Tougher sentences for criminals who abuse LGBT people ‘vital step forward'
Jacob Collier called for new aggravated offences as part of the Government's Crime and Policing Bill, as he warned many LGBT+ people 'don't feel safe in reporting hate'.
More than 100 cross-party MPs backed the proposed amendment, originally put forward by Rachel Taylor, which would create the new offences if violent crimes are motivated by hostility towards a person's sexuality, transgender identity or disability.
Home Office minister Dame Diana Johnson has vowed to broaden the framework for aggravated offences.
Mr Collier said: 'I know what it means to think twice how you walk down the street, to pause before holding somebody's hand, to wonder whether that shout from across the road is something you can ignore or something you can't afford to.
'And I know that I'm not alone in that.
'I've spoken to my constituents and people from far beyond who tell me that they don't feel safe in reporting hate when it happens. They don't believe that they'll be taken seriously and there's a profound failure of trust, and one that we in this House have a duty to repair.'
The Burton and Uttoxeter MP also told the Commons: 'I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community.'
He said the move 'represents a vital step forward in the protection of some of the most marginalised people within our society' and added: 'Too many victims still believe that the system is not on their side and this new clause gives us the opportunity to change that. It gives police and prosecutors a clear route to charge and convict offenders in a way that truly reflects the nature of these crimes.'
Mr Collier said the proposed change was 'about dignity, about recognising that whether you're a trans teenager being punched in the park, a gay couple being spat on on the Tube, or a disabled man being harassed on his way to work, all people deserve the full protection of the law'.
Aggravated offences would also offer 'vital protection for disabled people, who often remain far too invisible in the public conversation around hate crime', he added.
The law already provides for aggravated offences, if they are motivated by hostility towards a victim's race or religious group membership.
'That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot as a society say that some forms of hatred are more evil than others,' Ms Taylor told the Commons.
The Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth added she was 'at university when section 28 was introduced', part of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned town halls from promoting or teaching 'the acceptability of' homosexuality in schools.
'I remember it vividly, it was more than the law, it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly,' she said.
'It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people, it pushed us out of public life.
'I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.'
Ms Taylor said her amendment would be 'an important step forward for equal rights'.
Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge who also backed the amendment, said the proposal 'would foster respect and equality for all by ensuring justice for disabled victims of hate crime'.
Responding to the debate, Dame Diana branded these crimes 'disgraceful', and said the increase in hate crime towards transgender people 'cannot be tolerated'.
On the proposed new clause, Dame Diana said: 'The Government supports this change, as set out in our manifesto last year.
'And I can confirm to the House that we will bring forward a suitable Government amendment to give effect to this commitment in the Lords at committee stage.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's great to be here, I love standing on the soil of Scotland, Trump says
Donald Trump has said he 'loves standing on the soil of Scotland' after landing in the country on Friday evening, according to the Scottish Secretary. Ian Murray told the PA news agency what the US President's first words were after disembarking from Air Force One in Prestwick. The UK Government minister was the first person to greet the president in Scotland as he begins his visit to the country. Speaking after meeting the American leader, Mr Murray told PA: 'The president came off the flight, and I said, 'Mr president, welcome to Scotland – the home country of your dear mother', and he said, 'It's great to be here, I always love standing on the soil of Scotland'. 'I said, 'I hope you're looking forward to a bit of downtime with some golf this weekend', and he said, 'Yes'. And I said, 'Well, we've whipped up a bit of a wind for you to make it a bit more competitive', and he went, 'I'm looking forward to it'.' Mr Murray said Mr Trump was given a warm reception as he got off his presidential plane. Hundreds gathered on the Mound overlooking Prestwick Airport for the president's arrival. A Trump flag was flown while a few spectators wore 'Make America Great Again' hats, although many of those attending were locals and aviation enthusiasts, including some who had travelled from England. Mr Murray said: 'Spotters hills, as it's called, where all the plane spotters come to Prestwick, was absolutely full. 'You could see that from the tarmac and as Air Force One came in, people were snapping away on their photographs. 'To see all that happening is quite a spectacle in itself. 'It's really good to have that kind of focus on Scotland.' Mr Trump will meet Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer during his trip to discuss the UK-US trade deal as Britain hopes to be spared from the president's tariff regime. The Scottish Secretary said: 'Really, the purpose of this weekend, the purpose of greeting the president off the plane, the purpose of the Prime Minister's relationship with the president is to build that close relationship, to make sure that that old alliance is nurtured, and to do that for the benefit of the national interest, which is about jobs and growth here in the UK, and particularly Scotland.' Mr Trump will meet Scottish First Minister John Swinney during his trip as he opens a new golf course in Aberdeenshire. Before flying to Prestwick, Mr Trump said in Washington that he was 'looking forward' to meeting Mr Swinney, describing him as a 'good man' – the same phrase he used for the Prime Minister after landing in Scotland. Asked about the president's relationship with the UK, Mr Murray said: 'The Prime Minister has taken a very pragmatic approach to the relationship with the president of the United States, because it's in our national interest to do so, whether it be on defence, security, trade, cultural, historic ties. 'It's a historic alliance, and that alliance has to be nurtured and continue through to the future, because it's quite clear that our relationship with United States is good for jobs and growth here in Scotland and across the UK. 'The Prime Minister knows that, and knows that working very closely with the US is in our national interest.' Asked about protests, which are expected across the country, Mr Murray said people had a right to demonstrate, adding: 'Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to protest is a key cornerstone of both countries, America and the UK, and the right to be able to protest if they so wish to so.'
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump just made a problematic Ghislaine Maxwell situation look even worse
Interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell is the Trump administration's first big move to allay concerns about its hugely unpopular handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Friday wrapped up two days of interviews with Epstein's convicted associate. But there were already all kinds of reasons to be skeptical of this move and what it could produce, given the motivations of the two sides involved. And President Donald Trump epitomized all of them in a major way on Friday. While taking questions on his way to Scotland, Trump repeatedly held open the possibility of pardoning Maxwell for her crimes. 'Well, I don't want to talk about that,' Trump said initially. When pressed, he said, 'It's something I haven't thought about,' while conspicuously adding, 'I'm allowed to do it.' This wouldn't be the first time Trump has appeared to dangle a pardon over someone providing evidence that could impact him personally and politically. (In this case, he has demonstrated past personal ties to Epstein, and his administration is scrambling to clean up its botched handling of the Epstein files after previously promising to release them.) A similar situation played out during the Russia investigation, when Trump repeatedly left open the possibility of pardoning key witnesses like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen. Critics alleged this amounted to obstruction of justice. Special counsel Robert Mueller's report didn't draw conclusions on possible obstruction, but it did cite Trump's pardon comments as 'evidence' that Trump's actions 'had the potential to influence Manafort's decision whether to cooperate with the government.' Manafort indeed wound up being a decidedly uncooperative witness, with a bipartisan Senate report saying his repeated lies hamstrung its own investigation. And Trump later pardoned him in a move that could certainly be understood as a reward for his lack of cooperation. That bit of history looms large here, given the parallels. But Trump is really just exacerbating an already dubious situation. There were already plenty of reasons to be skeptical of this move to interview Maxwell, and nobody involved seems particularly bothered to address those problems or even combat the perception of them. The first reason is the state of play in Maxwell's criminal case. It might seem far-fetched that Trump would ever pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker like Maxwell (even though he did 'wish her well' after she was charged). But there are other things his administration could do to help her. Among them would be taking actions in her ongoing appeal of her 2021 conviction. The Trump Justice Department has already taken highly suspect actions in another criminal case involving someone Trump wanted something politically from: New York Mayor Eric Adams. The administration earlier this year moved to dismiss the charges against Adams while suggestively citing its desire for the New York Democrat to assist in its crackdown on illegal immigration. Multiple prosecutors resigned in protest, with one claiming it was a 'quid pro quo' in her resignation letter. And the judge in the case appeared to sympathize. 'Everything here smacks of a bargain: Dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions,' the judge said. Maxwell's lawyer, David Oscar Markus, has also been remarkably solicitous of Trump and the administration. Last week he called Trump the 'ultimate dealmaker' while claiming that the Justice Department had violated a deal with Maxwell. This week, he praised the Trump administration's 'commitment to uncovering the truth in this case' and said he and Maxwell were 'grateful that the government is trying to uncover the truth.' Markus on Friday also suggested an openness to a pardon. 'The president this morning said he had the power to do so,' Markus said, 'and we hope he exercises that power in a right and just way.' Indeed, also relevant here are the lawyers involved. Critics have cried foul that the DOJ official interviewing Maxwell was Blanche, rather than a non-political prosecutor who has been involved in the case who would have much more expertise. Not only is Blanche a top political appointee of Trump's; he's also his formal personal lawyer. 'The conflict of interest is glaring,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday on X. 'It stinks of high corruption.' What's more, Blanche appeared on a podcast last year with Markus and labeled him a 'friend.' 'You are by far the best out there,' Blanche said. But one of the biggest reasons to be skeptical is that Maxwell is someone the Trump Justice Department – the first one, at least – labeled a brazen liar. Back in 2020, the DOJ charged Maxwell with two counts of perjury – on top of the more serious charges she faced – while citing a 2016 civil deposition she gave. In the deposition, Maxwell claimed no knowledge of Epstein's 'scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages,' despite later being convicted of helping in the effort. She also claimed she didn't know about Epstein possessing sex toys, which was contradicted by witnesses at her trial. Maxwell's lawyers at the time said 'the questions asked were confusing, ambiguous, and improperly formed.' She was never actually tried for perjury. After her conviction on the more serious charges, prosecutors agreed to dismiss the perjury charges if her conviction stood, citing a desire to avoid further emotional trauma for the victims. But the Trump Justice Department in 2020 still called her credibility into question. In a 2020 filing, it said Maxwell's lies 'should give the Court serious pause' about trusting her. It also said Maxwell's 'willingness to brazenly lie under oath about her conduct … strongly suggests her true motive has been and remains to avoid being held accountable for her crimes.' All of that would seem relevant to today, especially given Trump's demonstrated willingness to wield his power to help people who help him – whether using pardons or anything else. Maxwell, who has years left in her 20-year prison sentence, clearly has motivation to say things Trump wants. That doesn't mean the interviews of Maxwell couldn't glean something important. Even witnesses with credibility problems can provide important information, if it's corroborated with other evidence. But right now, Trump and Co. aren't trying very hard to make this situation look kosher. And Trump's pardon comments take that to another level.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Sir Keir Starmer is caught between Trump, Macron and MPs over Palestine recognition
Parliament may have shut up shop for a six-week summer break, but MPs and the French president are turning up the heat on Sir Keir Starmer over the Middle East. More than one in three of all 650 MPs have written to the prime minister calling on the UK to recognise a Palestinian state at a United Nations conference next week. In response to the call, his answer is essentially: Yes, but not yet. That, of course, won't satisfy the 222 MPs backing an all-party letter to the PM penned by the Labour MP Sarah Champion. The majority of names on the letter, predictably, are Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs. But there are some Tory big hitters too, including Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh and former cabinet minister Kit Malthouse. Until now, the PM and foreign secretary David Lammy have argued that the gesture of recognising Palestine on its own won't end what Sir Keir himself calls "the appalling scenes in Gaza". But the pressure for recognition isn't just coming from MPs. French President Emmanuel Macron has said France will recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. Read more: Might Mr Macron - whose bromance with the PM during his state visit to the UK could not have been warmer - persuade Sir Keir to do the same? Possibly. He's not ruling it out. But there's one big obstacle to Sir Keir bowing to the pressure from MPs and the French president. And that's the towering figure who's in Scotland this weekend: the golfing president of the United States. When Donald Trump was asked about President Macron's vow to recognise Palestine in September, his response was brutal and bordering on condescending. "What he says doesn't matter," the president told reporters at the White House as he headed for Air Force One. "He's a very good guy. I like him, but that statement doesn't carry weight." Ouch! But the US president's unflinching support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu places Sir Keir in an awkward spot: Caught between the opposing stances of the French and US presidents. The PM is, therefore, also under pressure from President Trump, and he won't want to fall out with him when he meets him this weekend. Hence, his carefully worded statement responding to the letter from the MPs. Appearing to try and please the US and French presidents - and the large number of Labour MPs backing Sarah Champion's letter - Sir Keir said he's "working on a pathway to peace" in the Middle East. He spoke of "concrete steps" to turn a ceasefire into a lasting peace and said recognition of a Palestinian state "has to be one of those steps", adding: "I am unequivocal about that." And he concluded: "But it must be part of a wider plan which ultimately results in a two-state solution and lasting security for Palestinians and Israelis. "This is the way to ensure it is a tool of maximum utility to improve the lives of those who are suffering - which of course, will always be our ultimate goal." Read more from Sky News: As well as his own statement, the PM issued a joint statement with President Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, both of whom have held talks with Sir Keir in the UK in the past fortnight. That statement was tough, beginning: "The time has come to end the war in Gaza." It went on: "The humanitarian catastrophe that we are witnessing in Gaza must end now." Yet there's little sign of either the war or the humanitarian catastrophe ending any time soon. And that means that throughout parliament's summer break, MPs will no doubt continue to turn up the heat on the PM.
