Urgent - clarity over hate crime laws

[CaptainCarrotsBigSword]

Hi all. DD has an external training provider coming into school tomorrow to do a workshop on hate crime with her year (6) and the year below.

There was v v v little info on the original comms from school, even though we do need to give permission for her to attend. Naff all on the website of the provider.

Asked school to give me details of the people delivering the workshop and sight of the materials. Fair play to school they have sent me a copy of the PowerPoint, although no details on who is giving the session.

Most of the info looks ok but I am a bit concerned about the inclusion of "transgender identity" in this slide.

Is this accurate? I know this is a very messy area of the law and I know there have been examples of JKR being threatened with investigation/ charging of a hate crime for naming as men, certain individuals who identify as transwomen.

I don't have an issue with DD being taught about hate crime in general (although I think it's a flawed law) but seeing as the police don't seem to be able to get this right I'm not feeling a whole lot of trust on this topic right now.

Find it hard to believe anyone was using the phrase "gender identity" pre the EA 2010!

It's not. It's transgender identity. It dates from 2007.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/crimeaggravationmarkersandtransgenderhatecrimes

It has nothing to do with the Equality Act. You could make a case that the Equality Act requires the police to consider whether they are discriminating but this is a different branch of law.

It has nothing to do with the Equality Act.

I've already said I now know its not to do with the EA. That is what is totally stupid.

How can you not have two sets of laws that dont match.

So criminally one thing is a crime but civily it isn't.

How is that possible?

So I repeat how is that functionally in terms of regulating society's behaviour if you have 2 laws that dont tally.

And as the criminal hate laws where compiled from existing laws in the same way as the EA was in the same year, why in one do they talk about gender reassignment and in the other transgender identity.

So I repeat how did anyone think that could have 2 laws both proposed in the same year not dovetailing.

And how many TRAs know that to use the Hate Crime law they have to claim that anything hateful was based on trangender identity.

I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

Moronic.

And how many TRAs know that to use the Hate Crime law they have to claim that anything hateful was based on trangender identity.

All of them, I imagine. It's not as if Stonewall etc have kept it a secret.

In 2007, the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Prison Service (now the National Offender Management Service) and other agencies that make up the criminal justice system agreed a common definition of monitored hate crimeme_ to cover the following five 'strands': disability, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation and transgender identity.^

www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/crimeaggravationmarkersandtransgenderhatecrimes

So criminally one thing is a crime but civily it isn't.

Civil law doesn't deal with crime. It's people suing each other, not prosecutions. E.g. If your employer discriminates against you because of a protected characteristic you could take them to tribunal where they could be ordered to pay you compensation - but they haven't committed a crime.

Unless you live in Scotland it can be a stand alone offence

The 'stirring up hatred' offence, yes:

'New stirring up offences

The 2021 Act maintains the existing stirring up of racial hatred offence, with some minor modifications.

The test for the offence remains the same as it is under the Public Order Act 1986, so that for a stirring up racial hatred offence to be committed, a person must behave in a manner that:

a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and
either–
in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or
a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.
The 2021 Act also creates new stirring up of hatred offences for each of the following characteristics:

Disability,
Religion,
Sexual orientation,
Transgender identity,
Age,
Variations in sex characteristics.
For these characteristics, an offence is committed when a person behaves in a manner that:

a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, or communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and
in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic as listed:
age,
disability
religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,
sexual orientation,
transgender identity,
variations in sex characteristics.'

(Taken from the Scotgov website, I can't c&p the link and text at same time)

It's all clear as mud. I've read it all back to.front and still find it confusing. Always good to have vague, confusing and unclear law. Even the police struggle with it, from what I hear.

Is this why people are pushing for ‘misogyny’ [in brackets to indicate I mean it being used as a legal technical phrase] to be added to the hate crime legislation because if a woman is assaulted and the attacker makes slurs about her being a woman (eg, ‘you women are all c*nts’, not an uncommon remark during DV or other assaults on women), it would mean attacking a woman because she is a woman would have the same weight in law as attaching a trans woman because they are trans? At the moment the hate crime law is expressly distinguishing itself from the EA because of it’s inclusion of transgender and the exclusion of ‘sex categories’.

Tbh, in the interests of fairness I actually believe that is ‘misogyny’ is included and ‘misandry’ isn’t (am thinking of some of the footage of that programme about the man who was terrorised for years by his wife), then it is still unjust, so ‘sex class’ should be added.

Yes to your question.

And/or for 'sex' to be added as one of the characteristics.

There are concerns that police/courts/prisons just could not handle the volume of misogynistic crime, though.*

It's basically saying if abuse against women were taken seriously, the country would collapse.

*(as well as concerns that men might weaponise the addition of 'sex' against women).

In Scotland there'd been a long running enquiry into misogyny and law headed by Helena Kennedy the Huge Disappointment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7200756wz7o

'The Scottish government proposes to legislate for five separate offences in the new Misogyny Act. These are:
a new statutory aggravation relating to misogynistic conduct where a crime such as assault, criminal damage/vandalism or threatening or abusive behaviour is aggravated by misogyny
a new offence of stirring up hatred against women and girls
a new offence of misogynistic harassment
a new offence of misogynistic behaviour
a new offence of issuing threats of, or invoking, rape or sexual assault or disfigurement of women and girls online and offline'

https://www.gov.scot/publications/misogyny-human-rights-issue/

Given that police, lawyers and the general populace struggle with the 'hate crime' laws it seems quite ambitious to explain it to primary school children.

FarkingH.

What age group is this aimed at?!

The cartoon graphics suggest primary. But they're discussing 'gender identity'?

Apart from anything else the scansion and SPAG is bloody awful.

'Has gender identity made you feel judged badly?'

They seem to be inclusive about apostrophes, too.

What age group is this aimed at?

Other people have given good answers to the OP, but I just wanted to add how daft I think this idea of an "aggravator" is. If John punches Peter because Peter is gay, that is considered a worse offence than if John punches Peter because Peter looked at him in a funny way. It is really hard to see the logic or justification for this - a punch is a punch.

The fact that sex is left off the list of aggravating factors seems to illustrate the problem with the whole concept. Male violence against women is endemic. For the most part, male violence against women is motivated by hatred of women. If this cannot be considered an aggravating factor, then what's the point of having aggravating factors? It's almost as if the law was drawn up with just men in mind.

Agree royalcorgi

And I bet you anything the training organisation isn't going to explain to year 5 and 6 children the complicated and often biased reasons misogyny doesn't feature on the hate crime list. In fact I bet they don't mention misogyny and male violence against women at all.

Given the horrors of recent years I'm reticent about any training that potentially teaches kids to put adults' feelings before their own.

I'd be interested to know what they say OP. Do they mention anything about how something can be a transphobic "hate crime" or is it all very generic across all the strands?

A few years back the CPS had a teaching pack which feminists managed to get withdrawn. It gave all sorts of things as potential hate crimes such as confronting a male in the female toilets.

Exactly this. Make it an aggravating factor for a male person (however they identify) to punch a female person or a child (however they identify) because that punch is more likely to do serious damage.

A woman with a fractured skull isn't going to be in any less pain just because the assault wasn't motivated by her being trans or Muslim, so why should the perpetrator get a lighter sentence?

Other people have given good answers to the OP, but I just wanted to add how daft I think this idea of an "aggravator" is. If John punches Peter because Peter is gay, that is considered a worse offence than if John punches Peter because Peter looked at him in a funny way. It is really hard to see the logic or justification for this - a punch is a punch.

And as pp have said, the basis on victim perception rather than objectivity means that perhaps John did actually punch Peter because he looked at him funny but Peter feels or says he feels it was because he was gay it might be concluded that that was the motivation.

It's a bit more complicated than has been said and from CPS, there are some hate crime specific offences.

The 'hate' crime provisions are in different criminal law Acts:

• where a criminal offence (not specified) involves hostility to one of the five protected groups, the courts may increase the sentence.

• a number of specific offences of racially and religiously aggravated crime based on the offences of wounding, assault, damage, stalking,harassment and threatening or abusive behaviour.

• offences of stirring up racial and religious hatred and hatred based upon sexual orientation under the Public Order Act 1986.

The latter two require intention or likelihood of having the effect and may affect public order.

A sub-division within the 3rd, is that religious and sexual orientation are treated differently from racial: they have a freedom of expression clause while racial hatred stirring doesn't.

Sentences may be increased for the disability, transgender identity, race, religion and sexual orientation grounds.

Thanks all. The workshop was today, I declined to give permission. DD is yr6, but the workshop if for year 5 and 6 I believe.

I said there were inaccuracies in the slides (not posted on here), some of the content I deemed unsuitable ("fucking queer", mostly bleeped but still very obvious) and materials not being clear enough about what hate crime is, as opposed to non crime hate incidents.

That's missing the point.

The law in whatever area is saying in some way what is or is not acceptable in society.

So it is chronically stupid not to have something that in one system is deemed not to be a problem, but in another is.

Added to which, this disparity has been created not by the people we elect to Parliament to take decisions about the law, but by pen pushing employees of various organistations "the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Prison Service (now the National Offender Management Service) and other agencies that make up the criminal justice system agreed a common definition" who have decided they dont need to accept what Parliamentarians have designated are the groups with protected characteristics that need to have their rights protected.

Its incomprehensible that there should be this disparity.

Although suspect as said upthread, as these are the pen pushers, that they thought it would be just too troublesome to have to recognise that woman are being subjected to a hate crime. Too much like hard work.

And yet it is now being said that 999 calls need to be monitored because police cant see patterns of domestic violence. A daily horrible reminder of sexism and misogyny.