@lisburnccc have just begun their meeting, and when our motion comes up we will be live tweeting the debates, as well as we can. Thanks again to @SiLeeGPNI and @MichelleGuy4 to bringing this motion. It has been important to us from the beginning to aim for cross-party consensus.

Because misogyny and the harms that flow from it cross every boundary that exists in this society and indeed all societies.

We're up now, @SiLeeGPNI is reading the motion.

Cllr. Lee begins by setting up the context - notes it was supported unanimously in Belfast City Council in March. Sets out the context of the Hate Crime Review, what hate crime means, and how it makes sense for gender to be included as a category

In the context of our history of conflict and all that went along with that, we lag behind many constituencies in making laws that tackle patriarchal attitudes. "Misogyny is a scourge on our society that effects all of us"

"Casual misogyny often goes unchallenged, it has been normalised" - this is part of what we want to tackle in this project as well as through changes to the Hate Crime laws - from the allegedly trivial to the much more serious - from catcalling to domestic homicide

Cllr. Lee stresses that this also applies to trans people and non-binary people, and we support also the widening of categories to include all trans and non-binary people

Cllr. Lee uses the example of the recent changes in Nottinghamshire, England as evidence of the improvements that can be made to victims' experiences with the recognition of misogyny as a hate crime

Cllr. Lee also outlines the reasons why it is critical that he Council support the Raise Your Voice project in order to support those constituents that have been impacted by this.

Now @MichelleGuy4 is speaking to second the motion. She begins by speaking about the resonance of the idea of raising your voice, and why this campaign means so much to her

Cllr. Guy is stressing the evidence of misogyny in so many cases of domestic homicide. She quotes the femicide report “…killing women is the act of ultimate control, rather than loss of it”.

She stresses "it’s not about creating an atmosphere whereby men have to look over their shoulders; rather it’s about addressing the fact that in too many circumstances women, transgender and non-binary people already do"

Cllr. Guy leaves us with a question "To those who may be considering voting against it, I would ask you this:
If you are decision is not to vote to protect women from these acts.
Then who is it that you are you voting to protect?"

Cllr. Palmer speaks to support the motion, reflecting on her own experience

Cllr. Anderson now speaks about the family of strong women that he is a part of. He says there are things in this motion that everyone can agree with. But he believes this motion will confuse the issue and make it harder to police

He also argues that it will damage free speech. It is unclear why he believes this to be the case, but he believes it is important to protect unpopular opinions, but does not explain why he thinks misogynistic opinions deserve protection.

Cllr Anderson believes that this would distract from the urgent business of COVID-19. Belfast City Council responded to this by writing a one page letter to the Hate Crime Review, simply outlining the motion that was voted upon. It surely could not have taken more than 10 mins

More support for our motion, Cllrs from UUP stress it will not take much time to write a letter, and that this will send an important message

More support from other Councillors, SF councillor stresses that this was set for March and IWD, but that this coincides with the repeal of the 8th amendment, and that this dovetails with that, we need to tackle institutionalised misogyny anywhere and everywhere

More support from Cllr. Gallen who adds that this mirrors a motion in HoC in March

Cllr. Swan says "it is not society's job to protect the strong" - naming strong women is not enough. He says he did not feel strongly before this, but this debate has moved him to speak

Cllr. Gregg says that misogyny exists, and that to exclude it from hate crime suggests that it does not. He stresses his support

Back to Cllr. Lee to sum up. He thanks everyone who supports the motion and responds to Cllr. Anderson - free speech is important but abusive language is not covered by free speech. He does not believe this is a free speech issue - and we agree

He expresses disappointment that the DUP have chosen to take this position as we were so pleased to have the support of @nicolaverner1 in Belfast City Council

He also warns against scapegoating trans people - our campaign has been from the outset firmly in solidarity with our trans and non-binary siblings - and it always will be

Mayor Givan is speaking now before the vote. He speaks for his party colleague who opposes the motion - he says that how the DUP voted in Belfast City Council is against party policy. This is not motivated by spite or hate, he says.

He says it is vague. The full response from RYV to the Hate Crime Review is 15,000+ words with great specificity and it is available to read by Mayor Givan

He describes this as a "gagging order" on "passing comments" and "jokes"

Mayor Givan, older people are included in the new Hate Crime Review. Sectarian, racist and homophobic crimes are already included. Ought those go?

Mayor Givan is now using the Bible - he is saying that when Jesus opposed certain people - and this would ban that. It seems that the Mayor has, respectfully, entirely misunderstood what hate crime is.

Cllr. Gregg expresses disappointment in the Mayor for speaking in this way, given his position as Mayor. Ordinarily the First Citizen would not partake in debates

The vote begins

Our motion passes 24-14 (with one abstention). Thank you to all 24 who voted for it, and especially those who spoke for it. We are very grateful!