When The Day Of Battle Is Ended...Part 1

Update 334 Scottish Hate Crime Act Special

I have another backlog so once again, dear readers, this will be a two parter.

Given that in England ( and see further below😊) we have substantially won the battle over puberty blockers, for No 14 in the Leading Female Season I have returned to Cate Blanchett as Queen Elizabeth 1 in Elizabeth: The Golden Age. The speech below from the film is the famous speech delivered by Queen Elizabeth 1 to her troops at Tilbury on 7 August 1588 as they waited for the Spanish Armada. As to whether she delivered the speech clad in armour and on horseback is another question. Great speech though:

‘When the day of battle is ended

We meet again in heaven

Or on the field of victory’.

I think I would prefer ‘on the field of victory’ speaking personally but, if there is a Terf Heaven, I’ll bet it’s good fun 😎

Scottish Hate Crime Act

Excellent piece in The Critic as we approach the day this awful piece of legislation is brought into force. I reported on it recently here (including my suggestions as to how the law itself might be challenged):

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/fried-green-tomatoes-part-1

Beneath the Endpiece on this update I am providing some excerpts from the Act concentrating on ‘transgender identity’( not dealing with any separate guidance or policies) for those who are interested. I also provide a discussion from me. This discussion is not to be taken to be definitive, of course. All comments will be very welcome.

How trans activists captured the hate crime agenda

The “hate crime” agenda is based on bad policing and worse politics

ARTILLERY ROW

Kath Murray,Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Lisa Mackenzie

19 March, 2024

Ahead of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) [Act] 2021 coming into force on 1 April, the Scottish Government has launched a public information campaign, “Hate Hurts”, showing the impact of what it terms “hate crime”, and encouraging complainants to come forward.  

The campaign is light on detail on the new law. A Stakeholder Toolkit explains “stirring up” racial hatred will be extended to cover all other characteristics, but provides no detail on what “stirring up hatred” actually means; although strikingly, advises stakeholders to “think about monitoring any abusive or threatening comments on social media ensuring these comments are hidden and if required reported” when promoting campaign materials. 

The difficulties with the Act are well-rehearsed. Once in force, Police Scotland faces a potential deluge of complaints relating to stirring up hatred based on transgender identity, relating to differences of belief on sex and gender. The Act offers limited freedom of expression protections and training for officers is reported to be inadequate. The Scottish Police Federation has said:

We could end up with people being charged who should not be charged because people do not understand the law. We are asking officers to police a law that they are unprepared for.

Starting with development of the “hate crime” agenda in the UK, this article looks at how we got here. 

Dusty - I will leave you to go through the very interesting explanation of the development of hate crime in the UK if you are interested - see link below. The article then continues:

“Hate crime” and gender self-identification   

For those seeking to secure the primacy of gender identity in law and policy, a burgeoning and loosely defined “hate crime” landscape has proved a useful vehicle. Referring to the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009, the former Scottish Trans director explained how “we saw the… legislation as an ideal opportunity to establish the concept of non-binary gender identities in Scots law” (2018: 232). 

A decade later, facilitated by a NCHI policy that required the police to record all incidents of “hate” under the monitored strands, the same Director encouraged supporters to report stickers with slogans such as “Female is a biological reality” and “Woman. Noun. Adult human female” to the police because “we need the stats”.   

As of 1 April, Police Scotland officers will be expected to use their judgement to assess whether a “reasonable person” would find any reported conduct ‘threatening’ or ‘abusive’ in relation to the new offence of stirring up hatred for transgender identity. What officers view as “reasonable” in this context is difficult to predict here. In Scottish policing, as elsewhere, the imprint of organisations that view those advocating for women’s sex-based rights as “anti-trans” is writ large. Self-termed “trans activists” (see Morton, 2018: chapter 12 ) have previously trained officers on hate crime:  

About 60 police officers are being given special training to help crack down on hate crime against members of the LGBTI community.

The Equality Network charity has teamed up with Police Scotland to deliver a training programme for officers around the country.

It is hoped they will go on to form a new network of liaison officers who can be contacted by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people who believe they have been a victim of a crime.
(Defence Police Federation, 15 March 2016)

These organisations have also helped develop training on the new Act. Meanwhile, the official Police Scotland LGBT Allies Toolkit tells officers to “evangelise your allyship” and promotes materials about the devastating effects of misgendering. None of this inspires confidence as to what officers think a “reasonable person” might view as “abusive” or may themselves judge to be motivated by “hate” when responding to allegations of transphobia. 

Meanwhile, ahead of the new Act, Police Scotland has extended its opaque network of third-party reporting arrangements, further increasing opportunities for reporting. In 2021 HMICS reported 242 centres; there are now over 400. These range from more obvious locations (victim support centres), to the esoteric (a sex shop in Glasgow). Police Scotland state that staff are trained, but complainants are referred to institutions (colleges, libraries, council offices, farms) and not to single points of contact (i.e. roles, departments). It is unclear how any of this is regulated, for example, how privacy and data protections are managed, or how staff are expected to deal with situations where complainants may be distressed. Nor is it clear why this provision is only available for hate crime.      

Conclusion

The commencement of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) will put Scotland on a distinct path from England and Wales, with more widely scoped law and only generic, and therefore unclear and unreliable, protections for freedom of expression. 

In England and Wales, the appeal ruling in Harry Miller v College of Policing put an end to the perception based NCHI policy that grew out of Macpherson. Under a new statutory Code of Practice officers south of the border  are now expected to weigh up the gravity of complaints Those deemed trivial, irrational, malicious, or without basis should not be recorded. The UK Government has also rejected law commission proposals to expand the legislative framework on a similar model to Scotland. 

In Scotland, the single service has yet to catch up on the Miller ruling, whilst the Scottish Government has sought to extend its legislative reach. Just as gender recognition reform in Scotland sought to cement self-identification principles in law, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act will help cement a longstanding unregulated and subjective “hate crime” agenda, affording new opportunities to weaponise “hate” based on nothing more than an unpredictable interpretation of what constitutes “abusive”. 

The full article is here:

https://thecritic.co.uk/how-trans-activists-captured-the-hate-crime-agenda/

So this is fundamentally about free speech. So here is your special Free Speech Test thanks to Andrew Doyle who has just uploaded this - I had heard about this but never seen the original video before - this is as shown at Andrew’s comedy club, Comedy Unleashed:

For Women Scotland

Here is an update from FWS:

Update on UK Supreme Court: The Definition of Sex in the Equality Act (19 March)

Our paperwork, including the full Grounds of Appeal, has now been lodged with the UK Supreme Court and also served on the respondent to the case. We now await notification of a hearing date.

The CrowdJustice fund is doing well and we are very grateful to everyone who has donated. There’s still a little way to go yet to meet the estimated total funding needed, so please keep sharing and donating if you are able to.

Share on Facebook

Go to the case page!

Liz Truss’ Bill

I am still hoping that the Government may step in , re-write the Bill as they see fit and put their weight behind it. Will the Tories finally do something concrete???? Next reading is 22 March. Please write to your MP (apart from when it is hopeless to do so, of course).

I reported on the reprehensible filibuster last Friday here:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/fried-green-tomatoes-part-2

Though I would hold the whole Labour Party complicit in the filibuster, Andrew Doyle has made it clear on his substack that some individual Tory MPs were also involved:

https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/ferreting-around

Good tirade about all this from Andrew here:

On a related subject ( or even a subject that could relate to the Liz Truss Bill if the Government steps in and backs it), go, Judy Murray😊

Judy Murray © Provided by The Telegraph

Judy Murray has urged Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, to hurry up and fulfil his pledge to prevent biological men who change their gender from competing in women’s sports.

The tennis coach, and mother of double Wimbledon champion Sir Andy Murray, wants to see the Equality Act overhauled to make it clear that “sex” means biological sex.

‌This would make it possible to protect single-sex spaces such as toilets, changing rooms and rape centres. It would also ensure that sports clubs would not fall foul of the law for excluding a transgender person.

The Sunday Telegraph recently revealed that the Tories are preparing to include a pledge to rewrite the Act in the party’s general election manifesto later this year.

‌Responding to the story on X, formerly Twitter, Ms Murray said: “What are you waiting for? Do it now.”

‌Her position is backed by women’s rights activists, including Sex Matters.

The campaign group wrote: “Rishi Sunak, why wait? You can do this now with an amendment.”

The full article is here:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/judy-murray-tells-pm-hurry-up-and-block-biological-men-from-women-s-sport/ar-BB1kaMyQ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a3e146408cb64966958a1865917bcb59&ei=13

Puberty Blockers

In case you missed it, EDI Jester reports on NHS Northern Ireland following NHS England in banning puberty blockers. It seems increasingly difficult for NHS Scotland and Wales to maintain their pro puberty blockers position.

And movement in Australia as well on this issue. Thanks to wonderful Feminist Legal Clinic for this:

Bernard Lane: Gender medical experiment is hurting our kids | The Australian (17 March)

Get ready for bluster. Our gender clinicians will be busy protesting the irrelevance of the historic decision by England’s National Health Service to end routine use of puberty blocker drugs. It won’t wash.

The decision has international implications and Australia is no exception. Gender clinics in our state children’s hospitals – and in stand-alone facilities such as Maple Leaf House in NSW [ New South Wales] – are doing the same thing as the London-based NHS Tavistock clinic. They have been authorising off-label hormone suppression drugs – approved to treat other conditions such as hormone-driven cancers and precocious (premature) puberty – to stop naturally timed sexual development.

We’re told blockers save “trans kids” from suicide. But there may be many reasons a young person is in distress, and there is no good evidence that blockers bring more benefit than harm. That is why the NHS decided these drugs would be given only within a future clinical trial, reflecting their experimental nature.

Yet here in Australia we still offer blockers as routine treatment to minors, as young as age 10, who self-identify as transgender or non-binary and who often have a host of other things going on – such as autism, awkward same-sex attraction, depression or a history of abuse. International data suggests the vast majority begun on blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones, with risks including sterilisation and sexual dysfunction. How can there be informed consent? How many of these troubled young people really needed mainstream mental health treatment?

England is ahead of Australia in gender clinic reform partly because its politics and media have been better informed and more intellectually robust. British ministers ignored advice from captured officials, met young detransitioners who regret gender medicalisation, and empowered Cass’s independent inquiry.

Our counterpart program, the ABC’s Four Corners, has uncritically promoted the gender-affirming treatment approach. ABC audiences are given the false impression that concern about gender clinics is a conservative culture war. They have been told next to nothing about the drivers of Europe’s shift to greater caution, which is particularly pronounced in liberal Nordic countries.

Source: Bernard Lane: Gender medical experiment is hurting our kids | The Australian

Women’s Rights Network

WRN’s latest excellent newsletter is just out and just one piece from there (staying in Australia):

Australian women say No! (16 March)

Australian women have been campaigning to ditch a controversial Bill that would see self-ID brought into law (by using sexist appearances and behaviours as more significant than biological fact). The Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTQIA+) in New South Wales, has just been referred to committee for a report, where it may mean public submissions and hearings. This is a chance to kill the bill!

NSW women have been raising the alarm about the erasure of women as a legal definition and their stalls and speaking events have broadly been met with positivity. 

WRN Australia posted, ‘Conversation in the public square. We're out there talking to the public, making our case. Vote the Equality Bill down. #ThisIsNotEquality #nswpol’

While leafleting in Sydney one member said, ‘So many dads came up to shake my hand for standing up for their daughters’.

Data Collection by the Police - Manifesto

Excellent piece on Free Speech nation with Kate Coleman of Keep Prisons Single Sex and Sarah Phillimore of Fair Cop:

Data Collection by the NHS

Excellent and important piece from Sex Matters:

Imported gender ideology is damaging the NHS (12 March)

The NHS is losing essential data that keeps people safe

Everyone’s medical records should show essential information about them, including age, sex and medical history. But lobbying by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), a transgender ideology activist group, has led to confusion and obfuscation in the IT systems that record patient data in some NHS trusts. Across the country, the simple sex category for “male’ or “female” is being replaced by a bizarre range of options including “non-binary”, “man including transman” and “trans-female”. 

This is bad for all of us. And the people it’s most dangerous for are those with a transgender identity. 

Increasingly, patient records are held on computer systems, not on paper. Some NHS trusts are merging these records into a single electronic health record for each patient. To do this, they buy a specialist IT software system. The biggest provider of health-record software is an American firm called EPIC. Sex Matters wrote last year about how EPIC has built in contested ideas such as gender identity. In NHS Trusts using EPIC, a gender identity is assigned to every patient – even babies. In some cases biological sex is being conflated with the “acquired gender” stated on a gender-recognition certificate – which changes sex for some legal purposes – and in others, with self-identified gender identities.

Now we know that all this has come from WPATH, as explained here. 

Activist-driven records are dangerous for patients

How did a US-based activist group shape NHS medical records? Back in 2011, WPATH’s executive committee convened a working group of clinicians, specialists in medical-information technology and activists to make recommendations for developers, vendors and users of electronic health-record systems with respect to transgender patients. In 2013 those recommendations were published, and they included taking an “organ inventory” of every patient, asking whether they have a penis, testes, prostate, breasts, vagina, cervix, uterus or ovaries. WPATH also successfully lobbied the United States Department of Health and Human Services to mandate the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity (SO/GI) data fields for approved electronic health-record systems in the USA. 

When NHS England looked for a system, it selected the American company EPIC – whose systems already incorporated those US-mandated rules. In 2023, several NHS England trusts launched EPIC systems software. More are expected to follow.

There are three problems with this. First, there’s the time wasted by NHS staff and patients in collecting and recording unnecessary data. You don’t need an organ inventory if you simply record whether people are male or female. 

Second, there’s a serious risk of recording false information. Asking about body parts instead of simply recording sex will lead to errors. It’s especially confusing for vulnerable patients, who may give wrong answers to questions like “Do you have a cervix?” (Research has shown that almost half of women do not know what a cervix is.) There may be language barriers or learning difficulties – or a patient may be too unwell to engage in a quiz about which reproductive organs they have. For those who can answer, being asked such questions is unlikely to inspire trust or confidence.

Third, it can lead to medical errors. Conflating sex with ideological terms like non-binary or trans-female is dangerous for patients. We know this because it’s already happening in the USA, which adopted this software several years ago. We’ve heard from a doctor who wasted crucial minutes in an emergency with a patient suffering chest pains because the system had incorrectly recorded him as transgender. Chest pains are symptoms of very different problems in men and women, so confusion about sex can mean misdiagnosis – which can be serious. That doctor realised something wasn’t right, and discovered the error. A more junior clinician might have been afraid to ask.

This is particularly dangerous for women. If someone presents in an emergency, the doctor has to check whether they might be pregnant before giving them an X-ray. If the doctor doesn’t even know that the patient is female, then a baby could be at risk. Pregnancy itself brings specific conditions that can be life-threatening. A woman can die from an ectopic pregnancy in the first 12 weeks, when she may not even know she is pregnant, or from pre-eclampsia later on. 

If the patient’s medical record says she is male, there is likely to be a delay before she gets the right treatment. This is not speculative. It has happened – a patient who looked like a man presented in the emergency room with severe abdominal pain. By the time the medical staff realised this was a pregnant female on testosterone, the baby had died in utero. 

This case was published in the highly ranked New England Journal of Medicine, but if lessons were learned they have not reached those who are implementing EPIC in the UK. In a London hospital using EPIC, the medical records of two very ill babies were missing crucial information like gestational age (which shows whether they were born prematurely) and ethnicity, which NHS trusts are legally required to record, but included the babies’ pronouns.

UK activists are pushing for this too

The push to remove sex categories and sex-based language from healthcare is woven into the NHS Rainbow Badge scheme. This was created by activist doctors; Stonewall and other transactivist groups were paid to oversee its roll-out. Although the scheme has now officially ended, the legacy remains, in policies and systems in which references to woman or female have been removed. Freedom-of-information requests by the Daily Express have revealed dozens of NHS trusts recording their own versions of gender identity, asking patients to answer whether they are “male (including trans man), female (including trans woman), non-binary, intersex, questioning/unsure or prefer not to say”. This despite the fact that a trans man is biologically female. 

It’s time to choose

There are two options here for NHS services across the UK. They can continue to obfuscate about sex, to make health records unreliable, and to make it difficult for clinicians to ask if someone is male or female. Over time, this will cost the NHS hard cash. For example, if clinicians cannot be sure if someone is male or female, they will have to order pregnancy tests on everyone being sent for an X-ray and half of those will go in the bin. Calls for sex-specific cancer screenings will go to the wrong people, who may even turn up; others will not be called who should have been, leading to late diagnoses.

There’s a simple alternative. Given that the software is customised for NHS England, it would be entirely feasible to tweak the system, remove elements based on WPATH recommendations and return to sex-based patient data. A simple, optional marker could be put in place for patients with trans identities for patients’ safety – in case their sex is not obvious from their appearance, for example.

Now is the time to fix this, before it goes any further and patients get hurt.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/imported-gender-ideology-is-damaging-the-nhs/?mc_cid=6c0726f270&mc_eid=b7da81a2c7

Biker Cat Day Of Visibility

Endpiece

Many thanks to Concerned Bloke for letting me do the World Premiere of A Tribute to Lia Thomas: Massive Floater - it’s excellent:

Part 2 will hopefully follow tomorrow, Terven. Don’t forget the Scotland Act discussion below.

If you like this update, please send to a friend. Until next time, Terven. This isn’t over yet! Please subscribe for free, like and comment.

Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021

I provide extracts here concentrating on the so called protected characteristic of ‘transgender identity’ plus discussion from me including imaging how trans rights activists ( TRAs) may weaponise this piece of legislation against us gender critical and women’s rights campaigners. Direct quotes from the Act are in italics.

1Aggravation of offences by prejudice

(1)An offence is aggravated by prejudice if—

(a)where there is a specific victim of the offence—

(i)at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates malice and ill-will towards the victim, and

(ii)the malice and ill-will is based on the victim’s membership or presumed membership of a group defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (2), or

(b)whether or not there is a specific victim of the offence, the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (2).

(2)The characteristics are—

(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.

(3)It is immaterial whether or not the offender’s malice and ill-will is also based (to any extent) on any other factor.

(4)Evidence from a single source is sufficient to prove that an offence is aggravated by prejudice.

For section 1 to apply you do firstly need an ‘offence’ but you can easily imagine TRAs claiming ( no doubt spuriously in the vast majority if not all cases)that they have been subject to , for example, harassment and then seek to add this ‘aggravated’ element on to that.

You will note that ‘sex’ and ‘belief’ are not included as protected characteristics (unlike under the Equality Act 2010). Evidence from a single source will be sufficient.

I will return to definitions later but doubtless you may already be puzzled by ‘variations in sex characteristics’ (see later).

When discussing the recent conversion therapy bills, Dennis Kavanagh ( of the Gay Men’s Network and co-host of Queens’ Speech) pondered how a court would deal with a defendant under that proposed legislation who says: ‘I don’t believe in gender identity’ ( as they are entitled to do under Forstater v CGD: https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj).

The same applies here it seems to me.

What are the consequences of ‘aggravation’?

2Consequences of aggravation by prejudice

(1)Subsection (2) applies where it is—

(a)libelled in an indictment, or specified in a complaint, that an offence is aggravated by prejudice, and

(b)proved that the offence is so aggravated.

(2)The court must—

(a)state on conviction—

(i)that the offence is aggravated by prejudice, and

(ii)the type of prejudice by which the offence is aggravated (by reference to one or more of the characteristics mentioned in section 1(2)),

(b)record the conviction in a way that shows—

(i)that the offence is aggravated by prejudice, and

(ii)the type of prejudice by which the offence is aggravated (by reference to one or more of the characteristics mentioned in section 1(2)),

(c)take the aggravation into account in determining the appropriate sentence, and

(d)state—

(i)where the sentence in respect of the offence is different from that which the court would have imposed if the offence were not so aggravated, the extent of and the reasons for that difference, or

(ii)otherwise, the reasons for there being no such difference. ( my emphasis).

The next relevant section for us is the most alarming since it creates an offence in and of itself ie. it does not need some other criminal offence to attach the ‘aggravating factors’ to. So I am going to break down this section.

4Offences of stirring up hatred

….

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person—

(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, or

(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and

(b)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3).

(3)The characteristics are—

(a)age,

(b)disability,

(c)religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,

(d)sexual orientation,

(e)transgender identity,

(f)variations in sex characteristics.

It is important that there is a ‘reasonable person’ test involved but one can imagine TRAs still causing problems by making spurious complaints. As we all know, if a captured police force takes prosecutions forward, even if they fail, the ‘process is the punishment’. People may understandably decide not to speak out. The effect on free speech is quite likely to be chilling to say the least.

Continuing with the same section of the Act:

(4)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

(5)For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.

(6)For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if—

(a)evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and

(b)the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case.

Obviously these are very important defences that are available but, once again, if you are relying on one of these defences it means that a prosecution is being take against you. And how will any court interpret these defences?

(7)For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person’s behaviour—

(a)includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does,

(b)may consist of—

(i)a single act, or

(ii)a course of conduct.

(8)For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by—

(a)displaying, publishing or distributing the material,

(b)giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person,

(c)making the material available to another person in any other way.

This seems to be extraordinarily wide! The offence can consist of a ‘single act’. So perhaps the uttering of one sentence or the writing of one line. Could you show material to someone within your own home and be caught by this section!!??

(9)A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).

Roughly speaking the difference here is between more ‘minor’ offences which are normally dealt with in a Magistrates’ Court and more ‘major’ offences which are dealt with in a Crown Court or where you might opt to go to the Crown Court. Either way these are amazingly draconian potential sentences.

5Powers of entry etc. with warrant

(1)A sheriff or justice of the peace may grant a warrant under this section authorising a constable to enter premises if the sheriff or justice of the peace is satisfied, by evidence on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting—

(a)that an offence under section 4 has been, or is being, committed at the premises, or

(b)that there is evidence at the premises of the commission of an offence under section 4.

(2)A warrant granted under this section remains in force for a period of 28 days beginning with the day on which it was granted.

(3)A warrant granted under this section may authorise a constable to—

(a)enter the premises by force if necessary,

(b)search the premises and any person found in the premises,

(c)seize and detain any material found on the premises, or on any person in the premises, if the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that it may provide evidence of the commission of an offence under section 4.

(4)A constable who is authorised by a warrant granted under this section to seize and detain material may, if the material is only capable of being looked at, read, watched or listened to (as the case may be) after conversion from data stored in another form, require that the material—

(a)be converted into such a form in a way which enables it to be taken away, or

(b)be produced in a form which is capable of being taken away and from which it can be readily converted.

Once again, very draconian powers here as you will see.

7Forfeiture and disposal of material to which offence relates

(1)Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 4—

(a)the court may order the forfeiture of any material to which the offence relates, and

(b)the court may order that any of the forfeited material be disposed of in such manner as the court may direct.

Yet again, this seems very wide to me but ( as with everything I have discussed here) I look forward to hearing further from some of our gender critical lawyers on this.

8Individual culpability where organisation commits offence

(1)This section applies where—

(a)an offence under section 4 is committed by a relevant organisation, and

(b)the commission of the offence involves consent or connivance on the part of a responsible individual.

(2)The responsible individual (as well as the relevant organisation) commits the offence.

(3)For the purposes of this section—

(a)“relevant organisation” means an organisation listed in the first column of the table in subsection (4),

(b)“responsible individual” means, in relation to a relevant organisation—

(i)an individual falling within the corresponding entry in the second column of the table in subsection (4), or

(ii)an individual purporting to act in the capacity of an individual falling within the corresponding entry.

Various ‘responsible individuals’ within organisations may find themselves prosecuted for something written by the organisation in general.

9Protection of freedom of expression

For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes—

(a)discussion or criticism of matters relating to—

(i)age,

(ii)disability,

(iii)sexual orientation,

(iv)transgender identity,

(v)variations in sex characteristics,

(b)discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards—

(i)religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,

(ii)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice,

(iii)the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,

(c)proselytising, or

(d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions.

Once again, an important defence here but, if you are relying on it , it means you are being prosecuted!

11Meaning of the characteristics

(1)This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1, 4 and 9.

…

(7)A person is a member of a group defined by reference to transgender identity if the person is—

(a)a female-to-male transgender person,

(b)a male-to-female transgender person,

(c)a non-binary person,

(d)a person who cross-dresses,

and references to transgender identity are to be construed accordingly.

(8)A person is a member of a group defined by reference to variations in sex characteristics if the person is born with physical and biological sex characteristics which, taken as a whole, are neither—

(a)those typically associated with males, nor

(b)those typically associated with females,

and references to variations in sex characteristics are to be construed accordingly.

What on earth does ‘non-binary’ mean? We are not helped further here. Effectively , on analysis, ‘transgender’ means ‘transgender’!? It is not related, for example, to any gender recognition certificate.

Why on earth inter sex people need their own category is beyond me!!??

OK, some thoughts from me. The concern remains spurious allegations which are then taken forward. The process is the punishment. Please do let me have your thoughts on all of this and please note I have not gone into the separate guidance here which also needs considering. I may try and get to that in due course. This is all in a context where I think we should do away with hate crime altogether as I have said many times before.