Women in Scotland being screwed over again - first redefining woman in GRPB Act, now undermining sex in Hate Crime Bill

[NonnyMouse1337]

This is already mentioned / being discussed in the Hate Crime Bill thread but I felt like highlighting it in a separate thread so it gets more attention.

The definition of 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act has been altered to include males, which is in direct conflict with the UK Equality Act.

The Scottish Government insists it's no big deal and is only confined to the specific Act. Thankfully For Women Scotland might be able to challenge this in court.

Now it seems similar underhanded methods are being used in the Hate Crime Bill.

mobile.twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1299000257389293571

The Bill currently does not include sex in the list of characteristics, but it states that it could be added at a later date. Transgender identity is already on the list and so protected by Hate Crime legislation.

However there is a clause in one of the supporting documents which would allow the definition of sex to be modified without further consultation or parliamentary scrutiny were it to be added to the Bill.

For Women Scotland have written to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee expressing concern about this.

The committee met to discuss the Hate Crime Bill and decided this should take place in private so there is no public record of the conversation. They have also published a report on the Bill stating they are "content with the delegated powers provisions contained in the Bill.” Which means they retain the power to redefine “sex” should it be added to the Bill at a later stage.

mobile.twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1299052065667383297

Apparently only three committee members were present for the vote, so presumably only 2 people voted on the decision to be able to redefine sex in Scotland under the Hate Crimes Bill.

Democracy, eh.

gurrr thanks for highlighting this

still waiting to hear if For Women Scotland is taking Scot Govt to Judicial Review...

Scottish Government seem determined to get the definition of women changed to include men by any means necessary. It is clear that even though the consultation showed the concerns of many women and girls they have chosen to ignore them and push this agenda through in any way they can.
Women in Scotland need to keep drawing attention to this again and again as it seems the only way we can get them to back down.
I hope the various legal challenges that are going forward will do this

I hope the various legal challenges that are going forward will do this

Indeed.

For any MN legal eagles:

Does the EA(10) legislation override Scot specific law - as in this BS the SNP are trying to impose. I wondered whether Ann Sinnott’s brilliant campaign to clarify the EA (10) and single-sex exemptions would apply to Scotland too?

Lurker here....is there anything we can do to challenge this at all?

Equality Act is UK law. It is not devolved so can't be changed by Scottish Govt.

Scottish govt don't give two fucks about women. That's been made very clear.

@GoodyWoolf

Lurker here....is there anything we can do to challenge this at all?

Not sure yet. Might be worth emailing all your MSPs about it. I'm going to spend some time this weekend doing that as I haven't specifically emailed them about the Hate Crime Bill yet, even though I sent in a submission to the Justice Committee.

Keep writing to your MSP's ... you can find their email addys on the scottish Parliament site. Write to ALL eight who represent your area. BTW good info on For Women Scotland site also the National Secular Society covers hate crimes bill well. I've also been sending For Women Scotland donations.

Good piece in the Spectator on this:

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-legal-battle-over-how-scots-define-woman-/

FWS will advance a six-pronged argument in court. First, that the Scottish government is exceeding its competency under devolution by legislating in the reserved area of equal opportunities. Second, that ministers are straying beyond their lawful powers in conflating the protected characteristics of ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’. Third, that the SNP executive is using a definition of ‘woman’ that includes people defined as male by the Equality Act 2010. Fourth, that in doing so they are going ‘against the very grain’ of the 2010 Act and wider anti-discrimination law. Fifth, that this application of the GRPBA is incompatible with EU law, which provides only for ‘positive action’ in relation to sex, not gender reassignment. Sixth, that the Holyrood government failed to conduct a proper equality impact assessment.

Also

What we can say at this juncture, and with some frustration, is that both gender-critical women and trans people are being put through the wringer in Scotland and elsewhere by governments, parliaments and public bodies determined to pursue radical changes to the law without open and honest consultation with the general public.

The worst of it is that, in many cases, it’s clear ministers and lawmakers have no understanding of trans rights and the legal changes they are legislating beyond another item on a tribal political checklist. To them, trans rights are a hashtag, a viral video from some millennial media outlet, or a punchline against basics and gammons. They have invested scant time in learning about gender theory, considering the impact on the law of reforms like self-identification, or listening to the concerns of those on the other side. Their position is a posture, a constituency pandered to, a gold star of virtue mentally awarded to themselves for hitting ‘send’ on a tweet or press release.

Came on to post about this and link to the spectator article. Looking to see if there is a legal fund for this. That GRPBA is a mess. I can't imagine it will stand up to scrutiny.

I think now that For Women Scotland have lodged a petition for a judicial review, they will soon set up a crowdfunder for their case.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-legal-battle-over-how-scots-define-woman-

He writes a goof piece does Stephen Daisley. Here's an extract
We will have to wait and see where the Court of Session comes down on this matter. What we can say at this juncture, and with some frustration, is that both gender-critical women and trans people are being put through the wringer in Scotland and elsewhere by governments, parliaments and public bodies determined to pursue radical changes to the law without open and honest consultation with the general public.

good ffs

in many cases, it’s clear ministers and lawmakers have no understanding of trans rights and the legal changes they are legislating beyond another item on a tribal political checklist. To them, trans rights are a hashtag, a viral video from some millennial media outlet, or a punchline against basics and gammons. They have invested scant time in learning about gender theory, considering the impact on the law of reforms like self-identification, or listening to the concerns of those on the other side. Their position is a posture.

Yes. Bluster and soundbites.

It's a very good point that the govts actions are managing simultaneously to harm women and trans people.

Sunday Times today:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/613a0ce8-ea25-11ea-b9f8-ab500af5d066?shareToken=f222b0ea6a00ba30a5c5c41ec5f12c3d

This might be a stupid question, but if the definition of women is being changed to include men, is the definition of men being changed to include women?

@imhereforthesanity

This might be a stupid question, but if the definition of women is being changed to include men, is the definition of men being changed to include women?

No.

Sorry, I was being flippant. As far as I'm aware, for the GRPB bill, only 'woman' has been redefined, not 'man'.

For the Hate Crime Bill, nothing has changed yet - sex is still not on the list of characteristics. The bill only contains the power to add sex at a later date, and for the definition to be changed if decided by a committee. The bill is being scrutinised by the Justice Committee at the moment, so this clause might be ultimately rejected.
If it is passed, and sex does get added at the later date, it is possible that any redefinition might affect both men and women, but given the track record of how these things go (like the GRPB bill, disregarding Equality Act etc) it will most likely be women that are disproportionately affected by such changes.

This might be a stupid question, but if the definition of women is being changed to include men, is the definition of men being changed to include women?

The Public Boards Act legislated for a quota of women on the boards, so only women were defined. Women who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and who do not "live as women" ie. transmen, are specifically excluded.

But since 'man' is not defined in the Act, and transmen without a GRC are legally women, there is no guarantee they would be counted as men at all. It puts them in an impossible legal position should they be discriminated against when applying for a board position.

As it would a woman, if a TW without a GRC was unfairly appointed to a board position over her. How would she claim sex discrimination in an employment tribunal? Who would the comparator be?

Hmmmph! Soemthing has to come of this... loudly, in the clear light of day!

As it would a woman, if a TW without a GRC was unfairly appointed to a board position over her. How would she claim sex discrimination in an employment tribunal? Who would the comparator be?

This is the bigger issue I think. A recent case for unfair dismissal on the grounds of sexual discrimination was brought in the US - the claimant was breastfeeding and cited that as the key reason for losing her job. But TM can breastfeed and they are 'men' so the comparator failed. Sex discrimination only works in law if women are defined as a biological class.

The Times today says For Women in Scotland have been granted a review of the Public Boards Act in court. Good.
I wrote to every MSP on this and received not one single reply. Not one.

A judicial review? Great news.

Weaverbirds can you link to that case? Sounds incredible and the EXACT proof needed that “trans rights” as currently being pushed harm women’s protections in law.

I use scare quotes intentionally because actual trans rights (not being fired for gender nonconformity etc) are important and do NOT harm women’s rights.