Guidance from For Women Scotland now available. They have been invited to a Justice Committee meeting on Monday 22nd to discuss the amendments, which will be on Parliament TV from 2.30pm.
mailchi.mp/62b165d4aa6b/important-hate-crime-bill-consultation
The Justice Minister said NONE of the four options are the Scottish Government's preferred options, NONE of them were recommended by Lord Bracadale, who was tasked by the Government to review the hate crime laws - and NONE of them, in our opinion, will protect any of us from police investigations into 'transphobia' for speaking about women's rights.
Our starting point is Option 1 as the best of the options on offer as it allows for discussion and criticism on all the characteristics and provides some further protection for people to express antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult on matters relating to religion.
However, it does not go nearly far enough. In your response you may like to include the following points:
* We need robust protection of free speech and if MSPs from three political parties have expressed their trepidation about the tone of the debate around women's rights and reform of the GRA, then the chilling effect on ordinary citizens to feel able to speak on the issues is surely obvious.
(Adam Tomkins, Convener of the Committee, admitted he was “alarmed and distressed, and perhaps even, if I’m honest, a little afraid”, Johann Lamont was "anxious" and Justice Minister Humza Yousaf was unwilling to confirm if there are only two sexes - see the Herald article.)
* Prominent campaigners - including Tim Hopkins of Equality Network, and councillor and potential MSP Graham Campbell - are talking about hate crimes as including "using the wrong pronouns or the wrong first name". There have already been occasions where women who have been physically assaulted by males who self-identify as women are told to refer to their assailants as women. We would be horrified if, for example, women giving evidence in court were compelled to refer to a rapist as "she" or face prosecution.
We have also seen the introduction of laws, such as the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act, that have capitalised on the use of "preferred pronouns" as evidence that a male is entitled to apply for a role reserved for women. IPSO guidelines already ask that reporters refer to male criminals who commit horrific crimes as "she". Without the right to name men as men such practices cannot be called out, and it needs to made abundantly clear that compelled speech forms no part of the Bill.
* There is mounting evidence that individuals, and indeed lobby groups, are planning to use any legislation to report women campaigning against changes to the GRA. Campaigners closely aligned to many Scottish political parties are openly calling groups like ours, MBM, WPUK, etc "hate groups" and nothing is being to done check this. We really require clear and unequivocal statements from the government that they will not allow this to be used to silence critics of proposed policy, especially in the run up to the election. Currently, we have little faith that they will do so.
* There is a hierarchy of characteristics which fails to ensure equality. Even under the best option, Option 1, trans people will be able to express feelings of "antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult" towards women - which is frequently done in highly vitriolic and abusive terms - yet women are confined to "discussion and criticism". This imbalance needs to be corrected by extending the additional free speech provisions relating to religion to the other characteristics.
Overall, we would ask for Option 1, with the extra free speech provision extended to all characteristics, plus a clear Government statement that the Hate Crime Bill does not seek to criminalise statements of scientific or biological facts, pronoun choice, or campaigns to retain women's rights in law or to challenge policy changes.
We also note that, despite it being deemed necessary by the Convener of the Committee, there has been no clarity on the definition of "transgender identity" from the Scottish Government. Similarly, it is not clear what "criticism" or "abusive" encompass and more could be done to remove the uncertainty and subjectivity.
We remain concerned that this Bill has not been given enough time or due consideration at Stage 2 of the Parliamentary proceedings, and we may yet have to rely on a more appropriate amendment at the final stage.
Please email your thoughts on the Freedom of Expression Amendment to:
[email protected] by 10am on Monday 22nd February 2021.
It doesn't have to be a long submission, but certainly no more that 6 pages, and attached to your email as a Word document. It's also worthwhile sending a copy to all EIGHT of your MSPs - just put your postcode in HERE to find their email addresses.