JK Rowling and chamber of the new Scottish Laws

my worry is that these reports lead to NCHI and we will never be able to follow the trail of reports -> police actions.

I hope that there are statistics being kept of how many reports, in which categories (eg. which part of the law - religion, race etc as well as the "platform" eg Social media, my own living room, at a football match, etc) and which are treated as crimes and what the outcome is, and which are treated as NCHI and what the results of that are. And then which ones are dismissed for being nothing of any consequence.

That is what i want to come out of this. Accurate statistics.

Dammit, Red, any one of those points could be a thread in itself.

But this one stood out initially

1. *there remains a danger that this law will be used in ways which aren't good for public debate in the future because the power still lies with interpretation and censors. If language shifts over the next twenty years we still could see issues.

It feels like we are living through history, in the same way that people were who objected to the gender recognition act.

Pointing out the flaws, how it could be exploited, and what the unintended consequences could be, but it going through, unamended, anyway.

And we have made headway with J. K. Rowling establishing that misgendering is not a crime.

But down the line, who knows how this law will be used.

The lobbyists who pushed this through are congratulating each other and can bide their time. Let the fuss die down and get ready for the next powerplay.

This is how it has worked all the way through.

We haven't actually been able to amend any of the laws. Just forced the original interpretation to be adhered to. And even that is in the balance, with whether or not sex in the equality act means biological sex or legal sex.

It's not enough that it sounds unenforceable and that it will be up to the police to decide!

The police, too many of whom who have been identified as racist, sexist, abusing rapists. Those police?

😂

I usually respond to that argument by saying that I don't believe it is a coincidence that women's abortion rights are under threat in a country where the people who believe abortions should be legal and easily accessible don't believe we need a word for the class of people who might need one.

If you refuse to even name the people in Group A for fear of upsetting Group B, you are not the best person to advocate for the rights of Group A in the face of oppression by Group B.

It really is the sort of puissant wisdom which could only come from the larger cerebellum and more advance foresight of a Man. I am humbled by my own ignorance, and shall now retire immediately back to the kitchen.

"If you fight for women's right to have a word for themselves and their own single sex spaces and sports, you will only have yourselves to blame if you lose your right to an abortion" is quite the hot take, isn't it?

Thank you for this timely warning @FairCat . As a shrill, frenzied, silly little woman, I simply didn't realise that I was being used by the American Right. I honestly thought that I had arrived at my anti-transgender-cult position after a great deal of reading, research and critical thinking. Now, thanks to your wise words, I know better. Thank you.

She is now married to the father of her younger two children, but when she finished writing the first Harry Potter book she had just left an abusive marriage in Portugal and returned to the UK with her baby daughter, and was reliant on benefits.

And this, my friends, is a fine example of gaslighting.

To be placed alongside the old classics:

"We never said that children can be born in the wrong body!"

"There's no such thing as social contagion in rapid onset child gender dysphoria!"

"Of course male predators won't use self-ID to gain access to women's bathrooms!"

...and other examples of "entirely confected problems" that have aged like milk.

@NaiceUser she certainly used to be yes, on benefits.

I think you're missing the fact that philosophical and religious beliefs are exempt from the discrimination act which still stands. Go back and re-read Forstater judgement.

Is she a single mum? If so I never knew that. Either way I agree she's amazing

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice-on-the-recording-and-retention-of-personal-data-accessible

11. A non-crime hate incident (NCHI) means an incident or alleged incident which involves or is alleged to involve an act by a person (‘the subject’) which is perceived by a person other than the subject to be motivated - wholly or partly - by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.

12. An “incident” is defined in the National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) as “a single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual, group or community’s quality of life or causes them concern”. The NSIR covers all crime and non-crime incidents.

Updated after Harry Miller (Fair Cop) brought a Judicial Review:

27. On 20 December 2021, the Court of Appeal published its judgment in the case of Millerv The College of Policing [2021], which focused on the recording of NCHIs. The Court concluded that the recording of an NCHI interferes with the right to freedom of expression, and that additional safeguards were needed so that “the incursion into freedom of expression is no more than is strictly necessary”. It found such interference is only lawful if it can be justified as seeking to achieve a legitimate aim - namely the prevention of crime or disorder or the protection of the rights of others - and if the recording is proportionate, made in accordance with a ‘common sense approach’, and if only necessary information is recorded.

That's all for England/Wales. Scotland is apparently reviewing its own practises.

I stand up as a person with centre left views. Bring gender critical does not line me up with anti-abortionists.

Some people on the left seem very willing to try to silence GC views. Start listening, Labour leadership.

I wonder whether NHCIs are compatible with the GDPR.

@RedToothBrush - Thank you for that fantastic post. I'm a woman 35 years in Scotland who has experience of how poorly written & 'woolly' SNP law can go wrong (I was threatened by our local HT with the Named Person's Act when I asked for an assessment for my son, later fully diagnosed in another area).

I've been speaking to my two teens about this. One has moved from ' but isn't JKR just 'anti-trans?' to 'ok, she is really trying to uphold women's rights'.

My other child (15, ASD, selectively mute, who has come home from her school with trans badges, provided by school, pinned all over her a number of times) is very confused. A lot of her friends are ND. They are absolute sitting ducks & think 'JKR hates trans'.

We had dinner with visiting friends last night, one of whom, X, was female but currently uses an andrygenous name & dresses in a very masculine way & is partnered with a lad who refers to her as 'he'). A really lovely person. After, my Dd said: 'did you like X, even though they are 'trans'? I thought you didn't like trans people because you like JKR?' I said I made no assumptions about X's private life (they hadn't stated they were trans, that was Dds assumption), but I did notice how kind & open they were & how respectful to the 2 Mums present (bringing a dish, helping to clear, unlike one of the lads present who was quite sneery re 'Mums') I took the chance to tell Dd that I thought womens rights were very important too in a general 'live & let live' approach. I have to be more careful what I say to her as Dd is still at a school which accuses parents of being unsupportive of their children if they do not agree to a 'gender change on the register/ exam data' on an absolute whim. I am very grateful to JKR but I'm still cautious.

This.

You have some NCHI recorded in files you have no idea exist about you. Nobody tells you, but you're tried and convicted in your absence of non crime hate incidents. No chance to defend yourself. No chance to say " hang on, I wasn't even in the pub that night". Just a spiteful "record" if someone else's pursuit of you.

Every job you ever go for that requires them to run a check on your file is now presented with a list of spurious complaints made against you, with you being none the wiser that they even exist.

It's just a charter for bullies to destroy those they don't like.

It's literally a legal scolds bridle.

What are you talking about? It’s the most ambiguous bill ever.

Maybe people need to submit regular SAR 's until the data controller says enough is enough with this situation.

I'm not. For all his faults, I think he's someone who understands the need for free speech. I've not read what he said but I'd imagine he may be concerned about the new law being liable to suppress valid criticism of religions for one thing.

It definitely has implications for anyone working in a field that requires an enhanced DRB check. It could stop you getting a job.

This is non crime hate incidents. They.are part of hate crime laws in E&W too but guidance has been updated there to make the thresholds for recording a.NCHI higher.

You can make a SAR to check your record.

I'm sorry, on my phone so can't link!

Can anyone that understands this better than me please help me understand the implications of them being able to record and keep on file the details of anyone who has been reported for a hate crime but evidence has found no crime has been committed? Why are they keeping details of the person? What is allowing them to do this? Surely there should be no need to keep details if no crime has been committed? I find it rather worrying.

I was gobsmacked to hear Peter Tatchell condemning this law as a potential dangerous way for people to be anonymously vindictive and vexatious.

Just a snippet in BBC radio at the weekend.

So FairCat you don't think that free speech should extend to women telling the truth about our oppressor class?

This is very interesting.

You think if women call a man a man we deserve an onslaught of 'free speech' against us.

Please give some examples of what you mean here because on the one hand women need to be able to call a man a man in order to have sex based rights but on the other hand you appear to be saying that by doing so we should lose those rights anyway.

The problem with 'trans rights' is that they are being used a stick to beat women with, and your posts are demonstrating this perfectly.

You appear to be threatening women for non - compliance.

It's not irrelevant.

The Act was touted by activists as being something they could use to silence women. The Acts critics could see it being used in this way if desired. The power to interpret it as the activists wanted existed and lay with the police to determine.

1. the police have decided it's unworkable to use in this way (this doesn't mean they think the law can't be used in this way and I think that's an important distinction to note)
2. the activists certainly thought it could be used in this way and there have been numerous attempts to silence by using reports.
3. Remember a huge amount of the power of this Act was one of fear and intimidation. The activists wanted to intimidate women and women were afraid of the Act and a great many haven't felt able to voice certain things because they didn't (and still don't) feel they have the freedom to in case they get reported as they have too much to lose.
4. this has required a demonstration to illustrate the limits of law / police enforcement to free women from this intimidation tactic. Without it, it is entirely possible we would have had another situation of activist overreach and misrepresentation of the law OR the police seeing that the law was workable in practice and therefore trying to enforce it in this manner. Because the law was left for the police to determine - we had politician including the 1st minister do this explicitly. (Precisely because they didn't want to back down and take responsibility for the law being so poorly written).
5. there remains a danger that this law will be used in ways which aren't good for public debate in the future because the power still lies with interpretation and censors. If language shifts over the next twenty years we still could see issues.
6. there is still the unresolved issues of DBS clearance and hate non-crimes being officially recorded. This needs to stop and this needs to be totally transparent. Women need reassurance still that this isn't going to happen because we HAVE seen examples of this in England.
7. don't lose sight of the deliberate attempts to silence women outside the limits of law by activists pretending something is law when it's not. Imagine a woman saying something in the workplace which is perfectly legal and WORIDS but an activist tells their employer it's illegal cos it's hate crime and disciplinary action is taken even though it's not remotely illegal. Stonewall Law has demonstrated itself as a problem already and there needs to be public awareness of what Stonewall Law looks like, who is pushing it and why it's utter bollocks and should not be given the time of day.

To say that critics of the act were overreacting is hugely ignorant and neglects a huge amount of the problem of how we got to the position we are now through intimidation in social situations so people feel they can't express perfectly legal views for fear of social pariah-hood and employment blacklisting every bit as much as the intimidation from the actual law and legal over reach. The court cases we have seen to date against women have largely been about misrepresenting of the law and unlawful discrimination of women for expressing legal views. Any attempt to try and muddy the waters and create more misrepresentation puts more women at risk of this when few can afford to make a stand and challenge what has happened to them.

A huge part of this action taken by women and led by JKR has been to stop even the possibility of test cases in this area. There was a desire for a show trial to intimidate women - just one show trial would have had a silencing effect because of the cost and stress on that woman. By JKR standing up and saying no, women have the benefit of the CPS and police realising it's likely to fail and a show trial is liable to descend into an unmanageable circus in which everyone in authority ends up looking like dickheads (and undermining public trust). I stress the point about public trust for good reason. In this country policing is done by public consent and that requires public trust. If you break public trust then policing becomes altogether more difficult across the board and more crimes occur and you get more vigilante acts and deliberate acts of dissent. (Eg you wind people up to a point where you encourage targeting of certain things which represent that issue or you encourage protests against the law - basically a massive backlash). This isn't exactly the intention of the Act and this the whole point of the argument about it being unworkable in practice. Forcing the police hand and the CPS to show their position as early as possible actually heads off any possible pushing this to a more extreme situation (where you do see bad faith actors and the far right jumping in to capitalise on the vacuum it's created for their own nefarious reasons). The fact that certain groups wanted to push things in this direction is interesting - I think most are just thick as to the possibilities on this but others I suspect do have enough vision to understand these dynamics and did want that to happen for their own nefarious reasons too (if only because they get off on the drama).

JKR has actually done a lot of transpeople a massive fucking favour here. They just are too blinkered to see it.