Consultation on amending hate crime legislation in Scotland

[ScrimshawTheSecond]

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

Reading this now. Issues relating to misogyny/sex/gender/trans etc are all mentioned.

The EHRC thinks the Scottish Government shouldn’t criminalise hate crime against women (or religion), but should against transgender and Intersex (the terminology for which they think best left to the Scottish Trans Alliance) - their response regarding misogyny:

Do you agree with Option B to develop a standalone offence for misogynistic harassment?

^No

The Commission believes that misogynistic harassment would be more effectively addressed by taking a strategic and educational approach rather than by criminalising a range of behaviours as misogynistic harassment, which is why we support the suggestion of building on the Equally Safe strategy on misogyny. However we believe that ‘misogyny’, which covers a wide range of criminal and non-criminal actions, is too broad a category to be of use.

The Commission has set itself the strategic aim 2019-22 to ensure that ‘the education system promotes good relations and respect for human rights.’ To these ends we recommend Scottish Government reviews the inclusion of misogynistic harassment in the Curriculum for Excellence.^

As they dontbeven know the correct protected characteristics bit pointless reading further

1.4). Current hate crime legislation allows any existing offence to be aggravated by prejudice in respect of one or more of the protected characteristics of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.

Hm. In 'Gender', Qu 7 - 10

'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. '

Perhaps they could have counted how many respondents 'repeatedly' said this? Rather than stating it as some kind of irritated grudge, surely this should form part of the consultation proper? Or is it one of those consultations that just disregards answers it doesn't like?

I responded to that. My view was to get rid of the idea of hate crime and a more tailored approach at sentencing.

The existing Common Law crime of breach of the peace could be used, if there was a will , for verbal attacks, whether the attacks are protected characteristics (religion, race etc) or not (e.g female, Goth, looking a bit weird)

However we believe that ‘misogyny’, which covers a wide range of criminal and non-criminal actions, is too broad a category to be of use.

Why more so than "transphobia", or indeed homophobia or racism?

I agree with you though Lass.

I agree lass, why is bullying, which is basically what a hate crime is, any worse for one person than another? Why are a transpersons feelings more important than someone with ginger hair for example, why is bullying someone for their religion worse than bullying because they are a goth. Especially as not all bullying against those with protected characteristics is considered hate crime ie misogynist bullying a female with protected category of sex.

I filled it in as well and also said that there should be no protected categories and all people should be treated equally and they should focus on the severity of the crime not the characteristics of the victim.

Yes, my responses were along those lines, too. The whole idea of 'hate crime' seems very woolly, and far too close to 'thought crime' for my liking. Especially if they just decide that so many people hate women that it's practically accepted as normal and not 'hate' crime.