Scottish government drops plans for new misogyny law
The Scottish government has confirmed it will not bring forward planned legislation to criminalise misogyny before next year's Holyrood election.
A bill has long been promised to improve protections for women and girls, but ministers now say there is not enough time to draw up a law which reflects the recent Supreme Court judgement on the definition of a woman.
They are instead going to amend existing hate crime legislation to provide protections on the basis of sex.
The government has also confirmed it will not be bringing forward legislation to end conversion therapy this term, and is hoping for a UK-wide solution.
A new misogyny law was promised after an expert group in 2022 backed separate legislation rather than incorporating abuse and violence against women into Scotland's hate crime law.
The group, led by Baroness Helena Kennedy KC, said this was a better option because women are not a minority, and a "more fundamental set of responses" were required to address the "deeply rooted" problem.
The Scottish government proposed creating five new offences in its Misogyny Bill including stirring up hatred against women and misogynistic harassment.
Misogyny would also be treated as an aggravating factor in crimes, which could lead to tougher sentencing.
QC shocked by level of misogyny in Scotland
Why are women not protected by new hate crime law?
The Scottish government said it remained committed to ensuring people are protected from misogynistic abuse but it was a "complex area of policy and law" which required more time to work out where it would apply.
This would include assessing the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgement that a woman is defined by biological sex for the purposes of equality legislation, it said.
It said there was insufficient time to proceed with the misogyny bill in this parliamentary session, but in September it would add the protected characteristic of sex to Scotland's hate crime act.
The government said it was also dropping plans for a new law banning conversion therapy for sexual orientation or gender identity.
Ministers previously said Scotland wanted to lead the way in outlawing such practices - but it has now urged the Labour government at Westminster to legislate on the issue.
Equalities Minister Kaukab Stewart said if an approach covering Scotland, England and Wales could not be agreed, the Scottish government would introduce its own law within a year if it remained in power after next year's Holyrood election.
Publishing this news in a written question on a Friday morning after elections down south is a classic attempt from the Scottish government to bury some bad news.
In fairness, it is true to say that drawing up complicated legislation before the ink is even dry on a relevant Supreme Court's ruling would be a challenge in the remaining year of the Holyrood term.
But a bill can pass in a matter of days if the political will is there.
And women's groups are already deeply suspicious of the government, given it has spent the last few years engaged in court battle with campaigners about fundamental definitions.
Ministers will point to the move to beef up hate crime law as evidence they are taking action on behalf of women and girls - despite the fact they were originally omitted from that bill with the promise of bespoke legislation.
The point of this move is to get some awkward issues out of the way before John Swinney makes his programme for government speech next week about what he is planning on doing for the rest of the Holyrood term.
But for all he is keen to get away from spiky debates around gender politics - and you can read the shelving of the conversion therapy ban as part of that too - he is still going to face plenty of questions about this.
Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton MSP said the misogyny bill was the latest in a "litany of paused, ditched or botched" policies from Nicola Sturgeon's time as first minister.
She said: "Misogyny remains a serious problem and it's crucial that women and girls are protected from all forms of threatening and abusive behaviour in a way that safeguards their rights."
The Scottish Greens said dropping the two bills was a "shameful backward step" and accused ministers of kicking them "into the long grass".
The party's qualities spokesperson Maggie Chapman said: "The misogyny bill was a vital step in ensuring that reports of harassment and assault are taken seriously.
"LGBTQIA+ people are put at serious risk by cruel, harmful conversion practices that are currently flying under the radar. So-called conversion 'therapies' are deeply immoral and leave lasting damage for survivors."
Both pieces of legislation were part of the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens which ended in April last year.
A joint statement from Scottish LGBTQIA+ organisations said they were "incredibly disappointed" to see an end to conversion practices would not proceed - and that the community had felt rights were being "rolled back and reduced" for a long time.
The statement said: "Simply put, the longer it takes to legislate to end conversion practices the more harm will be done, including to those most vulnerable.
"The failure to progress this bill is yet another blow to our community's faith in government and the institutions that are meant to represent and protect us."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lammy holds Gibraltar talks ahead of potential EU deal
The foreign secretary has visited Gibraltar for talks ahead of a potential post-Brexit deal for the territory. David Lammy and Europe Minister Stephen Doughty met Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo and his cabinet on Wednesday, and the three are now heading to Brussels for discussions with EU and Spanish ministers. Talks on rules governing the border of Spain and Gibraltar have been ongoing since Britain left the European Union in 2020, but an agreement has not yet been reached. A Foreign Office source said that a deal was not yet finalised and that a number of sticking points remained. Writing on X, Picardo said it was "time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship between Gibraltar and the EU/Spain which is safe, secure and beneficial". Announcing the new UK-EU deal last month, Sir Keir Starmer and EU Council President António Costa said that the two were "not very far" from concluding a separate deal on Gibraltar. Gibraltar, which is a British Overseas Territory, is a 2.6 square mile headland to the south of Spain. The UK has had sovereignty over Gibraltar since 1713, although this is disputed by Spain, who claim the territory as their own. The territory's status and that of its border with Spain has been a key sticking point and has remained unresolved since Brexit. An estimated 15,000 people cross the Gibraltar-Spain border every day for work and leisure. Currently, Gibraltar residents can cross using residence cards without needing to have their passports stamped. Spanish citizens can cross using a government ID card. But there were concerns this would end with the introduction of the EU's Entry/Exit system later this year, causing huge delays at the border. Last month's deal UK-EU deal included confirmation there will be no legal barriers to UK citizens using e-gates, which should mean there won't be a return to passport stamping. But a separate Gibraltar deal could reportedly make the territory an associate member of the Schengen zone, allowing people to cross freely and see physical border infrastructure removed. Public opinion in Gibraltar, which has a population of 32,000 according to its government, is in favour of keeping British sovereignty. The most recent referendum, held in 2002, saw almost 99% of voters reject a proposal to share sovereignty with Spain.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The world is laughing at Britain, and only Starmer hasn't noticed
So finally, Labour's policies are resulting in tax cuts, and the Laffer Curve is back in fashion. At last, people are going to keep more of their hard-earned money, a big chunk of the national debt will be paid off and, to cap it all, minimum salaries are going to be raised and VAT on food will be reduced. Yes, the people of Mauritius sure have done well out of the Chagos deal. That £30 billion windfall, all paid for by the British taxpayer, is going to be put to excellent economy-boosting use. And who can blame them for celebrating? Their government has played an absolute blinder. Of course, we could get all picky and start asking awkward questions about why the Chagos Islands should be surrendered at all, least of all to an African country more than a thousand miles across the Indian Ocean. But that would be to rain on the Mauritian parade. It's their day and their victory, and while it was against abject, third-rate opposition, we mustn't carp. There's nothing worse than a bad loser. But we are within our rights, I reckon, to ask why good things always happen to other people. What are the chances of us British being gifted £30 billion from another country, plus a brand-new territory to paint pink on maps? I'm trying to think of an equivalent. Perhaps Spain paying us to take Tenerife off its hands, and throwing in the Women's World Cup as a juicy extra? But we British are the baddies, so we must always pay for our sins. Some international court has told us exactly that, and under the Government we elected last summer, that's final. Never mind the humiliation, the terrifying security considerations and the almighty cost. And what about the Chagossians themselves, who have been treated disgracefully throughout? Oh, sod 'em. This is the Starmer way. And hunker down, because we've got at least four more years of it. Are you happy now, you Tories who preferred to stay at home last July rather than strolling to the polling station? Ever think you might have been conned by all those bright red 'Change' placards behind Sir Keir? Well, at least when Rachel Reeves breaks yet more promises and raises our taxes in her budget this autumn, and when she comes up with yet more tripe about black holes, working people, a changing world and fixing foundations, we'll know that the rest of the world is having a darn good laugh at our expense. Yes, we are the butt of a hilarious joke by a mocking Mauritian government. And we can't complain. A baddy always gets a comeuppance in the end. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Washington Post
35 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Nine reasons for cautious optimism about individual liberty
Aristotle's axiom 'one swallow does not make a summer' suggests caution in anticipating large reverberations from a Supreme Court ruling last week. But the court's unanimous affirmation of a principle that is commonsensical but now controversial might indicate its readiness to temper the racialization of American law and governance, to which the court has contributed. In 2019, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual Ohio woman who had worked in a state agency since 2004, was denied a promotion for a job that went to a lesbian colleague with less experience at the agency and lesser academic credentials. Ames was subsequently demoted to a position involving a 40 percent pay cut, and her prior position was filled by a gay man. Ames filed a lawsuit saying she was discriminated against, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because of her sexual orientation. She lost in a district court and in her appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which held that she had not demonstrated 'background circumstances' (not defined, anywhere) to justify her suspicion of discrimination. This demonstration requires, the 6th Circuit said, a member of a majority to show that her employer is 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' The court heard this case not to decide the merits of Ames's accusation but to consider her extra burden in making them. In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's short (nine-page) opinion for the court, she noted that 'disparate treatment' (discrimination) claims generally rest on 'circumstantial evidence,' but only members of a majority have the additional evidentiary burden of demonstrating 'background circumstances.' Jackson briskly held that Title VII draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, it concerns unlawfully hiring, discharging or otherwise discriminating against 'any individual' (Jackson's emphasis). By stipulating protections for every 'individual,' Congress 'left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' Jackson quoted the court's language in the 1971 Duke Power Co. case: 'discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed' (Jackson's emphasis). In Duke Power, however, the court greased the nation's slide into laws that recognize, in order to privilege, groups. The court conceded that the company did not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. It nonetheless was guilty of illegal discrimination because when making promotions it administered an aptitude test that had a 'disparate impact' on groups: 58 percent of White candidates and 6 percent of Black ones passed. By creating an illegal discrimination of effects, severed from intentions, the court opened a path to racialist thinking and laws. And a racial spoils system based on the theory that disparate social outcomes should be blamed on 'systemic' racism. So, racism will persist until 'the system' — a.k.a., society — is dismantled and reassembled equitably, which might take a while. Such language — systemic injuries to certain (not all) minority groups — undermines a foundational American premise: that rights (and responsibilities) inhere in individuals. This has helped to create today's simmering stew of grievances: the toxic binary of oppressors and oppressed, grievance groups versus groups aggrieved by being accused of complicity, even if unintentional, in oppression. Justice Jackson's opinion focused, properly, on the narrow question of what Title VII requires and does not mandate. Justice Clarence Thomas, however, in a 14-page concurrence (joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch) deplored 'problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks.' By now, much constitutional law is 'judge-made': extracted from, not found in, constitutional or statutory texts. Including some doctrines that conservatives rightly applaud, such as the 'major questions' doctrine: Executive agencies should not exercise powers of vast economic and political significance unless Congress has clearly and explicitly authorized this. Other examples: Miranda warnings (by police), the exclusionary rule (excluding illegally seized evidence from trials), the nondelegation doctrine (limiting Congress's ability to delegate to executive agencies essentially legislative powers). The 'background conditions' requirement for majority plaintiffs is, however, unambiguously discrimination mandated as social policy, implausibly tickled from Title VII language. How will Jackson apply her 'individuals, not groups' reasoning when, soon, the court announces its ruling in a case from Louisiana under the 1965 Voting Rights Act? The core issue there is: Does a map of six congressional districts, drawn after the 2020 Census, constitute 'vote dilution' that denies a particular group, Black voters, a 'meaningful opportunity' to elect candidates of their choice. No such language is in, or implied by, the Voting Rights Act, or is compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws for individuals.
