Scottish Government Hate Crime bill - call for views

Oops!!! Sorry... copy and paste fail!

For Women Scotland have provided some useful information to help you write up your submission to the Justice Committee.

forwomen.scot/19/07/2020/hate-crime-bill-call-for-views/

The National Secular Society has some excellent guidance on how to submit a response on the Hate Crime Bill. They have concentrated on concerns regarding free speech with respect to religion or belief – but of course, the proposed law also seriously endangers our ability to speak up about women’s rights, oppose reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, and question the concept of gender identity.

The Hate Crime Bill and Public Order (Scotland) Bill can be found here, and information on how to submit your views to the Justice Committee is here.

Our full submission is here.

We have called for the characteristic “sex” to be added to Part 1 (aggravated offences) of the Bill and outlined how Part 2 (stirring up hatred) would seriously compromise the work of our group and everyone’s freedom to speak about women’s rights. Amendments such as removing the term “abusive” or adding freedom of expression protections for transgender identity will not fully diminish the risks, so we are calling for Part 2 to be removed from the Bill.

Please email your views to [email protected] by the 24th July 2020.

here.

Our full submission is here.

We have called for the characteristic “sex” to be added to Part 1 (aggravated offences) of the Bill and outlined how Part 2 (stirring up hatred) would seriously compromise the work of our group and everyone’s freedom to speak about women’s rights. Amendments such as removing the term “abusive” or adding freedom of expression protections for transgender identity will not fully diminish the risks, so we are calling for Part 2 to be removed from the Bill.

Please email your views to [email protected] by the 24th July 2020.

As an aside, could the allowing of criticism of homosexuality be something to do with protecting religious expression?

Yes, I think that part of the Bill was specifically made for religious groups to protect them from falling foul of the hate crime law.

I think that there does need to be hatred for the stirring up offence. The first section has an ‘and’ at the end. So the threatening or abusive behaviour or communication must either be intended by the person to stir up hatred against the protected group OR as a result of the behaviour/ communication it is likely that hatred will be stirred up against such a group. The joys of statutory interpretation......

What is ‘hatred’ for the purposes of the Bill? Both Lord Bracadale and the Law Society of Scotland seem to have side swerved this million dollar question.

Absolutely, but why bother with a definition of "hate" when there is no "objective/reasonable person" type standards of proof just anyone's feelings are enough for the crime to have been committed if they feel it has. It's terrifying.

Even more concerning, it seems it wouldn't even need to be "hatred" it only needs to be "insulting" which is just ridiculously authoritarian when you're talking about making something a criminal offence with a potential 7 year jail term!

And yes, I'd imagine the whole JKR debacle could be seen by those so inclined as an egregious example of "stirring up hatred".

Just when it looked like #nodebate was finally coming to an end it seems like the judiciary's going to step in on behalf of the overlords to make sure us wimmin stfu once and for all....

As an aside, could the allowing of criticism of homosexuality be something to do with protecting religious expression?

Yes dropping Part 2 would be better. When I look at this Bill I just think ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’. Like the disastrous Named Persons Bill, this has a human rights challenge written all over it.

In a democracy people need to know what the law is. What is ‘hatred’ for the purposes of the Bill? Both Lord Bracadale and the Law Society of Scotland seem to have side swerved this million dollar question. There is clearly no consensus in society or even amongst judges on this. The Harry the Owl - Harry Millar v College of Policing case shows the danger of relying on the police to correctly assess what constitutes a hate crime. Is the intention to criminalise statements such as those made by JK Rowling or ‘factual’ statements which some find offensive? This means that it will inevitably stifle freedom of speech as most people won’t want to take the chance that they might be committing a criminal act. It is very dangerous territory. I would suggest that everyone responding to the consultation pose specific situational questions to the Committee. I will start ... add your own:

1. Is it Parliament’s intention that statements such as those recently made by JK Rowling should fall within the remit of the stirring up hatred offence in respect of the characteristic of transgender identity?

Etc etc

Yes crossing dressing and non-binary are covered under transgender identity in the proposed Bill - I've had quite a lot to say about that in my submission!

Part 2 of the proposed Bill - the stirring up hatred section - should be done away with entirely imo.

I don’t believe that the Scottish government will drop the Bill - the fall out would be huge; what might help is extending the freedom of expression carve outs in sections 11 and 12 to cover other characteristics such as transgender identity. I cannot fathom why there is a freedom of expression provision designed to allow criticism of homosexuality but no such freedom of expression in relation to criticism of transgender identity.

I think sex is the only (UK wide) Equality Act protected characteristic omitted from the scope of the Scottish hate crime bill. This means for example that it could be a criminal offence in Scotland for a woman to eg act/express herself in an ‘abusive’ manner to a man cross-dressing as a woman (because people cross dressing are specifically included in the definition of transgender identity) but the cross dressing male would not be caught by the same bill if he engaged in abusive misogynistic speech. But despite this apparent inequity I think that there is opposition to the inclusion of sex as it could potentially have the opposite effect to the intention. It would potentially make statements about men criminal. e.g would class analysis including statements such as that men are responsible for 98% of sex crimes become potentially criminal as having the effect of stirring up hatred against a sex class. It is a minefield

I've never heard anything ever about intersex hate crime so it does look like the trans lobby are pulling a fast one there. To get those pesky lesbians in trouble if they won't sleep with them...?
Misogyny, however, does need to be included.

Bumping for this...submissions must be sent to the Justice Committee by Friday 24th July...

Bananabixfloof
They did consider including sex. There's a summary of the groups consulted with and the discussions in the Equality Impact Assessment section. Here's a small excerpt, which does at least show that these issues were raised and how they reached the bill as it currently reads. (I recommend reading the full link, this is just a small snippet):

'...A number of options were presented in the consultation as we were already aware of mixed views in this area. Four options were presented:
develop a statutory aggravation for gender hostility;
develop a standalone offence for misogynistic harassment;
take a non-legislative approach and build on Equally Safe to tackle misogyny; or
all of the identified options.

...some stakeholders (particularly Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and Zero Tolerance) did not want a statutory aggravation on gender to be included in hate crime legislation and have called for the development of a standalone offence for misogyny to tackle the unique features of violence and harassment against women. They are not convinced that the hate crime framework provides an appropriate model for dealing with gender based violence. Individuals generally expressed opposition to, or mixed views on all four options.

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 consensus on this issue, although organisations with expertise in women’s issues believed that the focus should be on women only. Some respondents also 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.

... It remained clear that there were mixed views amongst stakeholders in regards to whether a statutory aggravation should be introduced or not in hate crime legislation in relation to gender. However there was broad support for the establishment of a Working Group to review how criminal law deals more broadly with misogyny. '

www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crime-public-order-scotland-bill-equality-impact-assessment/pages/3/

Bumping fo4 myself

I will struggle with it but will try

BananaBix www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3959392-Creasy-making-police-record-misogny

OH, argh, adding this to the list of things I need to do ....

done - just written a few paragraphs so hopefully thats okay!

Not looked at the link yet, will need info to help draft a response, but is there a way we could get misogyny in as a hate crime? I know unicorns and sprinkles time. Just a thought and a place mark so I come back.

Posting here so I don't forget

Thanks, I have sent a response focusing on 1) freedom of speech and 2) the potential consequences for women when the bar is lowered for hate crime based on transgender identity, when many of the rights that transgender activists are asking for have the potential to encroach on women's rights.
The secular society information was good. The Scots govt materials are actually pretty readable too.

Thanks Nonny and Scrimpshaw for NSS info, it'll be useful to have that to help with submissions.

As a pp said, it's hard going for those of us not versed in legalese.

Thanks for posting, OP. And thanks, Nonny, that would be brilliant.

So much hinges on whether they're using 'sex' correctly or blurring it with gender, no?

Thanks for note about the Secular Society, too. Here's their page:

www.secularism.org.uk/free-expression/scottish-hate-crime-bill.html

Thanks, OP. I think this is extremely important, but it's another of those consultations that apparently takes place in secret.

I'll try and post a collection of links to analysis and criticism over the next wee while which might help us all in drafting our submissions.

Thanks! I will do my best. As a lay person I struggle with the legalese and the wide scope of the proposed changes. I'll give it the time needed, because it is important that the voices of those who advocate for women are heard.

This could easily have severe repercussions for those of us trying to speak out in Scotland. Please help us.