FWS Statement on Justice Committee meeting today

We were disturbed, but sadly unsurprised, that, once again, the Committee passed-up the chance to add sex to the Hate Crime Bill while failing to progress on free speech amendments which might have protected women speaking out against sexism and misogyny.

We agree with the Convener that the events and reactions of recent days have made the need for clarity around free-speech more, not less, acute. We would also say that they indicate the frightening pitch which some activists have reached, and their often barely concealed hatred of women.

To add insult to injury, the Cabinet Secretary remains determined to include “cross dressers” under this bill citing anecdote and supposition as “evidence”: “One of those examples is that a man who is not a transwoman who is dressed for say a drag performance…could be at high risk of transphobic hate crime. It is very likely that a perpetrator could later claim that they had no issue with a transwoman who is really transitioning and only had a problem with men dressing up as woman without transitioning.” (our emphasis).

We do not know how many men have been the victim of crime while on the way to a drag show. We do know there were only seven hate crime convictions under the transgender aggravator (it is unknown how many of these related to cross dressers) in 2018/19, so the evidence does not appear to support the scenario envisaged by Mr Yousaf.

However, we do know that thousands of women are routinely harassed and abused – many because of what they were wearing.

The Committee cited witnesses who were opposed to “gender neutral” legislation when considering the characteristic of sex. Ironic, then, that the bill as it stands is skewed to affording greater protection to men and none to women.


Justice Committee meeting re Hate Crime Bill: Video and Official Report.

Clip of Humza Yousaf defending the inclusion of cross dressers in the Hate Crime Bill is here.


5 thoughts on “FWS Statement on Justice Committee meeting today

  1. I watched the first 2 hours and caught this segment. Unbelievable that men in dresses have protection that women don’t. Really disappointed that Johann decided not to press her amendments but she said she may bring them back at the next stage. I have no faith that they will come up with a generalised freedom of speech protection which will give us the right to our beliefs that people cannot change sex. Since it is possible for me to say that I don’t believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church but not be labelled as anti-christian then surely it must be possible for me to say I don’t believe in transgenderism. The difficulty is that rather than classifying transgenderism as a belief, and protecting it under that heading (which would give me equal protection as a non-believer), they have unquestioningly accepted it as a real thing, like race, and have therefore given it its own section.

    • As I understand it, if Johann had pressed her amendment and the vote went against it then it could not be brought back at Stage 3. So by withdrawing it there can now be a full debate and vote in the Chamber at Stage 3.

  2. I really believe we need to be fight a different fight. Why is transgenderism supported but, for example limb dysphoria or anorexia isn’t? Why don’t we call for people with limb dysphoria to have their limb amputated? Why not make it public so that we can all cheer and clap as in Gilead? What about young children with that disability? Do we, as a society take the responsibility for removing a child’s limb on their say-so at eight years of age? Do we acquiesce in the withholding of food from anorexics because they say they are too fat, but which we know is another example of body dysphoria? It becomes insanity, doesn’t it, but the logic is inescapable? So why transgenderism and not the others? Could it be because transgenderism from the male trans lobby perspective is all about sex? Yet, so many are acquiescing in the state’s interference in putting transgenderism on a pedestal and overturning centuries of established science and biology.

    When you actually listen to what many of these transgender people are saying, you realise there is a real difference between boys and girls, men and women. Girl’s and women’s transgenderism, at least a great deal of it, could be another form of anorexia: protesting the biological and gender roles assigned them; trying to gain some personal control over their bodies. It’s a thought.

    Before all the hype around this subject, trans women/transsexuals lived their lives quietly under the radar, but the vociferous trans lobby – which now includes cross-dressers, drag queens, fetishists and autogynephiliacs in its ranks – wants to force the rest of us to accept their male fantasies brought out from the depths of the porn sites and wants them validated as being mainstream, so that they can force others into sexual relationships they do not want.

    What will it be next? Will throttling women while raping them become everyday events? Will trans women with male bodies forcing themselves on straight or heterosexual men become common public sights? Will lesbians be named and shamed because they will not sleep with male-bodies trans women?

    We tell our children to avoid strange men, but they are told that they must just accept strange-looking men in dresses, with beards even, in our safe spaces, and smile beatifically at them whether they are harmless souls or Jack the Ripper. This is so dangerous on so many levels. We may actually be witnessing the opening up of the sexual psyche of some male persons and segueing it into the public domain for validation, regardless of the damage done to women, girls, boys and men.

    That decent people are not speaking out is symptomatic of the same robotic, cultish conformity that assailed Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia or is evident in a Kafkaesque novel. Tell people that they are ultra special, as in Aryan perfection, and you are in big trouble because many will believe you.

    I think the equal rights and human rights organizations have been hoodwinked by this pernicious lobby which has made it all about rights (which they already have) when it is actually about the loss of others’ rights with state complicity. It is pure narcissism and sexual entitlement masquerading as a human rights issue. There are genuine transsexuals for whom it was and is a human and civil rights, and even safety, issue, but they have been used as the smokescreen for something very different.

  3. I’ve a question, and I don’t know if it’s a daft one –

    If the HCB goes ahead without further amendments, will it criminalise the communication necessary to campaign for and debate a) overturning the HCB, or b) amending it to include misogyny?

    Is it possible for the HCB to bind future parliaments and end democracy on women’s rights by putting “no debate” into law?

    • A separate working group has been set up to look at adding ‘sex’ to the bill later / a standalone misogyny offence. If Part 2 of the Bill on stirring up hatred passes into law without any amendments to protect women’s free speech, I suspect there will be quite a few court cases, and it may even take a judicial review to clarify.

Comments are closed.