Thread by @mbmpolicy

Stage 3 debate on the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill has begun. scottishparliament.tv

Johann Lamont: Patrick Harvie said about my speech on #IWD2021 that I had displayed vicious transphobia.

JL: by ascribing the motive of hatred says a great deal more about his lack of self awareness than it does about good law. I defend to the death his right to make those comments about me.

JL: it is easier to silence people because they are full of hatred than address their concerns.

JL: wouldn't it the irony if debating this hate crime bill, I become the subject of a report for hatred.

JL: I am here to speak up for my constituents. Those who have no well funded lobby groups to speak on their behalf.

JL: lobby groups paid for by the public purse have argued against adding women to this legislation.

JL: I want to include sex as an aggravator and define sex in line with Equality Act 2010. They are supported by many women and Lord Bracadale.

JL: hatred of women is so commonplace it is often not remarked upon. The scale of abuse of women across the world is unchanging.

JL: we see it in domestic abuse and crimes of sexual abuse and the routine behaviour that sees anxiety about male violence. A constant companion across our life.

JL: there is no answer to why women are not included. We are told it is complex and that men are manipulative.

JL: there are huge issues for women but we are content to outsource our thinking to a working group rather than wrestle with these issues in here.

JL: the principle should be decided in here because when we campaign to discuss hate crime women will be at the centre of it not ignored.

JL: I think the case is indisputable. But even if you cannot support it, I hope you will consider voting for my definition of sex.

JL: if you think those definitions are wrong, then say so and we can have that debate here.

JL: I trust you will support these amendments so women at the very front line of crime driven by hatred are included.

Pauline McNeill: I regard this as a serious omission from the bill as do many women. Hundreds of women have written to me asking for this aggravator, not prepared to wait three years for a working group.

PM: one in three women face physical or sexual violence in their life.

PM: I wonder why Scotland is not leading on this. Women in public life face much higher levels of online abuse than men with consequences for their participation.

PM: it is a glaring omission. I really don't understand why the SG is asking women to wait. The longer the law is unchanged, the more the message is reinforced that this is not a priority for this parliament.

PM: I have two questions for the Minister. What kind of new law you think a standalone crime of misogynistic harassment would be? How would it differ from domestic violence?

PM: why can't the SG put sex as an aggravator in the bill but still have the working group?

PM: please think seriously about omitting sex as an aggravator in one of our last pieces of legislation in this parliament.

Joan McAlpine: a UN poll found that nearly every young woman had faced sexual harassment in the UK. It's not just enough to say this is too difficult a problem to solve.

JM: I am supporting against the SG whip to support Johann Lamont's amendment.

JM: I became convinced that the scale of violence women face at men's hands mean it would be bizarre to exclude them from Part 1 of the bill.

JM: concerned that men who enjoy cross dressing are protected but women are not.

JM: refers to Femicide Census. We seem to be saying femicide is not hate.

JM: a number of official women's organisations who work closely with SG don't back a sex aggravator but none of these organisations did any research before getting to this position.

JM: our domestic violence laws are already gender neutral. There is a major ideological schism in feminist thought in recent years.

JM: this debate is polarised but dynamic and changing. One grassroots group took ONS to court on the census and were successful.

Elaine Smith: members across Chamber have spoken up against women's inequality and violence and abuse against women in last few weeks.

ES: Minister proposes to refer decision to a working group. Is that really the best this parliament can do? In 2008 my colleague Marlyn Glen asked the same question.

ES: voices from Muslim community asked for consideration of hate crimes committed against women who are Muslim.

ES: I am shocked by the lack of serious consultation with the women of Scotland and the men trying to stop our voices being heard.

John Finnie: don't want to silence anyone's voices. Like many men I have frequently spoken about women's experiences.

JF: there is no doubt progress dealing with sexism has been slow. With this working group it will gather pace. The misrepresentation around this debate is at best disappointing, sometimes mischievious.

JF: words are important, tactics are important. I won't support Johann Lamont's amendment.

ES: we are happy to support the working group but we don't see why we should not include sex aggravator now.

Neil Bibby: we will support all amendments in this group. Lord Bracadale did recommend we introduce sex as a protected characteristic. Decision not to include was a missed opportunity.

NB: establishment of working group is important and we will follow its work closely.

NB: we are worried there will be a gap in the legislation. Women are subjected to hate because of their sex. We send a message that women are less deserving.

Annabelle Ewing: have considered copious evidence committee received. Clear to me that in approach proposed we have the opportunity to do something different, substantial in terms of abuse women suffer daily.

AE: what is point in pursuing same legislative approach that has not produced better results for women. Gender neutral does not deliver for women.

JL: Domestic Abuse legislation was gender neutral and it was regarded by those women's groups as a gold standard.

AE: time to try to do something different. Working group will report within 12 months. Will report to this parliament and this parliament that will consider issues and take decisions.

AE: recognise importance of immutability of sexual dimorphism. Recognise difference between sex and gender. I feel the concerns on that debate are becoming part of this bill.

AE: inserting definitions from Equality Act 2010 in other legislation does not make sense. Will not support Johann Lamont's amendments.

Humza Yousaf: SG will not support JL's amendments.

HY: SG committed to tackling gender based violence. But strong diverging views on how this is tackled.

HY: I know including sex in bill seems appealing. But we heard in committee that Scottish Women's Aid, Engender, Zero Tolerance have decades of experience standing up for women's rights oppose sex aggravator.

HY: deeply disturbed that insinuation about these groups. By labelling them as government funded - which is absolutely true - is that they are doing what the government wants.

HY: can we not denigrate those organisations.

HY: women's aid organisations concerned about sex aggravator being used against women who are abused.

HY: quotes from Grampian Women's Aid. "We can only speculate about effect of a sex aggravator." But "we are confident perpetrators will use it for their own benefit".

HY: Engender have a 35 page report. Worth recognising there are serious concerns raised by very serious organisations with a pedigree for standing up for women's rights. Makes sense to ask for experts.

HY: as legislators we are at our best when we ask experts to look at these issues.

HY: working group met on 12 February. I have written to every MSPs to say they will complete work within 12 months.

HY: on definition of sex, no in principle objection. But won't pre-judge work undertaken by Helena Kennedy.

HY: organisations who have decades of credibility have expressed very serious concerns. Ask members to give working group the time they need to explore the issue and make recommendations.

PM: whatever commitment Cab Sec gives, we will need legislative time. Many people think it will take a few years.

PM: Cab Sec did not answer my question about including sex aggravator now.

HY: SWA and others feel that sex aggravator could do harm. If we include, it may do harm to women. How many women would be harmed?

JL: my contention that if you ask the question out loud why you would not include women, if you say it's all a bit complicated. People have been saying that since I was a child.

JL: commend PM, JM and ES contribution - they have proved there are a lot of talented women who have something to say. They speak on behalf of women across the country.

JL: the hate crime legislation in full is complex. Our job is to work our way through complex legislation.

JL: told it may be manipulated by abusive men. That is a counsel of despair, we would never have legislated on rape, coercive control or domestic abuse.

JL: we are told women can wait. But when people say it might be better to bring people together, should we pause this bill and build consensus. We are told we cannot wait. That does not make sense.

JL: at least one member of working group is actively opposed to sex aggravator. There are a lot of talented women across our communities who understand what hate crime and we should be talking to them. Ludicrous to say only way forward is to set up a working group.

JL: I have a lot of respect for the groups opposed to my position. As a minister, I funded these groups. My argument is SG overwhelmingly listens to them above any other group.

JL: it is a closed circle. There is another set of arguments here.

JL: I commend Joan McAlpine for what she says and having the courage to indicate she will support this against her own government.

JL: it's clear this SG has form in changing definitions. You are in the courts at this moment defending a change in definitions on Gender Representation on Public Boards Act.

JL: JM took on definitions in census. If you listen to women and their experience it is self evident it should be in this bill. I urge SG to listen to what Tim Hopkins said: people need to see themselves in this legislation.

JL: women face hate, violence and abuse and they deserve the protection of the law as much as anyone else.

[We have now moved onto amendments in group 2 about private dwelling defence and your live tweeter needs a wee break. Hope you will understand!]

Moving onto Group 3 amendments on freedom of expression.

Adam Tomkins: coming to core issue this bill confronts. How to legislate against hate crime whilst protecting freedom of speech.

AT: all stirring up offences can only be committed intentionally. Specific offences relating to theatre and public performances have been removed from the bill. Changes made due to volume of concerns.

AT: can only be committed where a reasonable person would consider behaviour to be threatening or abusive. Single most important change to the bill.

AT: even this does not go far enough to ensure bill operates in way that respects freedom of speech.

AT: disagrees that this aspect of the bill has been rushed. Even though Stage 2 amendments not pressed to a vote, there was a full debate.

AT: Justice Committee hosted roundtable evidence session to discuss Cab Sec's proposed amendments.

AT: welcome amendment 11. But on its own it does not go far enough.

AT: it will not be a hate crime to criticise aspects of policy relating to transgender identity.

AT: so much fear has been stoked in relation to this matter. Even if you express yourself in a manner others find transphobic it is not a hate crime to discuss matters relating to transgender identity.

ES: could a woman be sure she would not be committing a hate crime if she said there were only two sexes, a woman is an adult human female, or women's prisons should only be used for biological women?

AT: if you want to campaign for women's sex-based rights, you are not committing a hate crime even if someone else is offended by what you say.

AT: that is the effect of this bill of Cab Sec's amendment is accepted today.

AT: my amendments are not probing amendments are designed to sit alongside Cab Sec amendment 11. Nothing that cuts across Cab Sec's policy intentions.

AT: aim of all three amendments is to distinguish threatening or abusive behaviour we want to criminalise from offensive or shocking speech that should not be criminalised.

AT: these principles are fundamental to ECHR Article 10 rights.

AT: the right to speak inoffensively is not worth having (quote).

AT: I am offering parliament three different ways of doing that.

Neil Findlay: the more I am hearing today is causing me great concern. Many of us believe there should be hate crime legislation but how it has been done in this bill is not it. Many people would want the govt to withdraw this bill and come back with properly thought out law.

ES: what is a reasonable person? Could the member answer. Principal of Edinburgh University reported stickers saying women: adult human female stickers to the police.

HY: wants to address NF. When he says he has spoken to victims of hate crime and no-one wants this bill, I don't know who he is talking to.

NF: Cab Sec has misrepresented what I said.

HY: some members have argued there is a tension between hate crime and FoE. I disagree. The bill has never been about prosecuting the offensive.

HY: this bill is fundamentally different than when it was introduced. Many changes have been made.

HY: a court will decide what meets the threshold.

HY: I agree you have to have words on the face of the bill to reassure people who have legitimate concerns.

HY: I was persuaded by BEMIS about the harm that would be caused if race had any FoE clause. It does not exist in any other racial offences across the UK.

HY: in Elaine Smith's list of statement. None of those would be prosecuted.

HY: Iain Smith from Inclusion Scotland spoke powerfully at Justice Committee roundtable. "Expressions of antipathy, ridicule and insult can legitimise prejudice."

HY: amendment by Johann Lamont - all matters covered by amendment 11 (discussion and criticism). No need to include a laundry list. Worry it runs risk that discussion or criticism does not encapsulate matters in JL's list.

HY: SG will support Adam Tomkins' amendment 1.

HY: also supporting amendment 34 in name of Adam Tomkins.

Joan McAlpine: I welcome Cab Sec FoE amendment and will support it. I don't think his and amendment 1 from AT go far enough.

JM: both fall short of implementing Bracadale's recommendation. In debate about women's rights and trans identity some views may be seen as offensive by some.

JM: I don't agree with Cab Sec that my amendment will result of anyone getting away with it as only perceived as offensive.

JM: you will see that many people share my concerns. Women have been accused of hate speech including from politicians. Martina Navratilova and Sharron Davies have been accused of being hateful.

JM: mentions Germaine Greer, Jenni Murray, Kathleen Stock, Rosa Freedman.

JM: mentions Allison Bailey black lesbian barrister. Some women have already lost their jobs for talking about these issues.

JM: Scottish Trans Alliance encouraged people to report to police stickers found in Edinburgh.

JM: Merseyside Police had a poster saying "it's an offence to be offensive".

JM: good laws should not be made by crossing our fingers. My amendment will give clarity.

Johann Lamont: this is a very serious debate, highly contentious. I'm sorry if we are boring you. It is our responsibility as MSPs. I resent implications we are wasting people's time.

Bob Doris: I appreciate and find informative and helpful. I am engaged.

JL: 11B is the one most fully implements Bracadale's recommendation. Puts on face of law a range of statements that should not be deemed abusive. Cab Sec has not explained why rejected many of Bracadale's recommendations.

JL: this is a very difficult debate. We should ensure the law does not allow someone to berate somebody.

JL: I know disabled people can be targeted and suffer. It is about finding the balance. We have the right to debate ideas.

JL: we all need protection for FoE. My party is founded saying things that at the time were regarded as unacceptable. Women's movement had to break barriers.

JL: I feel AT is being optimistic in what these amendments would do.

JL: even at roundtable where level of response was massive the positions taken by some of the witnesses, there was no evidence of a shift. Cab Sec did not shift his position.

JL: want to underline points made by Joan McAlpine. What is regarded as reasonable, acceptable? What is losing people their jobs? Young women contacting me privately to say there are things they cannot say.

JL: I went to a meeting at Edinburgh University two years ago. I cannot remember being at a meeting where we were so conscious of the need for security. That tells you what it is like for a woman who wants to express the views in my amendment. The chilling is real.

JL: I think AT is offering hope but no guarantees.

JL: amendment 11B gives a clear point of reference.

JL: you had a briefing from Equality Network. Says it's an unnecessary laundry list. Says it includes propositions that fundamentally undermines trans people's rights.

JL: that is the interpretation of the Equality Network of what other people would regard as reasonable, logical to say. That there are two sexes. Described as a fundamental attack on the rights of one group of people.

JL: we have a choice. Give women the protection to talk about their own reality.

Sandra White: JM and JL speeches were excellent. FoE is for everyone. It is a very important part of this bill. I feel AT amendment 1 covers most of the issues I had concern about.

SW: will these amendments cover you if you say something about a government in another country?

SW: we need to ensure Police Scotland is trained. COPFS has to be trained and educated. The general public have to be educated about what this bill means.

Neil Bibby: there has been widespread concern over FoE. We welcome amendments that provide clarity. We support amendment 11 from SG. Important there is general provision, apart from religion.

NB: also support amendment 1 from AT. ECHR rights are well understood by courts.

NB: cannot support amendment 11B or 11C. Will support Joan McAlpine's amendment.

John Finnie: thanks Adam Tomkins. He gave an accurate resume of progress made on the bill. Fear being stoked about this issue.

JF: have a threshold with a high bar. Maybe I have more confidence in police judgement than some of my colleagues. Disappointing that everyday operation of legislature characterised as sinister. There was extensive consultation.

JF: supporting Cab Sec amendment.

JF: amendment 11B adds list of matters relating to transgender identity. Including provisions fundamentally undermining trans people's Convention right to be recognised in acquired gender.

JF: people should be free to discuss this right unless threatening or abusive way. Equality Network said to add list of approved statement which includes an attack on fundamental rights is wrong. I agree with them.

Jenny Marra: amendment 1 is helpful but in my view does not go far enough. I want to speak in support of my colleague Johann Lamont.

JM: hate is such a contested term. I fear members are complacent about the atmosphere in which women are discussing sex and gender identity.

JM: I was called hateful for questioning NHS policy which said gender was assigned at birth.

JM: Woman's Place UK told us about violent threats and protests they have faced at almost all of their 27 public meeting including a bomb threat.

JM: Edinburgh Uni student paper said that transphobic stickers had been found on campus. Asked about whether male sexed people should be allowed to change in a changing room with teenage girls.

JM: I ask AT about the sticker posters and Edinburgh University Principal: were they being reasonable?

JM: cites Helena Kennedy's book about court bias against women. About two years ago a dental student in Scotland got off with sexually abusing a young girl as make sheriff said it would be detrimental to his career.

JM: does AT amendment not think we need more specifics that JL's amendment offers?

JM: women may be subject to unpredictable treatment by police, courts, employers. Will have a corrosive self-censorship effect, antithetical to democratic debate.

Patrick Harvie: equality groups have fought for human rights for me and many others. We know legislation we pass cannot breach ECHR. Stirring up offence been in existence for decades.

PH: some members have sought tacitly to have this bill endorse behaviour that is prejudiced even if not in scope of offence. Amendment 11B represents a position incompatible with GRA.

PH: promises made to trans people by parties have been broken. Ignores fact that so many Scotland's women's groups are intersectional and inclusive.

PH: anti-trans campaigners working with religious US organisations, using it as a wedge issue. At least one organisation has been operating in Scotland.

PH: you don't need to look far to find anti-trans activists arguing against all these things.

PH: since section 2A this parliament has never voted to oppose equality and human rights of Scotland's queer community. Amendments today would end that proud track record. Hope parliament will reject hostile amendments in this group.

Elaine Smith: quite clear now about PH's views and motivations. Read out tweet about last week's IWD debate. There is a vicious bit of transphobia in debate. Thanks, Johann. PH reply: I am sorry to say we can expect more of that when it comes to Stage 3 of the hate crime bill.

ES: tell me where the transphobia was in any of those speeches. I am rising to support JL and JM's amendments as well as amendment 1. There are many grassroots women's groups and some religious bodies and constituents who have expressed concerns on FoE.

ES: worried won't be enough to prevent chilling effect to discuss women's rights. We are seeing it play out right now. Those rights we want to discuss are rights we have in law.

ES: I am now extremely careful about rights I have taken for granted. Cannot believe this is what women are facing in 21st century Scotland. It is shocking. I am personally conscious to sex-based rights will immediately attract accusation of being hateful.

ES: my speech for IWD last week was attacked in that way.

Liam McArthur: I echo comments from Liz Smith. Contributions in this grouping needed to be said in context of this debate. JL's voice needed to be heard, likewise PH. I thank Jl for pursuing this through Stage 2 and 3.

LM: thanks AT. Way he stewarded scrutiny in committee, laid claim to secure reasonableness test.

LM: Justice Committee faced remarkable challenge. Right to FoE not unfettered but should not be unduly constrained.

LM: amendment 11 avoids singling out any characteristic. Exception relates to religion reflecting universal support from faith groups and humanist society to go further in this area.

LM: accept amendment 11 on its own is insufficient so I welcome amendment 1.

AT: the treatment of this bill has shown the Scottish Parliament at its best.

AT: PH said he found aspects of JL's amendment troubling. I am deeply troubled by that remark. There should be nothing troubling about an amendment that sets out what speech is lawful on transgender identity.

AT: saying that woman or man refer to sex is not a hate crime under this legislation and there should be no doubt about that.

AT: I am troubled that members of this parliament are troubled by amendments that are innocent, such as one from JL.

AT: combination of my amendment and that of Cab Sec will deepen protection of free speech. Other MSPs voiced sincere and deep concern that that combination goes far enough.

AT: I agree with JL my amendment does not offer guarantees. I don't think you can. You can offer clarity. I have tried to guard against vagueness and over-breadth. As NB said, this combination does deliver that clarity.

JL: women who have faced this may need more clarity. One of our colleagues said that what was in my amendment was hate speech.

JL: the evidence is in front of you. What consequence comes for us?

AT: that member finds it hateful. Does not make it a hate crime.

AT: would have to be what a reasonable person finds hateful. Crown would have to prove that.

AT: if you take all of these things in the round, no one gives guarantee and clarity. In the round I think they do.

LM: part of problem we have wrestled with is threat of people bringing complaints. Can't write it into law. Is there anything that can be done to how police respond on these issues?

AT: will depend on police training. That needs to happen with regards to speech. I think we will get a long way there.

JL: put them into the law is one way to make it clear. It's not a comfort for me that I will have a good case when I get to the court.

AT: we could take this bill off the table. If it is not fit for purpose, don't vote for it.

Johann Lamont: this parliament has proud record on LGBT issues. On section 2A many brave women fought hard on this including Wendy Alexander. Idea we are funded by alt-right is ludicrous.

JL: effect to put beyond doubt legislation based on understanding there are only two sexes. Cab Sec said at Stage 2 said it was drafted to be inclusive of non-binary persons.

JL: we must legislate in a way that does not conflate sex and gender identity.

JL: hope to hear official understanding of sex in Scotland is that female and male is only ones we have.

John Finnie: existing language consistent with other legislation (equal marriage and civil partnership). Concerned about unintended consequences. Quotes from Equality Network.

JF: non-binary people are included in transgender identity definition in the bill. Relationships must be included in sexual orientation characteristic.

Neil Bibby: language in line with other legislation. Understand need for consistency.

HY: I associate myself with JF and NB comments. Used different sex to be more inclusive. Also view of those who support equality, Equality Network and Stonewall Scotland.

JL: of course we wish to be inclusive. Legislation clear that non binary people are a transgender identity. If we want to debate whether there are two sexes or not, let's have that debate.

JL: have the debate and have a vote on it. We are creating impression there are more than two sexes without having the debate. There is language creep in this legislation.

JL: we do not need to confuse sex and gender identity. We do not want to conflate these two terms. Language I have used consistent with Equality Act 2010. EA2010 says the opposite sex. Fundamental question: whether there are two sexes or sex is a spectrum.

JL: Cab Sec could settle this point for me by saying there are two sexes.

JL: language is imported into legislation without that discussion. Then you discover argument that you have already conceded it is a spectrum. If a govt minister is not comfortable saying there are two sexes, how does he expect a high school biology teacher to do so?

JL: the law should be clear. We should not set ambiguous precedents.

JL: amendment 37 seeks to deal with groups covered by transgender identity. It removes cross dressers from the scope of the bill.

JL: I regret I was unable to persuade colleagues to recognise hatred based on their sex. Bill excludes groups such as goth, emos and punks even though targeted for offending.

JL: SG has recently confirmed it has no evidence that cross dressers are targeted for hate crime.

JL: including groups should be merited on its own terms. We should be clear who the provision covers. Quotes Cab Sec at Stage 2 and Equality Network's justification for their inclusion.

JL: why should hatred towards occasional cross dressers be included but not women?

John Finnie: would remove protections for cross dressers that have been in place for ten years. If one person is made vulnerable, that is one person too many. It is ridiculous.

JF: this bill is about consolidation and enhancement. This is a deeply disappointing amendment.

NB: removing them could create a loophole. We could introduce a defence that offending against trans person was based on presumption they were cross dressing.

HY: will remove people who cross dress from definition of transgender identity. Would limit protections in bill. People who cross dress because they experience hate crime, as noted by Equality Network.

Elaine Smith: puzzled about this. We include cross dressers, we don't include women. Is there a loophole if someone says I didn't know they were a transwoman?

HY: cross dressing in bill is not its own characteristic. It is included as wider definition of transgender identity.

HY: it's essential we keep cross dressing protection. If we were to lose that we couldn't be modernising the hate crime bill. Take exception to people who say women are not protected by this bill.

JL: one thing women who suffer have in common is that they are women. JF voted to exclude women from this bill. Taking that out and having audacity to give me a lecture to be inconsiderate about cross dressers.

JL: I am highlighting an issue that offers more protection to someone who dresses as a woman in his spare time than a woman.

JL: if a trans woman has been mistaken for a woman, they don't have that protection. Loophole exists because you have turned your face against including women in this bill.

JL: I favour in understanding how we protect people in this legislation. The reason cross dresser has been brought in is because some folk in the trans activist community have a trans umbrella that includes cross dressers.

JL: the problem we have is we are affording greater protection to a group who describe it as something they do in their leisure time. Cannot understand why we have ended up in this place.

JL: it will take more than a working group to undo the damage done here today by not including women in the bill.

Your live tweeter is going to sign off now. (Shoulder ache.) Thank you to everyone who has been following and RT-ing. Sorry if I have not been able to answer questions. Good night!

The Official Report of the debate, with all the speeches, is now available here. parliament.scot/parliamentaryb…

It also shows the detailed voting on each amendment.

For amendment 4 (adding sex as a protected characteristic for the purpose of Part 1 - aggravators)
For = Lab, Cons, plus Michelle Ballantyne, Joan McAlpine, Andy Wightman
Against = SNP, Green, Lib Dem

For 11G (Joan McAlpine on freedom of expression)
For = Lab, Cons, plus Michelle Ballantyne, Joan McAlpine,
Against = SNP, Green, Lib Dem, Andy Wightman

Erratum: Mark MacDonald (Ind), also voted in favour of amendments 4 and 11G.

Andy Wightman also Ind
Michelle Ballantyne Reform
Joan McAlpine SNP

Amendment 11B (Lamont (Lab): clarifing certain statements related sex not abusive in themselves)
For: Con, Lamont, Jenny Marra (Lab), Elaine Smith (Lab), McAlpine (SNP), Bill Kidd (SNP), Ballantyne (Reform), McDonald (Ind)
Against: SNP, Green, LD, Lab, Wightman (Ind)

11C (Lamont (Lab): same protection for references to non-religious beliefs as for religious ones)
For: Con, Lamont, Marra (Lab), Smith (Lab), Ballantyne (Reform), McDonald (Ind)
Against, SNP, Green, LD, Lab, Wightman (Ind)

11D (Lamont (Lab): explicit statement that Bill cannot compel expressions of any belief)
For: Cons, Lab, McAlpine (SNP), McDonald (Ind), Ballantyne (Reform)
Against: SNP, Greens, LDs, Wightman (Ind)

11F (Lamont (Lab): clarifying "discussion or criticism " has a wode meaning)

For: Cons, Lab, McDonald (Ind), Ballantyne (Reform), Wightman (Ind)
Against: SNP, Greens, LDs

17 (Lamont (Lab): adding a definition of sex)

For: Lab, Cons, McAlpine (SNP), McDonald (Ind), Wightman (Ind), Ballantyne (Reform)
Against: SNP, Greens, LDs

35 (Lamont (Lab): clarifying Bill recognises only two sexes)

For: Cons, Lamont, Smith (Lab), Marra (Lab), Kenneth Gibson (SNP), McAlpine (SNP), McDonald (Ind)
Against: SNP, Green, LD, Lab, Wightman (Ind)

Note: will mop up the handful of abstentions across the voting at the end: too much for the character limit vote by vote.

37 (Lamont (Lab): removing cross-dressers from defn of transgender identity)

For: Cons, Lamont, Smith (Lab), Marra (Lab), McAlpine (SNP), Gibson (SNP), Ballantyne (Reform)
Against: SNP, Greens, LDs, Lab, McDonald (Ind), Wightman (Ind)

Abstentions on these votes:
Neil Findlay (Lab): 11B, 11C, 35, 37

Amendment 36 (Lamont) was also related to recognising only two sexes: voting as for amendment 35 above, other than Wightman (ind) noted in favour.

Other votes on government amendments and in other groups not included here. The only oppositon amendment accepted was Adam Tomkins (Cons) amendment 1, adding some further general protection on freedom of expression, which was agreed without a vote (i.e. with no objections).

Michelle Ballantyne (Reform) also supported amendment 35.

With apologies to anyone who RTd any of these quickly earlier before they were deleted to correct errors.