Crime and policing Bill includes sex as aggravated offence

[Imnobody4]

This is linked to the LGB one.
I've not seen any talk about this and I'm not sure I entirely
understand (or agree).
Aggravated offences (new clause “Aggravated offences” and amendments to clauses 122, 123, 124 and 217)In our manifesto we committed to “protect LGBT+ and disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence” and in response to an amendment tabled at Commons Report stage by Rachel Taylor the then Minister for Policing and Crime committed to bring forward an amendment in the Lords to deliver on the manifesto commitment. This new clause does just that. Indeed, it goes further and extends the ambit of the racially and religiously aggravated offences in sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 not just to cover hostility related to disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity but also hostility motivated by a person’s sex. This change will ensure that tackling misogyny is part of the government’s approach to tackling hate crime. It also ensures it can be embedded within the government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade.To avoid an overlap with section 4B of the Public Orders Act 1986 (Intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex), as inserted by the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 (to be commenced on 1 April), the new clause does not aggravate - on the basis of hostility motivated by a person’s sex - the offence at section 4A of the 1986 Act (Intentional harassment, alarm or distress).As a consequence of the new clause, we have also tabled amendments to clauses 122 to 124 to provide that the new offences relating to emergency workers also cover behaviour motivated by hostility based on a person’s sex, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.

Sorry, don't know what happened to the formatting

Mmn. Whenever 'sex' has been included before, it's generally been to enable men to have another legal weapon to bash women with for not agreeing that the man's sex is whatever he would like you to say it is. I would be deeply suspicious as to how much this is changing at police and government level despite the SCJ.

The hate crime laws and legalities have been a mess, they've wasted ridiculous amounts of time to very little purpose, and what do they really achieve that is needed over and above existing law? I thought all this had been agreed and it was all being undone, but apparently here we go again. We don't need hyperactive legislating and control, we need police with time and capacity to do their core job. And for CPS to stop desperately trying to find a way to get a woman in a court room for saying something a man didn't like.

And I'd love to know how they intend to 'protect' LGBT+ in one amorphous group, when one of the main groups LGB people may need protections from are those committed to a belief that to see or mention anyone's sex is a hate crime, and homosexuality is a form of racism.

Which means when they say 'LGBT+' they actually mean trans and those who are gender ideologically compliant only.

Mad.

You can't tackle misogyny until you can correctly define women/girls.

All aggravated or hate add-ons should be removed and actually up sentencing guidelines for everything. If the original crime needs an add-on to give judges the teeth to do decent sentences then the original guidelines are too bloody lenient in the first place.

Their was a consultation on hate crimes in 2021.
The result:
Gender/Misogyny Status: Following consultation, the government decided against adding sex or gender as a protected characteristic to the aggravated offences regime, citing potential hindrances in prosecuting crimes against women.

I remember doing the survey and there was a lot of disagreement on including sex from Women's groups.
It looks like another token gesture from a desperate government.

This government seems to think saying something or writing something down or putting it into policy, procedure or law is somehow important and a meaningful action even when it's completely opposite to whatever is happening in reality.

In reality, rape is rarely prosecuted, it may be illegal in law, but most rapists get away with it. Indecent exposure even more so - and the lack of truly single sex spaces has made it much much easier for men to get their knob out around unconsenting women and girls and to keep doing this gateway crime to the point of escalation to more serious crimes.

Some of which we've seen from serving police officers e.g. Wayne Couzens. The police has a misogyny problem that isn't really being addressed.

Police don't come out for a lot of crime, they don't follow policies and procedures and laws already in place. Some of them propped up child rapist grooming gangs. The trust is gone.

The courts often give ridiculous sentences to men who are viewing images of child rape and worse. Then a woman gets a very long sentence for a hastily written and deleted tweet that would have influenced exactly no-one had it not been amplified for political reasons. Judges seem to be beyond accountability (Kemp in the Peggie case but it's not just him, the family courts have also some seriously dodgy decisions, and keeping illegal immigrant child rapists in the UK also needs looking at).

Like everything else, this is totally meaningless unless enforced. It's just words.

The question is what is a transgender identity and how is it defined