Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Scottish Government's Hate Crime bill

136 replies

Dances · 28/04/2020 08:25

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?

OP posts:
NonnyMouse1337 · 20/07/2020 08:34

Does anyone have time over the next day or so to skim through some of the documents below, especially the impact assessments, and see if there's anything of concern or worth highlighting please? It would be really helpful.

Policy Memorandum (78 PAGES) - Why the Bill is being proposed
beta.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/policy-memorandum-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill.pdf

Explanatory Notes (18 PAGES) - Explanation of the Bill
beta.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/explanatory-notes-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill.pdf

There are a number of Impact Assessments available.
www.gov.scot/policies/crime-prevention-and-reduction/hate-crime/

The ones that seem the most interesting are:

Child rights and wellbeing impact assessment (CRWIA)
www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crime-public-order-scotland-bill-child-rights-wellbeing-impact-assessment/

Equality Impact assessment (EQIA)
www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crime-public-order-scotland-bill-equality-impact-assessment/

Fairer Scotland duty impact assessment (FSD)
www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crime-public-order-scotland-bill-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessment/

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 20/07/2020 13:26

Attempting to tackle the first impact assessment listed - child rights.

terryleather · 20/07/2020 13:45

I've had a look at the Equality Impact Assessment...as a layman I have no idea really what I'm looking for but this did jump out at me:

There was some concern among stakeholders that the extension of stirring up offences may not go far enough in providing the level of protection required to the LGBTI community. The basis of this was that certain behaviours that can often lead to violence are not always threatening or abusive and therefore the offence should apply where it is ‘insulting’ as well as ‘threatening’ and ‘abusive’.

Respondents generally also supported (55% of organisations, 52% of individuals) the retention of the requirement for courts to state the extent to which the sentence imposed is different from what would have been imposed in the absence of the aggravation (including for transgender identity and intersex/VSC). Reasons included increased confidence in a more transparent justice system and sending a clear message to perpetrators about the unacceptability of this form of criminality.
Contributions from LGBT organisations in response to the consultation included:
• Equality Network/Scottish Trans Alliance
• LGBT Health and Wellbeing
• LGBT Youth Scotland
• Scottish Bi+ Network
• Stonewall Scotland
• dsdfamilies

Additional Stakeholder Engagement
Following the publication of Lord Bracadale’s review, a number of stakeholder engagement events were held in summer 2018 to help inform the development of the Scottish Government public consultation. This included an event with LGBTI organisations.
The following organisations attended:
• Equality Network
• LGBT Youth Scotland
• Stonewall Scotland

One of the principal concerns raised by the attendees was whether introducing stirring up offences would go far enough in protecting the transgender community from harassment.

In August 2019 a further meeting was held to discuss proposals. Attendees included:
• Equality Network;
• Scottish Trans Alliance;
• Stonewall Scotland;
• LGBT Health & Wellbeing
The group agreed that the legislation should be as broad as possible in order to future-proof the legislation. Definitions used should reflect the fact that hate crime is committed based on the perpetrator’s ‘perception’. However, it is also important to ensure that communities recognise themselves as protected within the legislation, including those who use older/ outdated terminology.

So the usual suspects look to have lobbied heavily for the bar to be set as low as possible wrt what could be considered to be "stirring up" so that it would include "insulting".

I also found this discussing the idea of there possibly being a "standalone offence on misogyny" :

In response to a recommendation made by the First Minister’s National Advisory Council on Women and Girls to ‘criminalise serious misogynistic harassment, filling gaps in existing laws’ the Scottish Government made a commitment, in principle, to developing a standalone offence on misogyny. In order to progress this commitment, a Working Group is being established to consider how the criminal law deals with misogynistic harassment, including whether there are gaps in legislation that could be filled with a specific offence on misogynistic harassment.

As well as considering the development of a standalone offence, the Working Group will consider whether a statutory aggravation and/or a stirring up hatred offence on the grounds of sex should be included within the existing hate crime legislative framework. To this end, and to ensure the Working Group has the space and flexibility required to develop the distinct approach required to tackle misogyny in Scotland, an enabling power is included within the Bill. This will enable sex to be included within the hate crime framework at a later date, for example if that is recommended by the Working Group.

Although Lord Bracadale used the term ‘gender’, the term ‘sex’ is being used within the Bill, as opposed to gender, in order to remain consistent with the Equality Act 2010.

The use of the enabling power to include a characteristic on the grounds of sex within the hate crime legislative framework provides protection on an inclusive basis given that the application of hate crime legislation is based on the motivations of the perpetrator.
For example, when considering the protection that is provided to persons who are victims of an offence motivated by malice or ill will towards women, the sex aggravation could equally be applied to provide protection towards a person who was born female, a transwomen (regardless of whether the transwoman has or does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate), or a man or a non-binary person (if that person were mistaken to be a woman). This is because, in this case, the motivation of the perpetrator was based on malice and ill will towards women and the person had been victimised because they were perceived to be a woman, whether they actually were or not. The statutory aggravation on sex could also be applied if a person was targeted because they have an association with women. For example, an offence that was motivated by malice or ill towards a man because he was fundraising for a women’s cause.

Well at least they'll be using the term "sex" and not "gender" within the proposed legislation...pity it looks like it will be meaningless though...

NonnyMouse1337 · 20/07/2020 14:48

Fantastic work, terryleather. Thank you so much! All the usual suspects....

2Rebecca · 20/07/2020 15:49

I've just sent off my response

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 20/07/2020 18:49

Okay, here's what I found - overall the picture I got is that the Hate Crimes bill is likely to impact more on young people, as most perpetrators of 'hate crimes' are under 25.

Police Scotland don't support adding an 'age' category as they feel it will disproportionately impact on children/young people, but children/young people do support adding 'age', due to feeling that they are discriminated against because of their age.

  • I am not sure what the working definition of 'discrimination' is - presumably something to do with not being allowed to do whatever they want because they're under the age of majority?!

LGBT Youth Scotland were the only body consulted on in every consultation; they certainly have reach.

Notes follow, my comments bolded:

‘[The Bill] makes it clear to victims, perpetrators, and communities and to wider society that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated more seriously and will not be tolerated by society.’
‘A cohesive society is one with a common vision’ – who decides on this common vision?

SG wishes to ‘ensure there is not a perceived (or real) hierarchy between the characteristics.’

‘while the focus of the legislation is on addressing hate crime in today’s society, such as racial and religious hatred, provision is also included to enable the characteristic of sex to be added into the new legislative framework’

‘transgender identity (which includes ‘intersexuality’).’ - this is explained later, terminology to be updated to remove the term ‘intersexuality’ and add a separate category for variations in sex characteristics.

‘The Bill includes a new statutory aggravation for crimes motivated by prejudice based on age.’

‘the Bill also introduces new stirring up hatred offences’

‘evidence on the demographics of convicted perpetrators suggests that they are likely to be young (25 years of age and under).’

‘There is also evidence to suggest that young people under the age of 25 are more likely to be perpetrators of hate crime than any other age group.’

Relevant sections of UNCRC

‘Article 12 (Respect for the views of the child): Every child has a right to express their views and have them given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity ...

Article 14 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion): Every child has the right to think and believe what they like, and to practise their religion or beliefs publically, as long as they do not harm others in doing so. Governments must respect the right of parents to offer guidance to children where they are deciding what to think and believe.

  1. If a negative impact is assessed for any area of rights or any group of children and young people, what options have you considered to modify the proposal, or mitigate the impact?

There is evidence to suggest that young people under 25 are more likely to be offenders of hate crime than any other age group. Consequently this may result in some children and young people having a disproportionate level of involvement from public bodies including the police and the judiciary. seems potentially this will criminalise a lot of young people for questionable reasons and unclear societal benefit

Although we are unable to limit the impact of the Bill on children and young people who commit hate crime offences we can mitigate the impact by ensuring children and young people understand the consequences of such behaviour in order to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

‘the Bill also includes freedom of expression provisions in relation to the stirring up of hatred offences based on religion and sexual orientation. This is intended to make it clear that these offences do not interfere unduly with people’s right to, among other things, debate and discuss religion or religious beliefs and practices, to advocate or promote religious beliefs or practices or a change of religion, to urge people to cease practising their religion, or to express their views about whether it is right for people to engage in particular sexual practices.’

On bullying:

‘Girls were more likely than boys to be picked on by being left out of games and chats (30% compared with 24%) whilst boys were more likely than girls to get picked on by shoving, pushing or fighting (17% compared with 24%).’

Mental health – connected often to young carers – I suppose this section was looking for evidence that ‘hate crimes’ impact on mental health, but as far as I could see it ddin’t really go anywhere, perhaps because kids are more impacted by things like poverty and life circumstances?

'Respondents suggested that young people regularly feel discriminated against because of their age.'

'Police Scotland did not support adding the characteristic of age to hate crime legislation because they believe the majority of crimes are in relation to age are more likely to be motivated by vulnerability, or a perceived vulnerability of older people. They also asked ‘for further detailed consideration of how a new statutory aggravation on age hostility might be introduced without generating unintended negative consequences on children.’

'younger people, in particular, welcomed the addition of a statutory aggravation for age.'

‘They were also supportive of developing a statutory aggravation for gender hostility. There was a strong feeling that any new legislation should be inclusive for both men and women and therefore there should not be a standalone offence for misogyny.’

‘They were supportive of the extension of the stirring up of hatred offences for all protected characteristics and agreed that the terms used in Scottish hate crime legislation in relation to transgender identity and intersex should be updated.’

  1. Have you consulted with relevant stakeholders?
The following youth organisations responded to the consultation paper for Lord Bracadale’s, Independent Review of Hate Crime Legislation in Scotland[31]: • Commissioner for Children and Young People; • Equalities and Human Rights committee of the Scottish Parliament (EHRiC) and the Equalities and Human Rights committee of the Scottish Youth Parliament (EQU); • LGBT Youth; • Young Scot; • Youth Parliament • YouthLink Scotland The following youth organisations responded to the consultation paper for, One Scotland: Hate Has No Home Here[32]: • Children in Scotland; • LGBT Youth Scotland; • Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration; • Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights); • YouthLink Scotland; • Youth Community Support Agency YCSA The following youth organisations attended the 2018 summer engagement events: • LGBT Youth Scotland • YouthLink • Children's Parliament The following youth organisations attended the YouthLink Scotland consultation events: • Edinburgh Interfaith Association • LGBT Youth Scotland • Hope for Autism • Youth Community Support Agency (YCSA) www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3377446-Tell-me-about-LGBT-Youth-Scotland

The Bill seeks to consolidate, modernise and extend existing hate crime legislation by:
• adding age as a new characteristic;
• the conferral of an enabling power to allow additional characteristics to be added by regulations in the future, which could be used to add a gender/sex characteristic;
• updating the definition of transgender identity, including removing the term ‘intersexuality’ and creating a separate category for variations in sex characteristics;
• providing new stirring up hatred offences that will apply to all characteristics in the Bill (currently these offences only relate to race);

NonnyMouse1337 · 20/07/2020 19:51

That's brilliant, ScrimpshawTheSecond. Really appreciate it.

Very interesting that young people are the most likely demographic to engage in 'hate crime' and if that definition expands to the subjective notions being proposed, then young people are almost certainly to be disproportionately affected by the new Hate Crime Bill. And having such a conviction on their record can impact their future for a long time to come, especially in terms of job prospects.

I wonder how this will be handled given that the Scottish Sentencing Council published research that shows the brain does not fully mature until around 25 years of age.

In February 2020, research undertaken by the University of Edinburgh on behalf of the Scottish Sentencing Council provided compelling evidence that the brain does not fully mature until at least the age of 25.

www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/news-and-media/news/research-indicates-the-brain-does-not-fully-mature-until-you-are-at-least-25/

The comprehensive review found that the areas of the brain governing emotion develop sooner than those which assist with cognitive abilities and self-control. This imbalance explains the increased risk-taking and emotionally driven behaviour commonly attributed to young people.
Furthermore, brain development may be delayed or hindered by other factors such as mental disorders and distress, adverse childhood experiences, traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), and alcohol and substance use. These contextual risks therefore introduce significant vulnerability in young people. The very nature of brain development during the transition to adulthood is often at the root of risk-taking behaviour which can cause further damage to the already vulnerable younger brain.
All the available evidence proves the brains of young people are less well-equipped to enable good life choices and exert self-control, and that they are disproportionately vulnerable to the factors which can compound these problems.

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 20/07/2020 20:09

Yes, I found it quite striking that the Police seem to be firmly saying this is a bad idea - it will criminalise young people.

Young people being consulted is all very well, but there are good reasons that children and young people don't have the ability to vote/form policy/make big decisions. Here, they are apparently concerned that they are subject to discrimination due to their age (I honestly can't say that I've ever heard of someone discriminating against a child due to their age. Perhaps, as Police Scotland suggested, some age groups are targeted for crime due to their perceived vulnerability. That's not the same as 'hating' them).

Honestly, the whole thing seems like misguided legislation with the potential for lots of unintended and shitty consequences.

KayakingOnDown · 21/07/2020 09:29

A cohesive society is one with a common vision

I find this statement chilling.

terryleather · 21/07/2020 09:31

@KayakingOnDown

A cohesive society is one with a common vision

I find this statement chilling.

It really is.
OhHolyJesus · 21/07/2020 16:19

Am I missing something here? Loads of youth groups, obviously no women's groups, but why no Age UK groups or elderly people being represented. Can one not be discriminated against and suffer a hate crime as an old person?

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 21/07/2020 16:30

I presume young people's groups were consulted as this was the Impact Assessment on children/young people.

A cohesive society is one with a common vision

Yes, this looks at first glance quite innocuous, but when I think about it, it's either so vague to be utterly meaningless (our common vision is of a 'good' society, say) or it's bloody weird and yes, chilling. Of course we don't all share a common vision, if we did there would be no need for different political parties!

terryleather · 21/07/2020 16:38

@OhHolyJesus

Am I missing something here? Loads of youth groups, obviously no women's groups, but why no Age UK groups or elderly people being represented. Can one not be discriminated against and suffer a hate crime as an old person?
Looking at the Equality Impact Assessment they did consult with groups representing older people such as Age Scotland and Action on Elder Abuse.

They also say they had "additional stakeholder engagement" with:

Soroptomists International;
Outside the Box;
Age Scotland;
Scottish Pensioners Forum;
Scottish Older People’s Assembly;

OhHolyJesus · 22/07/2020 22:42

Thanks terry this is useful.

334bu · 23/07/2020 15:33

Halo all done.

334bu · 23/07/2020 15:34

Just a reminder tomorrow Friday 24th July last day for submission!!

OhHolyJesus · 23/07/2020 22:43

I'm really struggling with this, the more I think about it the more I think hate crime is just nonsense. We should just prosecute for the crimes criminals commit.

My brief thoughts for my response include comments on the language used, the fact they omit sex in order to do this later down the line, the thing on age that Scrimp posted, the 'stirring up hatred' and free speech aspects. What have I missed?

I'm tying myself in knots now as an attack on a gay man, for example, is no worse than an attack on a Muslim man, (and there is no hierarchy suggested in the Bill) but an attack is an attack, it's all bad. Is it worse because it's motivated by hate? Surely you would hate anyone you attacked, I mean that would be the point wouldn't it? Does it matter why you hate them? To attack someone because you hate them makes you a not very nice person and yes you should go to jail.

I get that the motivation or 'aggravation' extends the sentence but the sentences should be long enough and serious enough in the first place to dissuade someone doing it again right?

I think an incitement to cause violence is better language. I'm also not sure anyone else should be able to report it either, it's just based on what people do or don't find offensive, the victim may not want to take it any further.

Anyone else slowly going mad...?

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 23/07/2020 23:34

I would maybe have a wee look at the Secular Society letter, OhHoly? I ended up using that one, it seemed to make sense.

And yes, 'hate crime' is 'thought crime' by any other name. I suppose the argument is that motivation does matter in our criminal system (intent). But I fundamentally find the whole notion and implementation of hate crimes daft and wrong. As you say, in order to commit any crime one could argue prejudice and 'hatred' is involved. Or contempt, or fury. It's been brought in in a big way, worldwide, though.

EvelynBeatrice · 24/07/2020 08:02

Today is the deadline for responses.

SerenityNowwwww · 24/07/2020 08:07

So sex isn’t covered? Ffs.

2Rebecca · 24/07/2020 08:32

I opposed the whole idea of it as it promotes inequality, having as its basis the idea that some people are more special than others and crimes or thought crimes against them should be treated more harshly. It will prompt people to scour social media for comments to use against people they dislike

testing987654321 · 24/07/2020 08:39

I don't think it's the idea that some people are more special than others.

I think it's the idea that a man walking down a street, say at night, who is beaten up because he is known or perceived to be gay has effectively suffered a greater crime because he wouldn't have been attacked in that instance otherwise. So it will have greater impact because he may feel he has to hide his sexuality.

I chose man because obviously as a woman I am usually in company or in a taxi, oh to feel I would be safe walking at night alone.

testing987654321 · 24/07/2020 08:41

I am free this evening, so will spend it writing a response. There isn't an earlier cutoff time is there?

NonnyMouse1337 · 24/07/2020 09:25

Technically submissions should be sent before midnight, but I've heard it's better to get it in before the close of the working day, so like 5pm. Not sure how accurate that is. I do wish they would make these sort of details clear.

Jeeeez · 24/07/2020 09:59

Faircop also details some important points, including an outstanding/stalled freedom of speech trial:
www.faircop.org.uk/fair-cop-responds-to-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill-call-for-views/