Jail sentences for trans "hate crimes"

[Sicario]

In another example on institutional capture by trans lobbyists. Transgender hate offences to get harsher sentences than domestic burglaries.

The instructions, which will come into effect on January 1, follow a series of cases in which police have been accused of launching heavy-handed investigations into transgender hate crime allegations.

This is the ONLY public order offence for which offenders can be convicted for what they say, write, broadcast or post on the internet or social media. For these offences, the new rules say the least serious offences should attract a six-month jail sentence.

The Council said it wanted to reassure ‘concerned respondents the guideline is not politically influenced or motivated’.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7577477/Now-trans-gay-hate-crime-mean-SIX-months-jail-judges-ordered-crack-down.html?fbclid=IwAR0d0_Gr9Jv8iJqwA4YI2fdTdIZ9_R1Y7pG1Hemo4Bi8A_bdxCa1igMaIo0

Thought policing - pure and simple.

You will comply.

So, buckle up, GC people (I have to say that, because men are already included): stand by for the usual suspects ratcheting up their scrutiny of MN, Twitter, etc in order to target us, now they know they can weaponise the law in this way.

Well I think the police need to come out and say. If a person disputes TWAW, or says that “women don’t have penises”, will they be arrested? Yes, or no.

I don’t think any of this article is accurate - typical DM stuff which is designed to enrage. So while you might be concerned, it’s not actually the law that trans hate crimes will be more serious than burglary. The law is much more complex than this article would suggest.

There is a fundamental conflict between the College of Police’s Hate Crime Guidelines and Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR.

Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Convention, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, indeed one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the self-fulfilment of the individual.

Police chiefs and commissioners need to remind individual officers – whose job it is to protect these rights for all of us – that people have a legal right to express themselves in speech and writing, in life and online.

The report says that
“Police must record an incident as a hate crime if a victim believes they were targeted over their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.”. So, if anyone say, tweets that a certain sports person for example, is not a woman and shouldn’t compete against women. If that sports person reports to police, will the tweeter be arrested and given the sentence for “less serious offences” ie 6 months?
I think the police, or hopefully the council that have produced these guidelines, need to be asked VERY specific questions about specific scenarios.

They’d still have to argue in court, that for example, putting up a sticker that says ‘women don’t have penises’ is hateful. I’m not sure they’re going to get far with that.

As for the hate crime related to sexuality part: I could have filled a prison on my own reports alone if I’d have reported every single actually hateful homophobic comment, action or thing written towards me. I don’t think somehow that my reports of homophobia towards a lesbian would get the same response from the police as a few fact based stickers that hurt mens’ feelings though.

This is the list of new sentencing guidelines published today.
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/new-sentencing-guidelines-for-public-order-offences-published-2/

This seems to be the one mentioned in the DM article.
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/racial-hatred-offences-hatred-against-persons-on-religious-grounds-or-grounds-of-sexual-orientation/

Note that it's about race, religion and sexual orientation. I can't see any mention of transgender.

This is what it says about custodial sentences.

Has the custody threshold been passed?
A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.

The clear intention of the threshold test is to reserve prison as a punishment for the most serious offences.

There's no indication there that tweets saying women don't have penises would land you in prison.

“Police must record an incident as a hate crime if a victim believes they were targeted over their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.”

My understanding is that there would first have to be a crime. So if a bunch of thugs beat up a transgender person, if the victim believes that they were beaten up because they were transgender, that crime will be recorded as a hate crime.

If they just shout abuse at the transgender person, that would be a hate incident, but since no crime has been committed it is not a hate crime.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/hate-crime/what-are-hate-incidents-and-hate-crime/

The Council said it wanted to reassure ‘concerned respondents the guideline is not politically influenced or motivated’.

And everyone knows that's not true so why even say it?

That they even deny it shows that it IS as politically motivated as we all think it is.

One step closer.

Anyone else worried about the casual lumping of gay in there? This is where the backlash is going to catch the LGB when the chickens finally come home to roost.

Don’t forget that, although the police get to charge offenders, it is the CPS who decide which cases actually go to court. They won’t take anything to court which has no chance of success. So we just have to hope the CPS are as crap at charging hate crime as they are rape.

Weren't the CPS involved in the islan v Yardley case?
Though maybe that would have been a learning point.

Literally saying we should team up with homophobes because finding anti-trans allies is so important.

Bloody hell. No. I'm sure the vast majority of us totally reject that position. I want to team up with people who are pro women's rights, not homophobes or 'anti-trans'.

No hate crime without an actual crime in the first place.

It’s important to remember that “Insulting” was (thankfully) removed from the definition of Section 5 public order, the only offence that may have applied here.

So if the stickers are not threatening or abusive=no offence.

NB
Sec 5 is non imprisonable-even if racially aggravated or with a hate crime marker. The maximum sentence is a fine.

I'm VERY worried about the tagging on of LG (not B by the way) to trans here, but do wonder if that's just the DM and it's shitty reporting.

The 2017-18 data on hate crimes is here but I'm on my phone and can't open to paste screenshots.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2017-to-2018