Transgender campaigners have too much say over expanding hate crime laws, says top judge

(42 Posts)
PronounssheRa Tue 04-May-21 08:15:21

Articles in the telegraph and the mail today.

A former top judge has claimed transgender groups are having too much say over hate crime laws that could cause freedom of speech to 'suffer'.

Charles Wide, a retired Old Bailey judge, has said only an 'limited range' of views was being sought out to advise on a possible expansion of legislation.

He singled out LGBT campaigners Stonewall, saying the Commission was treating them more like 'a consultant than consultee'.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9539545/Transgender-groups-say-hate-crime-laws-former-Old-Bailey-judge-says.html

OP’s posts: |
Ereshkigalangcleg Tue 04-May-21 08:25:28

Very sensible comments. I hope people listen.

Ereshkigalangcleg Tue 04-May-21 08:27:06

Writing for the think tank Policy Exchange, he said: 'No adequate thought seems to have been given to the difficulty of reaching beyond a limited range of academics and organisations to the full variety of academic voices, organisations, commentators and members of the public who have no organisation to speak for them.'

He suggested that the 'fear of a Twitter storm or a visit by the police' because of stricter rules could soon be 'enough to silence' anyone from challenging orthodoxies.

'^It should be a matter of real concern if the Law Commission is morphing, at least in part, into an engine of social change, pursuing agendas of its own formulation, having a privileged position close to the heart of Government,' he said.^

Wrongsideofhistorymyarse Tue 04-May-21 08:28:30

Sunlight.

toffeebutterpopcorn Tue 04-May-21 08:31:38

So what are they going to do about it?

Ereshkigalangcleg Tue 04-May-21 08:32:53

More of the Judge's comments in this Telegraph article, but I can't seem to find a link in either newspaper article to the piece they are taken from:

Charles Wide, a former senior Old Bailey judge, said the plans drawn up by the Law Commission for the Government relied too much on a "narrow" range of campaign groups espousing "contentious and controversial" sociological theories.
In a pamphlet for the think tank Policy Exchange, Judge Wide said that by contrast the views of other groups and members of the public who challenged such theories - often in the face of a vitriolic backlash - had been ignored.
He singled out the apparent influence of the campaign group Stonewall on the Commission in the controversial debate over claims that gender is a social construct rather than determined by birth alone.
"[^The Commission’s consultation] draws unnecessarily and extensively on contentious and controversial sociological theories, with scant critical evaluation, seemingly unaware of how contentious these theories are. There is a lack of balance," said Judge Wide.^

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/03/transgender-campaigners-have-much-say-expanding-hate-crime-laws/

Ereshkigalangcleg Tue 04-May-21 08:36:24

The Law Commission gave a quote to the Telegraph:

A Law Commission spokesman said: “The Commission has consulted extremely widely, talking to organisations and individuals with a broad range of views. We have received over 2500 responses to the hate crime consultation demonstrating that it has been thorough, open and fair. We are carefully considering these responses which will inform the recommendations that we make in our final report later this year.

“^Hate Crime is a complex and sensitive area of the law and, while the Commission can recommend options for legal reform, it will ultimately be for Government and Parliament to decide which of these recommendations to implement.^

“^The Law Commission can only undertake projects following a request from a Government Minister. It has no powers to implement changes it recommends."^

Elsewhere in the article

"^The Commission has already backed down over one proposal that could have classed offensive dinner table comments made in private as hate crimes.^"

TheHandmadeTail Tue 04-May-21 08:39:31

Great to see a judge speaking out and naming Stonewall too.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the Commission has already backed down on one proposal for offensive family dinner table comments to be classified as a hate crime.

shock

highame Tue 04-May-21 08:40:01

The Equal Treatment Bench Book also comes up. This was brought up at Maya's hearing. It has a big sway on how judges respond to trans and yet it isn't law. It is the Stonewall Equal Treatment Bench Book

PronounssheRa Tue 04-May-21 08:41:20

According to the Daily Telegraph, the Commission has already backed down on one proposal for offensive family dinner table comments to be classified as a hate crime

Isn't that ^ the route Scotlands legislation took?

OP’s posts: |
Ereshkigalangcleg Tue 04-May-21 08:44:12

I think they did? Or did they change that bit at the last minute, but it was definitely on the table.

Ereshkigalangcleg Tue 04-May-21 08:46:57

I particularly liked this, and I haven't seen much acknowledgement of it in this way before:

"[^The Commission’s consultation] draws unnecessarily and extensively on^ *contentious and controversial sociological theories, with scant critical evaluation, seemingly unaware of how contentious these theories are.*

NecessaryScene1 Tue 04-May-21 08:47:43

I think his words are better than the headline - it's not that they have "too much" say as such. Consultation is good!

It's that it's unbalanced - "relied too much on a "narrow" range of campaign groups".

I wouldn't mind Stonewall getting X hours of input as long as other groups with different views were getting X hours of input, and they were all being taken as seriously.

PronounssheRa Tue 04-May-21 08:51:40

There was an FOI request made last year about the equal treatment bench book, specifically about which external organisation were involved in its development.
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/names_of_all_the_external_expert

The information requested is not held by the MoJ. The judiciary are not a public body for the purposes of the FOIA (they are not listed under Schedule 1 of the Act) and requests concerning judge-written and judge-owned documents, and training materials and the content/delivery of training for the judiciary are therefore outside the scope of the FOIA.

However stonewall are name checked many times in the book, so I think a safe assumption can be made.

OP’s posts: |
Ereshkigalangcleg Tue 04-May-21 08:55:37

I wouldn't mind Stonewall getting X hours of input as long as other groups with different views were getting X hours of input, and they were all being taken as seriously.

No, me neither.

PronounssheRa Tue 04-May-21 08:59:36

i wouldn't mind Stonewall getting X hours of input as long as other groups with different views were getting X hours of input, and they were all being taken as seriously.

Absolutely. Even on the subject of misogyny stonewall take centre stage, enabled by Stella Creasy. While Kiri Tunks (co founder of a woman's place) was ejected from the meeting.

mobile.twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/1313394807226667009

OP’s posts: |
NecessaryScene1 Tue 04-May-21 09:00:15

The trick is finding groups with different views. When nearly every single organisation is captured by the Woke...

But I guess they do exist. LGB Alliance, Fair Play For Women, Transgender Trend. They need to be explicitly looking for differing views like that, not just 1 org per identity group, so they get all-Woke.

Like the World Rugby thing...

Terranean Tue 04-May-21 09:00:28

Good to see more voices shining light on this mad capture!

highame Tue 04-May-21 09:00:40

Absolutely agree Necessary the full debate by all parties. I think the nobbling of the Judiciary is appalling in a democracy. There was always a point when too far was reached and I think this is it. Worthy of some serious parliamentary scrutiny

OhHolyJesus Tue 04-May-21 09:08:48

It's that it's unbalanced - "relied too much on a "narrow" range of campaign groups".

Same with the surrogacy reform consultation.

However public it may be it was written and designed with a small number of 'stakeholders', Stonewall are listed on that too.

Zeev Tue 04-May-21 09:28:18

According to the Daily Telegraph, the Commission has already backed down on one proposal for offensive family dinner table comments to be classified as a hate crime.

"That's enough Granny, we're calling the police!"

EmbarrassingAdmissions Tue 04-May-21 09:40:16

Policy Exchange isn't making it easy to find on the website and as of yet it's not on their Twitter.

PronounssheRa Tue 04-May-21 09:47:17

EmbarrassingAdmissions

Policy Exchange isn't making it easy to find on the website and as of yet it's not on their Twitter.

According to the telegraph its written in a pamphlet.

In a pamphlet for the think tank Policy Exchange, Judge Wide said that by contrast the views of other groups and members of the public who challenged such theories - often in the face of a vitriolic backlash - had been ignored.

Wonder if it will make it online or whether they will keep it old-school?

OP’s posts: |
EmbarrassingAdmissions Tue 04-May-21 10:20:53

Wonder if it will make it online or whether they will keep it old-school?

They normally have online versions as well as other distribution. Worth keeping out an eye for it turning up:

policyexchange.org.uk/publications/

twitter.com/Policy_Exchange

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 04-May-21 10:39:46

He singled out LGBT campaigners Stonewall, saying the Commission was treating them more like 'a consultant than consultee'.

This phrase really stood out to me. It beautifully sums up the issue with Stonewall and their influence with governments and big organisations.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in