Read on Twitter
Thread on sex and the #HateCrimeBill
We continue to be bemused by the determination of some in government and funded orgs to dismiss and undermine important work on sex in hate crime because it does not suit a predetermined political agenda.
We continue to be bemused by the determination of some in government and funded orgs to dismiss and undermine important work on sex in hate crime because it does not suit a predetermined political agenda.
In writing his report, Lord Bracadale consulted widely and concluded that an aggravator of gender (sex) should be added to the Hate Crime Bill.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-review-hate-crime-legislation-scotland-final-report/
https://www.gov.scot/publications/independent-review-hate-crime-legislation-scotland-final-report/
While taking on board the objections raised by a tight knit group of Scottish organisations, he nevertheless felt that a stand alone offence would be superfluous and risk confusion. He was also concerned that momentum might be lost if there was further delay in meaningful action.
It is astonishing, therefore, that the same arguments which Lord Bracadale rejected were accepted without demur by the Cabinet Secretary when the bill was drafted.
Perhaps more concerning has been the wholesale dismissal - indeed belittling - of some important bodies of work and trials on sex / misogyny. This either demonstrates an incomprehension of the purpose or findings of trials, or are a deliberate attempt to misrepresent.
As Bracadale reported, these trials did not change the law, yet nevertheless carried useful lessons for the police and public. Indeed, the very act of putting the policy together had a positive impact.
Therefore, dismissing the important Nottingham trial (which had an 87% approval rating) & the substantial report from Nottingham & Nottingham Trent Unis with a picture of a post-it note, as one member of the working group did last week, appears unprofessional at best.
It is interesting to note that this objection was based on the low number of charges which were brought under the Nottingham trial.
However, it is clear that the aim of women’s centres and police forces in England, is far deeper and more holistic, involving changing awareness and disrupting behaviour: a preventative as much as a punitive approach. For example:
https://www.womenscentrecornwall.org.uk/information-support/guides/misogyny-as-a-hate-crime/
https://www.womenscentrecornwall.org.uk/information-support/guides/misogyny-as-a-hate-crime/
The sad fact is that there are many crimes on the statute book which disproportionately (or almost wholly) affect women. A tiny fraction of rape is reported, a fraction of that reaches court. Why add more crimes which might go unpunished or undetected?
Changing society and collecting data to enable resources to be deployed correctly would seem better than finding more people to criminalise.
This focus on attitudes (police and public) has been the reason that many trials in England have been hailed as positive.
This focus on attitudes (police and public) has been the reason that many trials in England have been hailed as positive.
The report on the Nottingham trial identifies areas of success and areas for improvement. Ironically, of course, one of the objections in the focus groups was to the word “misogyny” itself which was felt to be elitist or academic and poorly understood.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/lipp/documents/misogyny-evaluation-report.pdf
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/lipp/documents/misogyny-evaluation-report.pdf
Despite this clear and unequivocal finding, the Scottish Gov appointed working group is to consider a stand alone offence of misogynistic harassment.
Sex and sexism are terms that are more widely understood - especially by women who have suffered from the latter. If we really wish to make laws with women’s experience in mind, why would Scot Gov & women’s orgs ignore this?
While England has been gathering a substantial and impressive body of work on the subject thanks to police trials and work by the @fawcettsociety and @womensaid, Scotland seems to have resolutely decided to ignore this evidence.
Acccording to Sam Smethers, former CEO of @fawcettsociety: “We have to recognise how serious misogyny is. It is at the root of violence against women and girls... https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/news/new-fawcett-data-reveals-gender-is-most-common-cause-of-hate-crime-for-women
"Yet it is so common that we don’t see it. Instead it is dismissed and trivialised. By naming it as a hate crime we will take that vital first step.
“...But at a time of rising hatred in our society, much of it targeted at women, we have to take this seriously and act.”
“...But at a time of rising hatred in our society, much of it targeted at women, we have to take this seriously and act.”
The Scottish Gov would no doubt claim that they are taking this seriously, but action is far off and far from guaranteed. Meanwhile, for reasons of politics or expediency, they appear to wish to reinvent the theoretical wheel in their approach & ignore the practical trials.
More and more police forces in England are beginning pilot schemes - and thus vital training and awareness. Meanwhile, Scotland is kicking the problem into the long grass with another working group tasked with finding a gap in law which eluded Bracadale.
We wonder if @HumzaYousaf read any of these important studies? Did he speak to those who undertook the research? Has he asked @fawcettsociety, @womensaid
& @JoCoxFoundation why they believe this should be tackled by hate crime legislation and does he understand why?
& @JoCoxFoundation why they believe this should be tackled by hate crime legislation and does he understand why?
If not, this is surely an extraordinary dereliction of duty and the worst sort of Scottish Exceptionalism. The argument is "We can do better", but without evidence or models for legislation, this is a leap of faith.
Meanwhile, England is moving ahead. https://twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1356920541643493376?s=20
Meanwhile, England is moving ahead. https://twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1356920541643493376?s=20
It seems that many objecting to adding sex, disagree with an aggravated model. This applies, however, to ALL characteristics and would, by logic, be a reason for @HumzaYousaf to abandon the entire bill.
All that has been held out to date as an example of good practice is the Domestic Abuse Act, referred to as "gold standard". This act is, indeed, very important.
It has also been drafted using gender neutral language, the other objection raised to adding sex to the bill.
It has also been drafted using gender neutral language, the other objection raised to adding sex to the bill.
Is the approach by Scottish Government really to involve asking the same question, stacking the deck, & ignoring vital evidence until, eventually, they get the answer which they and other individuals desire?
As Bracadale and the English orgs note, legislation can send a message and it can affect awareness.
The lack of legislation can also send a message.
In this case, Scot Gov signals that sexism is more complicated and of less pressing importance than other forms of hate.
The lack of legislation can also send a message.
In this case, Scot Gov signals that sexism is more complicated and of less pressing importance than other forms of hate.
While the working group deliberate toward an uncertain outcome, a sledgehammer is being taken to women's freedoms & protections.
There are no awareness programmes, no data is being collected. Long before legislation manifests, women will have borne the brunt of this inaction.
There are no awareness programmes, no data is being collected. Long before legislation manifests, women will have borne the brunt of this inaction.
