BBC news are about to give a report on the massive increase in transphobic hate crime

[Tissueboxcover]

Just that really.
I wondered if anyone else is watching.

If the courts found that the transphobic and racist behaviour in the police station met the threshold for causing harassment, alarm or distress then it was a crime, and given the abuse was based on someone's race in one instance and someone's transgender status in the other then they are racist and transphobic hate crimes.

For someone who writes so much about the law you don't seem to know very much about it.

Increase in sentences for aggravation related to disability[F1, sexual orientation or transgender identity]
(1)This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence committed in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).
(2)Those circumstances are—
(a)that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—
(i)the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, F2...
(ii)a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or
[F3(iii)the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or]
(b)that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—
(i)by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, F4...
(ii)by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability[F5, or
(iii)by hostility towards persons who are transgender.]

6)In this section references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment.]

It is not necessary for the homophobic/transphobic words used against a police officer arresting someone for an unrelated matter to be backed by the police officer actually being gay/transgender, it is sufficient for them to be 'perceived' as such.

Since there is no objective definition or way of telling if someone is transgender, it follows that such abuse is ipso facto a transphobic hate crime, even though the original offence was a drug addict smashing up his family member's house, which is nothing to do with transphobia.

@StandWitch

> If the courts found that the transphobic and racist behaviour in the police station met the threshold for causing harassment, alarm or distress then it was a crime, and given the abuse was based on someone's race in one instance and someone's transgender status in the other then they are racist and transphobic hate crimes.

For someone who writes so much about the law you don't seem to know very much about it.

Increase in sentences for aggravation related to disability[F1, sexual orientation or transgender identity]
(1)This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence committed in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).
(2)Those circumstances are—
(a)that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—
(i)the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, F2...
(ii)a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or
[F3(iii)the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or]
(b)that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—
(i)by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, F4...
(ii)by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability[F5, or
(iii)by hostility towards persons who are transgender.]

6)In this section references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment.]

It is not necessary for the homophobic/transphobic words used against a police officer arresting someone for an unrelated matter to be backed by the police officer actually being gay/transgender, it is sufficient for them to be 'perceived' as such.

Since there is no objective definition or way of telling if someone is transgender, it follows that such abuse is ipso facto a transphobic hate crime, even though the original offence was a drug addict smashing up his family member's house, which is nothing to do with transphobia.

You've confused 2 different issues. The 'perceived' part is for statistics only. At court there has to be actual evidence to support the allegation or as it says "offender demonstrates hostility".

The cop was roundly criticised so hardly an example of what happens all the time. There are issues with the recording process but what the cop did is a poor example to use.

No they weren't "roundly criticised" by the police until Harry took them to the High Court. And yes I know of many other similar instances so it is an example of what happens.

I’m not in favour of hate crime as a legal concept. Hurt feelings and offence are not crimes. The things which are crimes, such as graffitiing a mosque or attacking someone because of what they look like, are already crimes. Deciding intent to discern the category of offence is a slippery slope to social control.

I agree.

When I read 'hate crime', I now roll my eyes.

Real 'hate crime' exists and is abhorrent, but they've lumped it all in with 'incidents' that are utterly trivial non-events, muddied the waters and diluted the message.

Very poorly thought through. Someone somewhere needs to sort this mess out - how are they going to distinguish now between real crime and bollocks social engineering? Or was this deliberate, to just try and sow uncertainty, resentment and unrest?

Maybe they need to redefine the expression.

Would happily murder
Hate
Extreme dislike
Dislike
Dismissive
Don’t give a hoot
Don’t agree
Never spoken to
It’s all in your mind

And moreover the autistic teenager discussed in another thread did very little more than "misgendering"?

He did not even do that. He merely questioned whether the community officer in question was "a boy or a girl".

How any prosecutor, how any judge in his right mind could have come to the conclusion that an autistic teenager was guilty of a transphobic hate crime in this case is completely beyond me.

The police ignored its own guidelines in dealing with neuro-atypical people in this case and the relevant disability rights and support groups rightly condemned their actions.

@CharlieParley

And moreover the autistic teenager discussed in another thread did very little more than "misgendering"?

He did not even do that. He merely questioned whether the community officer in question was "a boy or a girl".

How any prosecutor, how any judge in his right mind could have come to the conclusion that an autistic teenager was guilty of a transphobic hate crime in this case is completely beyond me.

The police ignored its own guidelines in dealing with neuro-atypical people in this case and the relevant disability rights and support groups rightly condemned their actions.

I get the impression he shouted it at him from across the street. It was a very petty prosecution, but it's not uncommon for the police to behave this way. This teenager denied the offence in court, had they pleaded guilty with their autism as mitigation they may have got a different outcome. But they didn't and the court found they lied and so had little choice but to pass sentence.

@PamDenick

A mother can be accused of hate crime if she calls her adult child by the name she gave him or her as a baby. (dead naming). This is a 'transphobic hate crime.'

This is not true. It is not even close to being true. If you are going around telling people this you are lying to them.

Declan Armstrong, 19, was convicted of using abusive or insulting words to cause harassment. According to Judge Roger Lowe, the public order offence was uplifted to medium-level due to its transphobic nature

So this is deemed a "hate crime" ie what this thread is about. Good comments in this piece from disability advocacy groups.

www.womenarehuman.com/autistic-teen-found-guilty-of-hate-crime-for-asking-police-officers-sex-autism-group-condemns-prosecution/

This is the effect the activists are having. Women's rights, women's privacy, the word woman, biology, chromosomes, sex, child safeguarding, bereaved mothers, fairness, homosexuality, reality-all transphobic. The boy who cried wolf.

I think you mean the non-binary transgirl who cried wolf. Or possibly transdog.

But yes. EVERYTHING IS TRANSPHOBIC. Literally everything. Makes it quite hard to take it seriously.
wingsoverscotland.com/everything-is-transphobic/

I get the impression he shouted it at him from across the street.

I've had all sorts of delightful things, some verging on threatening sexual assault, shouted at me from across the street. Women aren't covered by hate crime legislation but as it stands, how much of a chance do you think I would have getting the men who did that convicted of a public order offence?

When a police officer goes round to someone's work to check their thinking, because they liked a limerick, the meaning of 'relevancy' is about as reliable as all the rest of the linguistic claptrap.

The cop was roundly criticised so hardly an example of what happens all the time. There are issues with the recording process but what the cop did is a poor example to use.

No he wasn't, his boss told the victim, see you in court.

Still, I'm guessing that 'roundly criticised' has the same linguistic merit as 'relevancy' and 'transphobic hate'.

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]Declan Armstrong, 19, was convicted of using abusive or insulting words to cause harassment. According to Judge Roger Lowe, the public order offence was uplifted to medium-level due to its transphobic nature

So this is deemed a "hate crime" ie what this thread is about. Good comments in this piece from disability advocacy groups.

www.womenarehuman.com/autistic-teen-found-guilty-of-hate-crime-for-asking-police-officers-sex-autism-group-condemns-prosecution/[/quote]
The crime was acting in a way which caused alarm, harassment or distress to an individual. If this man had shouted "Is 'it' a boy or a girl" across the steet (twice) at a masculine appearing but non trans woman if would also have been an offence if the court found this caused the individual be alarmed, harassed or distressed.

It's probably a good idea not to shout stuff at coppers that could be considered insulting and which refers to them as 'it' if you want to avoid being prosecuted.

Still, I'm guessing that 'roundly criticised' has the same linguistic merit as 'relevancy' and 'transphobic hate'.

Quite.

Perhaps with your legal expertise you can answer my question, jj

I've had all sorts of delightful things, some verging on threatening sexual assault, shouted at me from across the street. Women aren't covered by hate crime legislation but as it stands, how much of a chance do you think I would have getting the men who did that convicted of a public order offence?

I can assure you that I felt harassed, alarmed and distressed.

But frankly, after SANDS trolling bereaved mother's, the English RFU saying they're absolutely fine with women being exposed to a 30% greater risk of spinal injury, male bodied rapists being put in women's prisons, male bodied people being put in charge of rape crisis centres, posh fuckwits in receipt of one of the most prestigious education's one can receive calling for a college porter to be sacked for wrongthink - I find that I no longer have any fucks left to give for some poor dear who has been misgendered.

Amen to that. And I think the 30% greater risk is grossly understated. I've played the odd game of five-a-side for a men's team against other men (in goal). I got battered. Every. Single. Fucking. Time. My legs were bruised beyond belief. I spent frequent periods off for blood injuries when the ball split my lip. And .... they were doing their best not to try and ensure that didn't happen.

The gap in strength between men and women is phenomenal.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I get the impression he shouted it at him from across the street.

I've had all sorts of delightful things, some verging on threatening sexual assault, shouted at me from across the street. Women aren't covered by hate crime legislation but as it stands, how much of a chance do you think I would have getting the men who did that convicted of a public order offence?

I think misogynist abuse is far too often ignored or not taken seriously by the police. However if someone shouted at you something which caused you alarm, harassment or distress and a court found that it was reasonable to feel that way in the circumstances then a crime would have been committed.

think misogynist abuse is far too often ignored or not taken seriously by the police.

Yes. That is the point. My chance of them prosecuting that, despite a crime having been committed, would be slim.

a court found that it was reasonable to feel that way in the circumstances then a crime would have been committed.

No, the crime would have been committed even if no one ever knew anything about it.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

think misogynist abuse is far too often ignored or not taken seriously by the police.

Yes. That is the point. My chance of them prosecuting that, despite a crime having been committed, would be slim.

I agree, in this case especially I very much doubt a trans person who wasn't a copper would have managed to get a proseuction. There's around 8000 prosecutions a year for this kind of public order offence though so it could be worth pursuing if that's what you wanted to do.

jj1968

No. I am pretty sure I am right. particularly in Scotland.

I am not sure how I feel about hate crimes in general. On the one hand, it seems obvious if there is blatan hatred behind an attack, for example if someone posted in a BNP group that they were going out to find a black person to attack, then doing it. The scope of this seems WIDE though. While hate crimes are a thing though, I think its utterly ridiculous misogyny is not included, however I understand why it is not, as basically if they add misogyny, the police will be completely overran as misogyny is so damn common in all walks of life.

'Hate incidents' where its all based on perception just seem ridiculous to me. And yes, that would potentially go for misogyny too. Noone has the right to never be a bit upset about something they read on social media. Again, if misogyny WAS included, the police service would break down entirely, if women started reporting everything they found offensive, and police were expected to look into it, and even to visit people who were deemed 'non-criminals' just to 'check' that wrongthink was not behind the tweet/post/whatever.

Another guy getting off with murder of a woman is another topic but, is shocking, but also not shocking. Women are expendable. This has been proven year in year out by he pathetic rates of convictions for violence agaist women, including murder with the excuse 'she consented to it!!!!'

In short, unsure where I stand on 'hate crime' stuff in general. It makes sense in certain circumstances, when hatred can be proven beyond all doubt to be the motivator. But this does not appear to be how its done in practise. And I disagree with hate 'incidents' completely tbh. But luckily for some, I am not in charge of stuff like that so have to grin and bear it.

Also yes, there will be many more convictions for racist hate crime than transphobic. Because there are more POC, and more racism in general than there are transpeople, and transphobia. Add in misogyny to the mix, and I suspect reports would be even higher than racist incidents (given there are more women, stats thing) BUT I would be completely unsurprised if the reports were nothing and the actual convictions were in the single digits. Given how you cannot even manage to get convictions for murder, and rape is 'let off' even in cases with multiple witnesses, horrific injuries and sometimes even with recorded proof of it happening. Depressing as fuck really.