Thread by @WeAreFairCop

Starting to read through the Law Commission Report. Interesting to note this.

s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-st…

And this

And this

Interesting to see the criminal law building itself on ‘inclusive’ rather than ‘exhaustive’ definitions. What are the Law Commission going to do with the ‘Q’ and the ‘+’?

Consideration of removal of hate crime was beyond the scope of this review

Now debate about the precise ambit of the ‘Q’ and the ‘+’ can begin

The First Recommendation

2nd recommendation

3rd recommendation. So no extension to include ‘secular belief’

4th recommendation - despite many objections and no clear evidence base

Now discussion of what is included in ‘transgender identity’ and worrying adherence to woolly and ‘inclusive’ definitions

Disappointing to see reliance on old fashioned and unhelpful term ‘intersex’. I wear trousers every day. Am I a cross dresser?

And if rates of hate crime against trans people continue to fall? Wisely LC not dipping it’s toes into the sex v gender debate - but Parliament will have to.

But thank goodness the LC does not support the continued hijack of those with DSDs as ‘support’ for transgender identities: they are nothing of the kind.

5th recommendation. Rejects arguments that ‘cross dressing’ is far too woolly - but you are essentially making crimes unprosecutable if they cannot be clearly defined.

Agree that the very wide cast of ‘disability’ can cause problems

6th recommendation

7th recommendation

A decision NOT to include hate crimes against women and girls - a row back from initial consultation recommendations.

Interesting and explicit recognition that the evils hate crime seeks to combat can be dealt with outside ‘hate crime’ laws

Main objection to making ‘sex or gender’ a hate crime was need to focus on existing laws more clearly

Many raised general objections to hate crime per se

Interesting discussion of the conflation of sex and gender.

Arguments against conflation

Bad news - the LC votes to conflate

Good news - LC takes concerns about impact on freedom of speech seriously

It’s certainly a long and thoughtful discussion. But recommendation 8

But Government should seriously consider a new offence, given prevalence and harm of this behaviour. Recommendation 9.

Should age be added as monitored strand? Reconnection 10 - no

Recommendation 11

Recommendation 12

Recommendation 13

14-17

18-20

Chapter 10 -stirring up hatred. LC keen to point out these laws should not be based on ‘offensiveness’

LC concerned that misrepresentation of law or their recommendations could also have a chilling effect

Useful discussion of limits to free speech - not an absolute right, but requires justification to fetter.

Recognition of the importance of the #FairCopJR

Recommendations 21 and 22

Should stirring up offences extend to sex and/or gender? While LC conflate the two, at least it explicitly recognises this does not suggest acceptance of more than 2 ‘genders’.

Answer - yes. Despite not recommended as a monitored strand for hate crime.

Recommendation 23. Must admit I am struggling with LC reasoning re sex and gender here.

24-27

Recommendation 28

Should people be able to claim a defence against stirring up hatred by relying on freedom of speech? Stonewall said ‘no’. LC not so sure.

GIRES didn’t think gender critical people should have a defence. The LC strongly disagreed

Clear where battle lines will be drawn and @MForstater Employment Tribunal next year will be of fundamental importance. When is this line crossed? Will calling a bearded male person ‘he’ invite prosecution?

Recommendation 29

Recommendation 30 - in recognition of what happened to @darrengrimes_

Discussing academic freedom - again the importance of the #FairCopAppeal and evidence of Professor Stock

Recommendation 31

Racial chanting at football matches to stay an offence

And finally - some recommendations for reform.