A perfect storm? Police cuts and hate crime in Scotland - MBM article

[IwantToRetire]

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, passed in March 2021, is finally planned to be brought into full force in February 2024. This will include its most controversial provision; the extension of the offence of ‘stirring up hatred’ from race to a wider range of characteristics including transgender identity, and from public to private settings.

Once in force, Police Scotland faces a potential deluge of complaints relating to differences of belief on sex and gender. It is difficult to overstate how easily triggered accusations of hate in this area already are. During the passage of the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, a mildly drafted freedom of expression amendment lodged and then withdrawn by the then Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf MSP was described by a Green Party activist as ‘pandering to transphobia ’. The Committee Convenor Adam Tomkins MSP said he was ‘afraid’ at the reaction to proposed amendments to the Bill.

Training for frontline officers on the new Act appears limited largely to an online package. Over the last two years, neither the Scottish Government nor Police Scotland has instigated any contact with those who expressed concern about how the stirring up provisions on transgender identity might be implemented. The government has also reneged on a promise made by Humza Yousaf, at a late stage in the Bill process, to give concerned stakeholders, including ourselves, some post-legislative input.

Training has instead been developed in partnership with the Scottish Government’s Hate Crime Strategic Partnership Group. This includes the Equality Network, which has previously described those arguing for a separate sex and gender identity question in the census as ‘anti-trans lobbyists’. The same organisation has also previously provided training on hate crime to Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Prosecution Service, aimed at increasing the reporting of incidents.

Just a view paragraphs for the article at https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,a-perfect-storm-police-cuts-and-hate-crime

Thanks for the article, I dread to think what will happen once the police start enforcing it. After Police Scotland arrested a woman for tweeting a picture of a suffragette ribbon no woman can have confidence in them. (I've also witnessed a lot of petty police behaviour where they try to exercise control when they have no legal right to do so)

I must admit that I hadn't really realised and that of course I should have, that the laws would be different in England and Scotland.

And wondered if there had been any discussion (apart from this article by MBM) about how laws like this work in practice.

And is it going to be the same as England that being hateful towards a woman doesn't count, because being verbally violent towards a women isn't considered hate (just a natural response to women).

Are women covered by this new law?

I found this but cant work our if it means sex as the basis of a hate crime is included:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/11

Sorry am a bit tired, but having now seen this, sex is not covered by hate crime law, only sex variations

The characteristics are—
(a)age,
(b)disability,
(c)race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins,
(d)religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,
(e)sexual orientation,
(f)transgender identity,
(g)variations in sex characteristics.

I can only imagine how many basement dwellers, along with the professionally offended, will take huge delight in abusing the new legislation.

Scotland already has big problems with alcoholism, drug abuse and their associated issues like homelessness, shoplifting, burglary and mugging. This new legislation will do nothing to tackle any of that, but few of the MSPs have to “see” any of those real life problems and what the eye can’t see…

I will need to find some advice about what to do when I am arrested for being hateful. I’m female and know what sex is so it’ll be jail for me. Should be fun, there are quite a lot of women like me, I’m envisaging Cell Blovk H but with cackling.

Cell Blovk H but with cackling.

And we could form a support group and fly in some magic broomsticks!

There is an earlier thread from when this reported, linking up for further info

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4901955-scottish-women-speak-up-now-while-you-still-can?

Thanks for the link.

Was there any consultation on this prior to it becoming law.

And if there was, were women listened to?

I still cant get over "variations in sex characteristics" being included as being included for potential hate crimes, but not sex.

What do they mean by "variations in sex characteristics"?

Really confusing. Do they mean something physical or something worn or displayed. Like women in dungarees?

I've had a look at the Act - it"s available on the Legislation.gov website.

There's a section on the meaning of the characteristics - the following are relevant here:

"(7)A person is a member of a group defined by reference to transgender identity if the person is—

(a)a female-to-male transgender person,

(b)a male-to-female transgender person,

(c)a non-binary person,

(d)a person who cross-dresses,
and references to transgender identity are to be construed accordingly.

(8)A person is a member of a group defined by reference to variations in sex characteristics if the person is born with physical and biological sex characteristics which, taken as a whole, are neither—

(a)those typically associated with males, nor

(b)those typically associated with females,

and references to variations in sex characteristics are to be construed accordingly."

I take it that saying Caster Semenya ir someone similar is a male might get caught under this section. It's evidently shaped by the forced teaming of "intersex" with the rest of the letters.

However, it:s worth reading the part on "Protection of freedom of expression, particularly the word "solely":

"9 Protection of freedom of expression

For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes—

(a)discussion or criticism of matters relating to—
(i)age,
(ii)disability,
(iii)sexual orientation,
(iv)transgender identity,
(v)variations in sex characteristics,

(b)discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards—
(i)religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,
(ii)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice,
(iii)the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,

(c)proselytising, or
(d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions."

Finding/creating a network of useful lawyers would be good, too.

@Chersfrozenface

Thanks for highlighting that section.

Hard to understand how this could be implemented. And / or that the police will have adequate training for this. As mentioned in the article in OP.

One thing that does concern me is the wording in the freedom of expression section that "behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes discussion or criticism of matters "

I suspect a challenge to a male in a female space such as a toilet or changing room might be considered "threatening or abusive behaviour" on the grounds that is does not constitute discussion of criticism of matters relating to transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics. I can quite see captured police claiming such a thing is an attack on an individual and contrary to the Act

What about a woman silently leaving a space that a male person has entered? Because some twit has tried arguing that as an act of hate.

And someone will.

Of course what will happen is what already happens: a woman suffering for months on a (hateful, spiteful) accusation indulged by the police, that the CPS tries hard to find a way to prosecute and eventually gives up knowing that in a court room they would sound like absolute idiots. But the woman will have been terrorised for months, so the complainant's happy.

Fgs we can't even get fully evidenced rapes successfully prosecuted, this is going to be playground stuff of 'but she said I wasn't really a woman/looked at me funny/wouldn't get her clothes off in front of me waaaah'.

This should really successfully end public trust and anyone taking the police or law seriously, not to mention making the general public increasingly fed up with the word 'trans' and the behaviour of the TQ+ lobby which will end tolerance for T people. No one will win. Other than a few people getting the temporary gratification of seeing a woman bullied on their command.

If it's like a lot of legislation written by the SNP it will be incompetent, stir up lots of division and the only winners will be the lawyers. It only encourages entrenched positions from everyone who can fall foul of it and the professionally offended who will abuse it in my opinion.

“Verbally violent” eh? Now where have I heard that before? Which other prominent groups of activists tends to describe words as violence?

Verbal: “relating to or in the form of words”

Violence: “behaviour involving physical force”

So do words = violence after all now, or just when you don’t like them?

Does language even matter at all or is it just a tool to be manipulated as words get redefined in real time to suit an agenda?

Every time I find myself sympathising with feminists and the situation they find themselves in today someone comes along and reminds me not to, because feminists are partly responsible for the society we live in today. Make your bed lie in it I suppose.

God help them if they start on me !!!