Sturgeon ‘blocked changes’ to Scotland’s hate crime laws

[IwantToRetire]

Feminist group For Women Scotland (FWS) say that as first minister, Ms Sturgeon forced <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/JVcnV/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/02/humza-yousaf-racist-graffiti-hate-crime-laws-scotland/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Humza Yousaf, then her justice secretary, to withdraw amendments to the legislation during its final parliamentary stages in 2021.

... an amendment to add sex to the list of protected characteristics was voted down, despite cross-party MSPs raising concerns about why women were excluded.

In early 2021, Mr Yousaf tabled an amendment to the Bill aimed at addressing concerns that gender-critical feminists would be criminalised for arguing that trans women are men.

This was later withdrawn, and he persuaded other parties to pull their amendments on the same issue, with a round table discussion on the issue held instead.

The final Act contains a section stating that “behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves” discussion or criticism involving trans issues.

However, this is weaker than the freedom of speech protection given to “discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards” religious beliefs and practices.

A senior SNP MP said the final wording of the Act ignored the recommendations of an official review of hate crime by judge Lord Bracadale that a “protection of freedom of expression provision” be included.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/02/nicola-sturgeon-blocked-law-protect-jk-rowling-feminists/

I'm not doubting that FWS were misled, but I also wonder whether the UK wide hate crime also excludes the protected characteristic of sex. Something that some women who say they are feminist campaigned for saying it would make no difference. Well the difference it makes is that across the UK the sex class of women aren't even thought to be important enough to have the protection of hate crime law that other protect characteristic groups do have.

In fact would the UK Government been obliged to challenge a hate crime bill that did include sex as it would not be in line with UK wide law. The basis on which they challenged the Scottish Government legislation on GR as it would mean one part of the UK had different laws to other parts.

Article can also be read at https://archive.ph/JVcnV

As I understand it the hate crime element that can garnish other crimes has eight strands not including sex.

Anyone else not surprised to see Sturgeon's 'feminist' fingerprints all over this.

Someone on another thread pointed out that 'belief' had been left off the Scottish Bill, just religion on it. This would have been happening as Maya was going through the courts I think. So, I wonder if it was just incompetence or a deliberate choice. If it was a choice, why?

In theory there was meant to be new legislation to protect women from misogyny. Somehow that hasn't yet materialised.

But do wonder, because it is the same under UK law, there is no protection on the basis of sex under hate crime laws.

I was suprised that hate crimes based on sex have not been included. It was down to a Law Commission report which concluded that it was counterproductive.

Some highlights.

Potentially harmful consequences:
(a) It has been argued that violence against women and girls is closely
related to sex or gender-based prejudice and inequality. Some groups
have been concerned that if the gendered nature of VAWG must be
expressly proven via hate crime laws, then this understanding would be
unduly limited to cases where there was proof that specific gendered
language was used.
(b) Research has indicated that sex or gender-based hostility is more likely
to be identified or proven in the context of sexual violence perpetrated by
strangers, in non-private settings, particularly where this is accompanied
by physical violence. This has raised concerns that recognising sex or
gender as a hate crime characteristic could contribute to hierarchies of
sexual violence by re-introducing damaging standards of “real rape”25 – a
concept which falsely implies that a rape is more harmful, or is only real,
if it takes place in certain circumstances, for example if it is perpetrated
by a stranger in an alleyway.
(c) In the pre-consultation period, some stakeholders representing LGBT
victims also raised the concern that elevating “misogynistic sexual
offences” or “misogynistic domestic abuse”, might give the impression
that sexual offences or domestic abuse committed by opposite sex
perpetrators are considered to be more serious than those committed by
same sex perpetrators.

It also mentions the often private nature of domestic violence, the complication of proving "hostility" as a motive and the fact that sexual offences, usually directed against women, have relatively high sentences. Actually using the current law effectively (when it clearly isn't) would be a better idea.

A number of contributors to the report, including the gender critical AEA, Sex Matters and Legal Feminist opposed the desgination, as did RCCEW and Women's Place UK.

The report is available here:

https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/