Scottish Government's Hate Crime bill

[Dances]

stephendaisley.com/2020/04/27/law-is-a-blunt-tool-for-fighting-hatred/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Chilling and totalitarian. You would have thought they had learned something with the Named Persons bill and the Football bill

Is Scottish Gov pushing this through during COVID crisis? Anyone know of the timetable for this?

I'd spotted this too - I like the way they say they are going to add on misogyny as an offence at some unspecified time in the future so they can advertise the bill as a good thing for women.

For those who haven't read the article this bill could well criminalise women taking part in gender critical discussions.

He is trying, in essence, to make Scotland a hostile environment for hatred

Hostility is fine. Hatred is thought-crime.

There would also be a new offence of ‘possessing inflammatory material’,

Yep, that's fucking chilling.

Another article here, but I can't get past the paywall: www.thenational.scot/news/18405995.laws-hate-crime-matter-reform-blow-face/

Itsall yes good point re misogyny. So stating the dictionary definition of woman and your screwed.

Uploading real, actual abuse and humiliation of women to pornhub? Crack on fella.

This is so depressing and quite sinister.

Criminalising female humans defending or even speaking about their rights.

A male supremacist's wet dream.

The proposed legislation will also cover "insulting behaviour" which is pretty terrifying.

Another article here, but I can't get past the paywall:

Archived here:

archive.li/bJTkz

Excerpt:

Following Bracadale, the Scottish Government want to create a wave of new “stirring up hatred” offences, attaching to each and every one of the protected characteristics, including age, transgender identity and “variation in sex characteristics”.

Under these proposals, you’ll commit a crime if you behave in a “threatening, abusive or insulting manner”, or communicate “threatening, abusive or insulting material” to other people which either (a) intends to stir up hatred against a protected group or, or where the court concludes it is (b) “likely” such hatred would be stirred up, irrespective of what you intended. Yes, you’d have a defence of “reasonableness” in context – but incorporating that mild word “insulting” in a criminal statute brings me out in cold sweats.
I can see it now. I’m braced for the deluge. “Is this tweet a hate crime?” Report, report, report.

I started having a read of this a few days ago and it is pretty concerning. Thanks for starting this thread. We've barely had a breather with the GRA reforms being shelved, but make no mistake, the trans lobby are going to keep pushing in any way that they can.

This bill looks like the perfect vehicle for their plans. I think this is the next battle we need to fight.

The description is already off to a bad start.
www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill/

If passed by Parliament, the Bill would also provide for new ‘stirring up’ of hatred offences that would apply to all characteristics listed in the Bill: age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics. Currently these offences only apply to stirring up racial hatred.

Transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics? The Equality Act lists gender reassignment and sex. It's very telling that these two characteristics are the ones that are consistently misrepresented in all sorts of Bills and policies. They are at it again.

No doubt 'stirring up of hatred' will apply to women discussing and debating the impact of transgenderism on their sex based rights.

I am so, so sick of this devious lobby as they have nothing they can justify openly and honestly.

Following Bracadale, the Scottish Government want to create a wave of new “stirring up hatred” offences, attaching to each and every one of the protected characteristics, including age, transgender identity and “variation in sex characteristics”.

Two of those are not protected characteristics.

'Stirring up hatred' is unbelievably broad and, to me, more sinister than 'insulting'. Would citing (collecting?) crime statistics be 'stirring up hatred' or even describing cultural practices? This seems like it reaches far beyond exclusively impacting gender critical discussions.

This is insanity. Even worse than the GRA nonsense. What's got into the Scottish government? They have some amazing women who speak clear sense. We know who pushes this mad agenda, but why are they so influential in Scotland?

The SNP have such a totalitarian obsession to them it’s creepy. We’ve had to endure the named person scheme, the GRA and now this.

I’ve come to view the SNP with disgust.

I filled in the consultation for this in February last year, and it was an utter joke.

Some of the questions that I c&p from the online form:

"Q3. Do you think changing the language of the thresholds for the statutory aggravations from ‘evincing malice and ill will’ to ‘demonstrating hostility’ would change how the thresholds are applied?"

Malice , which is defined as "a desire to harm", has a much stronger meaning than hostility which is "unfriendliness/opposition".
"Hostility" is far, far too low a bar to set to brand something as a "hate" crime and is also much too nebulous a term to use.
Absolutely terrifying idea.

Do you think that variations of sex characteristics (intersex) should be a separate category from transgender identity in Scottish hate crime legislation?

Conflating trans identities with intersex, do some bloody homework SG!!!!

"21. Do you think that the statutory aggravations in Scottish hate crime legislation should apply where people are presumed to have one or more protected characteristic?
(Examples of protected characteristics are religion, sexual orientation, age, gender, race, disability, transgender identity and intersex)"

I understand that wrt hate crime legislation the characteristics are not necessarily the same as those listed in the EA, but SG have listed "gender", "transgender identity", and "intersex" as protected categories that they've just decided to make up themselves - and of course no "sex".

"7. Do you agree with Option A to develop a statutory aggravation for gender hostility?"

I couldn't answer this as I had no idea what they meant by gender, was it being used as a synonym for sex?

The regulatory capture in Scotland is terrifying.

Yeah terry what is gender hostility. ?

Intersex is a transgender identity. What a fucking insult.

Honest my government are the biggest idiots ever

Yeah terry what is gender hostility. ?

From what I could make out littl it would possibly be something to protect females, but who can say as gender =/= sex but I'm not sure SG agrees, so who knows what's actually being talked about.

This is the link to the analysis of the responses - I had no idea it had been published - and below that some of the analysis wrt the proposed offence of "gender hostility"

www.gov.scot/publications/consultation-amending-scottish-hate-crime-legislation-analysis-responses/pages/7/

6.3 Following consideration of all these arguments, Lord Bracadale concluded that the clearest and most effective way to address gender hostility in hate crime legislation was through the use of a statutory aggravation. He thus recommended the creation of a new statutory aggravation based on gender hostility (Recommendation 9).

6.4 However, the consultation paper set out four options for addressing this issue, and asked respondents which they preferred: (i) Option A – establish a statutory aggravation based on gender hostility (Lord Bracadale’s recommendation); (ii) Option B – develop a standalone office relating to misogynistic harassment; (iii) Option C – build on the Equally Safe strategy to tackle misogyny; and (iv) Option D – take forward all of the first three options.

Question 7: Do you agree with Option A to develop a statutory aggravation for gender hostility? [Yes / No / Unsure] Please provide details.

Question 8: Do you agree with Option B to develop a standalone offence for misogynistic harassment? [Yes / No / Unsure] If you agree, please tell us why and provide examples of the types of behaviour that could be captured by this offence.

Question 9: Do you agree with Option C of building on Equally Safe to tackle misogyny? [Yes / No / Unsure] If you agree, please tell us why.

Question 10: Do you agree with Option D of taking forward all of the identified options? [Yes / No / Unsure] If you agree, please tell us why and provide examples of the types of behaviour that could be captured by the standalone offence.

Key points

In general, organisational respondents supported a legislative response to hate crimes against women. Organisations were more likely to favour the development of a statutory aggravation for gender hostility (Option A) rather than the development of a standalone offence for misogynistic harassment (Option B). This group included public sector violence against women partnerships. However, in general, third sector organisations with specialist expertise in women’s issues strongly favoured Option B, and organisations answering ‘unsure’ in response to these questions often explicitly stated that they deferred to the views of these expert organisations. Less often, third sector women’s organisations expressed support for both a statutory aggravation and a standalone offence.

Organisational respondents also generally supported building on the Equally Safe strategy (Option C), and it was common for organisations to say that any legislative approach to tackling misogynistic harassment should be complemented by efforts to change attitudes in society towards women and girls. There was no clear consensus among organisations regarding Option D (taking forward all the identified options, A, B and C). Those in favour suggested that Options A and C could proceed initially, while further work was undertaken to develop a standalone offence (Option B). In general, those who opposed Option D did so because they preferred an approach focused either on Options A and C, or on Options B and C, but not all three options.

In contrast to organisations, individuals either expressed opposition, or indicated no clear consensus, in relation to all four options, A, B, C and D. Individuals who were opposed to all options generally reiterated their opposition to hate crime legislation.
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 a consensus on this issue, although organisations with expertise in women’s issues believed that the focus should be on women only. 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. Some respondents specifically stated that they did not support a statutory aggravation for ‘gender’ hostility.^

Interesting to compare what individual respondents had to say compared to organisations/ third sector.

Yes terry. But it’s really difficult to understand

What’s gender really got to do with it. Why don’t they use word sex when they mean sex

What’s gender really got to do with it. Why don’t they use word sex when they mean sex

That's the $64,000 question isn't it?

So many people/services/etc use "sex" and "gender" as interchangeable (I'm looking at you BBC) that I never know what group of people they're actually talking about.

What I do know is that if the term "gender" is being used that's almost certainly to allow any males who feel like it to include themselves in something to which they have no actual right.

I filled in the consultation for this in February last year

I had no idea this existed, or I certainly would have wanted to fill it in.

Another of these secret consultations, with the end goal of 'educating' those responding, is it? Fuck off, SG.

I would like to point out that me telling the govt to 'fuck off' is meant in a purely metaphorical sense and is not in anyway indicative of any feelings of resentment or hostility towards them. I wholly celebrate the Scottish government as the progressive saviours of the people they so clearly are in their merciful wisdom.

• thanks for the archive link, ItsAll.

Interesting divide between organisations, dependent on govt money and compliance, and subject to capture, compared to the responses from individuals.

The overall tone reminds me rather of the smug and righteous tones of those who used to meet in parishes to decide which cases were deserving and undeserving, and who removed children from their families and packed them off to the colonies on the grounds of the parents being morally unstable. Mr Bumble would be right at home. So would Mr Murdstone. When Dickens was taking the mickey out of this sort of person nearly 200 years ago, it's bizarre seeing it resurface again as 'progressive'.

i think snp's obsession with gender is tool for curve free speech.

If they want a law to criminalise material which stirs hatred for people by gender. Does that mean we can start reporting anyone who has or shares porn which shows abuse of women with insulting language?

I would like to point out that me telling the govt to 'fuck off' is meant in a purely metaphorical sense and is not in anyway indicative of any feelings of resentment or hostility towards them. I wholly celebrate the Scottish government as the progressive saviours of the people they so clearly are in their merciful wisdom.

I should hope so too, Scrimpshaw

I think this is actually an Independence ploy. People in England will eventually become so sick of being sued in Scottish courts for wrongthink they'll be happy to see them and their woke agitators depart.