SNP supporters and the hate crime bill

[Ifyourefeelingsinister]

Scottish government are passing a bill tonight that will give hate crime protection to every protected characteristic - apart from sex. Yes, women apparently don't register as far as hate crimes go.

But cross dressers will be protected so that's fine - don't insult a man in a kilt even in your own home, as you could be arrested. However, every day misogyny - that's fine.

SNP supporters - are you ok with this????

@shouldistop

It's on here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/scotsnet/4186432-An-election-thread-who-is-standing-where-and-what-are-the-polls-saying

Thank you @snowcoveredcampsies and @UnderHisAye.

I haven't been able to watch any of the debate so I can't comment on it. I will try to watch it tonight if I can stay awake after the wee one's bedtime!

Having skimmed the report from Engender I’m just finding the arguments against including sex quite weak - and where some of the arguments seem like they might carry some merit, I’m pretty sure the same arguments would apply to other characteristics that are included in the Bill. It reads a bit like they found and endpoint and then worked backwards to justify it. I could be totally wrong but that is just how it reads to me.

The summary of their argument: “We are of the view that a ‘gender aggravation’ would be a mistake. It would not fill the gaps in the law. It would undermine our shared analysis of violence against women and girls. International experience suggests that we would see very few investigations, prosecutions, and convictions because it is not a model that aligns well with public understanding of women’s inequality.”

I suppose I kind of agree that people don’t get misogyny and don’t ever recognise it as such - I just would take that point and go in the complete opposite direction, thinking that is exactly why it has to be in the Bill. Because actually calling someone a misogynistic word is the same as using a racist word and it doesn’t need to be contextualised with other things like violence and equal pay - it needs to be recognised as it’s own thing that shouldn’t be allowed either (with huge caveats around private homes, freedom of speech etc.)

@StarryEyeSurprise if you can I’d also look at the debate around the Forensic Services Bill and discussion on the feminist boards in relation to Scotland.

For women Scotland is also great in my view, though shares the views of the majority on this thread, so is not neutral. Take a look on Twitter.

Littlbrowndog that Humza comment is so inappropriate - first Nicola and now him. I don't believe they're this hard of thinking. Of course, someone can dishonestly use a legitimate cause to advance a damaging one. But where and how has it been exclusively women's rights that are used this way against other vulnerable groups? Did he acknowledge (she still hasn't) that other worthy causes are also used as a cover for misogyny and anti-woman activism?

It works both/all ways, and it doesn't delegitimise the needs of the group whose cause is being subverted OR the motives of those genuinely speaking out for that cause.

This comment reeks of the same style of dishonesty as "crying rape" and "playing the race card" to me.

@snowcoveredcampsies in terms of what is off with the bill, I thought that Adam Tomkins' contribution was very informative. (There may have been others, but I only caught it from Johann Lamont onwards.) He basically described how they have now added protections to strengthen the bill, meaning that someone being offended in itself does not now meet the legal threshold of criminality, but the problem is it is still very open to interpretation and that the police/judiciary/public would need clear guidance on how to implement it. Listening to MSPs (of all people) brand other MSPs as bigoted for speaking up for women's rights proves this point beautifully. If the police took this as the standard, it has serious implications for the discussion around single-sex spaces for instance. He also says that the addition of private spaces in the bill is at odds with the basic rights to a family life and I agree with that. I'm sure I (and everyone else alive) have said things in the heat of the moment that would be deemed offensive to some. The inclusion of individual homes in this does mean that a conversation getting heated at a dinner party might well fall under this legislation, which is surely disproportionate.

The biggest thing that's 'off' is that this has not been done properly, it's been rushed through for reasons unknown. Proper consultation and consideration will likely take months or even years, but it's important to get it right when you're criminalising people. This feels like another dangerous piece of legislation that will have many many unintended negative consequences, most of all for women.

@snowcoveredcampsies the reason people keep mentioning cross dressers is that they are given specific protection in the bill. They are not being referred to here as trans or vice versa.

@anon444877

but I have problems additionally with conversations in your own home being included in this legislation - that is an incursion of free speech so grave it's hard to comprehend.

But I thought you could be prosecuted for this if it could be shown that your intent is to cause harm.

They were very clear today that it was not about feeling offended or upset by someone's opinions but that the 'offender' for want if a better word, had to be shown without doubt to intend harm on the victim.

This seems sensible to me and even the Tory MSP felt it was robust and reasonable.

[quote Blurberoo]@snowcoveredcampsies the reason people keep mentioning cross dressers is that they are given specific protection in the bill. They are not being referred to here as trans or vice versa.[/quote]
Ah thank you. I appreciate that correction.

I suppose though they are deserving of protection and the right not to be belittled as well 🤷🏻‍♀️ lo

@anon444877

what's off surely is that sex isn't protected as a characteristic in a hate crime bill. An associated piece of legislation covering women should be auxiliary and all hang from the overarching hate crime legislation.

If a hate crime bill can't resolve the tensions between women's rights and trans rights, how is that going to work in action? It could have been done with more thought as Joanna Cherry has pointed out.

This is an astute observation: the omission of women in this bill of course excludes protections in this hierarchy of laws that extend to groups with certain characteristics.

Logically of course the HCB rests an a premise which does not quite work as claimed - in that it also protects a group who have assumed the protected characteristic but does not protect those persons who have the innate characteristic of being women.

It does not make sense to say that this could be rectified by another bill on domestic abuse or similar. By not being included as a category, women are downgraded when they have a clear need for protection.

To say that there should be another time or another bill is profoundly wrong IMO because the evidence indicates that the dangers of crime driven by misogyny are already well evidenced in Scotland and elsewhere.

[quote Y0uCann0tBeSer10us]@snowcoveredcampsies in terms of what is off with the bill, I thought that Adam Tomkins' contribution was very informative. (There may have been others, but I only caught it from Johann Lamont onwards.) He basically described how they have now added protections to strengthen the bill, meaning that someone being offended in itself does not now meet the legal threshold of criminality, but the problem is it is still very open to interpretation and that the police/judiciary/public would need clear guidance on how to implement it. Listening to MSPs (of all people) brand other MSPs as bigoted for speaking up for women's rights proves this point beautifully. If the police took this as the standard, it has serious implications for the discussion around single-sex spaces for instance. He also says that the addition of private spaces in the bill is at odds with the basic rights to a family life and I agree with that. I'm sure I (and everyone else alive) have said things in the heat of the moment that would be deemed offensive to some. The inclusion of individual homes in this does mean that a conversation getting heated at a dinner party might well fall under this legislation, which is surely disproportionate.

The biggest thing that's 'off' is that this has not been done properly, it's been rushed through for reasons unknown. Proper consultation and consideration will likely take months or even years, but it's important to get it right when you're criminalising people. This feels like another dangerous piece of legislation that will have many many unintended negative consequences, most of all for women.[/quote]
This all makes sense. Thanks.

I suppose my worry going forward is that I don't see how trans rights and women's rights can exist comfortably together.

I can envisage no solution that doesn't erode the rights of one or other.

They absolutely are deserving of protection @snowcoveredcampsies

Women aren't though. A man is if he is wearing a woman's clothes. But a woman in her own clothes isn't.

It cannot be justified.

"I suppose my worry going forward is that I don't see how trans rights and women's rights can exist comfortably together.

I can envisage no solution that doesn't erode the rights of one or other."

I agree completely with this, at least the extreme demands of the TRAs are incompatible with women's rights for the reasons we're all very familiar with. My worry is that by including trans-rights in this legislation but specifically excluding women as a protected groups, they are placing trans-women above women in law (not a lawyer, so willing to be corrected if this is unfounded). The unwillingness to even define 'man' and 'woman' was a worrying development in my eyes. I have very real concerns that this will embolden the factions wanting unfettered access to all aspects of female spaces.

It’s already led to plans to report women for “hate crimes” by TRAs.

There is no need for any of this bill.

All that was needed was to repeal the blasphemy laws. The other issues are already covered by existing law, be it statutory or common law offences.

@Y0uCann0tBeSer10us

Yes I can see that. And I'm sorry for being late to the party but I assume that then we are thinking that to protect the rights of both parties in one bill highlights that completely. If we sideline women to another 'more nuanced' piece of legislation then it becomes impossible to compare like for like.

Sex vs gender vs misogyny mobile.twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1370044497590169604

I mean it highlights that the two sets of rights cannot coexist peacefully. Sorry to be unclear.

They were very clear today that it was not about feeling offended or upset by someone's opinions but that the 'offender' for want if a better word, had to be shown without doubt to intend harm on the victim.

Does this mean it will be enforced if those who are protected put death and rape threats on Twitter because a woman is daring to question her rights or any of the supers are saying that they are entitled to choose the sex of those they sleep with?

I do hope so...

and what does 'intend to harm the victim' mean in a family context? What constitutes proof of that? So I can tell my daughter that I don't believe she's a boy if she self identifies as a boy one day, in my house and at what point am I committing a criminal offence and demonstrating 'intent to harm the victim'?

@anon444877 I actually don't think I have the wording right on that tbf.

Surely current legislation is similarly slippery.
To incite religious hatred, for example.

That was covered today as well. As with any legislation there must be efforts made to ensure that it is applied appropriately.

I don't think any prosecution team in the world would attempt to prosecute what you've described. I am clearly not a lawyer though.

Does anyone know what the prosecution standard is? Has the Crown Office opined?

Otherwise, doesn’t this bill effectively allow people’s speech to be judged (rather worryingly) with reference to the standards set by lobby groups?

That seems dangerous for free speech

Thanks for trying to explain snow. Surely the effect is going to be self monitoring along the lines seen in eastern Germany. I would hate to offend anyone but it's a concern that this legislation gives no protection to women at all.

Legal protections are things most of us happily ignore until it's too late and this looks like more rushed legislation.

It is. Rushed

Many groups spoke out against it including police Scotland

There ws no evidence presented to the committee that cross dressers are victims of hate crime

It’s nothing to do with trans identity which is also covered in the bill

There is a huge amount of evidence that women are subjected to hate crime

We saw it recently in Dundee where a woman and her daughter were killed by a man

Why was sex not considered when the bill was first proposed ?

Are women and girls not important enough ?

And the complex thing is just nonsense.

Have our elected representatives not noticed that women in the past have been victims of hate crime ?

Can anybody explain this to me please:

"His initial view was to include sex but the justice secretary said a number of women’s organisations – with “decades of experiences” – expressed concerns that a neutral sex aggravator would “do harm to women”.

I don't understand these concerns, how could adding sex as a protected characteristic be used against women?

The big elephant in the room right here the definition of women