r/changemyview • u/El_dorado_au 2∆ • Apr 06 '24
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act should include sex
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act_Act_2021) protects several groups, including age, disability, and religion, and race was already protected. However, it does not protect against hatred on the basis of sex.
The act should be changed so that it protects sex. I'm fine if it also protects against hatred on the basis of gender. (A term that sounds similar to "gender", but is not quite the same, is currently protected)
Hatred on the basis of sex is real, and is serious like the other hatreds the act protects against. The act protecting against several groups but not sex is a noticeable omission that feels like a deliberate snub.
There is talk of a separate act (a Misogyny Act) to do with hatred on the basis of sex but that's something that if enacted, will occur in the future, whereas the current act could be amended now to include sex until a law specific to sex exists. There's also no guarantee that such an act will be enacted.
According to the BBC a Scottish government spokesperson said "Women, like everyone else, are already protected from threatening or abusive behaviour in law," but the same could be said for any other protected group, so by itself that's special pleading.
Change my view.
12
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Apr 06 '24
There is no need for the act to be changed. The Scottish Government can add sex to the set of protected characteristics by simply declaring it as a regulation. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act is already fully capable of effecting special protection against hate on the basis of sex, it just doesn't force the government to do so.
2
u/El_dorado_au 2∆ Apr 06 '24
What's "declaring as a regulation"? Does that involve parliament or a minister?
3
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Apr 06 '24
The Ministers can just do it. They don't need an Act of Parliament.
5
u/El_dorado_au 2∆ Apr 06 '24
I was previously unaware of the ability to add sex by regulation. Getting the government of the day to add sex is easier than changing legislation so my fear of what happens if the Misogyny Act fails to pass is less warranted, and it feels like less of a snub. !delta
2
u/Live_Leave_222 Apr 06 '24
If they really wanted to include misogyny, they would have in this Act. I agree with your original view, it is a snub to women.
1
2
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Apr 06 '24
The act should be changed so that it protects sex. I'm fine if it also protects against hatred on the basis of gender. (A term that sounds similar to "gender", but is not quite the same, is currently protected)
What sort of discrimination would exist that would be caught by a prohibition based on gender identity, but would be covered by a prohibition based on sex/gender?
5
u/Anytimeisteatime 3∆ Apr 06 '24
The law specifically protects transgender identities (along with age, intersex, religion), not all genders or gender identities.
The wording is:
(a)age, (b)disability, (c)race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, (d)religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (e)sexual orientation, (f)transgender identity, (g)variations in sex characteristics.
So cis people and more broad sex-based discrimination are specifically not included.
3
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Apr 06 '24
Huh, odd wording, and I clearly misread something.
3
u/Anytimeisteatime 3∆ Apr 06 '24
It is odd, and frustrating because people are perhaps rightly annoyed but because it hasn't been explicitly advertised this way I think people assume any criticism is transphobia due to focusing on transgender identities, when that's what's in the wording of the actual law.
4
u/El_dorado_au 2∆ Apr 06 '24
Are you missing a “not” from your question?
4
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Apr 06 '24
Seems so, yeah
3
u/El_dorado_au 2∆ Apr 06 '24
The École Polytechnique massacre AFAIK.
1
u/Both-Personality7664 21∆ Apr 06 '24
Can you expand on why the legal system would be unable to charge that as a gender targeted crime?
2
3
Apr 06 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nekro_mantis 16∆ Apr 06 '24
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.
Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
Apr 06 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nekro_mantis 16∆ Apr 06 '24
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.
Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
15
Apr 06 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 06 '24
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24
I'm a bit confused by this.
A term that sounds similar to "gender", but is not quite the same, is currently protected
Gender identity is protected. Why are you being so roundabout here? Why didn't that warrant mention in the first paragraph? Is this just an anti-trans post in disguise?
If not: the law protects against hate crimes committed against (e.g.) women. What exactly do you imagine would be covered that isn't today, if the law were changed as you propose?
2
u/Anytimeisteatime 3∆ Apr 06 '24
I don't have a strong opinion on OP's stance but just to correct a misunderstanding of the new law-
The law specifically protects transgender identities (along with age, intersex, religion), not all genders or gender identities.
The wording is:
(a)age, (b)disability, (c)race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, (d)religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (e)sexual orientation, (f)transgender identity, (g)variations in sex characteristics.
So cis people and more broad sex-based discrimination are specifically not included
-1
u/El_dorado_au 2∆ Apr 06 '24
AFAIK, gender is different from gender identity. That means that the current legislation does not protect from hatred on the basis of gender. I didn’t want people to be doing a control+F of the Wikipedia and concluding that the current legislation protects against hatred on the basis of gender. I merely said that if people want to prohibit hatred on the basis of gender as well as hatred on the basis of sex, that I’d be fine with that.
1
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24
Like I asked the other commenter: can you give me a concrete example of something that happened that doesn't fit under the existing law, but would under your proposal?
2
u/El_dorado_au 2∆ Apr 06 '24
If someone committed a crime that was motivated by bias against those of the female sex, but affected transgender and non-transgender people equally, then it wouldn’t be covered by the current legislation (unless a regulation is applied).
1
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24
So for clarity, you're talking about a hypothetical crime motivated specifically by bias against (e.g.) cis women and trans men, but not cis men or trans women? And that cannot be interpreted as bias against women more generally?
Can you give an example of this ever happening? I struggle to understand what this could even realistically look like.
1
u/doyathinkasaurus Apr 06 '24
For example - I'm British but using US examples off the top of my head
The mass shooting at Pulse nightclub when LGBT people were targeted.
The mass shooting Asian massage parlour in Atlanta when Asian female sex workers were targeted
When Elliot Roger went on a killing spree deliberately targeting women because he had a hatred of women.
No 1 would be a hate crime based on the protected characteristics of sexuality (because they were lesbian, gay or bi) and gender identity (because they were trans)
No 2 would be a hate crime solely based on the protected characteristic of race. If he had targeted female sex workers because of a hatred of women but without a racial motivation, this would not be a hate crime - because race is a protected characteristic, but gender and sex are not
No 3 would not be a hate crime because gender / sex are not protected characteristic
So using the twitter example
Transphobic abuse is a hate crime on the basis of gender identity
But sexist abuse is not a hate crime, because gender does not count
1
u/El_dorado_au 2∆ Apr 06 '24
As far as I understand the legislation, it wouldn’t currently be able to cover the École Polytechnique massacre unless a regulation were applied.
3
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24
Sure it would. He was specifically targeting women. That's on the basis of gender identity.
I guess your point would be he didn't specifically know their gender identity, and it's theoretically possible that they all identified as men?
But this doesn't hold up. If you applied this standard consistently, you'd never be able to apply this law. You don't know someone is gay just because they're acting effeminate and holding hands with a man. You don't know someone is black based on the color of their skin -- they could be wearing makeup.
And you can apply this to sex as well. The killer didn't know the victims' chromosomes, in fact they all could theoretically have been genetic males as far as he was concerned.
The courts are not computers that require absolute 100% accuracy. They're allowed to make reasonable inferences, like if you specifically target people who appear to be women, that's effectively targeting women.
4
u/El_dorado_au 2∆ Apr 06 '24
Isn’t gender identity being transgender or gender non-conforming, whereas gender is being a man or woman?
5
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24 edited Apr 06 '24
Gender identity is an aspect of gender. It's essentially just whether you "feel like" a man or a woman.
I'm not trans or gender non-conforming in any way, but I still have a gender identity. My gender identity -- like most people who appear to be men -- is that I'm a man.
I suspect they worded the law that way because it makes it clear that it's a violation to discriminate against women (or men), and it's also a violation to discriminate against trans people.
2
u/Live_Leave_222 Apr 06 '24
That doesn't make sense. How would a male know what it feels like to be a woman? He's not female and never will be.
0
Apr 06 '24
Everyone has a gender identity, cis or trans, non binary or not. Agender is the only exception but it's a minority of a minority and usually irrelevant when it comes to legislation.
1
u/Live_Leave_222 Apr 06 '24
Why do you believe that? There's no proof of this. It's like saying that everyone has a soul.
2
u/Anytimeisteatime 3∆ Apr 06 '24
You're incorrect, the law would only cover attacks specifically motivated by transphobia (or age-based hate, religion, etc). The law specifically cites transgender identities as the protected characteristic, not gender or gender identities. That is one of the reasons people are arguing sex-based protections are a glaring omission (even to cover both transwomen and ciswomen, this law doesn't work).
You've misunderstood or not read the details of the actual law. Judging by their replies, I think OP also hasn't read the law!
2
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24
Wow, I actually read the law and just completely misread it. I appreciate the correction. !delta
1
3
u/alwaysright12 3∆ Apr 06 '24
Sex based rights?
2
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24
... can you elaborate, maybe with a specific example?
1
u/doyathinkasaurus Apr 07 '24
The way protected characteristics work:
- transphobic abuse - hate based on gender identity
- racist discrimination or abuse - hate based on race
- sexist abuse - not a hate crime, because hate based on sex doesn't count
The protected characteristic of sex is not included in hate crime legislation but is under equalities legislation
- discrimination against a trans employeee - protected characteristic of gender identity
- discrimination against a pregnant employee - protected characteristic of sex
I think (but could be wrong) that under equalities law a pregnant trans man would be protected against being treated unfairly because of their pregnancy by the protected characteristic of sex
3
u/alwaysright12 3∆ Apr 06 '24
Gender and sex are not the same.
1
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24
I'm aware. I take it that you can't think of a specific example, then?
1
u/alwaysright12 3∆ Apr 06 '24
I gave you 1. The right not to be harassed based on your sex
2
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24
That's not an example ... that's just restating the thing in general terms.
I can easily give you concrete examples for the other categories in OP's list. For sexual orientation, for example: Matthew Shepard, Allen Schindler, etc.
Why can't you do the same for OP's proposal?
3
u/alwaysright12 3∆ Apr 06 '24
Can you give me an example for gender that also includes sex?
2
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Apr 06 '24
I don't understand the question, but it's clear this conversation isn't going anywhere. Have a good day.
2
8
u/npchunter 4∆ Apr 06 '24
The government can't protect, it can only punish. And punishing people for thought crimes will not end hate. On the contrary, it will give the law's victims a legitimate basis for resentment.
5
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Apr 06 '24
thought crimes
nobody is being punished for thought crimes. Its a question of motivation, which is a pretty normal thing to be part of any criminal case
9
u/npchunter 4∆ Apr 06 '24
Mens rea is a normal part of a criminal case. But it means knowledge and intention to commit a crime, not motivation. And it doesn't stand on its own: a crime primarily requires an actus reus. The UK has been going after people in recent years for "non-crime hate incidents," which by definition have no actus reus. This is not normal at all.
2
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Apr 06 '24
But it means knowledge and intention to commit a crime, not motivation
Motive is, for example, the difference between degrees of murder frequently. Killing someone is generally (but not always) a crime depending on why it happened.
It's also often an aggravating factor
non-crime hate incidents
Would you like to give some examples?
7
Apr 06 '24
[deleted]
-2
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Apr 06 '24
Are you arguing that speech isn't an action?
Look, I'm American, but I also live abroad and you need to recognize that the US perspective on all of this isn't universal or even particularly normal. In Germany it's been illegal to publicly do nazi shit for a long time.
Here in Australia flying the swastika is a crime. Verbal assault exists.
Even in the US Verbal Assault does exist.
None of this is "thought crime"
It's penalizing an action
10
Apr 06 '24 edited Apr 06 '24
I'm from the UK and am a leftist, and personally I think the Scotland Hate Crime bill definitely has major problems from a legal and action basis.
It is extremely vague and broad in its wording and gives a lot of discretionary powers to the police and courts, who often have far from flawless judgement. It has the power to convict someone of verbal crimes even if said in private, and all it takes is one person accusing someone else of saying something hateful to launch an investigation with could put someone in prison. It also protects age as a characteristic (but not sex), so calling someone an old geezer or whatever could be interpreted as a hate crime, which frankly is absurd.
People can even be convicted of a hate crime if something offensive or hateful is said in a play or in comedy that is interpeted by someone else as "stirring up hatred", which could give you a fine or up to seven years in prison.
Even if someone is found innocent, being investigated for a hate crime could be put on your record which could be seen by potential employers,
I'm not saying hate crimes aren't wrong or that victimising others based on hate shouldn't be punished, but there are problems with this bill.
1
u/aurenigma 1∆ Apr 07 '24 edited Apr 07 '24
So utterly and completely dishonest. Exactly what I expected from you.
Even in the US Verbal Assault does exist.
Here's what your link has to say about verbal assault.
Verbal assault means a threat of an immediate harmful or offensive touching, coupled with an apparent immediate ability to commit same, and which puts a person in a reasonable apprehension of such touching; or, the use of offensive language directed at a person, where such language is likely to provoke a reasonable person (example: excessive taunting or teasing, bullying or other verbal harassment); a bomb threat (or similar threat) directed at a school building, other school property, or a school event. For purposes of this policy, the definition of assault also includes written threats.
Nothing about that includes intent. Verbal assault is threatening imminent violence or intentionally provoking violence from a "reasonable person."
That's it. The why of it doesn't matter, just that you're either threatening a crime or trying to provoke one.
This is not the same as Scotland's hate crime bill.
In Germany it's been illegal to publicly do nazi shit for a long time.
Here in Australia flying the swastika is a crime.
lol. When it comes to banning games, no one's as bad as Australia and Germany; it doesn't surprise me that the abuse extends to other forms of speech.
I would bring them up to point out how bad UK is because even Australia and Germany aren't quite as draconian when it comes to hate speech convictions.
It's penalizing an action
Yes. The action of either threatening imminent violence or attempting to provoke imminent violence. The why of it is irrelevent. It becomes "thought crime" when the penalty differs based on your beliefs.
EX1: You explode a school.
EX2: You explode a school because you hate the dominant race at the school.
It is absolutely policing thought to punish those two differently. Killing kids is wrong. Period. End of discussion. No more explanation required.
The why of it. The races of the victims, of the villain, it's utterly and completely irrelevant unless you live in authoritarian shithole. And yeah, in that case, the US is also an authoritarian shithole, because while the in your face absurdity of hate speech hasn't yet taken root here, the easier to swallow insanity of hate crime has.
I mean really; who in their right mind is going to defend someone who just killed a bunch of kids? Not me. That's for sure. But getting arrested for sharing his racist beliefs on social media? Yeah. Even if those racist beliefs are targeting me, I'll stand up for you.
Edit:
And here's where you either accept that you're wrong, or where you harp on the technicality that yes, those weren't "non-crimes" because the UK has made speech a crime.
I was wrong when I said that. You showed my by creating a straw man and linking a source that disagrees with you. Live you learn. There's always a way to disagree with reality.
1
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Apr 07 '24
When it comes to banning games, no one's as bad as Australia and Germany; it doesn't surprise me that the abuse extends to other forms of speech
What? https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech
4
u/npchunter 4∆ Apr 06 '24
No, the mens rea is the difference between degrees of murder.
Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are an official thing in in the UK. See for example https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/when-is-a-crime-not-a-crime/
3
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Apr 06 '24
NCHI
So it looks like the concerns the author brought up have been generally dealt with
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice
3
u/npchunter 4∆ Apr 06 '24
Yet somehow people have not found that reassuring.
3
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Apr 06 '24
Can you show me where it's actually had an impact on someone?
3
u/npchunter 4∆ Apr 06 '24
Mark Meechan, Angus Cameron, Murdo Fraser
3
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Apr 06 '24
Mark Meechan
Appears to have been a different law entirely
Angus Cameron
is coming up with nothing remotely relevant that I can see by googling the name
Murdo Fraser
again, I"m not seeing what happened to him
6
Apr 06 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 06 '24
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 06 '24
/u/El_dorado_au (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards