Scottish Government Hate Crime bill - call for views

[Dances]

www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/115038.aspx

Very short window of opportunity for responses - until 24 July

Note that 'sex' is not included as a protected characteristic, but 'variations in sex characteristics' is. Whatever that means.

Note that 'sex' is not included as a protected characteristic, but 'variations in sex characteristics' is. Whatever that means.

Was just looking at this - "variations in sex characteristics" appears to refer to people who are or might be considered be intersex:

^(10)(8): "A person is a member of a group defined by reference to variations in sex characteristics if the person is born with physical and biological sex characteristics which, taken as a whole, are neither —
(a) those typically associated with males, nor
(b) those typically associated with females." ^

I thought the Scots Government had obediently performed the liturgy that there was no such thing as a typical biological group of sex characteristics denoting a class of people, and were bent on dissolving legal protections accordingly?

If there is a biological sex class, and they know what it is, how are they justifying removing the protections based on its existence?

Is there any joined up thinking going on? They can't have it all ways depending on the convenience in the moment.

On second thought - rather than pushing to add "sex" as a protected characteristic, the definition of "sex characteristics" could simply be edited, slightly:

(10)(8): "A person is a member of a group defined by reference to variations in sex characteristics if the person is born with physical and biological sex characteristics which, taken as a whole, are either —
(a) those typically associated with males or
(b) those typically associated with females or
(c) neither (a) nor (b)."

Covers all "hate speech" directed on the basis of sex, or with the potential to stir up hatred on the basis of sex. It's unnecessarily obfuscating, but it gets the job done.

@Maduixa

Note that 'sex' is not included as a protected characteristic, but 'variations in sex characteristics' is. Whatever that means.

Was just looking at this - "variations in sex characteristics" appears to refer to people who are or might be considered be intersex:

^(10)(8): "A person is a member of a group defined by reference to variations in sex characteristics if the person is born with physical and biological sex characteristics which, taken as a whole, are neither —
(a) those typically associated with males, nor
(b) those typically associated with females." ^

My personal view is that although 'variations in sex characteristics' is claimed to be a reference to those with DSDs (in that case, why not use the term DSD?)... It is another cover for trans ideology due to the convoluted definition.

I haven't looked into the stats, but do we know how many hate crimes are carried out on people specifically because of their intersex characteristic?

The current legislation includes intersex in the transgender identity definition: Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice)(Scotland) Act 2009
Section 2 is for Prejudice relating to Sexual Orientation or Transgender Identity.
www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/8/section/2

The proposed Bill removes intersex from the meaning of transgender identity, which is a big improvement! However, it is now replaced with the vague phrase 'variations in sex characteristics'. It would be interesting to check with various Intersex advocacy groups like DSD Families to see if they are happy with the above definition of variations in sex characteristics.

I feel like the above definition is a way for the trans lobby to subvert the meaning of Intersex / DSDs to suit a particular agenda. As far as I'm aware, Intersex / DSDs are umbrella terms for a variety of conditions. Some of these conditions affect only males, and some of the conditions affect only females - so they are still very much dependent on the sex of a person and this is known.

My worry is the above convoluted definition is a way to interpret and justify the idea of 'females with penises' and 'males with vaginas' by trying to conflate them with intersex conditions. By trying to define a group of people as having 'variations in sex characteristics' that are 'not typically associated with males/females', it can then be argued that someone with a penis who identifies as a female can be viewed as merely having variations in sex characteristics and any effort to remove them from single-sex spaces can be venturing towards hate crime territory.

As highlighted by For Women Scotland, one of the papers referenced by the Scottish Government's consultation paper states, in regard to the use of female changing rooms, a ‘woman’ with a penis is as much of a ‘non-normative’ woman as a woman with mastectomy scars.
research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/139271435/Bristol_Pure_Version_PD.pdf

This is blatant Queer Theory logic and tactic of trying to imply that males with penises are classed as 'women' in the same way that women who no longer have breasts due to cancer are also women (because apparently both of their bodies do not conform to the 'stereotype' of the female body) and therefore the above convoluted definition of 'variations in sex characteristics' makes me believe it is another way to secure this idea by the trans lobby.

Thanks for posting. Couple of questions - Do you have to live in Scotland to respond to this call for views?
Are there any 'guides' that outline the major issues that we can use to craft our responses?

I didn't see any restriction on submissions. I think it has to be limited to 4 pages i.e. two double sided pages. I don't know about individuals, but certainly organisations from anywhere are welcome to send in their views, which is why National Secular Society and others will be doing so.

NSS have a template but that's from the perspective of the 'stirring up of hatred' section. It could still be useful to reference their stuff. I'm assuming women's organisations will also share their submissions but I haven't heard anything yet.

This could easily have severe repercussions for those of us trying to speak out in Scotland. Please help us.

Thanks! I will do my best. As a lay person I struggle with the legalese and the wide scope of the proposed changes. I'll give it the time needed, because it is important that the voices of those who advocate for women are heard.

I'll try and post a collection of links to analysis and criticism over the next wee while which might help us all in drafting our submissions.

Thanks, OP. I think this is extremely important, but it's another of those consultations that apparently takes place in secret.

Thanks for posting, OP. And thanks, Nonny, that would be brilliant.

So much hinges on whether they're using 'sex' correctly or blurring it with gender, no?

Thanks for note about the Secular Society, too. Here's their page:

www.secularism.org.uk/free-expression/scottish-hate-crime-bill.html

Thanks Nonny and Scrimpshaw for NSS info, it'll be useful to have that to help with submissions.

As a pp said, it's hard going for those of us not versed in legalese.

Thanks, I have sent a response focusing on 1) freedom of speech and 2) the potential consequences for women when the bar is lowered for hate crime based on transgender identity, when many of the rights that transgender activists are asking for have the potential to encroach on women's rights.
The secular society information was good. The Scots govt materials are actually pretty readable too.

Posting here so I don't forget

Not looked at the link yet, will need info to help draft a response, but is there a way we could get misogyny in as a hate crime? I know unicorns and sprinkles time. Just a thought and a place mark so I come back.

done - just written a few paragraphs so hopefully thats okay!

OH, argh, adding this to the list of things I need to do ....

BananaBix www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3959392-Creasy-making-police-record-misogny

Bumping fo4 myself

I will struggle with it but will try

Bananabixfloof
They did consider including sex. There's a summary of the groups consulted with and the discussions in the Equality Impact Assessment section. Here's a small excerpt, which does at least show that these issues were raised and how they reached the bill as it currently reads. (I recommend reading the full link, this is just a small snippet):

'...A number of options were presented in the consultation as we were already aware of mixed views in this area. Four options were presented:
develop a statutory aggravation for gender hostility;
develop a standalone offence for misogynistic harassment;
take a non-legislative approach and build on Equally Safe to tackle misogyny; or
all of the identified options.

...some stakeholders (particularly Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and Zero Tolerance) did not want a statutory aggravation on gender to be included in hate crime legislation and have called for the development of a standalone offence for misogyny to tackle the unique features of violence and harassment against women. They are not convinced that the hate crime framework provides an appropriate model for dealing with gender based violence. Individuals generally expressed opposition to, or mixed views on all four options.

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 consensus on this issue, although organisations with expertise in women’s issues believed that the focus should be on women only. Some respondents also 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.

... It remained clear that there were mixed views amongst stakeholders in regards to whether a statutory aggravation should be introduced or not in hate crime legislation in relation to gender. However there was broad support for the establishment of a Working Group to review how criminal law deals more broadly with misogyny. '

www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crime-public-order-scotland-bill-equality-impact-assessment/pages/3/

Bumping for this...submissions must be sent to the Justice Committee by Friday 24th July...

I've never heard anything ever about intersex hate crime so it does look like the trans lobby are pulling a fast one there. To get those pesky lesbians in trouble if they won't sleep with them...?
Misogyny, however, does need to be included.

I think sex is the only (UK wide) Equality Act protected characteristic omitted from the scope of the Scottish hate crime bill. This means for example that it could be a criminal offence in Scotland for a woman to eg act/express herself in an ‘abusive’ manner to a man cross-dressing as a woman (because people cross dressing are specifically included in the definition of transgender identity) but the cross dressing male would not be caught by the same bill if he engaged in abusive misogynistic speech. But despite this apparent inequity I think that there is opposition to the inclusion of sex as it could potentially have the opposite effect to the intention. It would potentially make statements about men criminal. e.g would class analysis including statements such as that men are responsible for 98% of sex crimes become potentially criminal as having the effect of stirring up hatred against a sex class. It is a minefield

I don’t believe that the Scottish government will drop the Bill - the fall out would be huge; what might help is extending the freedom of expression carve outs in sections 11 and 12 to cover other characteristics such as transgender identity. I cannot fathom why there is a freedom of expression provision designed to allow criticism of homosexuality but no such freedom of expression in relation to criticism of transgender identity.

Yes crossing dressing and non-binary are covered under transgender identity in the proposed Bill - I've had quite a lot to say about that in my submission!

Part 2 of the proposed Bill - the stirring up hatred section - should be done away with entirely imo.