New Year New Judicial Review? CPS Hate Crime Guidance for schools

[Spero]

If you haven't seen this, I think you should.

www.faircop.org.uk/post/police-must-not-patrol-trans-discussion-in-schools

In brief, the CPS have published guidance about hate crimes in school - but won't let parents see the guidance. Its for teachers only. I've emailed for a copy and so have others. I have a child in the school system. I want to know how serious the risk is that she will be arrested and charged for discussing biology.

I think anyone else who is also worried should email the CPS and ask to see the guidance.

Teachers and schools can download the pack from this website. This is a resource for schools, so a password is required to download the pack. This can be requested by emailing [email protected].

Presumably this would mean ANY attempt by girls to enforce their boundaries would be considered a hate crime? Not wanting to get changed in front of males in a communal changing area: hate crime! Not wanting to kiss someone who identifies as trans (of either sex): hate crime! Not wanting to share sleeping arrangements with males: hate crime! Not wanting to have sex....

OK. finished. A lot of it is video, powerpoint and worksheets which I have skipped.

Its dreadful. It sets up LGBT+ rights as more important than any other, which is in itself unlawful as discriminates against other protected characteristics. As a disabled person, bullied seriously at school this has a particular poignancy for me.

I hope this also goes to court. This ends now. We simply cannot tolerate this a moment longer for our own and our children's safety.

Summary of my concerns

• Does not define terms
• Clearly biased in terms of external information sources; Stonewall etc
• ‘Hate’ is defined by subjective perception of ‘victim’ or bystander
• Mis states Equality Act protected characteristic
• Provides alarmingly trivial list of behaviours that would be defined as ‘hate’
• Makes it clear that a hierarchy of rights is established with LGBT rights at the top. This is simply unlawful.
• Over arching and sinister involvement of the CPS and clear pathways set out with regard to how complaints can be escalated and the grim consequences of hate crimes.
• Not clear what teacher is supposed to do with hate incidents. If not referred to police assume school has duty to record. To whom will they disclose this information?
• This guidance is not being sent to parents and again, as is common with all trans-inclusive documents I see no reference to parental responsibility or Gillick competence. As this pack is aimed at 11 year olds that is a serious omission.

Rejecting someone or not wanting to work with them because of their sexual orientation, trans identity or perceived trans identity

This is utterly insane. How on earth can this be policed in school? When kids fall out, will one accuse another of 'hate crime?' What baffling idiocy is this?

^Hate’ is defined by subjective perception of ‘victim’ or bystanderMis states Equality Act protected characteristic Provides alarmingly trivial list of behaviours that would be defined as ‘hate’
-Makes it clear that a hierarchy of rights is established with LGBT rights at the top. This is simply unlawful-Over arching and sinister involvement of the CPS and clear pathways set out with regard to how complaints can be escalated and the grim consequences of hate crimes^

Spero, you have done an excellent job on analysing this. It is utterly insane, sinister and surely illegal? WTAF is going on in schools?

Clymene loved ones with ASD in my family too, I so know what you mean and I agree. The exclusions are heart breaking, but forcing it helps no one. What I'd love is more help to address the reasons and the needs, the right social skill programmes, staff supporting play, providing structured activities everyone can join in with, things that don't try and short cut to a false solution but help where the real needs are. A fellow parent with a child with ASD bought someone in to do a structured birthday party recently, all parallel structured activities. The kids had a great time, both neurotypical and the several kids with ASD, no meltdowns, no one getting too anxious to stay. It was so nice to see what can be done if it's done right.

Spero that's terrifying.

This really does need taking into a court room ASAP.

And just to check - CPS want to schools to escalate complaints to them, presumably to take action, against 11 year olds?

What consequences?
What record does this create for a child?

Aesopfable ‘hate crimes’ do not accord with the equality act - sex is not included.

This only means that misogyny cannot be prosecuted as hate crime.

However, Datun is most likely here referring to the fact that girls have protected rights under the EqA, which includes the right for people with a shared protected characteristic to be in a group together (this is not an unlimited right, as other protected groups also have rights and any conflict would need to be carefully navigated).

But by presenting these scenarios in this way, the CPS may be positioning one protected group as having rights that supersede the rights of all other protected groups under any and all circumstances. Fortunately, that isn't how the EqA was designed and that isn't how it works.

@Spero

Many thanks!

Fuck - the criminalisation of girls boundaries.

I don’t have a copy. Is anyone able to send the report/ their concerns to the DM, Telegraph, James Kirkup, Janice Turner, Julie Bindel, FairCop, Fair Play for Women et al?

Conduct a thought experiment;
what would society look like for women, if the most extreme MRA's were put in charge?

Would women be permitted to name male pattern violence?
Would women be permitted to say no to men?
Would women be permitted to self organize?
Would women be permitted to name men at all? I'm thinking of how in some religions, man as the lesser being is not permitted to speak the name of God.

Who would vote for this outcome? Who benefits from it?

Yes, good point. The society run by the most extreme MRAs starts to look rather familiar.

Many thanks Spero this is so important. Even if the guidelines had turned out to be uncontentious - and they sound anything but - the secrecy is really disturbing and frankly scares the hell out of me.

Ah I note one of the Hate Crime Scenarios is Toilet choice. The points for the teachers to note after watching the video clips (which I haven't seen) are very confused but left me feeling like if I saw a boy in the girl's toilets, I should be worried because it would be transphobic of me to complain and that might be a hate crime.

This is the worksheet. Note, I have not watched the video but I think we can make some assumptions based on the questions and the image at the top of the page which shows someone who looks male but wearing make up and with long hair.

Ladies’ toilets
Can you say why the person went into the ladies’ toilets and not the mens’ toilets? How did the women behave towards her?
How did that make her feel?

I think we can assume that the person was subject to stares and whispers - not a crime but not kind

Gents’ toilets
In the gents’ toilets what happened when she went into the cubicle?
Did the man who banged on the door commit any crime? If so, what could he be charged with? See the students’ information sheet 4 to help you.

In this one, the person is called 'she'. Now the person is subject to threat of physical violence which can be reported as a hate crime. But the only reason the poor person is being subject to the threat is because the women were unkind.

Accessible toilets
What made her finally consider using the accessible toilets? Was this appropriate for her?

I assume here we are (rightly) supposed to say that it's inappropriate to use the accessible toilets when you don't need them

It has been repeatedly documented that transwomen get more side eye from women in the women's loo than they do from men in the men's, though they do get the occasional side eye in the men's.
The myth of male bodied people not being safe in the men's toilets has been repeatedly debunked but it is still used in marketing mixed sex facilities.

I'm just carrying with the toilet thing because I'm not a safeguarding expert and this is the bit which just clearly tramples over girls' and women's boundaries about same sex spaces.

The guide returns to this scenario in which children have to watch the video again and pretend they are police officers.

This is how the guidance after the plenary session starts:

The students should find that the women and men can be charged with public order offences, in this case aggravated by hostility based on gender identity.

And the next bit:
Your initial investigation identifies a distressed young trans woman who, on questioning, tells you that she has been made to feel threatened and unwanted and obliged to use the accessible toilet.

Unwanted is an interesting word isn't it? So is being unwanted (by the women one presumes) as much as a crime as feeling threatened? Looks like it!

I expect side eye = unwanted = hate crime.

Did the man who banged on the door commit any crime? If so, what could he be charged with? See the students’ information sheet 4 to help you.

And later on there is a worksheet which says that the police are called due to this. "While they are there they learn about the earlier incident" ie the MTF trans person being made uncomfortable in the ladies by disobedient women. So that too is a matter for the police and potentially the CPS.

expect side eye = unwanted = hate crime.

You expect correctly.

Dear god. I stopped reading at that point. It all feels a bit hitler youth

It is clear authoritarianism that privileges one class over all others and teaches submission is mandated by law.

Wow. I take it there is zero recognition of women and girls right to boundaries, privacy and dignity? That single sex spaces are not mentioned?

Unwanted ? Yes this person’s feelings are correct. They are unwanted in the women’s toilets.

How is this a crime ?

Do we need another crowdfunder?

Binterest we need someone prepared to put forward a case first, I think it has to be done by an affected individual?

Can I just reassure everyone that it is not illegal for the women to challenge a male who identifies as trans for using the ladies.

The only person who could possibly have a right to access a female only space is another legal female.

The only way to be a legal female is to be born female or born male and then apply for and receive a GRC. As this isn't mentioned anywhere, of course, this must be seen as a scenario based on self-id.

What the CPS of all people are doing here is

mistaking policy for the law

Far too many organisations have been introduced to Stonewall law, which majorly misrepresents the Equality Act, and now they operate on a self-id basis for access to female-only provisions. Stonewall has thereby managed to influence, cause and shape policy. Which should normally be but isn't always based on the law.

However, women and girls have still existing rights as females. These rights are ignored in this guidance.