'Shameful' SNP dumps anti-women hatred law
New laws to tackle misogyny and ban conversion therapy have been shelved in a humiliating double U-turn by SNP ministers.
The Scottish Government confirmed it has ditched plans to introduce legislation in the current parliamentary term to make misogyny a specific offence.
It said the decision to put the proposed Bill on hold was down to the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling and the need to ensure there are 'clear and unambiguous provisions in regard to the circumstances in which they apply'.
Ministers also announced they would not ban conversion therapy during the current parliament and would instead seek to introduce this in the first year of the next term if a UK-wide approach is not agreed before then.
Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton said: 'This looks like a humiliating U-turn from John Swinney and co. The misogyny Bill is just the latest in a litany of paused, ditched or botched Sturgeon-era policies.
'Who would trust SNP ministers to legislate to criminalise misogyny when they can't even say what a woman is?
'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 misogyny law was promised after an expert group led by Baroness Helena Kennedy, KC, in 2022 backed separate legislation rather than incorporating abuse and violence against women into Scotland's hate crime law.
Ministers proposed creating five new offences 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. Scottish Labour justice spokesman Pauline McNeill said: 'This is a shameful broken promise to women at a time when misogynistic hatred is on the rise.'
Parliamentary business minister Jamie Hepburn said: 'This is a complex area of policy and law, and it would be necessary that any Bill which brought misogyny into criminal law contained clear and unambiguous provisions in regard to the circumstances in which they apply.
'This would include the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment.'
He said amendments would be made to hate crime legislation to protect women and girls.
The Scottish Government also confirmed it will only legislate 'in year one of the next parliamentary session' to ban conversion practices aimed at changing sexual orientation if an approach cannot be agreed to ensure UK Government legislation covers England, Scotland and Wales.
Equalities minister Kaukab Stewart said: 'These recent weeks have been challenging for our LGBTQI+ communities and we want you to know we stand with you and we will work tirelessly to ban conversion practices once and for all.'
Greens equalities spokesman Maggie Chapman said: 'A lot of people have waited far too long for the protections in these Bills, and will be deeply disappointed that they will not be happening.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
33 minutes ago
- The National
It's not enough for SNP to occasionally say ‘independence'
Moving from local to national, there was a call for a constitutional convention from Councillor Murray in The National on Saturday. On the same day in the same paper, Gordon Macintyre-Kemp (Believe in Scotland) called for a new national conversation through a citizens convention. Independence Forum Scotland's Summer Convention on Scotland's Future will take place in Perth this Saturday. It will be their second this year. The grassroots took root, sheltered immediately after 2014, and the movement well continued. And thank (supply your own deity or whatever) for that. It's still the same message from across that movement: independence. It's sad, then, that political parties such as the SNP haven't moved on in tandem with us. The independence message has been diluted, and looking at the most recent rejection last week, it's more a case that the message was missing, again. John Swinney is quoted after the latest failure as saying: 'I thought the SNP was best placed to see off Reform because of the scale of collapse in the Labour vote.' Is it too much to believe (as I have done til now) that the SNP would see off Reform and the other pro-Unionist parties not by asking for a vote just to keep someone else out, but with their laid-out vision for independence? It is their raison d'etre after all. Not heart before head, but by taking the abstract notion of independence and translating that into the positive. It's not enough for the SNP to occasionally say 'independence' like some now tired mantra. Or expect me to click my heels and wish, Dorothy-like. Where is the plan, the strategy, the tactics? Where, when are we reminded of the changes to date that have had a positive impact? The likes of additional child payments, free bus passes, achieved through our government, our parliament, albeit hamstrung via the clever trap that is devolution. Where, when is the current highway robbery situation explained, as energy flows out of Scotland only to be returned at an increased cost to households? Westminster seems to have imposed a tariff on Scotland, having robbed us first! I think even Trump would be impressed with that one! There's no room to say that as this was a local election, indy shouldn't feature. These are all 'local' issues across the 'nation'; indy should always feature. Then to all politicians who say they believe in independence: you need to be connected with the grassroots movement, you have to heed what we say, see what we're doing, realise the strength, the numbers. You need to be prepared to tell folks if it's change you want, then change you'll get with independence, and here's how, here's the plan. The clock is ticking down to 2026. Selma Rahman Edinburgh WHY oh why can't we have simple literature telling the general public that with INDEPENDENCE we will be THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS and THIS better off and rid of THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS and THIS from Westminster that is making us worse off? Ken McCartney Hawick
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Khan accuses Reeves of ‘levelling down London'
Sir Sadiq Khan has accused Rachel Reeves of 'levelling down' London after she refused to hand over billions for infrastructure projects. The Labour Mayor of London has been battling with the Treasury for funding to pay for the extension of the Bakerloo line and the Docklands Light Railway. He also wanted the Chancellor to give him the green light to impose a tourist tax on visitors to the capital, and to provide millions extra for the Metropolitan Police. But Ms Reeves's spending review, to be unveiled on Wednesday, is not expected to include most of Sir Sadiq's demands. A source close to the Mayor said he would continue 'battling' to get more money out of the Treasury even if he fails at the spending review. They said: 'Over the past nine years as Mayor, Sadiq has fought to deliver for London – in the best interests of Londoners and the whole country. 'We know that when London does well it means the whole country does well, and that it will simply not be possible to achieve national growth ambitions without the right investment and growth in our capital. 'We must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government, which would not only harm London's vital public services, but jobs and growth across the country.' The spokesman added: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs… 'It's also important to recognise that parts of London still have some of the highest levels of poverty anywhere in the UK. 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been crystal clear that the way to level up other regions is not to level down London.' Reeves's policies A source at the Treasury pointed out that in the year since the Government came to power, Ms Reeves had come out in favour of a third runway at Heathrow and the expansion of Gatwick, Luton and City airports. The Treasury has also expanded late licencing in the capital, given approval to the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street, allocated money so that HS2 will run to London Euston and provided money for free school meals. Last week, Ms Reeves announced £15 billion more to be spent on transport infrastructure outside London and the south-east, part of what was seen as a rebalancing of government priorities away from the capital Research released on Monday from IPPR North found that if the north of England had received the same per person spending as the capital in the past decade, it would have received £140 billion more – enough to build seven Elizabeth lines. Over the decade to 2022/23, each year London received £1,183 per person, while the north of England got £486 per person and the Midlands £455.
NBC News
42 minutes ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out 'in order for those members to do their work.' Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to 'carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems.' Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency 'will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.' Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. 'This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,' said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. 'This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data,' they said, while vowing to 'use every legal tool at our disposal' to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. Millions of Americans' sensitive data at stake The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had 'abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy' of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the 'most sensitive' personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: driver's license and identification information bank and credit cards birth and marriage certificates pension information home and work addresses school records immigration and naturalization records family court records employment and employer records psychological and psychiatric health records hospitalization records addiction treatment records records for HIV/AIDS tests The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show 'DOGE received far broader data access' than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. 'The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful,' Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. 'But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention,' Justice Jackson wrote.
