Proposed Scottish Hate Crime Bill

[Keith_M]

I've read a lot of confusing stuff about the SG's proposed Hate Crime Bill, most of it written from either a biased or sensationalist viewpoint (or both)

Today's Herald article (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19056325.snp-u-turn-transgder-rights-hate-crime-bill/)* suggested there has been a 'U-Turn' in the area of Trans-Rights (thought it's more likely an adjustment of the proposal) and I'm hoping for some info on what is actually being proposed, instead of how some folk are interpreting it.


For Example:

Is it really true that, under the new Hate Crime laws, somebody could be prosecuted for saying they disagree that a Trans person is actually a woman?

Could somebody really be prosecuted for saying that they believe that there are only two Genders, Male and Female?

Could a person with strong religious beliefs be prosecuted for saying that they believe that, for example, homosexuality is a sin?


(please note, these are all taken from comments in newspapers)



* I suggest you don't read the article's comments, as they're mostly nut job level.

[Keith_M]

I take it nobody's brave enough to reply...


:wink:

[lord bunberry]

I take it nobody's brave enough to reply...


:wink:
I have to say my eyes glaze over when this subject comes up. I know that’s wrong, but the constant arguing on Twitter for what seems like years has led me to that position. The only thing I have a problem with is trans people having access to women only spaces, I’m not sure what the solution to that is though.

[Keith_M]

I have to say my eyes glaze over when this subject comes up. I know that’s wrong, but the constant arguing on Twitter for what seems like years has led me to that position. The only thing I have a problem with is trans people having access to women only spaces, I’m not sure what the solution to that is though.


I totally understand that, as some people have a very myopic view on one side or the other. The outrage at certain long term feminists, for instance, seemed way over the top (IMO).

My question, though, is more on what the SG are actually proposing, I've seen lots of media reports but very little of substance that would help me to actually understand the detail.

Like most of the other posters on here, I live in Scotland, so it would be nice to know the actual details of a proposed new law.

[Berwickhibby]

I understand and agree with principle of the Hate crime Bill, however what I have read so far, it is poorly written, vague and open to abuse by judiciary and Authorities. Should be scrapped and rewritten imho

[CropleyWasGod]

I have to say my eyes glaze over when this subject comes up. I know that’s wrong, but the constant arguing on Twitter for what seems like years has led me to that position. The only thing I have a problem with is trans people having access to women only spaces, I’m not sure what the solution to that is though.

Are you not confusing the Hate Crime Bill with the proposed Gender Recognition Act? To be fair, there is an overlap.

[lord bunberry]

Are you not confusing the Hate Crime Bill with the proposed Gender Recognition Act? To be fair, there is an overlap.
I probably am. I should’ve read the op properly.

[matty_f]

I have to say my eyes glaze over when this subject comes up. I know that’s wrong, but the constant arguing on Twitter for what seems like years has led me to that position. The only thing I have a problem with is trans people having access to women only spaces, I’m not sure what the solution to that is though.

It's a total minefield, folk are ready to pounce on any view that isn't 100% aligned to trans views, which (IMHO) isn't fair as there are other rights that are impacted.

It's not just female only spaces that are impacted, female sports is another hot topic with it.

A lot of folk I know now just refuse to get into the conversation for fear of saying something that gets them labelled as a bigot or transphobic, and that's not a healthy position to be in.

It needs discussion, the biggest problem with it is the lack of reasoned debate and the rush to shoehorn things into (for want of a better word) binary positions. Like is a transwoman a woman, to answer that you have to change the definition of what a woman is (at the behest of, for want of a better way to put it, men who want to be women).

That surely has to go down as one of the biggest sabotages of women's rights that you could possibly get, yet it appears to be that when someone raises that, they get everyone and their auntie/uncle after them labelling them transphobic etc.

It's an issue I'd really like to understand more about but trying to get to good debate on it is near impossible because of the extremes.

[Pretty Boy]

I think much like the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act this is another example of why a 2nd/upper house is beneficial.

Of course the House of Lords is fundamentally imperfect but it does provide an environment in which legislation can be scrutinised. As such legislation that is badly worded, ambiguous or just plain bad can be sent back for redrafting and amendment. The above mentioned act was described as 'mince' by a Sheriff for good reason and the current drafting of the Hate Crime Bill risks going down the same road.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's a total minefield, folk are ready to pounce on any view that isn't 100% aligned to trans views, which (IMHO) isn't fair as there are other rights that are impacted.

It's not just female only spaces that are impacted, female sports is another hot topic with it.

A lot of folk I know now just refuse to get into the conversation for fear of saying something that gets them labelled as a bigot or transphobic, and that's not a healthy position to be in.

It needs discussion, the biggest problem with it is the lack of reasoned debate and the rush to shoehorn things into (for want of a better word) binary positions. Like is a transwoman a woman, to answer that you have to change the definition of what a woman is (at the behest of, for want of a better way to put it, men who want to be women).

That surely has to go down as one of the biggest sabotages of women's rights that you could possibly get, yet it appears to be that when someone raises that, they get everyone and their auntie/uncle after them labelling them transphobic etc.

It's an issue I'd really like to understand more about but trying to get to good debate on it is near impossible because of the extremes.


Are you not confusing the Hate Crime Bill with the proposed Gender Recognition Act? To be fair, there is an overlap.

Are you not doing the same? :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

It's a total minefield, folk are ready to pounce on any view that isn't 100% aligned to trans views, which (IMHO) isn't fair as there are other rights that are impacted.

It's not just female only spaces that are impacted, female sports is another hot topic with it.

A lot of folk I know now just refuse to get into the conversation for fear of saying something that gets them labelled as a bigot or transphobic, and that's not a healthy position to be in.

It needs discussion, the biggest problem with it is the lack of reasoned debate and the rush to shoehorn things into (for want of a better word) binary positions. Like is a transwoman a woman, to answer that you have to change the definition of what a woman is (at the behest of, for want of a better way to put it, men who want to be women).

That surely has to go down as one of the biggest sabotages of women's rights that you could possibly get, yet it appears to be that when someone raises that, they get everyone and their auntie/uncle after them labelling them transphobic etc.

It's an issue I'd really like to understand more about but trying to get to good debate on it is near impossible because of the extremes.

The biggest issue I have with the trans debate is that a hell of a lot of people on either side want to debate using catchy slogans. 'Trans women are women' or 'there are only 2 genders, it's science' doesn't really cut it.

It's a hugely complex issue that needs adult conversation and the concerns of both sides given fair hearing. The issue of self ID seems to be the real sticking point with the proposed legislation and I can certainly understand why there are questions and concerns around shared spaces and female specific issues within that context. Simply shouting it down and calling people 'TERFS' helps no one reach a solution. Equally denying someone the right to live their life fully as they wish is a path fraught with difficulty and the potential to cause deep hurt and isolation.

[Keith_M]

I think much like the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act this is another example of why a 2nd/upper house is beneficial.

Of course the House of Lords is fundamentally imperfect but it does provide an environment in which legislation can be scrutinised. As such legislation that is badly worded, ambiguous or just plain bad can be sent back for redrafting and amendment. The above mentioned act was described as 'mince' by a Sheriff for good reason and the current drafting of the Hate Crime Bill risks going down the same road.


Actually, that's a very good point.

I think there's a place for a hate-crime bill but it's an absolute minefield, with so many potential pitfalls. A (possibly less partial) second house would give some well needed review of the detail.

[Keith_M]

I'd like to add that my own personal view is that this would be an ideal time for a cross-party solution, with all sides of the political spectrum able to give their input.

Sadly Holyrood is so polarised politically that I can't see that happening.

[hibsbollah]

There was a thread on here recently on this subject, which was way more nuanced and intelligent than what we usually get served up by the media.

[Keith_M]

There was a thread on here recently on this subject, which was way more nuanced and intelligent than what we usually get served up by the media.


:agree:

You're right, and it was quite refreshing to see people put their views over in such a dignified manner, even if some posters disagreed with others.


I honestly wasn't sure if I should have added my OP on the end of that one or not, but went with a new thread, as it's more to do with the details of the Hate Crime Bill, as opposed to a specific part (e.g. Trans Rights).

[One Day Soon]

I'd like to add that my own personal view is that this would be an ideal time for a cross-party solution, with all sides of the political spectrum able to give their input.

Sadly Holyrood is so polarised politically that I can't see that happening.


I don't think that would work here. This genuinely appears to be a zero-sum game in which in order for either side of the debate to have all of the rights to which they believe they are entitled, the other side MUST not have all of the rights to which they believe they are entitled. There appears to be literally no ground on which to meet and compromise.

And there's a heavy generational aspect to this too. Our 17 year old daughter and her peers seem to believe that you either agree with their position on Trans rights entirely or you are an enemy of Trans rights. Again, to want to discuss the rights of other groups in this context is literally taken as not being acceptable.

There are very few political issues, if any, that I have actively shied away from in many years of political activism but this is absolutely one of them.

On a side note, the lack of a revising chamber in Scotland is not helpful. Without wanting to trigger a feral indy/union debate, could the Scottish Parliament refer a report or draft bill to the House of Lords for their views, comments and insight from time to time on a non-binding basis? Would that even be constitutionally possible? It would be an interesting way of looking for long grass/taking wider soundings/getting a different perspective.