[ad_1]
Holyrood is considering ca. 150 amendments to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. All amendments must be considered and voted on in one day because the Scottish government insists the Bill will be implemented before Christmas. There are many issues that arise with this bill, but one – which has nothing to do with people with gender dysphoria – needs to be highlighted.
This: should men convicted of sexual offenses against women, girls, or children be allowed to take advantage of the Bill’s self-ID provisions?
These provisions will be available to everyone over the age of 16 who is resident in Scotland for 3 months. The effect is that people can get a GRC, change their legal gender, be considered legally as a member of the opposite sex (after Lady Haldane’s recent court), get a new birth certificate with a new sex/gender and name and, importantly. , hiding the fact that it has a GRC and all the details of its previous identity.
Russell Findlay, a Conservative MSP, tabled an amendment that has excluded sexual offenders from this provision. After all – as Ms Sturgeon has repeatedly said – the risk is not from transpeople but from predatory people. So why don’t you want to eliminate these predatory people, especially since it’s so easy to tell because of the fact that there’s an offense that you say you want to protect women from? We have our answer. They are not. The SNP, Scottish Greens, Scottish Labor and Scottish Lib Dems voted toward this amendment. It lost: 59 voted in favor, 64 rejected. Let’s be clear: MSPs from these 4 parties vote grant convicted sex offender to take advantage of Bill’s freedom to change identity.
This consequence for male sex offenders is very beneficial: they can change their name, gender, birth certificate and be considered legal”woman“. as “woman” they can request access to a space designated as a one-woman space (within the exception of the Equality Act) without any effective challenge (practical or legal). In short, male predators will be given easier access to female victims. This is a Christmas present for rapists. One hell of a legacy to claim”feminists at your fingertips“Sturgeon.
At this point it’s common for people to say that sex offenders don’t need to get GRCs to assault women. Correct. But of all the arguments for allowing this privilege, this is the most stupid. Of course, they don’t need self-ID to do this. Sexual predators are not need be a teacher, priest, sports coach, entertainer, charity worker or anything else to commit an offence. But they did. If you make it easy for them to access their victims and offend them, they will gain an advantage. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that this is indeed the way sex offenders work. Despite this, the 4 Scottish sides that could not, of course, only include the third rater Hibernian, have chosen to ignore all this and give another chance. Not just opportunity but Holyrood approval and legal blessing.
The second silly argument put forward by the SNP during the debate was that they did not expect sex offenders to apply for the GRC. This – according to the relevant Minister – “unimaginable“. Let’s ignore the ridiculously naive comments. Don’t ask how he can figure this out. If this is true, there may be no political loss or cost to the Scottish government in preventing sex offenders. In fact, the government says it doesn’t care: if convicted sex offenders ask for one, they should get it, no matter the risk.
The next advantage for convicted sex offenders is that it undermines the DBS process, an important part of maintaining it, important to protect vulnerable people. Public bodies are not authorized to disclose whether someone has a GRC. As such, an employer who conducts a DBS check against a new identity of a sex offender will not be told about their previous identity or any convictions they may have had about that identity. Only if the offender of this type himself opens the GRC, the employer will be able to check the DBS against his previous identity. The Scottish Government thinks that convicted sex offenders will change their identities and also reveal their identities because… well… because they’re asked nicely, or something. This is quite a serious risk for all those bodies – schools, care homes, etc. – that have the duty of legal protection but will depend on convicted criminals who decide – for once – to comply with the law. To call this assumption stupid is very good.
This does not affect Scotland either. Any sex offender who moves to Scotland during the required period can benefit from this provision. Their victims could be anywhere in the UK.
When this amendment was defeated, women in the public gallery shouted “shame on you all“. MSP who voted for this amendment must be ashamed They have been repeatedly warned (by women, equality lawyers, the prison service, social workers, the EHRC, the UN Rapporteur on Violence against Women) about the risks of allowing sex offenders to take advantage of the Bill’s provisions. equal understand who bears that risk. Not them – but women, girls, children. equal understand why are boundaries needed to try to keep those at risk safe from those who pose the greatest risk. equal understand sex offenders seek to eliminate or violate boundaries. By actively allowing this, despite all the known risks, all the evidence of harm, all the dangers, these MSPs are willing to act as enablers of – and accessories to – this type of offender. They show the mentality: women are not allowed to have boundaries, to say what, to protect themselves, to say “It doesn’t mean No” and should be respected. They have selected for the privilege of being convicted of a sex offense. They have selected to place women and girls and vulnerable people.
Why? Albert Camus was right all those years ago when he said: “The wrong idea will always be blood, but in each case it is someone else’s blood. That is why some of our thinkers are free to talk about anything.
To the shame of Scotland. To be ashamed.
Cycle free
[ad_2]
Source link