private. — gov.uk (media) — “Proving "hostility" motivated by misogyny, in addition to the existing elements of a crime, is seen as an "evidential burden" that could complicate prosecutions, especially since many offenses occur in private without wi…”
- Rape Crisis England & Wales argues the policy would further complicate the judicial process and make it even harder to secure convictions for rape, which are already at an all-time low. — gov.uk (media) — “Rape Crisis England & Wales believes it would "further complicate the judicial process and make it even harder to secure convictions" for rape, which are already at an all-time low”
- Women's Aid is concerned that including VAWG crimes within the hate crime framework could undermine the understanding of VAWG as inherently misogynistic. — gov.uk (media) — “Women's Aid shares concerns that it could "undermine the understanding of VAWG as inherently misogynistic"”
- Some analysts suggest that recording misogyny as an aggravating factor without a standalone offence may offer little actual change in legal protection or higher sentences for victims. — rctn.org.uk (media) — “merely recording misogyny as an aggravating factor for existing crimes, without creating a new standalone offense, may offer little actual change for victims in terms of legal protection or higher sentences”
Biggest unknown: Whether the added evidential burden of proving misogynistic 'hostility' would reduce conviction rates for serious VAWG offences more than increased reporting and enhanced sentences would improve justice outcomes.
Our reading: The evidence points in two genuine and credible directions, making 'mixed' the honest verdict. On the positive side, pilot evidence from Nottinghamshire and Avon and Somerset shows the policy can meaningfully increase reporting by women and validate their experiences — real improvements in access to justice and confidence in public safety. The policy also promises additional resources and training for police and prosecutors, which if delivered could strengthen enforcement capacity. On the negative side, the evidence against is unusually strong and comes from independent and specialist sources, not just political opponents. The Law Commission — a statutory independent body — concluded after a three-year review that the measure may be 'more harmful than helpful' and 'counterproductive'. Crucially, major VAWG specialist organisations including Rape Crisis England & Wales and Women's Aid share the concern that the additional evidential burden of proving misogynistic hostility could make it harder to secure convictions for serious offences like rape and domestic abuse. Pilot data is consistent with this: Nottinghamshire saw only one conviction in two years despite increased recording. The lack of agreed legal definition for misogyny or 'hostility' adds a further implementation risk that could make prosecutions more fragile. The upside (more reporting, validation, cultural signalling) and the downside (harder convictions for serious crimes, evidential complications) both have grounded support — this is a genuine 'mixed' rather than a lazy hedge. Magnitude is minor because real-world pilots show the positive effects on reporting are real but conviction gains are minimal, and the conviction risk operates at the margin of an already strained system. The commitment to resources and training in the stated policy is a genuine positive lever, but its delivery is uncertain and cannot be assumed.
Equal treatment & democratic rights — Mixed picture
minor · moderate confidence
Making misogyny a hate crime would formally recognise gender-based discrimination in law and may increase women's confidence in reporting, but the independent Law Commission and major women's organisations warn it could make it harder—not easier—to secure convictions for serious offences. The net effect on equal treatment is genuinely contested.
The evidence
- The policy commits to making misogyny a hate crime and providing police and prosecutors with resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes while supporting survivors. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “Make misogyny a hate crime and give police and prosecutors the resources and training they need to prevent and prosecute all hate crimes while supporting survivors.”
- Pilot schemes such as Nottinghamshire's 2016 initiative suggest the approach can increase women's confidence in reporting and in using public spaces. — srebrenica.org.uk (media) — “Pilot schemes, such as the one initiated by Nottinghamshire Police in 2016, suggest that making misogyny a hate crime can increase women's confidence in reporting incidents and moving around public spaces”
- Victims in the Nottinghamshire pilot reported feeling their experiences were validated by the policy. — srebrenica.org.uk (media) — “Victims in Nottinghamshire reported feeling that their experiences were validated by the policy”
- Despite increased reporting, conviction rates under pilots were very low: only one perpetrator was convicted in the first two years of Nottinghamshire's pilot where misogyny was flagged. — repository.londonmet.ac.uk (academic) — “In Nottinghamshire's pilot, only one perpetrator was convicted in the first two years where misogyny was flagged”
- The independent Law Commission concluded after a three-year review that making misogyny a hate crime may be 'more harmful than helpful' and 'counterproductive in some respects' for tackling violence against women and girls. — gov.uk (media) — “the independent Law Commission concluded in December 2021 that making misogyny a hate crime may be "more harmful than helpful" and "counterproductive in some respects" for tackling violence against women and girls”
- The Law Commission found no expert stakeholder organisations focused on protecting women and girls could agree on a model for implementation. — gov.uk (media) — “They found no expert stakeholder organizations, even those focused on protecting women and girls, could agree on a model”
- Rape Crisis England & Wales and Women's Aid argue the approach could make it even harder to secure convictions for serious crimes targeting women, such as sexual offences and domestic abuse. — gov.uk (media) — “They argue it may make it even harder to secure convictions for serious crimes targeting women, such as sexual offenses and domestic abuse”
- Proving 'hostility' motivated by misogyny, on top of existing elements of a crime, is seen as an evidential burden that could complicate prosecutions, especially where offences occur in private. — gov.uk (media) — “Proving "hostility" motivated by misogyny, in addition to the existing elements of a crime, is seen as an "evidential burden" that could complicate prosecutions, especially since many offenses occur in private without wi…”
- Women's Aid has stated that including VAWG crimes within the hate crime framework could undermine the understanding of VAWG as inherently misogynistic. — gov.uk (media) — “Women's Aid has stated that "including VAWG crimes within the hate crime framework could undermine the understanding of VAWG as inherently misogynistic"”
- Advocates including the Fawcett Society argue formal recognition would help change societal attitudes and support prevention by recognising discrimination and power imbalances underpinning harassment. — rctn.org.uk (media) — “Advocates, including the Fawcett Society, believe it would help change societal attitudes towards misogyny and support prevention efforts by recognizing the discrimination and power imbalances that underpin everyday hara…”
Biggest unknown: Whether the evidential burden of proving misogynistic 'hostility' would, in practice, reduce conviction rates for rape and domestic abuse, offsetting the symbolic and reporting gains.
Our reading: On O9 — equal treatment and anti-discrimination protections — this policy has genuine effects on both sides, making 'mixed' the honest verdict. On the positive side, formally classifying misogyny as a hate crime would extend the hate-crime framework's equal-treatment logic to gender, recognising that women are targeted because of their sex. Pilot evidence shows women felt validated and more willing to report, which is a real, if modest, gain for equal treatment in practice. On the negative side, the most authoritative institutional voice — the independent Law Commission after a three-year review — concluded the approach may be 'more harmful than helpful'. Crucially, this concern comes not from opponents of women's equality but from organisations like Rape Crisis England & Wales and Women's Aid, whose mandate is protecting women. Their argument is that requiring prosecutors to prove misogynistic 'hostility' as an additional element would raise the evidential bar and depress conviction rates for rape and domestic abuse — outcomes that would concretely worsen equal treatment in the justice system for women. The Nottinghamshire pilot's record of one conviction in two years supports this scepticism about real-world prosecutorial effect. The resource and definition challenges (E16, E17) compound uncertainty but are secondary to the conviction-rate concern. The Fawcett Society's advocacy position supports the policy, but as an advocacy source it is down-weighted relative to the Law Commission's independent review and the operational objections of frontline specialist organisations. The net result is a real symbolic and reporting gain offset by a credibly evidenced risk of worsening prosecutorial outcomes for the most serious offences against women — hence 'mixed/minor'. The magnitude is minor because even the upside (reporting confidence) is limited by consistently low conviction rates, and the downside risk, while real, would materialise only if implementation made prosecutions harder at scale.