UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced Labour’s plan to expand the Terrorism Act of 2000 to incorporate acts of misogyny under the umbrella of ‘terrorism’.
Essentially, the government is saying that threats of violence against women need to be treated as a ‘national security threat’.
It’s an astonishing thing to claim given no one has failed women and girls more horrifically than authorities who refused, for decades, to hunt down rape gangs due to fear of upsetting ethnic communities.
The Huddersfield grooming gang, for example, is the largest gang convicted of sexual abuse where 29 men – predominately Pakistani – were arrested in 2017. The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal operated for decades. Estimates suggest 1,400 girls were abused with at least some knowledge of local authorities. Again, the majority of offenders were British-Pakistani men. High profile members of the police community resigned and inquiries have been opened.
There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that ethnic and religious-based cover-ups are happening in cities like London when it comes to violent crime and theft. A failure to pursue criminal activity sits beneath the ‘feeling’ that ‘two tier policing’ is real.
A loss of confidence in a fair and equal justice system has stirred up community unrest.
It is doubtful politicians are protecting individual identity groups because they have a particular fondness for them, but rather because they don’t want journalists printing things like, ‘crime stats confirm zodiacs washing up on beaches endanger public safety’.
This leads us to ask, is there a problem with social media, or does the fault sit with an infestation of progressive politics in the legal system? You decide.
Returning to the Home Secretary’s expansion of ‘terrorism’. The vast majority of citizens understand ‘terrorism’ as radical Islamic violence that manifests as knife attacks, mass shootings, deliberate car crashes, and suicide bombers.
A quick glance at the global terror list shows that Islam has a very near monopoly on terror and that most acts of terror originate from organised Islamic terror groups or individuals inspired by them.
That is not to say that other sorts of violence do not occur.
The UK has its fair share of inter-personal violence and crime. None of which has traditionally been labelled ‘terror’ as it occurs between individuals.
Terrorism is given a separate definition because its acts are intended to strike fear into the heart of society as a whole and destabilise the ruling government. They are public events from a competing ideology with political ambitions. Terror is a form of guerilla war hiding in the jungle of progressive cities.
Many see the Home Secretary’s announcement to include domestic violence inside the ‘terrorist’ category as embarrassing and ridiculous. It is also rife for abuse in the hands of politicians who have already shown a worrying enthusiasm for attacking civil rights and assaulting free speech.
‘For too long governments have failed to address the rise in extremism, both online and on our streets, and we’ve seen the number of young people radicalised online grow. Hateful incitement of all kinds fractures and frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy,’ said the Home Secretary.
Named in most articles is the influence of social media commentator Andrew Tate.
Tate’s influence on young boys can be handled by good parenting and proper schooling – terror radicalisation cannot. It is almost as if the government is trying to blame a rise in bad behaviour among young boys on a few TikTokers instead of admitting that the government outlawed ‘consequences’ for misbehaving school boys. With no boundaries and no fear of their teachers, boys have become unruly.
Even ‘incel’ culture has its roots in progressive schooling. A generation of young people have never heard the word ‘no’ until they attempt to date. It’s unsurprising they have immature responses to rejection. Young boys look toward individuals such as Tate for support because society spends its time telling boys that masculinity is toxic. A culture of self-loathing creates a subculture of rejection. Government policy created these extremes of thought and it can fix it by untangling misandry from young boys’ lives.
This has escaped the Education Secretary who said:
‘I want to make sure that we have a generation of boys and young men who grow up respecting women, rather than the growing levels of misogyny that we are seeing at the moment.’
If the Education Secretary is serious, they need to stop making boys jealous of the girls society puts on a pedestal. Allow the boys to achieve and they won’t be so angry all the time.
The government also appears to be entirely tone-death. The religion associated with terror has an inbuilt misogyny problem where women are frequently treated as second-class citizens, or worse… Labour’s mass migration disaster directly endangers the lives of British women by importing young men with incompatible cultural attitudes.
Which leads many to ask, is the Labour government interested in protecting women, or is it looking to add another layer of censorship to social media as part of its ongoing war against free speech and – in particular – Elon Musk?
It is far more likely that ‘misogyny as terrorism’ – which they have not properly defined – will be used to arrest and imprison people who criticise biological men invading women’s spaces than, say, men of a certain religious position marrying off their underage daughters, or taking them out of the country to be sexually disfigured, or seeking ‘honour’ by throwing acid in their faces.
This sort of cultural misogyny would never be labelled ‘terrorism’ by the government, of that we can guarantee.
Laurence Fox wrote, ‘It just gets worse and worse. We are being invaded and the ‘thought criminals’ are the problem. Britain is finished.’
Dr Jordan Peterson asked, ‘Who defines extreme? Who defines misogyny?’
Billboard Chris was ruthless. ‘The UK government will now treat ‘extreme misogyny’ as terrorism. They will also continue to import violent men who treat women worse than cattle, and imprison the men who complain.’
Given the state of British streets it seems likely that most people would prefer the Home Secretary to get to work on the existing terror watch list.
In 2020, it was reported that there were 43,000 extremists on one watch list, nine-tenths of which were Islamic extremists.
Not so long ago, 39 late-stage terror attacks were prevented. As admitted in 2023:
‘The desperate situation in prisons is laid bare. With four of the nine terrorists attacks in the UK since 2019 perpetrated by serving or recently released prisoners, we are told that individuals may develop “a terrorist mindset … during their time in prison”.’
Which makes Keir Starmer’s pledge to release around 40,000 prisoners even more ludicrous. Even if Starmer can confirm that none of these prisoners have links to terror, women’s rights groups have already expressed concern that domestic abusers will be among those to walk free.
How does that fit with this new war on misogyny?
By diluting the qualification of ‘terrorism’ it allows the government to claim that Islam is not the main culprit of terror. By this point, no doubt, they’ll have filled the ledger with thousands of ‘misogyny terrorists’ who say violent things like ‘men shouldn’t be in women’s bathrooms’.
‘Gender affirmation’ surgery, the erasure of gender from protected spaces, and the suffering of women under the increasingly aggressive LGBTQ activist movement has been under siege from rising public fury – particularly following the Paris Olympics. Criminalising criticism offers the UK government a way to paint its political foes as ‘terrorists’.
After all, if the government is interested in protecting women – as it claims – they might want to look into the nearly 400,000 unanswered crimes, many of which had female victims.
Ask a female shop owner if they’d rather have the balaclava-clad youths that robbed their store jailed – or a random bloke saying mean things on Twitter jailed. I guarantee she’s more interested in the thieves.
