UN Special Rapporteur raises concerns about Scottish Gender reforms

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=27681

So many of the issues we have all been raising for example:

"While I commend the Government for listening to the voices of transwomen,
including organizations that represent them, I am concerned that the consultations for this proposal do not appear to have been sufficiently inclusive of other groups of women, most notably female victims of violence. It has been reported that five survivors of male violence approached the Scottish Parliament EHRCJ to speak in a private session about their concerns in relation to the Bill and their own experiences of self-exclusion. The convenor reportedly informed the group that the Committee did not have time to see them and to put their objections in writing.
I would like to recall the UK’s obligation to make sure that all processes that
affect the lives of all women and girls put them at the center of their deliberations, as well as its responsibility to take and enforce all measures to end violence against women. Second-guessing and questioning the needs of survivors of violence born female for single sex assistance and protection services is not victim-centered and ignores and undermines the survivor’s involuntary trauma, agency, and dignity.'"

In the Guardian today:

Sturgeon rejects UN concerns about reform of Scotland’s gender law

First minister says special rapporteur’s disquiet about changes to how people change their legal sex ‘not well founded’

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/01/nicola-sturgeon-rejects-un-concerns-about-reform-of-scotlands-gender-law

Shona Robison's response to Reem Alsalem:

www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee/correspondence/2022/gender-recognition-reform-letter-from-cabsecsjhlg-to-ehrcj-committee-on-un-special-rapporteur-letter.pdf

OldCrone can you reassure me that I'm not going to get really angry if I read Sturgeon's interview or Robison's response?

Cannot provide any reassurance on that front, I'm afraid.

Not Your Shield is happening now on Twitter

In her response, Robison skips over the inconvenient fact that the UN Special Rapporteur specifically and explicitly criticed their refusal to hear from female survivors of male violence.

She lists instead all of the government-funded women's organisations and VAWAG sector orgs that the committee talked to who hurrah every aspect of the bill.

She does not see any need obviously to hear from or listen to us or why else would she think this is a rebuttal to that criticism?

Dire.

Same old arguments. Tiresome, really. At this point it's clear that they do not rate our or the audience's intelligence, because everything in those two pieces is so damn easily refuted.

I'm particularly pissed off at the disingenuous reference to 'consultation'.

We fucking KNEW they'd do this.

Ignore everything everyone raises, deliberately fail to listen/hear/understand the salient points, nod and ignore, then claim that they did their due diligence.

This is apparently a major plank of Scotgov policy - consult everyone to death, exhaust us with endless 'consultations' that nobody has time for, gather thousands of responses, ignore absolutely fucking everything anyone says that isn't the 'facts' the govt have actually paid for, then insult us all by saying 'WE HUD A CONSULTATION'.

Fucking liars and charlatans.

It undermines the whole idea of collaborative, responsive government. I'd say it actually undermines the idea of democracy, but that might be taking it a bit too far.

No, it's not going too far.

If you look at the argument ScotGov made at Stage 1 - vote yes, your concerns can be addressed by amendments at Stage 2 - and then look at what they said in Stage 2 - you voted yes at Stage 1, that means you agreed with all the details of the Bill, so these amendments are rightfully defeated - that is openly undermining the democratic process of lawmaking.

If passing a Bill at Stage 1 meant no major or minor detail of the Bill could be amended, why would there be a Stage 2 at all? The express purpose of Stage 2 is to send a Bill back to the drawing board if lawmakers (in this case Scottish MSPs) feel that a Bill has flaws that need to be corrected.

By arguing that Stage 2 is not for that purpose, ScotGov is indeed undermining democracy.

Or another example, for the Hate Crime Bill, ScotGov (or more likely the Committee responsible for the Bill) organised a number of public stakeholder meetings, where civil servants listened to concerns about the Bill from various stakeholders, all sat around round tables in groups. These meetings were openly advertised and anyone could sign up if they wanted to contribute. (I took part in one such meeting).

Despite holding three separate consultations for the GRR Bill, no such stakeholder meetings were ever organised. When women organised public meetings themselves, and complained about having to get security because of threats and aggressive behaviour from trans rights activists, ScotGov did not remind the public that anyone had the right to take part in a public consultation on a proposed law reform. They couldn't even be bothered to support a motion asking for MSPs to agree that women in Scotland should be able to meet to discuss their rights without being subjected to silencing tactics, intimidation and violence.

That's also undermining the democratic process.

Scottish govt does not give one shiny shit about females and kids. The contempt, especially from the fucking women, in govt is visible. I'm so beyond pissed off. I'm starting to believe it will take a hundred deaths of women and kids at the hands of men using the govt created loophole before anyone in govt will even raise a finger. One fatality won't be enough. Ten will just be brushed under the carpet. 50 might be cause for concern.

The line 'no known adverse outcomes for women and girls' simply means they are all being hidden, chiefly by the tried & tested method of ignoring any such cases. Make the victim a perpetrator, threaten legal sanctions so they shut up and job done.

You could hide thousands of cases if you're prepared to sink so low. As Sturgeon, Robison et al appear to be.

Ugh, the Hate Crime Bill was another one of these terrible, deeply flawed legislations that got rammed through despite a massive array of informed, relevant parties warning the ScotGov of very serious issues.

I am at a bit of a loss as to why they are ploughing on with this. It’s generating so much bad publicity. If any harms happen because of this Act (should that be when) then they will be in the firing line.

The free speech union covered this in their online safety bill update:

twitter.com/speechunion/status/1598602876716302337?s=46&t=2tiqZRN85OV9KalLWqPgFQ

freespeechunion.org/

"Another positive is that the clause in the Bill which obliges providers to remove content everywhere in the UK if it’s illegal anywhere in the UK won’t now apply to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act — a piece of legislation that FSU Scotland Advisory Council member Jamie Gillies has previously described as “an authoritarian mess” (Spiked). The Government amended the Bill in July, so providers won’t be obliged to remove speech that’s prohibited by new laws that have been made by the devolved parliaments (Critic).
Fears that Nicola Sturgeon might become the content moderator for the whole of the UK can be laid to rest – at least for the time being."

Thanks, Resister.

I think it isn't so much 'content moderator'. The content is pretty much irrelevant. Ultimately, it's about who is Permitted to Speak.

The Named Person scheme was another example of Scot Gov trying to force through a policy despite being told by many different bodies that it wasn't a good idea. I think there are some parallels between the named person scheme and the treatment of trans kids in Scotland, in particular the assumption that teachers (the state) know what is best for children.

And on that Bill, everything that was later the reason the court struck the law down, had been pointed out to the government beforehand by the very people it had tasked with figuring out how to implement it in practice.

Exactly. We were howling for months about that pile of authoritarian crap,vet they ignored us all. I hope that they run up against that same brick wall this time, but I'm truly afraid. I feel power hungry megalomaniac are here to stay, and we'll be fighting the same battles in different fields for the rest of our lives.
I'm so fucking tired.

We should know tomorrow when the stage 3 debate is, unless, as we hope, the bill is paused. Please keep on writing to your MPs & MSPs.

So it looks like 20th & 21st December are Destroy Safeguarding Women & Children day in Scotland.
Please join us in the Parliament public gallery if you can. Wear 💚🤍💜 but no slogans are allowed, no metal whistles 😉or anything that can make a noise are allowed in.

Merry fucking Christmas women of Scotland! 😟 Just goes to show how desperate they are to get it through. With you in spirit. 💪

How many times are they going to do this?

How much public money are they pissing away on creating laws nobody wants, that won't work, only for said laws to be shelved/struck?

Looks like virtue signalling busywork to me.

FIx the fucking ferries! Fix the roads! Fix education!

I agree. So far we have had the named person scheme and the offensive behaviour at football matches legislation that has been ditched after both acts were found to be unworkable. I predict there will be a scandal in the future which will result in a quick u turn of some of this legislation.