Hogwarts gone wrong. - Stella Creasy

[W]e know from police trials that classifying misogyny as a hate crime can encourage women to come forward, about domestic abuse, rape, forced marriages – there are lots of examples of how it can make a difference. All the evidence shows that this can make a difference. For comparison, there is a requirement to say if skin colour is a reason for why someone has been targeted.
There are so many crimes that women have internalised. We have asked women to find ways of coping rather than asking the police to intervene and stop it.

"[D]on't feed the trolls" misses the point: if someone is obsessing about you to the point they are seeking out those around you, ignoring them won't disrupt their behaviour before it causes more damage.

[W]e should all welcome the protection from sex-based harassment in a public bill. It echoes the way that hate crime legislation penalises those who target certain groups based on their identity, by using an existing offence used to prosecute harassment – from the Public Order Act 1986 – and applying a harsher sentence to those whose motivation is shown to be about the sex or perceived sex of their victim. It is the first time the statute book will recognise how misogyny drives crimes against women.
Yet, as ever, nothing is straightforward. Public order offences allow the accused to claim a defence that they thought their behaviour was "reasonable", even if no one else would. This contrasts with other legislation that also covers harassment in English law, and only allows a defendant to claim their behaviour is reasonable if others would agree; that they "ought to know" if their conduct was unacceptable. Without changing this element of the forthcoming public harassment bill to be consistent with how harassment operates elsewhere, this new law – while well-intentioned – risks giving perpetrators the opportunity to claim "she just can’t take a compliment" as an actual defence to a criminal offence.