My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

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

41 replies

PronounssheRa · 04/05/2021 08:15

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 posts:
Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/05/2021 08:25

Very sensible comments. I hope people listen.

Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/05/2021 08:27

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.

Report
Wrongsideofhistorymyarse · 04/05/2021 08:28

Sunlight.

Report
toffeebutterpopcorn · 04/05/2021 08:31

So what are they going to do about it?

Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/05/2021 08:32

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/

Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/05/2021 08:36

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."

Report
TheHandmadeTail · 04/05/2021 08:39

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

Report
highame · 04/05/2021 08:40

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

Report
PronounssheRa · 04/05/2021 08:41

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 posts:
Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/05/2021 08:44

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

Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/05/2021 08:46

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.

Report
NecessaryScene1 · 04/05/2021 08:47

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.

Report
PronounssheRa · 04/05/2021 08:51

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 posts:
Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/05/2021 08:55

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.

Report
PronounssheRa · 04/05/2021 08:59

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 posts:
Report
NecessaryScene1 · 04/05/2021 09:00

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...

Report
Terranean · 04/05/2021 09:00

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

Report
highame · 04/05/2021 09:00

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

Report
OhHolyJesus · 04/05/2021 09:08

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.

Report
Zeev · 04/05/2021 09:28

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!"

Report
EmbarrassingAdmissions · 04/05/2021 09:40

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

Report
PronounssheRa · 04/05/2021 09:47

@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 posts:
Report
EmbarrassingAdmissions · 04/05/2021 10:20

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

Report
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 04/05/2021 10:39

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.

Report
Clymene · 04/05/2021 11:28

I still believe stonewall are operating outwith the remit of a charity in terms of political campaigning. This is what the Charity Commission have to say about political lobbying (my bold):

'There may be situations where carrying out political activity is the best way for trustees to support the charity’s purposes. A charity may choose to focus most, or all, of its resources on political activity for a period. The key issue for charity trustees is the need to ensure that this activity is not, and does not become, the reason for the charity’s existence.
• Charities can campaign for a change in the law, policy or decisions (as detailed in this guidance in section 2.4) where such change would support the charity’s purposes. Charities can also campaign to ensure that existing laws are observed.
• Legal requirement: however, a charity cannot exist for a political purpose, which is any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party, or securing or opposing a change in the law, policy or decisions either in this country or abroad.
• Legal requirement: in the political arena, a charity must stress its independence and ensure that any involvement it has with political parties is balanced. A charity must not give support or funding to a political party, nor to a candidate or politician.
• A charity may give its support to specific policies advocated by political parties if it would help achieve its charitable purposes. However, trustees must not allow the charity to be used as a vehicle for the expression of the political views of any individual trustee or staff member (in this context the Charity Commission means personal or party political views).
• Legal requirement: as with any decision they make, when considering campaigning and political activity charity trustees must carefully weigh up the possible benefits against the costs and risks in deciding whether the campaign is likely to be an effective way of furthering or supporting the charity’s purposes.
• Legal requirement: when campaigning, charity trustees must comply not only with charity law, but other civil and criminal laws that may apply. Where applicable they should also comply with the Code of the Advertising Standards Authority.
• A charity can campaign using emotive or controversial material, where this is lawful and justifiable in the context of the campaign. Such material must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base.'

Report
Please create an account

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