Latest news with #HateCrimeBill
Scotsman
12-05-2025
- Health
- Scotsman
Cervical smears: Number of women receiving vital health test plummets in Scotland
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The number of women getting cervical smear tests has plummeted over the past three years, figures have revealed, as the Scottish Government was urged to 'do better'. Last year at least 121,981 tests were carried out across Scotland. But this number has fallen sharply from the 189,283 tests conducted in 2023 and the 223,276 tests in 2022. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A number of health boards saw their numbers almost halve during this time, including NHS Grampian, NHS Lanarkshire, NHS Lothian and NHS Tayside. All women between the ages of 25 and 64 are offered a cervical smear test every three to five years to try and prevent cancer. The speculum and soft brush they use for the smear test But according to data obtained by the Scottish Conservatives through a Freedom of Information request, the number of women receiving a smear test in NHS Grampian almost halved from 35,297 in 2022 to just 18,194 last year. A similar picture was seen in NHS Lanarkshire where numbers dropped from 42,134 in 2022 to 22,272 last year. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad At NHS Lothian, a drop of 60,136 to 31,750 over the corresponding period was recorded, and in NHS Tayside there was a fall from 25,603 to 13,637. Falling numbers were also recorded at other health boards, including at NHS Ayrshire and Arran where tests dropped from 21,190 to 13,392 and at NHS Borders where a decrease from 6,290 to 3,579 was seen. At NHS Forth Valley, the numbers dipped from 18,838 to 9,975 and at NHS Highland tests tumbled from 13,887 to 9,182. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On top of this the number of women receiving further treatment or a follow-up appointment after their smear test dropped slightly from 8,926 in 2023 to 8,589 last year - despite there being an increase of 1,734 between 2022 and 2023. Annie Wells, the Scottish Conservatives' health spokeswoman, hit out at the Scottish Government for not publishing this data themselves. Annie Wells said the Scottish Tories would repeal the Hate Crime Bill. She told The Scotsman: 'These figures show that there has been a decline in women attending for vital screening right across the country. The fact the Scottish Government has not managed to publish these statistics is a failing that compounds this worrying situation. 'Health boards clearly hold the data and it's unacceptable that this hasn't been formally published, which would allow experts, politicians and the media to properly scrutinise it. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We know that screening saves lives, so any reduction in attendance is also a risk that someone is not getting the care and treatment they need. For the sake of women all over Scotland, the government must do better.' The Scottish Government was contacted for comment.
Scotsman
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Women won't forget Sturgeon's role in gender controversy
Nicola Sturgeon's response to last week's Supreme Court judgment around sex and gender continues to provoke discussion Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Speaking to the media last Tuesday Nicola Sturgeon, SNP MSP and a former first minister, voiced her disagreement with the recent Supreme Court ruling that the legal meaning of 'sex', 'woman' and 'man' is defined by biology in the UK Equality Act 2010. Of course she disagrees. After all, she is part of a wider crusade for changing the meaning of these words in law, language and policy, stripping them of their biological definition. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad True to form Ms Sturgeon used stark, dark, yet unspecific rhetoric. The lives of trans persons might become 'impossibly difficult', even 'unliveable', she warned. She didn't provide any examples as to what this could involve. She also lamented that the planned Misogyny Bill might be shelved and insinuated that For Women Scotland, who had brought about the court judgment, only 'purported' to have women's interests at heart. Nicola Sturgeon remains defiant on the trans controversy (Picture: Robert Perry/PA) As ever, her comments were selective. Firstly, the Supreme Court judgment didn't change the law. It clarified the legal meaning of certain terms, no more, no less. It didn't alter existing protections for anyone. Secondly, Ms Sturgeon omits the fact that her own government in 2022 offered a separate Misogyny Bill because they stubbornly refused to include 'sex' as a protected characteristic in the Hate Crime Bill. Now, three years later, this will be reversed and 'sex', presumably in its biological definition, will be added to the list. Thirdly, her notion that For Women Scotland 'purport' to support women is downright offensive. These are women who – in a David and Goliath fight and despite normal everyday life pressures like family and job commitments – put their time, energy and resources into taking the Scottish Government to the Supreme Court, and won. Their efforts have put the brakes on distorting the legal meaning of what a woman is and saved us from being deleted as a sex class. Insinuating that they are mere pretenders is shameful. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Sturgeon's words have been heard and I can reassure her that women won't forget. Regina Erich, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Both-ways Harry There are many ordinary people in our country who have genuine ongoing fears for their safety and yet have no right to 24-hour police protection, not least many victims of domestic abuse. It is therefore astonishing that the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, as a wealthy non-UK resident, thinks he should have automatic entitlement to police protection every time he rocks up in town. The Prince's security woes stem largely from him foolishly (and disrespectfully) admitting killing Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, in a 2013 television interview, while wearing a British Army uniform. It was his mistake, and over a decade on he is wealthy enough to pay for his own security to mitigate that mistake. Particularly as he further antagonised things through more needless disclosures on this in his 2023 book, Spare. Admitting killing insurgents (in a one-sided fight from the relative safety of a hi-tech helicopter) is evidently easier than living with the long-term personal security consequences. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Yes, I get it, he wants armed protection in the UK, and argues, wrongly, that it can only come from the police. But the police have never said he wouldn't get armed protection, just that it would be on a case-by-case basis. In return, he needs to recognise that a couple of armed police officers walking alongside him, as he wanders central London at will, aren't going to protect either him (or them!) against the sort of threat to his safety that the Taliban represent. If he were genuinely concerned about that threat, it would be easily mitigated by living a low-profile life on a country estate (Frogmore Cottage?). With plenty of gamekeepers around, as gamekeepers are allowed to be armed in the UK, unlike private security guards. But there we get to the crux of the matter – the Prince complains about his personal security, but isn't willing to make the lifestyle sacrifices necessary to minimise the risk. He wants it both ways. And for UK taxpayers to foot the bill. Mark Campbell-Roddis, Dunblane, Perthshire Pure madness I couldn't agree more with Alexander McKay when he describes Ed Miliband's actions as 'blind zealotry' (Letters, 8 May). The idea that our mines are being concreted in is an example of total and complete imbecility in pursuit of what Reform's Richard Tice calls (rather engagingly) 'net stupid zero'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad When we are trying to retain our one and only steelworks in Scunthorpe which needs that British coke, and when we have two totally inept governments who have now lost Grangemouth, I despair at how gullible people can be. How can anyone who claims to be a First Minister at Holyrood, or a minister at Westminster, not do a minimum of research to find out that the Chinese and Indians are putting CO2 into the same atmosphere that we all breathe? Do they think it is acceptable that it should be said of us by a US negotiator that 'you don't make anything anymore' when our nation once called itself 'the workshop of the world'? These people should hang their heads in shame! An example of the sort of nonsense Mr Miliband probably believes is the claim that the UK hit 40 degrees C (105 Fahrenheit) for the first time in 2022, for example. A casual glance at historic records shows that temperature being hit several times in the past: 1906 in Morpeth; 1909 in Bristol; 1921 in London (110F, in fact!) and so on. This climate madness plays into the hands of extremists like the SNP and the Greens who wish to destroy our country. It is politically motivated against the West. The East just laughs and thumbs its nose at us. Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh Ethnic cleansing Just when you think things couldn't get worse in Gaza, they do. The latest ruse by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his fellow war criminals is to invade Gaza and stay there, as an occupying force. The far from cunning plan is to press the local Palestinian population to look for accommodation elsewhere. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If that's not ethnic cleansing, I'm not sure what is. The only spoke in this lethal wheel is that this occupation would require reservist forces to be recruited to boost the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) numbers. Thankfully, only a small reluctant minority are answering the call, as more and more Israelis are appalled by the atrocities being carried out in Gaza in their name. Ironically, despite appearances, there are no clear winners in this war. In an increasingly dangerous Middle East, Iran is edging steadily to a closer involvement. Israel is becoming more and more isolated as a pariah state, whose 'best friend' Donald Trump is steadily becoming its only friend, and even his patience is wearing thin. The major sticking block to peace is Netanyahu himself and his deeply unpopular government. The sooner they're voted out of office in the 'only democracy in the Middle East', the better. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh Slippery slope Murdo Fraser MSP is right to be concerned about the strength of the safeguards included in the proposed Assisted Dying Bill being considered in the Scottish Parliament next week ('Why Scotland's assisted dying bill would make death an acceptable substitute for care', Perspective, 6 May). Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Not only would assisted dying slowly mutate, as he suggests, from being a right to a perceived duty, but the legalisation of assisted suicide (where individuals take their own lives with assistance) will inevitably lead to euthanasia (where other persons end the lives of the individuals). For example, some people with advanced neurological conditions may have significant physical impairments, making them unable to take the assisted suicide drugs themselves to end their lives, making the legislation discriminatory. Because of such limitations it has already been suggested that healthcare professionals should be able to administer the drug in certain circumstances, thus transforming assisted suicide into an act of euthanasia. It is striking to note the speed in which Canada has moved from legislation similar to the proposed Scottish Assisted Dying Bill to legislation which allows euthanasia by lethal injection for individuals irrespective of capacity and irrespective of terminal illness. All this means that, if ever the Bill becomes law, it seems inevitable that further demands to liberalise the legislation in Scotland will take place through the courts and judicial systems which may even include euthanasia of children, as in The Netherlands! Nobody can, as yet, predict where all this will end. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad (Dr) Calum MacKellar, Director of Research, Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, Edinburgh Dark irony When I see the famous photograph of the women at Trafalgar Square on VE Day 1945, one of whom was my mother-in-law, I am struck that we are celebrating VE Day when Europe is facing another tyrant who clearly wishes to conquer a European nation which is free and democratic. We are beholden to ensure that the Ukraine remains so, despite the lies which Putin's Russia spins about them being 'Nazis'. The only state in the conflict which meets the criteria of emulating Hitler's attacks on its neighbours using such false flags is Putin's Russia. Yet, amazingly, the men who are shown, putting up the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in 1945 were a Ukrainian, assisted by a Georgian! Those two nations are both victims of post-war Russian aggression. Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
Daily Mail
01-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
JONATHAN BROCKLEBANK: It's not societal hatred that troubles Kneecap's supporters. No, they just want to be happy with the targets of it
There was a time in the 1950s when a young singer's gyrating hips were deemed too suggestive for television audiences. Elvis Presley was filmed only from the waist up on the Ed Sullivan Show. Ten years later the same US TV host demanded the Rolling Stones change the lyrics of their song Let's Spend the Night Together. If they were to perform it on his show they would have to sing instead about spending 'some time' together. In the 1970s the Sex Pistols swore on UK national television. People went nuts. I doubt if Mary Whitehouse ever recovered. Bill Grundy's Today show was axed weeks later and he never worked in prime time TV again. Looking back from the vantage point of 2025, my lather of moral indignation over the 'corrupting' influence of any of these acts is more of a millpond. It was the 1980s – the Thatcher years – which brought real toxicity to teenage listening. It pained me that artists I admired failed to appreciate there are lines that even they – cutting-edge youth culture figureheads – must never cross. The most egregious example is may be Margaret on the Guillotine, a 1988 offering by former Smiths frontman Morrissey. 'When will you die?' went the chorus. Verse one posited that 'kind people' dreamed of the Prime Minister getting her head chopped off. Verse two implored these kind people to 'make the dream real'. I was a big Smiths fan back in the day and no fan of Thatcher. I was sickened by this song. We imagine we live in more enlightened times. In the last decade, two MPs have been murdered in public as they went about their duties. The violent deaths of Labour's Jo Cox and the Conservatives' Sir David Amess were horrible crimes which demanded searching questions be asked about hatred in society. They demanded that we examine the triggers for it, who or what was inciting it and root them out. None of that happened. In Scotland, we got a Hate Crime Bill which fretted about people making prejudicial remarks about others on the basis of age, disability, religion, sexual orientation or transgender orientation. An off-colour observation about a trans person, made at the dinner table in your own home, could potentially bring prosecution. Across the UK we got the rise of no-platforming – a device used by one section of society, typically students, to deny the right of expression of another section of society, typically small c conservative. We got cancel culture. We got bar workers at entertainment venues bleating about being forced to hear opinions from comedians that they did not share – and we got performers getting their marching orders. We watched comedy shrivel into itself through terror of causing offence. We got post-woke conversion therapy mea culpas from TV stars such as Ant and Dec who now realised they were quite wrong to wear blackface for a jape in a sketch 20 years ago. We got trigger warnings for cotton wool-cocooned undergraduates who didn't have to read the scary Beowolf poem with the monsters if they didn't want to. We got ableism, classism, white savourism … And, in the midst of all this, we get a hip hop trio from West Belfast who take to the stage in London and declare: 'The only good Tory is a dead Tory, kill your local MP.' At another gig, they appeared to voice support for banned international terrorist organisations Hamas and Hezbollah – a crime in the UK. All a bit fruity, wouldn't you say, in the present era of panicked self-censorship? And the name of this outfit? Kneecap – a chilling reference to the punishment meted out to those who displease the IRA. Quite rightly, the Eden Project in Cornwall took one look at this horror show and de-platformed the band, who were due to play there in July. The plug was pulled on a string of gigs in Germany too. But they are also due to play TRSNMT in Glasgow in July. That will never happen, surely. We have already discussed how sensitive we are to offence. Zero tolerance zone here, chaps. We'll have none of your hatred in our Dear Green Place. Curious, isn't it, that these are not the words we're hearing. From former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, now the leader of Alba, we learn that the reaction to clip of the band inciting hatred is 'ludicrous'. It was a 'throwaway remark' and 'taken entirely out of context'. If there is a context where it is appropriate to tell your audience to murder MPs then I must lack the imagination to conceive of it. Perhaps Mr MacAskill can elucidate. We have Niall Christie, a Scottish Greens supporting charity worker, responding to calls for Kneecap to be dropped from TRNSMT with this insight: 'Things welcome in Glasgow: Artists standing in solidarity with Palestinians', followed by a tick emoji, and then 'Tories' followed by a cross emoji. We have Stuart Murdoch, lead singer of Glasgow band Belle and Sebastian, equivocating for all he was worth on BBC Scotland's Debate Night, reminding viewers this is a 'free speech' issue. Free Speech? Not incitement to murder, then? Where was free speech when the thought police were ushered in to patrol our dinner table conversations in the Hate Crime Bill? Where was free speech when student bodies banned guest speakers such as Germaine Greer for the crime of having an opinion which challenged theirs? First Minister John Swinney, to his credit, has described the band's remarks as 'beyond the pale' and called for them to be axed from TRNSMT. I didn't hear SNP MSP Fulton MacGregor echoing his stance on Debate Night. What I heard was equivocation. Why do you suppose this is? Why, on Wednesday evening, did we have a statement signed by some 40 musical acts leaping to the defence of the Belfast trio, citing 'democracy' and 'political repression' and 'artistic freedom'? Paul Weller, Pulp, Shirley Manson and Massive Attack are among the artists seemingly appalled by the 'clear, concerted attempt to censor and ultimately de-platform ' Kneecap. There is that word again. And, for Mr MacAskill's sake, let's include the context. This band don't face the ignominy of de-platforming because someone thinks they are transphobic or they have strong views on immigration or Brexit. It's because of the 'kill your local MP' stuff. It's because terror group sympathies are a bad look. As for the band, they argue they would never seek to incite violence against any MP –or support Hamas or Hezbollah – and that an extract of footage, deliberately taken out of context, has been 'weaponised against them.' As before, we await the context which will make it all fine to say what they said. In the meantime, I have been searching my soul here because I enjoy some Paul Weller music just as I used to enjoy The Smiths and Morrissey. What is it they or I are not seeing? Why were people who wanted a guillotined prime minister 'kind'? What makes a band who say the terrible things Kneecap said 'victims'? I can conclude only that it's not societal hatred which troubles these musicians. They just want to be happy with the targets of it.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SC Senate sends hate crime enhancement bill to floor
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WSPA) – South Carolina is one of two states without a hate crime law. This bill, if passed, would add extra punishment for certain crimes if motivated by hate or bias. The bill would increase the penalty for someone who commits a violent crime and or assault by a mob in the second degree. If you target someone because of their race, color, religion, sex, gender, national orientation, or disability, the penalty could also go up to $10,000 in additional fees and up to five extra years in prison. 'Not one person is safer because of this bill. Not one. Nobody is helped by this. A lot of people are harmed by it,' said Senate Majority Leader, Senator Shane Massey (R – Edgefield). Massey said a crime against one person should have the same penalty as the same crime against another. He also stated that, even though 48 states have passed a hate crime bill, no one has gotten rid of hate. 'When the penalty against some people is less than the penalty against someone else for the exact same offense, it says that some people are less important than others. There is no win here other than a political win. Nobody is made safer,' he added. 'Nothing is done to improve the environment.' Sponsor, Senator Deon Tedder (D – Charleston) said this bill is not about picking one person over another. 'I don't see anywhere where it refers to hate, and so, I'm confused as to where that keeps coming from. This is simply an enhancement of penalties,' Tedder said. Tedder added that this bill would protect everyone, and that it has similarities to other bills. 'Essentially we just passed something-or are in the process of signing one-to enhance penalties for people who work in hospitals if they are assaulted; and so, I'm confused as to how this is picking one person over another. ' There is another Hate Crime Bill in the house that is named after a Reverend who died from a hate crime in Charleston. That bill is still in the committee process. The Senate bill will head to the floor with bi-partisan support and a vote of 12-8. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
