Scottish Government's Hate Crime bill

The SNP are deeply illiberal. I'm always astonished when I see left-wing liberals in England fawning all over Sturgeon etc.

If you are not familiar with recent laws they've passed up here, Google Named Person and the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act (both have ended up being junked but not for want of SNP Ministers clinging desperately for years, munching up public resources to pursue them).

I wish I could take credit for "liberal narcissism" Thinking but it's actually a quote from Trevor Phillips.

Trevor Phillips! Everything I hear about him makes me like and respect him more. No wonder the liberal narcissists currently controlling the Labour Party want nothing to do with him.

Thank you BetsyM00, I can bookmark it now.

terryleather

The quote comes from a Times article, archived here: archive.vn/ADzSK

I thought they'd kicked the GRA Bill into the long grass and now this. We can't even protest like we did outside Holyrood before, this is insane. Nicola Sturgeon isn't stupid, how can she not see how dangerous this is for women? She has a dream of an Independent Scotland progressive paradise but this is anything but.

Why are one tiny group of congenital malformations (‘intersex’) but not any other eg facial deformities, birth marks, extra digits?

I wish I could take credit for "liberal narcissism" Thinking but it's actually a quote from Trevor Phillips.

When I read that piece quoted here I had an "aha!" moment too - luxury beliefs and liberal narcissism are the scourge of our times for sure.

I wish I could remember what the original article was - it obvs had something to do with Suzanne Moore - but I can't!

As well as being victims of regulatory capture, the SG is awash with liberal narcissism - it's all about them and how morally superior, inclusive and progressive they look

Thanks for the expression 'liberal narcissism', Terry. It's what 'woke' really means, isn't it? Very useful to have a clear definition. It's hard to argue against wokeness without sounding anti-progress. But when you nail it as narcissism, you're dragging it out into the light.

As well as being victims of regulatory capture, the SG is awash with liberal narcissism - it's all about them and how morally superior, inclusive and progressive they look campaigning to change laws and conventions and fuck what ordinary folk at a grass roots level think or want.

This is underlined by the way these supposed "public" consultations are conducted - no one seems to know they are happening and they're as far from accessible and inclusive to the man/woman in the street as it's possible to be.

"I think this is actually an Independence ploy"

i think opposite.
there's little possibility of sottish independence.
then there need some tool for control society, tone, media, political
environment.

that 'hate crime law' will be apply differently case by case.

porno?: that's not hate crime, free speech.
'i think 'there's man and woman': that's hate crime.

I think this is actually an Independence ploy. People in England will eventually become so sick of being sued in Scottish courts for wrongthink they'll be happy to see them and their woke agitators depart.

I would like to point out that me telling the govt to 'fuck off' is meant in a purely metaphorical sense and is not in anyway indicative of any feelings of resentment or hostility towards them. I wholly celebrate the Scottish government as the progressive saviours of the people they so clearly are in their merciful wisdom.

I should hope so too, Scrimpshaw

If they want a law to criminalise material which stirs hatred for people by gender. Does that mean we can start reporting anyone who has or shares porn which shows abuse of women with insulting language?

i think snp's obsession with gender is tool for curve free speech.

Interesting divide between organisations, dependent on govt money and compliance, and subject to capture, compared to the responses from individuals.

The overall tone reminds me rather of the smug and righteous tones of those who used to meet in parishes to decide which cases were deserving and undeserving, and who removed children from their families and packed them off to the colonies on the grounds of the parents being morally unstable. Mr Bumble would be right at home. So would Mr Murdstone. When Dickens was taking the mickey out of this sort of person nearly 200 years ago, it's bizarre seeing it resurface again as 'progressive'.

• thanks for the archive link, ItsAll.

I would like to point out that me telling the govt to 'fuck off' is meant in a purely metaphorical sense and is not in anyway indicative of any feelings of resentment or hostility towards them. I wholly celebrate the Scottish government as the progressive saviours of the people they so clearly are in their merciful wisdom.

I filled in the consultation for this in February last year

I had no idea this existed, or I certainly would have wanted to fill it in.

Another of these secret consultations, with the end goal of 'educating' those responding, is it? Fuck off, SG.

What’s gender really got to do with it. Why don’t they use word sex when they mean sex

That's the $64,000 question isn't it?

So many people/services/etc use "sex" and "gender" as interchangeable (I'm looking at you BBC) that I never know what group of people they're actually talking about.

What I do know is that if the term "gender" is being used that's almost certainly to allow any males who feel like it to include themselves in something to which they have no actual right.

Yes terry. But it’s really difficult to understand

What’s gender really got to do with it. Why don’t they use word sex when they mean sex

Yeah terry what is gender hostility. ?

From what I could make out littl it would possibly be something to protect females, but who can say as gender =/= sex but I'm not sure SG agrees, so who knows what's actually being talked about.

This is the link to the analysis of the responses - I had no idea it had been published - and below that some of the analysis wrt the proposed offence of "gender hostility"

www.gov.scot/publications/consultation-amending-scottish-hate-crime-legislation-analysis-responses/pages/7/

6.3 Following consideration of all these arguments, Lord Bracadale concluded that the clearest and most effective way to address gender hostility in hate crime legislation was through the use of a statutory aggravation. He thus recommended the creation of a new statutory aggravation based on gender hostility (Recommendation 9).

6.4 However, the consultation paper set out four options for addressing this issue, and asked respondents which they preferred: (i) Option A – establish a statutory aggravation based on gender hostility (Lord Bracadale’s recommendation); (ii) Option B – develop a standalone office relating to misogynistic harassment; (iii) Option C – build on the Equally Safe strategy to tackle misogyny; and (iv) Option D – take forward all of the first three options.

Question 7: Do you agree with Option A to develop a statutory aggravation for gender hostility? [Yes / No / Unsure] Please provide details.

Question 8: Do you agree with Option B to develop a standalone offence for misogynistic harassment? [Yes / No / Unsure] If you agree, please tell us why and provide examples of the types of behaviour that could be captured by this offence.

Question 9: Do you agree with Option C of building on Equally Safe to tackle misogyny? [Yes / No / Unsure] If you agree, please tell us why.

Question 10: Do you agree with Option D of taking forward all of the identified options? [Yes / No / Unsure] If you agree, please tell us why and provide examples of the types of behaviour that could be captured by the standalone offence.

Key points

In general, organisational respondents supported a legislative response to hate crimes against women. Organisations were more likely to favour the development of a statutory aggravation for gender hostility (Option A) rather than the development of a standalone offence for misogynistic harassment (Option B). This group included public sector violence against women partnerships. However, in general, third sector organisations with specialist expertise in women’s issues strongly favoured Option B, and organisations answering ‘unsure’ in response to these questions often explicitly stated that they deferred to the views of these expert organisations. Less often, third sector women’s organisations expressed support for both a statutory aggravation and a standalone offence.

Organisational respondents also generally supported building on the Equally Safe strategy (Option C), and it was common for organisations to say that any legislative approach to tackling misogynistic harassment should be complemented by efforts to change attitudes in society towards women and girls. There was no clear consensus among organisations regarding Option D (taking forward all the identified options, A, B and C). Those in favour suggested that Options A and C could proceed initially, while further work was undertaken to develop a standalone offence (Option B). In general, those who opposed Option D did so because they preferred an approach focused either on Options A and C, or on Options B and C, but not all three options.

In contrast to organisations, individuals either expressed opposition, or indicated no clear consensus, in relation to all four options, A, B, C and D. Individuals who were opposed to all options generally reiterated their opposition to hate crime legislation.
Issues raised by respondents across all four questions related to whether any legislative response to tackle hate crimes against women should provide protection to women only, or to both women and men. There was not a consensus on this issue, although organisations with expertise in women’s issues believed that the focus should be on women only. Respondents also repeatedly said that the protected characteristic specified in the Equality Act 2010 was ‘sex’, not ‘gender’ and that this should be reflected in hate crime laws. Some respondents specifically stated that they did not support a statutory aggravation for ‘gender’ hostility.^

Interesting to compare what individual respondents had to say compared to organisations/ third sector.

Intersex is a transgender identity. What a fucking insult.

Honest my government are the biggest idiots ever

Yeah terry what is gender hostility. ?

I filled in the consultation for this in February last year, and it was an utter joke.

Some of the questions that I c&p from the online form:

"Q3. Do you think changing the language of the thresholds for the statutory aggravations from ‘evincing malice and ill will’ to ‘demonstrating hostility’ would change how the thresholds are applied?"

Malice , which is defined as "a desire to harm", has a much stronger meaning than hostility which is "unfriendliness/opposition".
"Hostility" is far, far too low a bar to set to brand something as a "hate" crime and is also much too nebulous a term to use.
Absolutely terrifying idea.

Do you think that variations of sex characteristics (intersex) should be a separate category from transgender identity in Scottish hate crime legislation?

Conflating trans identities with intersex, do some bloody homework SG!!!!

"21. Do you think that the statutory aggravations in Scottish hate crime legislation should apply where people are presumed to have one or more protected characteristic?
(Examples of protected characteristics are religion, sexual orientation, age, gender, race, disability, transgender identity and intersex)"

I understand that wrt hate crime legislation the characteristics are not necessarily the same as those listed in the EA, but SG have listed "gender", "transgender identity", and "intersex" as protected categories that they've just decided to make up themselves - and of course no "sex".

"7. Do you agree with Option A to develop a statutory aggravation for gender hostility?"

I couldn't answer this as I had no idea what they meant by gender, was it being used as a synonym for sex?

The regulatory capture in Scotland is terrifying.