Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Scotland passes the Hate Crime Bill

120 replies

ArabellaScott · 11/03/2021 20:12

MSPs have now voted. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) bill has passed. Voting breakdown: Yes 82, No 32 and 4 abstentions.

OP posts:
334bu · 12/03/2021 10:29

www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,defining-hate
Great article

Iamhangingin · 12/03/2021 10:30

I've been explaining this bill to my 12 year old daughter. I don't really have anything else to say.

How do you explain that we live somewhere where the government (rightly) wants to eradicate hate, give extra protection to protected characteristics but they have chosen not to include women and to broaden trans to include cross dressing. And that women who are unhappy about this are already being told they will have their words reported as hate speech.

I'm on Giggle and for IWD someone asked when did you first realise you were a feminist, what happened to make you realise women were discriminated against. I think this might be her moment.

MissBarbary · 12/03/2021 10:33

@334bu

Does anyone have a link to voting record?
The Bill passed with the votes of SNP, Green and Labour MSPs - except Johann Lamont, Elaine Smith, Jenny Marra who voted against, while Neil Findlay abstained. So did the SNP's Joan McAlpine and Alex Neil. Ind Mark McDonald also abstained.

Interestingly Wightman must have voted along with his (former) group.

ArabellaScott · 12/03/2021 10:38

I don't think women should be added to the bill, the entire thing needs to be torn up, burned and buried so it can be dug up and catapulted directly into the sun

Yes, agree entirely. I'm just hopeful that this one goes the way of the Named Persons Act, the football one and the other legislation the SNP made an absolute hash of and had to retract.

OP posts:
vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 12/03/2021 10:44

What happens if your work requires observation of someone's sex - like in healthcare?

If a trans woman gets testicular cancer, is the cancer transphobic?

UnderHisAye · 12/03/2021 11:04

Excellent question on Twitter, I just wish someone would have the balls to come out and answer it plainly.

Scotland passes the Hate Crime Bill
MissBarbary · 12/03/2021 12:10

This is the full vote. 11 MSPs including Wightman, didn't vote. I haven't tried to work out who the other 10 are.

Scotland passes the Hate Crime Bill
Scotland passes the Hate Crime Bill
greatpurplepolkadots · 12/03/2021 12:16

I know someone who wrote to Wightman.

He said he wouldn't vote for it if the Tomkins amendment wasn't added.

ArabellaScott · 12/03/2021 13:01

@greatpurplepolkadots

I know someone who wrote to Wightman.

He said he wouldn't vote for it if the Tomkins amendment wasn't added.

I thought Tomkins' amendment was added?

Phhhhhhhhhhh.

All these wee 'amendments' can't fix a shite law, is the bottom line.

Tinkering about with whether 2+2= 5 or 7 doesn't help anyone hauled before a long suffering Police Constable because @RajFurzybawbag on Twitter says Goody Smith misgendered zer.

Or that (god forbid, just positing this for the sake of argument, yr honour) 'sex-based rights'. Which is the blasphemy, I believe, Patrick Harvie accused Johann Lamont of committing.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 12/03/2021 13:02

Um, I made that name up and now concerned I have inadvertently summoned RajFurzybawbag. Sorry, mods.

OP posts:
HerewardTheWoke · 12/03/2021 13:06

This is very concerning.

However I am heartened that there does appear to be a route to challenging it. I didn't realise this but it looks as though the courts have much, much stronger powers over Scottish legislation than over UK legislation. Unlike primary legislation (Acts) of the UK Parliament, it appears there is a much wider set of grounds to JR an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Sophoclesthefox · 12/03/2021 13:08

@UnderHisAye

Excellent question on Twitter, I just wish someone would have the balls to come out and answer it plainly.
This is an excellent question.

We’re all girls together, until we’re not.

CrunchyBiscs · 12/03/2021 13:28

From the Times article
Speaking in the final debate on the bill, he said: “To those who think they may accidentally somehow fall foul of the law . . . because they believe sex is immutable, or they believe an adult man cannot become a female or they campaign for the rights of Palestinians . . . or those that proselytise that same-sex relationships are sinful, none of these people would fall foul of the stirring up of hatred offence for solely stating their belief — even if they did so in a robust manner.

“Why? Because solely stating any belief, which I accept may be offensive to some, is not breaching the criminal threshold.”

Great - I can put forward my views on trans, strict religious beliefs - and not be criminalised - so what was teh point of this.

PigeonPants · 12/03/2021 13:46

TheShadowyFeminist - was that the complete response from your SNP MSP?

If it is, surely they missed something? They said "Emma Rich from the feminist advocacy organisation Engender outlined 4 broad risks of adding sex to the Bill: " but those concerns are not listed anywhere in the email. Where can we read the concerns?

To quote the communication from the MSP - clear hole between paragraph one and two:

"Regardingtakeholders opposed to the introduction of ‘sex’ in the Bill have warned of some potential harms and unintended consequences flowing from its inclusion.  In her evidence to the Justice Committee, Emma Rich from the feminist advocacy organisation Engender outlined 4 broad risks of adding sex to the Bill:

Stakeholders opposed to the introduction of ‘sex’ in the Bill have warned of some potential harms and unintended consequences flowing from its inclusion. Engender, Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and Zero Tolerance have all warned of potential harms and unintended consequences flowing from the inclusion of sex within the hate crime legislative framework. This is a complex area that has garnered much attention throughout the Justice Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill.... "

Forgotthebins · 12/03/2021 13:51

I read the Engender briefing, or one of them. This seems to be their conclusion:

^^We consider that it would not only be ineffectual to develop a statutory aggravation for gender hostility but actively
harmful. This is for two reasons:
 Undermining public bodies’ understanding of the nature of gender-based violence, and its causal story of women’s inequality, risks the failure of Equally Safe; and
 An ineffectual hate crime is likely to institutionally entrench and systematise indifference to misogyny and its profound impact on women and girls.^^

It doesn’t make sense.

I read point 1 as them wanting to own the theory and language underpinning the law on women. Pure careerism: all they’ve got is policy language (they don’t actually ^do^ anything for women), that’s what they make their careers on, so their fight is to own chunks of language.

Point 2 (if the law isn’t implemented well, it could backfire) would apply to any of the protected characteristics, so it is a weird argument to apply it to sex - either the law is valuable and police and prosecutors need to be trained to use it, including about the PC of sex; or the law is pointless for everybody. It is a counsel of despair to say that it would be especially useless for women, or to imply that police can be trained to use all the rest of the law but there is no hope when it comes to women. And then of course they are also hanging out for their own very special recommended law about misogyny so they can say “we thought of it, that was us” - and they seem to have no worries about training the justice system to use that one. Because it will be based on their own theoretical work, so all problems magic away. Careerism again.

They could have recommended adding sex as a protected characteristic to get something on the statutes while they continue working for their own law. But if it isn’t their brainchild, they would rather have nothing at all. How embarrassing for them and the Scots government.

There’s 20 minutes I’ll never get back, but for my own sanity I had to understand how the utterly embarrassing omission of sex happened. So, some protected characteristics are more protected than others - and it was a gender studies organisation who gave the policy camouflage for the exclusion of sex.

TheShadowyFeminist · 12/03/2021 13:53

Pigeon, that's the whole thing. Every word.

I'm currently formulating my response. The 'holes' you mention will definitely be part of my reply.

dotoallasyouwouldbedoneby · 12/03/2021 14:04

I just asked my Labour voting DS (my fault I used to be supporter also!) if he realised that cross-dressers are protected in the Hate Crime Bill but not women. He had no idea - told me I must be wrong - googled it and apologised : result.

dotoallasyouwouldbedoneby · 12/03/2021 14:06

I mentioned the few Labour MSPs who had voted against (Jenny Mara, Johann Lamont etc) and he was aware that they are standing down in May so hence their ability to speak up.

dotoallasyouwouldbedoneby · 12/03/2021 14:09

@HerewardTheWoke

This is very concerning.

However I am heartened that there does appear to be a route to challenging it. I didn't realise this but it looks as though the courts have much, much stronger powers over Scottish legislation than over UK legislation. Unlike primary legislation (Acts) of the UK Parliament, it appears there is a much wider set of grounds to JR an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Blair got something right then! Taking legal action is expensive though. I shouldn't have to fund that and pay my taxes to the Scottish Government.
334bu · 12/03/2021 14:10

Thanks Miss Barbary.

334bu · 12/03/2021 14:13

Does anyone know if Humans Yousaf's amendment to downgrade need for collection of sex disaggregated data was passed?

UnderHisAye · 12/03/2021 14:16

@dotoallasyouwouldbedoneby

I mentioned the few Labour MSPs who had voted against (Jenny Mara, Johann Lamont etc) and he was aware that they are standing down in May so hence their ability to speak up.
It says something about the chilling effect on politicians if they can only speak their truth if they don't need to be re-elected.

In reality, more people would vote for them if they were honest about this! Decisions taken by those at the heads of parties do not reflect the normal person in the street at all.

UnderHisAye · 12/03/2021 14:18

Reply for Claire Baker (Labour) to my email asking her not to back the bill:

Since its publication in May last year, Scottish Labour carefully considered the Hate Crime Bill and have noted the many valid concerns which were raised by individuals and organisations about the potential consequences of its provisions.

Prejudice and hate have no place in Scottish society and so it is important that we have clear and robust laws to allow us to tackle hate crime. Scottish Labour are therefore supportive of the principle of Hate Crime legislation and consolidating existing hate crime into one body of law is an important step.

However, there were serious issues with the Bill as it was originally drafted. It was obvious early on that substantial revisions were required if the Bill was to be fit for purpose and it was therefore welcome when the Scottish Government conceded that amendments were necessary. Scottish Labour have always been clear that this Bill must uphold the importance of free speech in a democratic society while also protecting individuals from prejudice.

The Bill underwent a number of very welcome changes at Stage 2 and many of the concerns that Scottish Labour had, especially about Part 2 of the Bill and the stirring up offences, have now been addressed. Intent must now be proved and offences of stirring up hatred will be subject to a reasonable person test; these strengthened protections are positive additions. Provisions relating to the performance of plays and the possession of inflammatory material were also removed. The drafting of these clauses lacked clarity and there were serious concerns about their application so their removal is very welcome.

Some women’s organisations had concerns that a Hate Crime Bill could lack the nuance required to address hate towards women and have unintended consequences. Scottish Labour therefore welcome the establishment of the Working Group on Misogynistic Harassment which was set up to consider the development of a separate offence to address gendered violence against women.

However, Scottish Labour supported arguments that not including a sex aggravator in the Bill could send the wrong message. We supported including sex as a protected characteristic in Part 1 of the Bill, and I voted for amendments in this area. As these amendments were not accepted, we now need the Working Group to conclude its work and legislation on future misogynistic harassment offences brought forward, and provide equal protection for women within the law.

We recognise that provisions protecting free speech will have significant implications for the operation of the Bill. During Stage 2 various freedom of expression amendments were discussed but it was agreed that further work was necessary to ensure that drafting of these sections was acceptable. Scottish Labour take seriously the need to achieve an appropriate balance in the Bill. To ensure protections were enhanced, we have worked cross-party and with external organisations to inform the development of the Government’s Stage 3 amendment. We are glad to see that the Government has listened and that the freedom of expression protections will now apply to all the characteristics in Part Two, rather than the piecemeal approach that was originally in the Bill.

Scottish Labour were determined to see this legislation amended and improved which I believe it has been, and for these reasons, I voted to support the Bill. We need to ensure that it will deliver on its aims and appropriately uphold the rights and protections necessary for a safer and more tolerant Scotland. Ultimately however, tackling hate crime requires more than legislative action, it requires education, societal change and a concerted effort to build a culture of respect and inclusion. I will work to achieve that wider change in Scotland to prevent prejudice, discrimination and hate.

MissBarbary · 12/03/2021 14:20

@HerewardTheWoke

This is very concerning.

However I am heartened that there does appear to be a route to challenging it. I didn't realise this but it looks as though the courts have much, much stronger powers over Scottish legislation than over UK legislation. Unlike primary legislation (Acts) of the UK Parliament, it appears there is a much wider set of grounds to JR an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Not really- there have been several challenges and all have failed with the exception of Salvesen-v- Riddell. The very basic facts there was Holyrood had no right to retrospectively re-write contracts which were freely entered into and were legal at the time they were entered into and impose an arbitrary punishment on a small group of persons who elected, at a specific and limited point in time, to enforce the contracts.
greatpurplepolkadots · 12/03/2021 14:33

Is it okay to be posting MSP responses like this? I thought correspondence was meant to be confidential?

Swipe left for the next trending thread