12,399 views

WeAreFairCop

@WeAreFairCop

, 17 tweets, 4 min read

My Authors

RISE AND SHINE
IT'S TODAY

We hope to live tweet the proceedings. Follow #FairCopJR

Why is this important? Because generally it concerns the right of individual citizens to freely express views on matters of political controversy.

And in particular - are the guidelines from the College of Policing compatible with the fundamental right to free expression? The guidance being challenged is set out in the 2014 'Hate Crime Operational Guidance'. See Chapter 6 report-it.org.uk/files/hate_cri…

This requires police forces to record 'non-crime hate incidents', defined as that 'which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated (wholly or partially) by a hostility or prejudice' and directed at one of five 'monitored strands'.

These are - race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender. There doesn't seem to be an explanation as to why this guidance doesn't reflect the 9 protected characteristics of the Equality Act. So 'sex' is not included. Women don't get protection here.

Such incidents MUST be recorded regardless of whether or not the complainant is the victim and irrespective of whether there is any evidence to justify the 'hate incident'.

There is no statutory basis for this recording. It is an operational practice that developed from the recommendations following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The aim appears to be to 'nip in the bud' early signs of 'hate' that might escalate to serious crime.

Debate about transgender issues has intensified since the Government consulted in 2018 on potential reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/c… - and in particular suggestions that 'self identification' should replace the current regime of apply for a GRC

There are clearly a variety of views expressed about whether or not this is a good idea. The Court won't be asked to express its view about which 'side' it takes. The issue for the court is whether or not the guidance from the CoP is incompatible with fundamental human rights.

the court said in August 2019 that this judicial review should go ahead as it was an 'arguable issue' as to whether the Guidance 'embodies an appropriate balance between the law on gender recognition ... and the right of freedom of expression...'

The court noted that this debate arose in the 'context of controversial proposed legal changes'. The court also said this application would be 'expedited' so here we are today.

Hopefully the factual background to this is clear - Harry the Owl posted some tweets. Someone unknown complained to the police. Harry was told his 'hate' would now be recorded by the police and therefore could be revealed on a DBS check. gov.uk/government/org…

Harry denied he was 'hateful'. He does not show hatred towards the transgender community. But he does believe that 'trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women' and he has a right to have that belief and express it.

Harry considers - as do many others - that conflating the biological classification of 'sex' with self identified 'gender' (a social construct) poses a risk to women's sex based rights.

Whether you agree with that or not, we hope the majority of people would agree that we need to be allowed to talk about this, in public, without being threatened by police intervention and our words recorded as 'hate'.

This is a very important hearing and we hope to bring you more commentary as the day unfolds.

#FairCopJR

For commentary on Article 10 ECHR and why it is important see ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-r…

@BBCRadio4

@BBCRadio4