Scotland - Hate Crime Bill

[Igneococcus]

Just leaving this here before I go off to my lab (possibly a hate crime soon):

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/14681ea8-7c71-11eb-823e-250f70612dc4?shareToken=34b13edc14b4658be9b5145806013efd

[334bu]

Terrifying ain't it.

[JosephineBaker]

It’s pretty chilling. When stating reality is a hate crime we are in an Orwellian dystopia.

[Liquorishtoffee]

I can’t see the link. Does it mention exactly which groups they ‘widely consulted’? This can’t be allowed to stand.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

More on this here:

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1366863240286846979?s=19

(Unrolled here threadreaderapp.com/thread/1366863240286846979.html)

[UppityPuppity]

I can’t see the link. Does it mention exactly which groups they ‘widely consulted’? This can’t be allowed to stand.

Clearly not groups who know that all of humanity for 200,000 + years have had two biological parents - one male and one female (which makes sex binary) and all were born from a woman.

So they haven’t discussed this with pretty much all of the Scottish population.

[Liquorishtoffee]

The groups were - well not varied or without a vested interest shall we say. I’m sure the whole thing could/should be challenged on that basis.

[littlbrowndog]

This

[SuperLoudPoppingAction]

Can you even call them an activist group when they're funded by the government?
If it were the Edinburgh branch of action for trans health, then I bet the responses would be elucidating but that would be an independent, activist group.

This is more like consulting a policy think tank with extremely compromised interests.

Which leads me to think (some in the) government are pushing for this and finding the right people to AstroTurf it.

[Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons]

They really are the very best are writing really really bad law

[littlbrowndog]

That’s at the very best.

Yes. A government funded lobby group I believe

[terryleather]

@Liquorishtoffee

The groups were - well not varied or without a vested interest shall we say. I’m sure the whole thing could/should be challenged on that basis.

The usual suspects were consulted wrt the section covering transgender identity.

Interestingly, those usual suspects were pushing hard for "insulting" to be included as a term within the bill...none of the other protected characteristics were pushing for this as far as I could see...I wonder why....?

[SuperLoudPoppingAction]

It's very circular. For example, if you look at engender's annual report from about 2011 there was a round table in Perth with Scottish trans alliance (think that's the name ) and from that point it seemed like engender really started to centre trans rights rather than women's rights. So as well as a channel from Scottish Trans to ScotGov, there's a channel from Scottish Trans to Engender to ScotGov.
Not rocket science to work out which is why I think the government is encouraging it rather than seeing it as an issue.

[Winesalot]

Thanks for sharing.

[fatblackcatspaw]

Engender doesn't belive in consulting women - they said so at their AGM this year.

[theskyispinkiiihaveOVARITcodes]

Humza won't even say if there are two sexes or not.

[fatblackcatspaw]

peeps! do write to your MSPs all eight of them about this bill now ! Preferably before monday...

all the info here mailchi.mp/71898bad139f/action-last-chance-to-challenge-the-hate-crime-bill

[littlbrowndog]

Bump

[Truelymadlydeeplysomeonesmum]

@Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons

They really are the very best are writing really really bad law

😂

[ErrolTheDragon]

I don't think you had a sharetoken link for the times piece here.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/saying-that-sex-is-binary-risks-criminal-charge-group-claims-twx83l98j?shareToken=b78af3b495a47da678ba3f2fbad39196

[PotholeParadies]

“In committee, the justice secretary refused to confirm that there are only two sexes. If politicians in Holyrood are worried about being labelled as hateful, or just hurtful, for putting beyond doubt that it will not be criminal to talk about sex as physical, binary, immutable and important, it is difficult to see how ordinary citizens can be confident the law will have their back.”

Doesn't that just strike fear into your heart?

[Olderstyle1]

It's chilling. The bill itself, the process of 'consultation' through which it was written, the massive effort it took to get reasonable amendments added, the ease with which those were withdrawn.

I'm not in Scotland (though Wales is being targeted with this anti-women totalitarian venom too) so can't write to an MSP. But I will be joining in the action. Solidarity to our Scottish sisters.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

It's chilling. The bill itself, the process of 'consultation' through which it was written, the massive effort it took to get reasonable amendments added, the ease with which those were withdrawn.

I agree. It is chilling. People cheering it need to be careful what they wish for.

[334bu]

Extract from FWS newsletter containing Call for Action

^^Time is very short so please write to your MSPs today. You have one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs - they will all be voting next Wednesday so please contact ALL EIGHT of them. To find out who they are and their email addresses just enter your postcode HERE. Remember to put your address at the bottom of your email so MSPs know you are in their constituency/region.

Please also copy in the party leaders into your emails - their email addresses are:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Ask your MSPs to SUPPORT the following amendments to the Hate Crime Bill on 10th March:
Amendment 4 by Johann Lamont to add sex as characteristic to Part 1 of the Bill (aggravation of offences). Women have been calling for this since it was first proposed 18 years ago and Lord Bracadale's recent review recommended its inclusion. Women are hugely, and increasingly, impacted by hate crimes and the Bill should not pass into law without us. This does not stop any work by the working group on misogyny, and will actually provide them with useful data.

Amendment 17 by Johann Lamont to add the definition of sex, as it is given in the Equality Act 2010. This will provide important clarity whether sex is added to the Bill now or at a later date by the decision of the separate misogyny working group. It will also ensure the Part 3 requirement for data collection by the police is consistent with the Public Sector Equality Duties in the Equality Act.

Amendment 26 by Johann Lamont to remove the possibility for sex to be redefined. Sex is defined by the Equality Act and by all prominent international organisations as a biological characteristic. There is no need for an "interpretive provision" which could possibly result in conflation with gender identity. The Scottish Government has been clear that sex and gender are two separate concepts so there is no need for a clause in the Bill that will introduce confusion.

Amendments 35, 36, 39 & 40 by Johann Lamont to change the definition of sexual orientation. The Bill refers to "a different sex" which implies there are more than two sexes and should be corrected.

Amendments 37 & 41 by Johann Lamont to remove cross-dressers. It is outrageous that something that is best a fashion choice or at worst a sexual fetish is protected in law and ahead of any provision for women. There is zero evidence of any hate crimes against cross-dressers.

Amendments 6-10 and 13 by Liam Kerr to leave out Part 2 of the Bill. The amendments proposed by the Scottish Government do not go far enough to protect free speech and will not prevent a chilling effect on women's ability to discuss their rights or partake in debates on reform of the Gender Recognition Act. This is demonstrated by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice being unable to confirm there are only two sexes for fear of accusations of transphobia. When the Scottish Trans Alliance call for stickers with the definition of women to be reported as hate crimes, and, even whilst giving evidence to Committee, call a women's rights declaration based on CEDAW transphobic, it is clear that women will face malicious reporting. These concerns have been raised by a large number of different groups in the last minute consultation in February, and have not been adequately addressed. Part 2 of the Bill is not fit for purpose and should be scrapped altogether.

However, if MSPs cannot support scrapping of Part 2 it is essential to support Amendments 11B-11F by Johann Lamont, any of which will go some way to allay women's fears over protection of free speech.
Please also ask your MSPs to REJECT Amendment 24 by Humza Yousaf which proposes to downgrade the mandatory collection of data on hate crimes by sex to data that "may" be collected. There is currently no data on how many female victims of hate crimes there are across the characteristics, compared to men. Many organisations, including FWS and Engender, have stressed how important it is to have sex-disaggregated data.

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

Placemarking - I've got a stupidly big work commitment til Saturday, but I can do this in time for Monday.

This stuff really matters, the stakes seem to be getting higher.

[Iamhangingin]

Thanks, will be emailing my MSPs (again) today...... Can't wait until lockdown ends and we can have in person protests. I know emails make a difference but it's not quite the same visual impact!