Humza Yousaf and Scottish Hate Crime Bill

[Pinkfreesias]

Humza Yousaf, the Scottish Justice Secretary, has just tweeted that the recent amendments tabled on the Freedom Of Expression (Hate Crime) Bill will not now be moved on. Hugely disappointing for women speaking out might still be labelled hate criminals here in Scotland. And I can't help wondering if it's somehow linked to Joanna Cherry's sacking.

mobile.twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1356299644553322497

Yousaf says he rejects Rhoda Grant MSP’s amendment protecting those who ‘advocate for women’s rights’ claiming that it could allow expressions of transphobia, homophobia and islamophobia.'

Why "Islamophobia?" We aren't allowed to call out some forms (obviously there are plenty of others) of cultural misogyny in any way? This is chilling. Is "advocating for women's rights" considered bigotry in and of itself now?

Funny that this man wants to protect his own religion from any questioning isn't it. Why would he want females prevented from asserting their sex based rights.
The homophobia is thrown it to make people think it's bad to discuss these things, yet it is homophobic to pretend sex isn't real and their orientation meaningless and lesbians aren't female.

In that sense it is as Orwellian as the NP issue - where anyone but the parents could be 'guardians' of the child, even when changed to 'voluntary' anything the parents said, including querying that, could be interpreted as a 'red flag'.
Those given that responsibility were given no / almost no training and had no accountability. Really, what could go wrong???

Apparently cross dressers are protected in the hate bill but not women. Men - must be protected at all costs.

Apparently cross dressers are protected in the hate bill but not women. Men - must be protected at all costs.

So no one can even say anything about a any actual cross dressers who don't identify as women full time using women's spaces purely because they find it exciting. Women are expected to be silent.

Yes. Cos you'd hurt a feeling!

Just don't do it. Shut up!

Yes "a person who cross dresses" and also "a non-binary person" are included under the "transgender identity" definition.

FWS specifically mentioned this in their submission to the Justice Committee.
Making CD a protected characteristic, when CD is the number one paraphilia found amongst sex offenders - what could possibly go wrong?

Setting aside for a minute the utter nonsense that is a so called "non-binary identity", how the fuck can non-binary be included as a protected characteristic in a law when afaik there is no legal definition of it?

Seriously the people in charge of us are an utter joke, high on their own farts and sanctimonious fuds to boot.

I'm not sure whether this is malicious, stupid, or both.

By protecting cross dressers and drag queens, who don't even refer to themselves as trans, under 'trans identity' they are actually saying it's your simply your choice of clothes that makes you trans and a woman.
Never works the other way round though does it?

What he has done is made sure women can never question the behaviour of any man, anywhere in any circumstance.

Cross dressers can also be protected under the hate bill. But not women

I guess the best thing to do, when you need a rant, is to drive over the border and shout all your abusive woman stuff then drive back 🤣

So will it be a hate crime to say that Mrs Brown (of sitcom fame, played by a man called Brendan) is not funny??

What he has done is made sure women can never question the behaviour of any man, anywhere in any circumstance.

Exactly this.

As Eresh says, it's hard to know if it's stupid, malicious or both. My money's on both.

What he has done is made sure women can never question the behaviour of any man, anywhere in any circumstance.

This. In a nutshell.

It creates absolute supremacy and a total imbalance of power.

Historically what do we know always happens next? When one group has to rely wholly on the other group choosing to be generous and kind and not abuse their power? How does that end?

It really makes me want to laugh or cry that the absolute muppets in favour of this seriously think they have strong feelings about slavery, colonialism and fascism being wrong.

I'm not sure whether this is malicious, stupid, or both

We all know men like Humza know EXACTLY what they are doing. It's why they will never make misogyny a hate crime, because what could be more misogynistic than telling women they are nothing but a figment of a man's imagination, their sex and source of oppression doesn't exist and they have no legal right to advocate for themselves.

what could be more misogynistic than telling women they are nothing but a figment of a man's imagination, their sex and source of oppression doesn't exist and they have no legal right to advocate for themselves.

Perfectly put

So male cross-dressers need "transphobia" protection because they could be mistaken for being transwomen.

But females don't need protection, because no-one could possibly confuse a woman and a transwoman?

Okay, that's normally our line, but I guess they'll use it when convenient.

@terryleather

What he has done is made sure women can never question the behaviour of any man, anywhere in any circumstance.

Exactly this.

As Eresh says, it's hard to know if it's stupid, malicious or both. My money's on both.

So vote against them...please.

You know that vote you only got the right to as a woman just over 100 years ago.

@gardenbird48

So will it be a hate crime to say that Mrs Brown (of sitcom fame, played by a man called Brendan) is not funny??

That reminds me. After an operation 6 yrs ago I was on a recovery ward over NYE. Mrs Brown's Boys was on really loud on the ward TV. I asked a nurse for it to be turned down (a bit) as I felt ill and was trying to sleep (and I think it was after the bells by then - it was around midnight anyways) I got called a) an English bitch & b) a homophobe by 2 other patients. I wasn't surprised by a) but I was by b)

The 'English' thing is sad. When I first moved to Scotland from Kent as a mature student of 23 I ended up at Edinburgh Uni Mylnes Court Hall of residence up by the Castle with a lot of English home counties public school med student kids. I remember one of them dismissively referring to the lady who cleaned her room once a week as her 'maid' - the woman looked rightly pissed off. I loudly reminded LIttle Miss Tippytoes that she was in someone else's country and a bit of respect would be appropriate - the woman was not 'her maid' but domestic staff for the Uni, twice her age and probably far smarter (I was so angry I had a wee rant)
20 years later I'd moved as far as the Borders (but back in time about 20 years due to location as the Borders is quite old fashioned compared to Edinburgh) and I heard quite a lot of anti English sentiment (my kids got it too). Scotland is less racist than England (I am embarrassed to go back to parts of Kent), unless you are English it sometimes seems? Certainly the SNP didn't seem to publicly disown much of that during the last IndyRef which I hoped they might.
There is some weird cognitive dissonance about being anti-racism unless it involves the English, or anti x-'persons-rights' unless they are womens rights, or to promote the wellbeing of children but to actively cut out parents (whose decent functioning is so important to children).
I was surprised at the 'homophobic' comment though (I think they meant transphobe? who knows? we were all on fairly strong pain meds I suspect!) Maybe my experience is purely anecdata not typical.

Scotland is still a great place to live, but less if you are a woman now?

To be fair, 52, I hear racism/xenophobia in both directions. Anti-English (which I would say I hear far less now than I did as a child) and anti-Scots, which really baffles me. Why move to a country if you are going to spend all your time bitching about the natives and trying to avoid them?

So. If I have understood this right, Humza Yousaf is at great pains to consider the feelings and possible risks of a man who is cross dressing (but not trans) and transwomen.

He does not wish to protect the rights of women. He has stated that?

What about the addition of 'sex' and misogyny in the HCB that Johann Lamont proposed, was that discussed today, or is it to be discussed later?

It seems to me that this is more of seeing man as the default, and women as some nebulous formless miasma that just shapes to fit the needs, wants, fears, anxieties and desires of males, the superior humans.

I'd agree with that Arabella.

Plus that females failing to keep their mouths shut and be obedient at all times to the needs of the superior humans, or daring to mention their own concerns and needs, will be punished.

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/reaction-scottish-hate-crime-bill-amendments-left-msp-alarmed-and-afraid-3121261

Adam Tomkins, convenor of the Justice Committee speaking an enormous amount of sense, here.

From my understanding of system in Scotland, this is going through Parliament NOW. NOW is the time to lobby your MSPs about it. DON'T wait until election!

The Bill has to go through this Committee stage where amendmemts are discussed, then all the amendments are voted on by all MSPs. These are all public proceedings. They can do discussions of contents of amendments behind closed doors if they are looking to agree a compromise (some of the wording of the amendmemts looked a bit unworkable so improvements could be made). But they can't discuss and vite on them in private.

Lobby your MSPs NOW and ask for their view on women's rights. That will also help to guage how likely parties are to repeal anything that gets through too

How can they remove the very meaning of the word woman, sex based protections and freedom of speech without a vote and asking the 51% of the population directly effected by it (and not the 'women's' groups who supposedly represent us but prioritise penis havers)