Suzanne Harrington: Why isn’t misogyny a straightforward hate crime?

Laurence Fox has been suspended by GB News following his comments about political correspondent Ava Evans.

Man 1: “Who’d want to shag that?”

Man 2: [But] “She’s a very beautiful woman.”

Where are we — overhearing the embittered, drunken ramblings of two incels in a pub corner? Or watching two broadcasters on a live news programme talking about a journalist who is not present?

Yes, unbelievably, it is the second one. On GB News, a kind of no-budget Fox News facsimile peopled by individuals like Nigel Farage.

Laurence Fox, a former screen actor, describes his lack of interest in having sex with political correspondent Ava Evans, whom as well as referring to as “that”, he also terms a “little woman”.

The programme’s presenter, a populist hack already suspended from the Daily Mail, tries to make things better by reminding Fox that the political correspondent in question is actually “very beautiful”. 

The implication being that as she’s not a minger, she doesn’t deserve to be unworthy of Fox’s sexual merit. How gallant.

Both Laurence Fox and Dan Wootton have now been suspended — which is different from being sacked — by GB News.

This is the equivalent of being thrown out of, but not barred from, the worst bar in town only after you’ve punched the bartender and puked on their shoes; Fox’s misogyny, said GB News, “does not reflect our values”. 

Wait — they have values? And Wootton was ousted for laughing.

What’s not the issue here is the existence of hate-trolls like Laurence Fox — the internet is full of them — but the platform that he is and his ilk are given.

Individuals like Fox — the current loudest example, although by the time you read this it could be someone else, because misogynists are like bottomless brunch, in that they never run out — know they will not be prosecuted for hate speech if the target of their hate is merely a woman.

Why then isn’t misogyny a straightforward hate crime?

If an individual says on television that they wouldn’t want to shag you because you’re black / brown / Jewish / Muslim / Irish, etc, they are not just being vile, but liable for prosecution.

However, say it about a woman on the basis of her womanhood, and she’s fair game. 

There are no legal repercussions for the hatred of women, unless you actually rape or kill one. 

Which is why misogynists are like rats, always a few feet away even if you can’t see them. And like rats, they’ve become more brazen. 

Just read the comments. Any comments.

Expressing hatred for women remains tolerated and normalised.

Is it because we are not a minority? Because there are so many of us? Or could it be that it’s the misogynists who are simply too numerous? 

That to prosecute solely more serious instances — death or rape threats, rather than deeming individual political correspondents unshaggable because you disagree with their point of view — would result in police everywhere doing nothing else all day, their every working moment taken up, instead of pursuing muggers or murderers or whatever.

So is it the admin? Is that the reason misogyny is still allowed to thrive unchecked?