Scotland's prosecutors using offender's chosen gender to record crimes
Prosecutors have been accused of 'protecting the egos of offenders' by recording their self-declared gender in official figures.
Hate crime data produced by the Crown Office reflects a mix of gender based on physical appearance as recorded by police officers, and self-ID.
The Crown Office insists that 'information regarding the sex or gender of accused persons is not essential to prosecute crime' – and that it will respect the 'pronouns of an accused person'.
It comes after the Supreme Court ruled that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, rather than chosen gender.
Last night Scottish Tory justice spokesman Liam Kerr said: 'This confirms how entrenched the SNP 's gender self-ID obsession is in Scotland's justice system and will undoubtedly lead to further confusion in how crimes are recorded.
'The Crown should have the scope to focus on what really matters, rather than being forced to waste time protecting the egos of offenders.'
A Crown Office report on hate crime says 'sex can be considered to refer to whether someone is male or female based on their physiology and genetic make-up', while 'gender' represents a 'social construct or sense of self that takes a wider range of forms'.
The Crown said 'in this report we refer to ''sex'' rather than ''gender'' because this better reflects recording practices in relation to this information'.
But the report also says: 'In reality, it is likely that recording includes a mixture of physiological and personal identity.
'The sex of a small number of accused is not recorded, where the police have not provided this information to COPFS [Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service].'
The report adds: 'Sex, as referred to in this bulletin, is generally identified by a police officer based on their assessment of whether a person presents as male or female – in most cases, this is based on the physiology of a person rather than self-identified gender.
'It is recorded for operational purposes, such as requirements for searching. It is also included in the information reported to COPFS.
'However, in most cases, information regarding the sex or gender of accused persons is not essential to prosecute crime.
'It would only be essential where it is material to the proof of the crime.'
The Crown said it 'will respect and use the chosen name and pronouns of an accused person in all communications with them'.
Last night Dr Kath Murray, of gender-critical think-tank Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, said: 'The corruption of criminal justice data on sex has come about through a blinkered reliance on activists in pursuit of gender self-identification.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Police Scotland's overtime bill doubles to £28million in five years
And the number of cops is down BIG BILL Police Scotland's overtime bill doubles to £28million in five years Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) POLICE Scotland's overtime bill has doubled to £28million in five years — amid fears cops are being left 'exhausted'. Rank-and-file chiefs also warned officers are unable to perform duties 'safely'. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Police Scotland officers at an Anti-racism, pro-refugee demonstration in Glasgow .. They blasted force cuts as figures showed extra-hours spending rose from £14million in 2020-21 — as the number of full-time officers fell from 17,431 to 16,553. David Kennedy, of the Scottish Police Federation, said: 'It's dead simple - less police officers mean more overtime. "With any events, the force can't cope without paying overtime. The attitude of saying 'we're going with 12-hour shifts' is not acceptable. 'We don't have enough officers to police safely. They are being called out on rest days. It's having a detrimental effect on the well-being of officers who are already exhausted.' Figures show the overtime spend rose to almost £37million in 2021-22, and then peaked at nearly £43million in 2022-23. It decreased to £25million last year, but is now increasing again. Bills were inflated by policing of the 2021 COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, mourning of the Queen's death in 2022 and the pandemic. Tory shadow justice secretary Liam Kerr said: 'These eye- watering figures are a result of the SNP's savage cuts.' Scottish Lib Dem justice spokesperson Liam McArthur said: 'It is not sustainable to keep asking those keeping us safe day-in day-out to work beyond their limits. Past staff surveys have shown they feel the service and its resources are stretched." Police Scotland body worn cameras roll out across the country Scottish Labour Justice spokesperson Pauline McNeill added: 'Soaring levels of overtime are exhausting police officers and draining badly-needed funding. 'The SNP must work with Police Scotland to ensure it has the officers it needs to keep our communities safe.' A Police Scotland spokesperson said: "Overtime is a flexible mechanism which can help to maintain effective policing for all our communities. "It is important our people are rewarded for the work they do in line with their terms and conditions." A Scottish Government spokesperson added: "Scotland's police officers provide a vital service, every day, to ensure we continue to live in safe and protected communities.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ice arrests of US military veterans and their relatives are on the rise: ‘a country that I fought for'
The son of an American citizen and military veteran – but who has no citizenship to any country – was deported from the US to Jamaica in late May. Jermaine Thomas's deportation, recently reported on by the Austin Chronicle, is one of a growing number of immigration cases involving military service members' relatives or even veterans themselves who have been ensnared in the Trump administration's mass deportation program. As the Chronicle reported, Thomas was born on a US army base in Germany to an American citizen father, who was originally born in Jamaica and is now dead. Thomas does not have US, German or Jamaican citizenship – but Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agency deported him anyway to Jamaica, a country in which he had never stepped foot. Thomas had spent two-and-a-half months incarcerated while waiting for an update on his case. He was previously at the center of a case brought before the US supreme court regarding his unique legal status. The federal government argued that Thomas – who had previously received a deportation order – was not a citizen simply because he was born on a US army base, and it used prior criminal convictions to buttress the case against him. He petitioned for a review of the order, but the supreme court denied him, finding his father 'did not meet the physical presence requirement of the [law] in force at the time of Thomas's birth'. From Jamaica, Thomas told the Chronicle: 'If you're in the US army, and the army deploys you somewhere, and you've gotta have your child over there – and your child makes a mistake after you pass away – and you put your life on the line for this country, are you going to be OK with them just kicking your child out of the country?' He added, in reference to his father: 'It was just Memorial Day [in late May]. Y'all are disrespecting his service and his legacy.' In recent months, US military veterans' family members have been increasingly detained by immigration officials, as the administration continues pressing for mass deportations. A US marine veteran, during an interview on CNN, said he felt 'betrayed' after immigration officials beat and arrested his father at a landscaping job. The arrested man had moved to the US from Mexico in the 1990s without documentation but was detained by Ice agents this month while doing landscaping work at a restaurant in Santa Ana, California. In another recent case, the wife of another Marine Corps veteran was detained by Ice despite still breastfeeding her three-month-old daughter. According to the Associated Press, the veteran's wife had been going through a process to obtain legal residency. The Trump administration has ramped up efforts to detain and deport people nationwide. During a May meeting, White House officials pressed Ice to increase its daily arrests to at least 3,000 people daily. That would result in 1 million people being arrested annually by Ice. Following the tense meeting, Ice officials have increased their enforcement operations, including by detaining an increasing number of people with no criminal record. Being undocumented is a civil infraction – not a crime. According to a recent Guardian analysis, as of mid-June, Ice data shows there were more than 11,700 people in immigration detention arrested by the agency despite no record of them being charged with or convicted of a crime. That represents a staggering 1,271% increase from data released on those in Ice detention immediately preceding the start of Trump's second term. In March, Ice officials arrested the daughter of a US veteran who had been fighting a legal battle regarding her status. Alma Bowman, 58, was taken into custody by Ice during a check-in at the Atlanta field office, despite her having lived in the US since she was 10 years old. Bowman was born in the Philippines during the Vietnam war, to a US navy service member from Illinois stationed there. She had lived in Georgia for almost 50 years. Her permanent residency was revoked following a minor criminal conviction from 20 years ago, leading her to continue a legal battle to obtain citizenship in the US. Previously, Bowman was detained by Ice at a troubled facility in Georgia, where non-consensual gynecological procedures were allegedly performed on detained women. In 2020, she had been a key witness for attorneys and journalists regarding the controversy. According to an interview with The Intercept from that year, Bowman said she had always thought she was a US citizen. In another recent case, a US army veteran and green-card holder left on his own to South Korea. His deportation order was due to charges related to drug possession and an issue with drug addiction after being wounded in combat in the 1980s, for which he earned the prestigious Purple Heart citation. 'I can't believe this is happening in America,' Sae Joon Park, who had held legal permanent residency, told National Public Radio. 'That blows me away – like, [it is] a country that I fought for.'
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump's plot to abolish major right as Supreme Court gives him more power
The US President wants to abolish a right enshrined in the US Constitution for 157 years - and now there's almost nobody who can stop him Donald Trump wants to abolish a major right people born in America have enjoyed for 157 years - and is enshrined in the US Constitution. He's taking his fight against 'birthright citizenship' all the way to the Supreme Court - and won a major victory last night. In a decision that hands him almost unlimited power to change American laws with a wave of his hand, Supreme Court justices ruled that individual federal judges would no longer be allowed to halt or block his executive orders - even if they're unconstitutional. It leaves just the Supremes themselves between him and whatever he wants to do. And the next thing on his list is birthright citizenship - an issue likely to come before the highest court in October. Here's what's at stake for Americans if that happens. What is birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship is the rule that if you're born in the United States, you're a US citizen, regardless of your parents' immigration status. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the US to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the US, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of US law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the US to foreign diplomats. Because it's enshrined in the 14th amendment to the Constitution, it should require a congressional supermajority to change the rule - at least that's the theory. Why does Trump want to get rid of it? Republicans have long argued this leads to undocumented immigrants having "anchor babies" - a truly unpleasant term suggesting some people have children to make them harder to deport. And Trump himself has argued, baselessly, that the amendment was only ever intended to cover freed slaves, which ignores decades of caselaw and precedent. How is Trump trying to scrap it? Trump claims he can set it aside with an executive order - and he signed such an order almost immediately upon returning to the White House in January. Trump's executive order would deny citizenship to those born after February 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a "magnet for illegal immigration." Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - saying it means the US can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. What's the pushback been like? Some 22 states have brought lawsuits challenging the order, with one brought by Washington state, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois heard first in Seattle. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is," U.S. District Judge John Coughenour told a Justice Department attorney. "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that "the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed" Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. So is it still blocked? Briefly. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order - yet. Instead, they were asked to rule on the principle of state and district judges blocking orders for the whole country - which the Supremes decided wasn't on, despite being a right enjoyed by judges for decades. "The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is "very confident" that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. What happens next? The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! As tension between the White House and Iran grows, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond. We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in. All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group. We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
