1646: FLOW

Multiple intel sources: Baltimore bridge collapse was an “absolutely brilliant strategic attack” on US critical infrastructure - most likely cyber - & our intel agencies know it. In information warfare terms, they just divided the US along the Mason Dixon line exactly like the Civil War. Second busiest strategic roadway in the nation for hazardous material now down for 4-5 years - which is how long they say it will take to recover. Bridge was built specifically to move hazardous material - fuel, diesel, propane gas, nitrogen, highly flammable materials, chemicals and oversized cargo that cannot fit in the tunnels - that supply chain now crippled. Make no mistake: this was an extraordinary attack in terms of planning, timing & execution. The two critical components on that bridge are the two load-bearing pylons on each end, closest to the shore. They are bigger, thicker and deeper than anything else. These are the anchor points and they knew that hitting either one one of them would be a fatal wound to the integrity of the bridge. Half a mile of bridge went in the river - likely you will have to build a new one. Also caused so much damage to the structural integrity of the bottom concrete part that you cannot see & won’t know until they take the wreckage apart. Structural destruction likely absolute. Attack perfectly targeted. “They have figured out how to bring us down. As long as you stay away from the teeth of the US military, you can pick the US apart. We are arrogant and ignorant - lethal combination. Obama said they would fundamentally change America and they did. We are in a free-fall ride on a roller coaster right now - no brakes - just picking up speed.” The footage shows the cargo ship never got in the approach lane in the channel. You have to be in the channel before you get into that turn. Location was precise/deliberate: chose a bend in the river where you have to slow down and commit yourself - once you are committed in that area there is not enough room to maneuver. Should have had a harbor pilot to pilot the boat. You are not supposed to traverse any obstacles without the harbor pilot. They chose a full moon so they would have maximum tidal shift - rise and fall. Brisk flow in that river on a normal day & have had a lot of rain recently so water was already moving along at a good pace. Hit it with enough kinetic energy to knock the load-bearing pylon out from under the highway - which fatally weakens the span and then 50 percent of the bridge fell into the water. All these factors when you look at it - this is how you teach people how to do this type of attack and there are so few people left in the system who know this. We have a Junior varsity team on the field. Tremendous navigational obstruction. Huge logistical nightmare to clean this up. Number of dead is tragic but not the whole measure of the attack. That kind-of bridge constantly under repair - always at night because there is so much traffic and they cannot obstruct that during the day. So concern is for repair guys who were on foot (out of their vehicles) working who may now be in the water - 48 degrees at most at this time of year. When you choke off Baltimore you have cut the main north-south hazardous corridor (I95) in half. Now has to go around the city - or go somewhere else. To move some of that cargo through the tunnel you may be able to get a permit but those are slow to get and require an escort system that is expensive and has to be done at night. For every $100 dollars that goes into the city, $12 comes from shipping. Believe this will cripple the city of Baltimore at a time when they do not have the resources to recover.

Dali bridge crash

- 6 dead

containment boom for oil leakage

- They had dropped anchor in a last ditch effort

- Won't move for a while

- Some facilities are outside the bridge

- Several ships are trapped in the port

Video makes it look like its turning into the pylon (perspective)

- Indian crew

- Singapore owned

- Dirty fuel is possible cause

Hi Adam,

I

know this is late for today's show, but thought I'd share this boots on

the ground report about the Dali container ship disaster.

I

work for a Port company owned by SSA Marine - which controls port

operations at the Baltimore marine Port. Internal source memo says

It was confirmed there was two pilots in control of the vessel

The vessel was leaving the port after being loaded.

It's speed was 6 knots.

After they lost power, they issued a mayday - which allowed emergency trafic closure on the bridge.

They followed all the emergency procedures, which includes emergency dropping of the anchor.

The smoke seen is from the emergency generators, which takes several minutes to kick in.

They tried to stop the ship, but it was too short of a distance.

The

cause of the power failure is still unknown, it seems they lost control

of the steering while motor/propeler was still going.

A collision was inevitable with a vessel this size and with this amount of displacement.

It was confirmed that people died, you probably have more up to date numbers on that.

If I get more inside information, I will let you know.

Keep up the great work

TYFYC

Beijing is challenging the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which it calls discriminatory

Link

You didn't hear this from me, but the rumor around here is that Spirit

AeroSystems will be Boeing by June 2025. The transition will start this

June and will take a year to complete.

It's

complicated because after Boeing sold this Wichita division to what

became Spirit almost 20 years ago, they've taken in work from Airbus,

Sikorsky, Bell, and others. Some think Boeing will take it all and

Spirit will cease to exist. Others think Boeing will buy the commercial

part and the defense part will remain autonomous. We should have a

better idea in a few weeks.

Facebook was caught using a cyberattack method, “SSL man-in-the-middle,” to intercept and decrypt Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon encrypted analytics traffic.

Codenamed “Ghostbusters,” the project aimed at intercepting rivals’ encrypted app traffic for analytics despite some internal dissent. This practice is likely in violation of wiretapping laws and “potentially criminal,” advertisers suing Meta claim.

Facebook developed custom technology, so-called “kits,” on both Android and iOS devices that impersonated official servers and decrypted traffic Facebook wasn't authorized to access. The data allowed Facebook to plan competitive moves against Snapchat and other companies.

Link

Oxfordshire County Council yesterday approved plans to lock residents into one of six zones to 'save the planet' from global warming. The latest stage in the '15 minute city' agenda is to place electronic gates on key roads in and out of the city, confining residents to their own neighbourhoods.

Under the new scheme if residents want to leave their zone they will need permission from the Council who gets to decide who is worthy of freedom and who isn't. Under the new scheme residents will be allowed to leave their zone a maximum of 100 days per year, but in order to even gain this every resident will have to register their car details with the council who will then track their movements via smart cameras round the city.

Link

This bill would require a large online platform, as defined, to seek to verify the name, telephone number, and email address of an influential user, as defined, by a means chosen by the large online platform and would require the platform to seek to verify the identity of a highly influential user, as defined, by asking to review the highly influential user’s government-issued identification.

This bill would require a large online platform to note on the profile page of an influential or highly influential user, in type at least as large and as visible as the user’s name, whether the user has been authenticated pursuant to those provisions, as prescribed, and would require the platform to attach to any post of an influential or highly influential user a notation that would be understood by a reasonable person as indicating that the user is authenticated or unauthenticated, as prescribed.

This bill would authorize the Attorney General or any district attorney or city attorney to seek injunctive or other equitable relief against a large online platform to compel compliance with the bill and would require those actions to be placed on the calendar in the order of their date of filing and given precedence.

Link

Ultra-processed foods, alcohol and oral sex are among the possible factors for the sharp rise in cancer in younger people

Link

I wanted to weigh in about the Convention of States. I have my

boots firmly planted on the ground in this department. I've been a

volunteer for the Convention of States for 8 years and I'm currently the

current Arizona State Communications Coordinator. I have worked

tirelessly to correct the perception that the Convention of States is

seeking to change the US Constitution. Nothing could be further from

the truth, as we want to simply propose amendments to the Constitution

and stick to the three subjects of Term Limits, Fiscal Restraints, and

curbing Federal Overreach. We are already past the half way point to

call a convention, as 19 states have already adopted resolutions. A

total of 34 is needed to call a convention. Although John thinks this is

a unorganized pipe dream, we are actually a well organized group of

regular people volunteering part of our own time, talent and treasure to

something that can positively change the country in a desperately

needed way.

It has been a long road to get

to this point, especially since a lot of people cling to the fear that

this will jeopardize the constitution. It will not and what they don't

know is that this country has a history of state conventions. We still

use them today to negotiate water rights. Mischaracterising the movement

as a constitutional convention when it's really an amendment proposing

convention is what the enemies of the people do. I know that neither of

you are enemies of the people, but felt it was necessary to bring this

to your attention so that you guys could continue to be informed at the

highest level of information. It's also my duty to do so. Thank you

both for your own tireless efforts for the cause of liberty. Will catch

you in the morning.

73,

David Keckta, AZ State Communications Coordinator and fellow ham (N7DRK)

HERE WE GO REGULAR TROOPS from France, Germany and Poland have arrived, by rail and air, to Cherkassy, south of Kiev. Substantial force. No numbers have been leaked. They are being housed in schools. For all practical purposes, this is a NATO force. Let the games BEGIN. Mr. Khinzal's business cards will be in great demand. https://t.me/etalterapars/1969 For Adüm: https://dissident.one/begonnen-navo-troepen-werden-per-luchtbrug-naar-de-stad-cherkasy-ten-zuiden-van-kiev-gestuurd

Hi Adam and John! I’m a professor at a private university in the South and adjunct at a Big 10 University in the midwest. Every spring at my Big 10 appointment, all faculty at have to complete Title IX training. These are usually 45 minute training modules on mandated reporting, assault on campus, how we are to help student experiencing these situations, etc.

I have completed scores of these over the years and they’re always the same: same narrator, same situations, same videos. This year, however, there’s a notable difference: the gays are gone.

Take, for example, this statistic shared in one of the modules: “13% of students reported non consensual sexual contact by physical force or inability to consent. Rates were significantly higher for women and TGQN students (transgender woman, transgender man, nonbinary/genderqueer, gender questioning, or gender not listed).”

YOU CALLED IT MONTHS AGO: the gays are gone. There was NO reference to lesbians or gays. They have been completely erased. Not one mention in the entire training. This was not the case last spring when I had to take the same training. Whatever starts in the university will ***always*** trickle down and out, so expect to see TGQN soon enough.

Happy to share my credentials as requested but leave my name off if you chose to share this on the show.

ITM,

Sarah (the Gentile)

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:17

Amazon concludes $4 billion investment in Anthropic. Customers of all sizes and industries are using Claude on Amazon Bedrock to reimagine user experiences, reinvent their businesses, and accelerate their generative AI journeys. The work Amazon and Anthropic are doing together to bring the most advanced generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) technologies to customers worldwide is only beginning. As part of a strategic collaborative agreement, we and Anthropic announced that Anthropic is using Amazon Web Services (AWS) as its primary cloud provider for mission critical workloads, including safety research and future foundation model development. Anthropic will use AWS Trainium and Inferentia chips to build, train, and deploy its future models and has made a long-term commitment to provide AWS customers around the world with access to future generations of its foundation models on Amazon Bedrock , AWS's fully managed service that provides secure, easy access to the industry's widest choice of high-performing, fully managed foundation models (FMs), along with the most compelling set of features (including best-in-class retrieval augmented generation, guardrails, model evaluation, and AI-powered agents) that help customers build highly-capable, cost-effective, low latency generative AI applications.

Earlier this month, we announced access to the most powerful Anthropic AI models on Amazon Bedrock . The Claude 3 family of models demonstrate advanced intelligence, near-human levels of responsiveness, improved steerability and accuracy, and new vision capabilities. Industry benchmarks show that Claude 3 Opus, the most intelligent of the model family, has set a new standard, outperforming other models available today'--including OpenAI's GPT-4'--in the areas of reasoning, math, and coding.

''We have a notable history with Anthropic, together helping organizations of all sizes around the world to deploy advanced generative artificial intelligence applications across their organizations,'' said Dr. Swami Sivasubramanian, vice president of Data and AI at AWS. ''Anthropic's visionary work with generative AI, most recently the introduction of its state-of-the art Claude 3 family of models, combined with Amazon's best-in-class infrastructure like AWS Tranium and managed services like Amazon Bedrock further unlocks exciting opportunities for customers to quickly, securely, and responsibly innovate with generative AI. Generative AI is poised to be the most transformational technology of our time , and we believe our strategic collaboration with Anthropic will further improve our customers' experiences, and look forward to what's next.''

Global organizations of all sizes, across virtually every industry, are already using Amazon Bedrock to build their generative AI applications with Anthropic's Claude AI. They include ADP, Amdocs, Bridgewater Associates, Broadridge, CelcomDigi, Clariant, Cloudera, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Degas Ltd., Delta Air Lines, Druva, Enverus, Genesys, Genomics England, GoDaddy, HappyFox, Intuit, KT, LivTech, Lonely Planet, LexisNexis Legal & Professional, M1 Finance, Netsmart, Nexxiot, Parsyl, Perplexity AI, Pfizer, the PGA TOUR, Proto Hologram, Ricoh USA, Rocket Companies, and Siemens.

To further help speed the adoption of advanced generative AI technologies, AWS, Anthropic, and Accenture recently announced that they are coming together to help organizations'--especially those in highly-regulated industries including healthcare, public sector, banking, and insurance'--responsibly adopt and scale generative AI solutions. Through this collaboration, organizations will gain access to best-in-class models from Anthropic, a broad set of capabilities only available on Amazon Bedrock, and industry expertise from Accenture, Anthropic, and AWS to help them build and scale generative AI applications that are customized for their specific use cases.

Deepening our commitment to advancing generative AI, today we have an update on the announcement we made to invest up to $4 billion in Anthropic for a minority ownership position in the company. Last September, we made an initial investment of $1.25 billion. Today, we made our additional $2.75 billion investment, bringing our total investment in Anthropic to $4 billion. To learn more about the broader strategic collaboration between Amazon and Anthropic, of which this investment is one part, check out the stories below:

Access to the most powerful Anthropic AI models begins today on Amazon Bedrock What you need to know about the AWS AI chips powering Amazon's partnership with Anthropic Amazon and Anthropic announce strategic collaboration to advance generative AI

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:14

ToplineSen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., demanded Novo Nordisk, the Danish drug company that manufactures the wildly popular Ozempic and Wegovy weight loss drugs, lower the list price of the drugs, warning the ''outrageously high price has the potential to bankrupt Medicare, the American people and our entire health care system.''

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) questions ... [+] witnesses during a hearing about working hours in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 14, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Getty Images Key FactsSanders, who chairs the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, called on the company to lower the list price of Ozempic and Wegovy to ''no more than what they charge for this drug in Canada,'' in a statement Wednesday following the release of a new study on the costs of the drug by researchers at Yale.

Ozempic costs about $300 per month out-of-pocket in Canada, compared to about $1,000 in the U.S.

Sanders argued that Ozempic ''has the potential to be a game changer in the diabetes and obesity epidemics in America,'' but noted that it's unaffordable to ''millions who need it'' at current prices.

The ''outrageously high price has the potential to bankrupt Medicare, the American people and our entire health care system,'' he wrote, referring to the surge in demand that's subsequently resulted in increased spending on Ozempic under Medicare Part D.

A recent KFF study found Medicare Part D spent a total of $5.7 billion in 2022 on Ozempic and other similar weight loss drugs combined, up from $57 million in 2018.

Sanders has made calling on pharmaceutical companies to lower their drug prices a signature issue, recently grilling executives at major drug manufacturers Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Bristol Myers Squibb about their prices in a Senate HELP committee hearing in January after they agreed to testify to avoid a subpoena detailing their methodology for pricing drugs.

Forbes has reached out to Novo Nordisk for comment.

Big Number$1 trillion. That's how much it could cost state public insurance programs, health insurance exchange subsidies and U.S. taxpayers annually if Ozempic and similar weight loss drugs are made available to all obese Americans, MIT economists Brian Deese, Jonathan Gruber and Ryan Cummings estimated in a recent New York Times op-ed. ''That exceeds the savings to the government from reduced diabetes incidence and other health care costs from excess weight by $800 billion annually,'' they wrote. ''This is a staggering sum. It is almost as much as the government spends on the entire Medicare program and almost one-fifth of the entire amount America spends on health care."

ContraSanders cited a Yale study that found Ozempic costs Novo Nordisk less than $5 a month to manufacture. The company did not disclose its manufacturing costs in a statement to CNBC in response to the study, but told the outlet it spent almost $5 billion on research and development in 2023, and plans to spend more than $6 billion on a new deal to boost supply of the drug. The company also said out-of-pocket costs vary based on a patient's insurance plan.

Key BackgroundThe diabetes drugs, which imitate a hormone called glucagon-like peptide-1 that signals fullness, became wildly popular over the past year as doctors began issuing prescriptions to patients who simply wanted to lose weight, including a growing list of celebrities who have publicly shared their weight loss success stories after taking the drugs. The Biden Administration is expected to call on Medicare to negotiate a lower price for Ozempic with Novo Nordisk as soon as next year, according to experts cited by CNBC as Medicare spending on the drugs has ballooned in recent years. Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs, has already nearly doubled spending on Ozempic since 2021, spending up to $4.6 billion in 2022 as demand for the drug has surged, according to a new KFF study.

Cnbc Cnbc .

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:11

Last year, speakers at the annual American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting '' the most eminent cancer conference in the world '' came with a dire warning.

Rates of colorectal cancer were rapidly increasing in the under 40s, they said, so much so that cases are expected to double in this age group by 2030, with the disease set to become the number one source of cancer deaths in 20-to 49-year-olds by the end of the decade.

''Studies are showing this increase in early onset colorectal cancer,'' says Dr Dimitra Lamprinaki, a researcher at the Quadram Institute in Norwich. ''The problem is that some of these cases are asymptomatic but also younger people are potentially ignoring signs of cancer which could progress and then be hard to remove.''

This is part of a general trend. Global cancer cases in the under 50s are rising rapidly, increasing by 79 percent between 1990 and 2019 according to recent research. But while lifestyle factors, such as highly processed diets and heavy alcohol use in the millennial generation, are likely to blame, scientists have discovered an important new connection '' microbes which are fuelled by these poor habits and subsequently drive more aggressive and treatment resistant cancers.

Here are some of the main factors which may be driving the increased rates of cancer cases in the young.

Vaping and poor oral hygieneLondon-based private clinic Pure Periodontics have witnessed a startling rise in gum disease in younger patients. They attribute this to diets loaded in sugar and acids along with the rise of vaping in the under 40s, a habit which inhibits blood flow to the gums, increasing susceptibility to infections and making healing more difficult.

This all promotes the growth of a particular strain of bacteria called Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum) which has been associated with a whole range of cancers including breast, colorectal, and head and neck cancers.

''It's a very sticky bug which sticks onto the surface of the teeth and gums, and allows other bad bacteria to come in,'' says Dr Tim O'Brien, a medical oncologist and researcher at Queen's University Belfast.

With poorer oral hygiene, these bacteria can proliferate, enter the bloodstream, and access different organs. When these microbes enter early-stage tumours, they can actively interfere with chemotherapy and radiotherapy, enabling the cancer to grow and spread.

''Fusobacterium can contribute to chemotherapy but also radiation resistance,'' says O'Brien. ''It thrives within the tumour environment so it's in its interest for the tumour to survive. So it interferes with the process by which chemotherapy causes cancer cells to self-destruct and it can also kick out immune cells which are trying to destroy the tumour.''

High intake of processed meatAccording to the journal Nature, one of the sharpest increases in cancer rates in the under 50s has been for stomach cancer.

One of the most well-known risk factors for stomach cancer is the bacteria Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) which is thought to be responsible for around 40 percent of cases in the UK. H. pylori lives in the mucous layers which line the stomach and contributes to conditions such as atrophic gastritis, the chronic inflammation and thinning of the stomach lining, which can then progress to cancer.

Research has shown that a diet high in processed meats such as sausages, bacon and hamburgers can increase the prevalence of H.pylori in the stomach.

Professor Andrew Beggs, Consultant Colorectal Surgeon at the University of Birmingham, describes the connection between such microbes and lifestyle factors as 'vital pieces of a puzzle.'

''You have these bacteria and an unhealthy lifestyle with excess red meat, alcohol, and smoking, and some people may also have a genetic predisposition element which increases their risk,'' he says. ''When you add all those factors up, it leads to a big increase in the risk of cancer.''

Oral sexIt's not only bacteria which can drive cases of cancer, viruses have also been linked with different forms of the disease. Specialists around the UK have described rising rates of mouth cancer particularly in 40- to 49-year-olds, with half of these cases linked to a strain of the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), known as HPV-16 which can be passed on through oral sex.

One possibility could be greater numbers of casual sexual partners, with a study in the journal Cancer finding that kissing and particularly deep kissing, is also linked to heightened risk, with individuals who had 10 or more deep kissing partners twice as likely to develop an HPV-related cancer.

Ultra-processed foodsThe F. nucleatum bacteria not only makes cancers more resistant to treatment, but it can also actively drive the disease, especially in the bowel. A new study in Nature published last week, found that mice given a particular subspecies of this bacteria developed pre-cancerous intestinal growths and accelerated tumour formation compared to normal mice.

Researchers who have studied this bacteria as well as certain species of E.coli which have also been associated with colorectal cancer, believe that a diet high in ultra-processed foods can alter the composition of the gut microbiome in a way which enables these species to flourish, increasing the risk of cancer progression via a number of mechanisms.

''Some bacteria enable gut cells to acquire stem cell-like properties which increases the chance of cancer formation at the cellular level,'' says Dr Meera Patel, a researcher in the Colorectal & Peritoneal Oncology Lab at the University of Manchester.

''There's also a theory that certain bacteria can impair the gut vascular barrier which stops the spread of bacteria from your colon to your wider circulation, and if you have an impaired gut vascular barrier, then tumour cells can move out of the colon and metastasise to other organs.''

Excessive alcoholHowever, there are other cases of cancer in the young where microbial involvement has not yet been identified.

As an example, testicular cancer is the most common solid tumour cancer which is diagnosed in young men, and according to the NHS, the number of cases identified each year in the UK have doubled since the 1970s for reasons which cancer specialists are still trying to understand.

Family history is one of the biggest risk factors for this type of cancer, but some population studies have also identified a link between excessive drinking and a form of the disease called testicular germ cell carcinoma.

Young men who consumed 14 or more alcoholic beverages per week have been found to be at greater risk, along with a diet high in fat, red meat and dairy products as well as low in fruits and vegetables.

New treatmentsHowever the emerging connection between microbes and different forms of early-onset cancers in the young, could lead to new targeted treatments such as phage therapy which involves administering the patient with specially engineered viruses which are programmed to feed on a particular species of problematic bacteria, or targeted vaccines.

''You could vaccinate mice before infecting them with F. nucleatum and see if it makes a difference in terms of their outcome for polyps and cancers,'' says Beggs. ''If that's the case, there will be a strong argument to have a phase one trial in humans to see if it will reduce incidences of colorectal cancer.''

O'Brien predicts that in the coming years, the particular microbial composition of a tumour could be used to determine treatment decisions.

''We don't currently utilise that information, but in the future, I think we'll be able to get that and use it to decide whether this is a particularly aggressive tumour, and whether the patient needs a higher dose of chemotherapy,'' he says.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:10

Divers have discovered the remains of two construction workers found in a red pickup truck that plunged into Baltimore's harbour after a bridge collapsed.

The bodies were pulled from the freezing Patapsco River on Wednesday morning, a day after the Dali container ship lost power and collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge, knocking most of it into the water.

They were identified as Alejandro Hernandez Fuentes, 35, from Mexico, and Dorlian Ronial Castillo Cabrera, 26, from Guatemala, and discovered in the pickup around 25 feet of water on Wednesday.

Four other construction workers are unaccounted for and presumed dead, the Coast Guard said. They were repairing potholes on the bridge when it collapsed at 1.30am on Tuesday.

Officials announced on Wednesday night they were suspending their recovery operation because of the increasingly treacherous conditions in the water.

''Because of the superstructure surrounding what we believe were the vehicles and the amount of concrete and debris, divers are no longer able to safely navigate and operate around that,'' said Col Roland Butler, the superintendent of Maryland State Police.

''We have exhausted all search efforts.''

Three of the eight workers on the bridge at the time of the incident were Mexican, with the remainder from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Two were found alive on Tuesday.

The tragedy led Andr(C)s Manuel L"pez Obrador, the Mexican president, to criticise US over its treatment of migrant workers.

Mr Lopez Obrador said that ''insensitive, irresponsible'' politicians did not understand the contribution of migrants in the US, including the workers who were plunged into the freezing Patapsco River when the Dali container ship destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge.

He added: ''This demonstrates that migrants go out and do risky jobs at midnight, and for this reason they do not deserve to be treated as they are by certain insensitive, irresponsible politicians in the United States.''

The president has become a vocal critic of the US government in recent months, accusing the Biden administration of expecting Mexico to solve problems with illegal migration and cartels. He said last week he will prioritise domestic concerns over ''act[ing] as policemen for any foreign government'', adding: ''Mexico First. Our home comes first.''

Mexico's foreign affairs ministry said the two missing Mexican workers are from the states of Veracruz and Michoacn. One of the other missing workers was named as Maynor Yassir Suazo Sandoval, 39, who came to the US illegally from Azacualpa, a rural mountainous area in northwestern Honduras.

He worked at Brawner Builders, the company that was performing maintenance on the bridge when it collapsed, with Miguel Luna from El Salvador, who is also missing. The search continued yesterday as the US government assessed the impact of the bridge collapse on the economy and the cost of the repairs.

Pete Buttigieg, the US Transport Secretary, said the collapse of the bridge would directly impact 8,000 workers at the Port of Baltimore, which is one of the largest ports on the East Coast and handles around one million containers each year. ''It's difficult to overstate the impact of this collision,'' he said. ''A hundred thousand tons, all going into this pier all at once.''

Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, said that the US would use a supply chain task force established during the Covid-19 pandemic to prevent shortages caused by the port closure. ''We're monitoring this very closely and prepared to take any steps that can be helpful,'' she said, adding ''there will be insurance payments in part to cover this'' but the federal government would make funds available immediately to rebuild the bridge as fast as possible.

The majority of the cargo bound for Baltimore has been diverted to Virginia or New York as officials try to avoid an increase in domestic prices as a result of the incident.

The National Transportation Safety Board has launched an investigation into the causes of the crash, which started when the Dali lost power shortly after leaving the Port of Baltimore.

Investigators boarded the ship on Wednesday, where the crew remained after the disaster, and collected its black box to be examined for evidence.

One avenue of inquiry is understood to be focusing on whether the ship was filled with contaminated fuel, which disrupted the power supply.

Vice Adml Peter Gautier, of the US Coast Guard, said that 56 of the ship's 4,700 containers contain hazardous materials, but that there is no threat to the public.

The ship, which was just 30 minutes into a 27-day voyage, is also still carrying 1.5 million gallons of fuel and lubricant oil.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:29

Surgery patients on blockbuster weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy could be at risk of choking to death, a study warns.

Researchers in California looked at nearly 1 million Americans who had an endoscopy, which examines the upper digestive tract.

They found that patients who underwent the procedure - which involves inserting a tube with a camera on the end down the throat while the patient is sedated- were 33 percent more likely to suffer aspiration pneumonia.

This causes food, liquids, or saliva to get sucked into the airway, which could lead to choking and kills nearly 60,000 Americans a year.

Dr Ali Rezaie, study author and medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, said: 'Aspiration during or after endoscopy can be devastating.'

Researchers found that those taking GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and Wegovy before an endoscopy had a 33 percent greater risk of developing aspiration pneumonia

Weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy mimic the production of the hormone GLP-1, which helps keep the body full

'If significant, it can lead to respiratory failure, ICU admission and even death. Even mild cases may require close monitoring, respiratory support and medications including antibiotics.'

'It is important we take all possible precautions to prevent aspiration from occurring.'

Ozempic and Wegovy are brand names for the medication semaglutide, which suppresses appetite and triggers weight loss.

The drug binds to the GLP-1 receptor, a protein that triggers hormones in the brain that keep the stomach full and tell the body to stop eating and avoid cravings.

Wegovy is approved by the FDA for type 2 diabetes, obesity, and most recently heart disease.

Ozempic is FDA approved for patients with type 2 diabetes, though off-label use for weight loss has become increasingly common.

The researchers analyzed data from nearly 1 million anonymous patients who had endoscopies between January 2018 and December 2020.

They found that those who were prescribed GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and Wegovy had a 33 percent higher chance of experiencing aspiration pneumonia than those who didn't take these medications before their endoscopy.

'When we apply this risk to the more than 20 million endoscopies that are performed in the US each year, there may actually be a large number of cases where aspiration could be avoided if the patient safely stops their GLP-1RA medication in advance,' Dr Rezaie said.

Aspiration pneumonia is an infection caused by inhaling food, saliva, bacteria, or liquid and it getting stuck in the respiratory tract.

Symptoms include shortness of breath, wheezing, coughing up blood or pus, chest pain, bad breath, and extreme tiredness.

Dr Rezaie said that GLP-1 medications may lead to aspiration pneumonia ahead of an endoscopy because the drugs slow digestion, which makes food sit in the stomach longer.

As a result, the stomach may not be completely empty while a patient fasts, which is required before an endoscopy to get a clear picture.

This could cause choking because while a person is under general anesthesia, contents from the stomach may move up to the mouth and enter the trachea and the lungs.

Dr Yee Hui Yeo, lead study author and clinical fellow in the Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Cedars-Sinai, said: 'The results of this study could change clinical practice.'

'Patients taking these medications who are scheduled to undergo a procedure should communicate with their healthcare team well in advance to avoid unnecessary and unwanted complications.'

Aspiration pneumonia is generally treated with antibiotics and ozygen therapy.

Though most people are expected to survive, aspiration pneumonia kills about 58,000 Americans every year, according to 2022 data.

The study was published Wednesday in the journal Gastroenterology.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:10

A journalist said in 1859 that "not a breeze can blow in any latitude" without being recorded in the books at Lloyd's of London, the oldest insurance exchange in the world.

With the crash of the container ship Dali into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore on Tuesday, insurance underwriters are updating those books as a picture of the true cost of damages emerges.

Barclays analysts estimate insurance claims from the bridge itself could total $1.2 billion, with as much as $700 million in claims for wrongful deaths, plus additional costs from business interruptions related to the port closure and bridge reconstruction, Bloomberg reported.

Economists told Business Insider the port closure itself will cost $15 million a day in lost economic activity , with other disruptions pushing the total into the tens of millions a day.

Baltimore is a key import and export point for cars , construction and farm equipment , and coal '-- much of which is on hold while salvage crews clear the shipping lane.

All told, Barclays said insurance companies could be looking at claims as high as $3 billion as a result of the crash, Bloomberg reported.

"While the incident still has to be investigated, we believe it has potential to become a significant insurance claim, particularly in the marine market," the analysts wrote, according to the outlet.

Marcos lvarez, Morningstar's managing director for global insurance ratings, put the figure between $2 billion and $4 billion, "depending on the length of the blockage and the nature of the business interruption coverage for the Port of Baltimore," Reuters reported.

The lead insurer and the major reinsurers for the Dali are underwriters with Lloyd's, in whose storied "Room" underwriters will calculate the financial price of this catastrophe.

In the late 17th century, ship captains and businessmen met at Edward Lloyd's London coffee shop to work out the first insurance policies, and the shop soon grew into a marketplace where the risks of maritime trade could spread across many firms.

While cargo owners are responsible for insuring the property aboard their ships, the shipping industry covers protection for the vessel itself and the damages it causes to third parties.

"Protection and indemnity clubs," groups of shipping companies that pool liabilities together so that an extreme loss doesn't put a member out of business, cover the vast majority of shipping.

Those clubs, in turn, have insurance and reinsurance policies in which multiple firms protect losses over certain thresholds, further distributing the risk .

The Dali is a vessel in the Britannia P&I Club, the oldest such insurance group in the world.

Lloyd's says its firms insure risks representing more than $58 billion in premiums a year, covering everything from ships to satellites.

The Underwriting Room is no stranger to tragedy or complexity, either: Its underwriters have sorted out claims on disasters from the sinking of the Titanic to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Still, the collapse of the Key Bridge could lead to "one of the largest claims ever to hit the marine (re)insurance market," John Miklus, the president of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, told Insurance Business .

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:14

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/asia/china-bridge-collapse-ship.htmlSeveral vehicles plummeted from the crossing, part of which collapsed, in the southern city of Guangzhou, the authorities said.

Video Footage from China Central Television, a Chinese state media outlet, showed parts of the Lixinsha Bridge that had fallen into the container ship after the deadly collision. Credit Credit... Reuters Part of a bridge in the southern Chinese manufacturing hub of Guangzhou collapsed after a container ship crashed into it, killing five people as vehicles plummeted, city officials said at a news conference Thursday.

In an earlier statement, the local authorities said that an empty container ship had hit one of the supporting columns of the two-lane Lixinsha Bridge, fracturing the surface.

The crash, which city officials blamed on ''improper operation'' by the crew, occurred at about 5:30 a.m. Thursday in the Nansha district, the district said in a statement. Photos published by Chinese state media showed a large chunk missing from the bridge, which is the main thoroughfare crossing the Hongqili Channel between the island of Sanmin and the rest of the sprawling megacity. A local official told state media that ferries were being provided for residents.

Five vehicles fell when the bridge collapsed, two into the water and three onto the container ship, Guangzhou's maritime bureau said in a statement.

Among the vehicles was a bus whose driver was the only person on board, the bus's operator, Guangzhou Bus Group, said in a statement published by state media. It was unclear whether the driver was among the dead. A photograph published in state media showed a bus that appeared to have landed on the ship.

Six scuba divers and a salvage ship were sent to the scene, officials said, according to state media.

In 2021, the transport department in Guangdong Province, whose capital is Guangzhou, agreed to implement anti-collision measures on the bridge's support columns, according to the state broadcaster China Central Television. The work was scheduled to be completed in 2022 but was postponed to 2023, and then to August 2024, with no reasons given for the delay, the broadcaster reported.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:04

Commentary By Allison Anton March 26, 2024 at 9:07am By now, most people have seen the shocking images of the devastating collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, that happened on Tuesday morning.

Indeed, it would be hard to forget the sight of the cargo ship hitting the 1.6 mile bridge, with the bridge almost instantly crumbling on impact into the Patapsco River.

What caused the cargo ship to ram into the bridge or what was faulty in the construction of the bridge to make it collapse so readily has not yet been discovered.

However, as many users on the social media platform X have noted, the ramifications of this disaster will be devastating for Baltimore's infrastructure.

User Matt Bracken was among the first to point this out.

This is a MAJOR infrastructure hit.The Port of Baltimore is the major port serving Baltimore and Washington DC. All of the shipping north of the bridge is now trapped in place. No other shipping can get in. The tunnel shown has height and hazardous cargo restrictions, it can't'... pic.twitter.com/igVpYJcaEn

'-- Matt Bracken (@Matt_Bracken48) March 26, 2024

Sharing a map of the port of Baltimore, circling the location of the bridge, as well as the other main highways, Bracken noted, ''All of the shipping north of the bridge is now trapped in place. No other shipping can get in. The tunnel shown has height and hazardous cargo restrictions, it can't take the heavy trucking traffic that used the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which took YEARS to build back in the 1970s.''

Considering that the Port of Baltimore is the main port for both Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this accident, as Bracken said, was a ''MAJOR infrastructure hit.''

Should extra security be implemented at major bridges around the country?

Yes: 87% (889 Votes)

No: 13% (133 Votes)

Other users shared Bracken's original post, with combat correspondent Michael Yon calling it an ''Economic Nuke Strike'' and history professor and Maritime historian Sal Mercogliano, pointing out, ''This closes the port of Baltimore and shuts down any traffic into or out of it.''

Economic Nuke Strike https://t.co/x12AXD9nir

'-- Michael Yon: Callsign BIG HONEY 6 (@Michael_Yon) March 26, 2024

Just examining the data on MV #Dali that hit and collapsed the #Keybridge outside or Baltimore.

This closes the port of Baltimore and shuts down any traffic into or out of it. pic.twitter.com/LykHkrbzK2

'-- Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) ðŸš'š'🐪ðŸš'🏴'' ¸ (@mercoglianos) March 26, 2024

Now, the greatest tragedy of this disaster was, of course, the loss of human life.

As CNN reported, at least six people who were part of a construction crew working on the bridge are still missing and five vehicles have been seen underwater using sonar technolgy, three of which are thought to be passenger vehicles.

Two members of the construction crew were rescued from the water. One was uninjured, and one was taken to a trauma center in ''very serious condition.''

But, the good folks of X were right to point out the economic ramifications this collapse of essential infrastructure will have for Baltimore and the surrounding area.

As one user explained, ''It will be near impossible to quickly clear out debris to keep the harbor working.''

UPDATED. Aerial view of the Baltimore Harbor and Francis Scott Key Bridge. It will be near impossible to quickly clear out debris to keep the harbor working. pic.twitter.com/ZZ15N7uogU

'-- COL (Ret) Jeff in ðŸ‡...🇹 (@JeffFisch) March 26, 2024

Not to mention that the entire harbor was the second busiest in the mid-Atlantic '-- and now, thanks to this accident, it has been rendered completely inaccessible.

To say nothing of the enormous traffic problems now created by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge.

Were the conspiracy theorists on X and elsewhere on to something when they suggested that this was perhaps a deliberate act of sabotage on the part of China or another U.S. adversary?

As of right now, probably not.

If someone were to plan an attack on our infrastructure, however, it very well might have looked like what we saw on Tuesday morning in Baltimore.

A Note from Our Deputy Managing Editor:

I heard a chilling comment the other day: ''We don't even know if an election will be held in 2024.''

That wasn't said by a conspiracy theorist or a doomsday prophet. No, former U.S. national security advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said that to the founder of The Western Journal, Floyd Brown.

Gen. Flynn's warning means that the 2024 election is the most important election for every single living American. If we lose this one to the wealthy elites who hate us, hate God, and hate what America stands for, we can only assume that 248 years of American history and the values we hold dear to our hearts may soon vanish.

The end game is here, and as Benjamin Franklin said, ''We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.''

All of this means that without you , it's over. We have the platform, the journalists, and the experience to fight back hard, but Big Tech is strangling us through advertising blacklists, shadow bans, and algorithms. Did you know that we've been blacklisted by 90% of advertisers? Without direct support from you, our readers, we can't continue the fight.

Can we count on your support ? It may not seem like much, but a Western Journal Membership can make all the difference in the world because when you support us directly, you cut Big Tech out of the picture. They lose control.

A monthly Western Journal Membership costs less than one coffee and breakfast sandwich each month, and it gets you access to ALL of our content '-- news, commentary, and premium articles. You'll experience a radically reduced number of ads, and most importantly you will be vitally supporting the fight for America's soul in 2024.

We are literally counting on you because without our members, The Western Journal would cease to exist. Will you join us in the fight?

Sincerely,

Josh Manning

Deputy Managing Editor

The Western Journal

SummaryRecent Posts ContactAllison Anton dabbles in fiction, as well as commenting on depressing modern trends and media. She calls the metro Atlanta area home, and when she's not writing, she's creating a loving home for her amazing husband.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:47

In a recent development in the agricultural sector, Congress passed an omnibus bill that included a provision for the electronic tracking of livestock, triggering concerns among small ranchers and some lawmakers. The provision earmarks $15 million for electronic identification (EID) tags and related infrastructure to comply with the Federal Animal Disease Traceability rule.

American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan expressed apprehension to The Epoch Times, stating, ''They are going to use it as a taxing mechanism to eventually control the livestock.'' Sullivan fears such measures could limit the cattle supply and damage the industry, drawing parallels to policies in the European Union aimed at reducing livestock numbers due to climate change concerns.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a livestock owner, echoed Sullivan's sentiment in a March 23rd post on social media platform X, warning that cattle tagging could be a precursor to a ban on cattle, as seen in Europe. Massie has previously criticized the tracking as a potential tool for the "GREEN agenda" to restrict beef production and for corporate entities to dominate small ranchers.

hidden in the two-part omnibus: https://t.co/iKj2QALDPr

'-- Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 23, 2024Despite these fears, proponents argue the tracking system is crucial for disease control and biosecurity within the livestock industry. Since the discovery of mad cow disease in the U.S. in 2003, there has been a push for improved traceability. The proposed regulations published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2023, would mandate radio-frequency identification tags for cattle and bison crossing state lines.

Justin Tupper, president of the United States Cattlemen's Association, criticized the federal mandate for electronic ear tags as an unnecessary financial burden on American ranchers. Tupper told The Epoch Times that this move would benefit tag companies and further raise beef prices.

The beef cattle supply in the U.S. is reportedly at its lowest in decades due to droughts and policies favoring large food processors, leading to soaring beef prices and concerns over the sustainability of the nation's farming community.

The insertion of the electronic ear tag funding into the omnibus bill has been criticized for bypassing the usual legislative scrutiny, which some view as indicative of the federal government's increasing intrusion into the lives of independent ranchers.

As the provision moves towards implementation, there is a growing debate on its potential impact on the cattle industry, particularly on small ranchers. Advocates for the tracking system emphasize its benefits for disease management and food safety, while opponents warn it could centralize control over livestock and hinder the operations of independent ranchers.

The current state of the event reflects a divide within the agricultural community, with the future implications of the electronic livestock tracking system on the industry and small ranchers yet to be fully realized.

Originally reported by The Epoch Times

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:36

Federal US authorities have asked Google for the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and user activity of accounts that watched certain YouTube videos, according to unsealed court documents Forbes has seen.

Of those users that weren't logged in when they watched those videos between January 1 and 8, 2023, the authorities asked for the IP addresses.

The starting point of one of the investigations is an entity that uses the handle ''elonmuskwhm'' and is suspected of money laundering by selling Bitcoin for cash. As part of the investigation, agents sent the suspect links to tutorials on YouTube about mapping via drones and augmented reality software.Then they asked YouTube to send them data about the people that watched that video.

But those video tutorials were not private and had been watched over 30,000 times by the time the agents asked YouTube's parent company Google for information about the viewers.

In another case, related to a bomb threat, the authorities asked for information about the viewers of eight selected live streams. One of those live streams has over 130,000 subscribers.

The police received a threat from an unknown male that there was an explosive placed in a trash can in a public area. When the police went to investigate the matter, they found out their actions were broadcasted through a YouTube live stream camera. Apparently similar events had taken place before, so for good reason law enforcement is after the evildoers.

But asking for data of that many viewers, many of which we can assume to be innocent bystanders, goes against what privacy experts believe to be reasonable. This type of digital dragnets go against the fourth amendment: freedom from unreasonable searches.

Albert Fox-Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) said:

''No one should fear a knock at the door from police simply because of what the YouTube algorithm serves up. I'm horrified that the courts are allowing this.''

According to the documents Forbes has seen, the court granted the order but asked Google not to make it public. We don't currently know if Google complied with the request for information.

Google spokesperson Matt Bryant told Forbes:

''We examine each demand for legal validity, consistent with developing case law, and we routinely push back against over broad or otherwise inappropriate demands for user data, including objecting to some demands entirely.''

STOP condemned the US Department of Justice for securing a bulk warrant to track every YouTube user who watched the completely legal videos about mapping software for drones.

John Davisson, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told Forbes:

''What we watch online can reveal deeply sensitive information about us'--our politics, our passions, our religious beliefs, and much more. It's fair to expect that law enforcement won't have access to that information without probable cause. This order turns that assumption on its head.''

Warrants like these turn innocent people into suspects for no other reason than watching a perfectly legal video. The YouTube warrants are similar to geofence warrants, where court issues a search warrant to allow law enforcement to search a database to find all active mobile devices within a particular area.

These warrants turn the fear that certain online searches or your viewing history is going to put you on some kind of list, into reality. It also encourages users to use a VPN for even the most harmless activities and discourages YouTube visitors from logging in.

We don't just report on privacy'--we offer you the option to use it.

Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:55

Cocaine use tends to be higher in western and southern European cities, according to the database of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

As Statista's Anna Fleck reports, researchers analyzed the wastewater of 88 cities in 23 EU countries and Turkey for levels of a number of illicit drugs, including cocaine, MDMA and ketamine, in order to explore the drug-taking habits of their inhabitants.

They found that cities in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain had the highest levels of cocaine in their water, while lower levels were found in most eastern European cities.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The Flemish city of Antwerp had 1,722 milligrams detected per 1,000 people flowing through its drains per day in 2023, making it the city with the highest levels of cocaine in their wastewater of the sites included in the study.

Other cities with notably high concentrations were the port cities of Tarragona, Spain (1,464mg) and the Netherlands' Amsterdam (1,210), Leeuwarden (1,192mg) and Rotterdam (1,088mg).

According to the report, when looking at a number of cities outside of Europe, Brazil and the United States showed similar levels of cocaine use to the worst offending cities in Europe.

Loading...

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:53

Written by Vance Reavie and Brett Loyd.

Vance Reavie (Center bias) is a tech entrepreneur, AI/ML specialist, Independent Center leader, and current CEO of Junction AI. Brett Loyd (Center bias) is the President Of The Nonpartisan Bullfinch Group.

From the Center Over the past decade, voters identifying as LGBTQ+ have more than doubled. What's more, this group is growing. The LGBTQ+ demographic is now a larger voting bloc than the suburban, white, mothers that pundits love to discuss on election night.

Both parties, and their candidates, would be wise to look at the numbers, as the LGBTQ+ community could decide the 2024 election.

A Gallup tracking study from 2012 to 2023 shows that those self-identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than heterosexual increased from 3.5% in 2012 to 7.6%, steadily increasing each year the study was conducted.

Gallup noted that as many as 1 in 5 Gen Z, and 1 in 10 Millennials, identify as LGBTQ+. The Williams Institute recently noted this increase as well, reporting that among younger Americans, 14.9% in the 18-24 and 8.8% in the 25-34 cohorts identify as LGBTQ+.

Voter data appears to mirror this research, as AP exit polls from the last presidential election showed that 7% of voters identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

The 2020 exit polling shows that Trump won or tied the ''straight'' vote in 5 of the 6 states that Cook Report has listed as 'toss up' for 2024, but Biden won the election by winning the LGBTQ+ vote in all six of those states.

At 7%, the LGBTQ vote has the potential to determine the results in critical swing states. The Cook Political Report lists six states as 'toss up' for the 2024 presidential election; the average margin of victory for those six states in 2020 was 1.25%. This represents only a small portion, about 18%, of the total LGBTQ vote.

If there were an 18-point swing among this cohort from the last election to this election, every one of these swing states would flip.

In looking at the recent nationwide n600 LGBTQ+ survey by The Independent Center, including a deep dive into Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania, racially and ethnically, this group looks similar to the race and ethnic breaks we see among all adults in America. The group skews a bit younger, is a bit more Democratic than Republican, but by and large, it is as diverse as any cohort. And as such, this group votes that way.

Looking back to the 2020 exit polls, Biden received 64% of the LGBTQ+ vote, 13 points lower than what Clinton received from the same demographic four years prior. If that trend were to continue in 2024, and all else remained equal, the Democratic candidate would receive only 51% of the LGBTQ+ vote. This 13-point shift among 7% of the electorate means the entire election would shift 0.91% '' which may not seem like a lot, but remember, Biden only won the state by 0.24%.

That means Georgia would flip.

Arizona and Wisconsin likely would flip as well. If Biden were to lose those three states, he'd lose the race. This isn't some remote possibility. In Arizona, Biden is only currently garnering support from 42% of this cohort, and in Pennsylvania, it is 32%.

This doesn't suggest these voters are flocking to the GOP or Trump, given their position on LGBTQ+ issues. The Independent Center's survey found nationwide only 22% saying they would support Trump, while 21% saying they would support the independent/third-party candidate, and 13% remaining 'unsure' how they would vote. Factoring in the double-digit swing from 2016 to 2020 indicates that LGBTQ+ voters aren't beholden to any one party or candidate. Their votes are up for the taking.

LGBTQ+ voters are personally positive, optimistic individuals: about 10 points more personally optimistic than the average American, with over half not affiliating with either the Republican or Democratic Party, and about 60% ideologically falling somewhere between 'somewhat liberal' to 'somewhat conservative' '' they are moderates. LGBTQ+ voters aren't enthralled with Biden and the Democrats, with a similar approval rating as the population as a whole, but they are more trusting of the Democrats to protect their rights, swaying liberal ''due to the GOP's anti-LGBTQ+ agenda''.

The LGBTQ+ community may not receive as much airtime and often is not included in many public opinion polls' demographics, but they should be. Consider this: no demographic breakout of gender, race, age, income, or geographic area saw as large of a shift as the LGBTQ+ community from 2016 to 2020.

It might come as a surprise, or even shock to some, but in 2024, the road to the White House runs through the LGBTQ+ community.

This piece was reviewed and edited by Isaiah Anthony, Deputy Blog Editor (Center bias).

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:52

A landmark decision in South Korea established that the death from gastric cancer of a male flight attendant was akin to an industrial accident caused by cosmic radiation exposure. The state-run Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (K'‘COMWEL)1 issued a ruling in October 20232 which suggests that a flight attendant's chronic exposure to cosmic radiation may pose more serious health threats than previously recognized.

Cosmic radiation, which originates in outer space from solar activity and galactic sources, is composed of penetrating particulate and electromagnetic ionizing radiation. It consists of high-energy charged particles, x'‘rays, and gamma rays produced in space. Cosmic ionizing radiation is a known human carcinogen and a causal risk factor for non-melanoma skin cancer and cancers of the breast, salivary gland, esophagus, stomach, colon, lung, bone, kidney, urinary bladder, brain/central nervous system, and thyroid.3

Given their accumulated exposure from extended periods of time spent at higher flight altitudes, where the shielding effect of the earth's atmosphere is decreased, aircrew are exposed to higher quantities of naturally occurring cosmic radiation than the general population. According to various studies, flight altitude, distance of the route from the North and South Poles, and flight hours are all important factors affecting the amount of radiation absorbed by aircrew.4

In particular, the atmosphere at the North and South Poles is thinner than at the equator, which results in reduced atmospheric barriers on routes closer to these polar regions such as North America route, flying over the Arctic Circle. Accordingly, the higher the flight altitude, the higher the human absorption of cosmic radiation.

The flight attendant in this ruling, identified as Mr. Song, was diagnosed with stage four gastric cancer in April 2021 and died the following month, at the age of 53. Mr. Song reportedly started working with Korean Air in 1995 and as of 2021 was flying an average of 1,022 hours annually, half of which were on long-haul flights to and from the Americas and Europe. These flights all passed through the Arctic Circle, a zone noted to be notorious for its high cosmic radiation levels due to the earth's magnetic fields.5

Korean Air denied that there was any correlation between Mr. Song's cancer and cosmic radiation; Korean Air says it had ensured its flights attendants' cumulative radiation exposure remained below the safety standard of 6mSv per annum. This argument was rejected by the K'‘COMWEL panel, who considered that it was possible Mr. Song had been exposed to more than 100mSv per annum of accumulated radiation given that the measuring method deployed by Korean Air could have downplayed the actual amount of his cumulative radiation dose.6

The K'‘COMWEL ruling is significant as it:

accepts the causal link between solid cancers such as gastric cancer and cosmic radiation,is the first time an official labour body in South Korea has recognized the correlation between cosmic radiation and cancer for flight attendants as an industrial death, andhas potentially broader implications for the airline industry in its emphasis on the importance of implementing preventive measures to safeguard the health and safety of aviation professionals.In South Korea, industrial accident compensation insurance is a statutory insurance designed to guarantee the income of an injured worker and his/her family. Under the Labour Standards Act, the state collects insurance premiums from employers from which it then administers the payment of compensation to injured workers on the employers' behalf. The coverage now includes new industrial disease, work-related exhaustion, and stress.

Given the international scope and nature of the aviation profession, this ruling could have precedent use in other countries' workers' compensation regimes to argue and/or provide the necessary medical causal link between the development of certain cancers and the environmental exposures from the injured person's in'‘flight workplace duties.

Whilst an awareness of the link between cosmic radiation and various types of cancers is a relatively recent medical development, cosmic radiation is an emerging insurance risk to monitor. Although the relatively contained ''in'‘air'' workforce numbers may operate to limit an avalanche of cosmic radiation claims, one only needs to look at other prolonged exposure examples in history, like asbestos and mesothelioma and, more recently, engineered stone and silicosis, to recognize the potentially significant impact of such a ruling on future personal injury claims and actions.

There is potential for such causal findings to expand beyond the industrial death/workers' compensation arena into other insurance products and lines of business such as aviation liability, public and products liability, and to capture non-employee frequent flyer claimants in the years to come as science, medicine, and litigation trends emerge and converge.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:55

HBO Real Time host Bill Maher is launching a podcast network.

The Club Random Studios network (the name is derived from Maher's Club Random podcast), will seek to host podcasts built on an idea of ''freedom of expression,'' the late night host tells The Hollywood Reporter.

''I am looking for people who are not talking point people. I'm looking for people who don't, before they speak, say, 'what's the right answer here?''' Maher added.

The first podcast on the network, which Maher is backing alongside co-creators Chris Case and Chuck LaBella, will be hosted by Sage Steele, the former ESPN SportsCenter anchor who parted ways with the channel last year after settling a free speech lawsuit. Steele filed the suit alleging retaliation after she made controversial comments about the COVID-19 vaccine mandates on a podcast hosted by Jay Cutler.

''She's the perfect choice to be our first new host because, like me, she pissed off Disney. There's a certain poetic symmetry to that,'' Maher says of Steele's show, which launches today (Maher, of course, tussled with Disney after ABC canceled his show Politically Incorrect in 2002).

Steele tells THR that she is planning her program around ''conversations, not interviews,'' and will host athletes, executives, actors, comedians, politicians and other guests. UFC chief Dana White, comedians Howie Mandel and Adam Corolla, and California Senate candidate Steve Garvey are among the initial guests.

''What I've always tried to dig out during my career is the 'why' behind people and get that human interest story,'' Steele says, adding that her own personal experience is informing her.

''You realize that by sharing your story, others can benefit as well,'' Steele adds. ''I've gotten thousands of emails over the last couple of years since I kind of became controversial and started getting canceled, from people saying, 'oh my gosh, thank you for sharing,' 'oh my gosh, I'm afraid too,' and 'oh my gosh, please don't be quiet, you're speaking for me.' So that's where this came from. I've always had that curiosity but now I know firsthand what it's like when you open up and are vulnerable and share.''

Maher says that for Steele and other hosts, he and his co-founders intend to give them the resources and let them pursue their own ideas.

''These are not rookies, these are grown-ass adult, mature, fun, unafraid, people,'' Maher says. ''So I don't worry about them, and I certainly wouldn't dream of micromanagement. I mean, they are their own people. And that's what we want.''

''It's not even about me or Bill, this is about the big picture, and what I believe and Bill believes is missing in this country, which is true conversation and listening,'' Steele adds. ''I mean, since my controversies began '-- and long before that, actually '-- people who know me knew my biggest priority is diversity of thought, and if we don't have that we have nothing.''

''Bill, by saying you're gonna be my first hire for my new podcast network, he is living that, he's practicing what he preaches because you look at just the basic issues, right? He thinks marriage is a joke, and kids are annoying. And he's an atheist. I was married for 20 years. I have three kids and I am a strong Christian Catholic,'' Steele continues. ''We could not be more different in many, many, many important ways. But we also think the same on some of the core issues that are dividing this country right now, like the craziness at the border with immigration laws, with what happened with the vaccine mandates '-- not the vaccine, the vaccine mandates '-- with the transgender sports issue. We're on the same page with that, and we were able to find that out through that conversation on his podcast last fall.''

Maher launched his Club Random podcast two years ago, taking a more casual and long-form approach to interviews, with guests hanging out and chatting in a more casual setting than on Real Time.

''I'm high when I do the whole thing. It just seemed like a good idea,'' Maher quips about the podcast.

''I mean, my real job is at HBO'... it's different, I'm talking to senators and governors, and I can't be high and forgetting what I was saying and talking about sex all the time,'' Maher adds. ''But the podcast is me after hours, it's Real Time after dark.''

Now he is betting that he can take that ethos and give other hosts a chance to build podcasts of their own.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:03

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

Let's start with the possible chain of events that may have led to the Crocus terror attack.

This is as explosive as it gets. Intel sources in Moscow discreetly confirm this is one of the FSB's prime lines of investigation.

December 4, 2023. Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Mark Milley, only 3 months after his retirement, tells CIA mouthpiece The Washington Post: ''There should be no Russian who goes to sleep without wondering if they're going to get their throat slit in the middle of the night ('...) You gotta get back there and create a campaign behind the lines.''

January 4, 2024: In an interview with ABC News, ''spy chief'' Kyrylo Budanov lays down the road map: strikes ''deeper and deeper'' into Russia.

January 31: Victoria Nuland travels to Kiev and meets Budanov. Then, in a dodgy press conference at night in the middle of an empty street, she promises ''nasty surprises'' to Putin: code for asymmetric war.

February 22: Nuland shows up at a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) event and doubles down on the ''nasty surprises'' and asymmetric war. That may be interpreted as the definitive signal for Budanov to start deploying dirty ops.

February 25: The New York Times publishes a story about CIA cells in Ukraine: nothing that Russian intel does not already know.

Then, a lull until March 5 '' when crucial shadow play may have been in effect. Privileged scenario: Nuland was a key dirty ops plotter alongside the CIA and the Ukrainian GUR (Budanov). Rival Deep State factions got hold of it and maneuvered to ''terminate'' her one way or another '' because Russian intel would have inevitably connected the dots.

Yet Nuland, in fact, is not ''retired'' yet; she's still presented as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and showed up recently in Rome for a G7-related meeting, although her new job, in theory, seems to be at Columbia University (a Hillary Clinton maneuver).

Meanwhile, the assets for a major ''nasty surprise'' are already in place, in the dark, and totally off radar. The op cannot be called off.

March 5: Little Blinken formally announces Nuland's ''retirement''.

March 7: At least one Tajik among the four-member terror commando visits the Crocus venue and has his photo taken.

March 7-8 at night: U.S. and British embassies simultaneously announce a possible terror attack on Moscow, telling their nationals to avoid ''concerts'' and gatherings within the next two days.

March 9: Massively popular Russian patriotic singer Shaman performs at Crocus. That may have been the carefully chosen occasion targeted for the ''nasty surprise'' '' as it falls only a few days before the presidential elections, from March 15 to 17. But security at Crocus was massive, so the op is postponed.

March 22: The Crocus City Hall terror attack.

ISIS-K: the ultimate can of wormsThe Budanov connection is betrayed by the modus operandi '' similar to previous Ukraine intel terror attacks against Daria Dugina and Vladimir Tatarsky: close reconnaissance for days, even weeks; the hit; and then a dash for the border.

And that brings us to the Tajik connection.

There seem to be holes aplenty in the narrative concocted by the ragged bunch turned mass killers: following an Islamist preacher on Telegram; offered what was later established as a puny 500 thousand rubles (roughly $4,500) for the four of them to shoot random people in a concert hall; sent half of the funds via Telegram; directed to a weapons cache where they find AK-12s and hand grenades.

The videos show that they used the machine guns like pros; shots were accurate, short bursts or single fire; no panic whatsoever; effective use of hand grenades; fleeing the scene in a flash, just melting away, almost in time to catch the ''window'' that would take them across the border to Ukraine.

All that takes training. And that also applies to facing nasty counter-interrogation. Still, the FSB seems to have broken them all '' quite literally.

A potential handler has surfaced, named Abdullo Buriyev. Turkish intel had earlier identified him as a handler for ISIS-K, or Wilayat Khorasan in Afghanistan. One of the members of the Crocus commando told the FSB their ''acquaintance'' Abdullo helped them to buy the car for the op.

And that leads us to the massive can of worms to end them all: ISIS-K.

The alleged emir of ISIS-K, since 2020, is an Afghan Tajik, Sanaullah Ghafari. He was not killed in Afghanistan in June 2023, as the Americans were spinning: he may be currently holed up in Balochistan in Pakistan.

Yet the real person of interest here is not Tajik Ghafari but Chechen Abdul Hakim al-Shishani, the former leader of the jihadi outfit Ajnad al-Kavkaz (''Soldiers of the Caucasus''), who was fighting against the government in Damascus in Idlib and then escaped to Ukraine because of a crackdown by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) '' in another one of those classic inter-jihadi squabbles.

Shishani was spotted on the border near Belgorod during the recent attack concocted by Ukrainian intel inside Russia. Call it another vector of the ''nasty surprises''.

Shishani had been in Ukraine for over two years and has acquired citizenship. He is in fact the sterling connection between the nasty motley crue Idlib gangs in Syria and GUR in Kiev '' as his Chechens worked closely with Jabhat al-Nusra, which was virtually indistinguishable from ISIS.

Shishani, fiercely anti-Assad, anti-Putin and anti-Kadyrov, is the classic ''moderate rebel'' advertised for years as a ''freedom fighter'' by the CIA and the Pentagon.

Some of the four hapless Tajiks seem to have followed ideological/religious indoctrination on the internet dispensed by Wilayat Khorasan, or ISIS-K, in a chat room called Rahnamo ba Khuroson.

The indoctrination game happened to be supervised by a Tajik, Salmon Khurosoni. He's the guy who made the first move to recruit the commando. Khurosoni is arguably a messenger between ISIS-K and the CIA.

The problem is the ISIS-K modus operandi for any attack never features a fistful of dollars: the promise is Paradise via martyrdom. Yet in this case it seems it's Khurosoni himself who has approved the 500 thousand ruble reward.

After handler Buriyev relayed the instructions, the commando sent the bayat '' the ISIS pledge of allegiance '' to Khurosoni. Ukraine may not have been their final destination. Another foreign intel connection '' not identified by FSB sources '' would have sent them to Turkey, and then Afghanistan.

That's exactly where Khurosoni is to be found. Khurosoni may have been the ideological mastermind of Crocus. But, crucially, he's not the client.

The Ukrainian love affair with terror gangsUkrainian intel, SBU and GUR, have been using the ''Islamic'' terror galaxy as they please since the first Chechnya war in the mid-1990s. Milley and Nuland of course knew it, as there were serious rifts in the past, for instance, between GUR and the CIA.

Following the symbiosis of any Ukrainian government post-1991 with assorted terror/jihadi outfits, Kiev post-Maidan turbo-charged these connections especially with Idlib gangs, as well as north Caucasus outfits, from the Chechen Shishani to ISIS in Syria and then ISIS-K. GUR routinely aims to recruit ISIS and ISIS-K denizens via online chat rooms. Exactly the modus operandi that led to Crocus.

One ''Azan'' association, founded in 2017 by Anvar Derkach, a member of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, actually facilitates terrorist life in Ukraine, Tatars from Crimea included '' from lodging to juridical assistance.

The FSB investigation is establishing a trail: Crocus was planned by pros '' and certainly not by a bunch of low-IQ Tajik dregs. Not by ISIS-K, but by GUR. A classic false flag, with the clueless Tajiks under the impression that they were working for ISIS-K.

The FSB investigation is also unveiling the standard modus operandi of online terror, everywhere. A recruiter focuses on a specific profile; adapts himself to the candidate, especially his '' low '' IQ; provides him with the minimum necessary for a job; then the candidate/executor become disposable.

Everyone in Russia remembers that during the first attack on the Crimea bridge, the driver of the kamikaze truck was blissfully unaware of what he was carrying,

As for ISIS, everyone seriously following West Asia knows that's a gigantic diversionist scam, complete with the Americans transferring ISIS operatives from the Al-Tanf base to the eastern Euphrates, and then to Afghanistan after the Hegemon's humiliating ''withdrawal''. Project ISIS-K actually started in 2021, after it became pointless to use ISIS goons imported from Syria to block the relentless progress of the Taliban.

Ace Russian war correspondent Marat Khairullin has added another juicy morsel to this funky salad: he convincingly unveils the MI6 angle in the Crocus City Hall terror attack (in English here, in two parts, posted by ''S'').

The FSB is right in the middle of the painstaking process of cracking most, if not all ISIS-K-CIA/MI6 connections. Once it's all established, there will be hell to pay.

But that won't be the end of the story. Countless terror networks are not controlled by Western intel '' although they will work with Western intel via middlemen, usually Salafist ''preachers'' who deal with Saudi/Gulf intel agencies.

The case of the CIA flying ''black'' helicopters to extract jihadists from Syria and drop them in Afghanistan is more like an exception '' in terms of direct contact '' than the norm. So the FSB and the Kremlin will be very careful when it comes to directly accusing the CIA and MI6 of managing these networks.

But even with plausible deniability, the Crocus investigation seems to be leading exactly to where Moscow wants it: uncovering the crucial middleman. And everything seems to be pointing to Budanov and his goons.

Ramzan Kadyrov dropped an extra clue. He said the Crocus ''curators'' chose on purpose to instrumentalize elements of an ethnic minority '' Tajiks '' who barely speak Russian to open up new wounds in a multinational nation where dozens of ethnicities live side by side for centuries.

In the end, it didn't work. The Russian population has handed to the Kremlin total carte blanche to exercise brutal, maximum punishment '' whatever and wherever it takes.

Loading...

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:59

NBC News plans to drop former Republican National Committee boss Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor after network stars including MSNBC primetime headliner Rachel Maddow and the co-hosts of ''Morning Joe'' blasted the decision to bring the Trump-backing politico on board, according to a report.

The network has not made an announcement, but one is pending, according to Puck News. The Post has sought comment from NBC and McDaniel.

Earlier on Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal and Variety reported that NBC News executives were meeting to discuss what to do with McDaniel in the face of public opposition from network stars.

Maddow, MSNBC's most bankable name, demanded on her Monday show that NBC executives ''reverse their decision'' to hire McDaniel.

''The fact that Ms. McDaniel is on the payroll at NBC News, to me that is inexplicable,'' Maddow said during Monday's broadcast of her weekly primetime show.

According to the Journal, McDaniel was hired by NBC News editorial chief Rebecca Blumenstein.

NBC News is reportedly planning to drop ex-RNC chair Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor. AP SCOOP @PuckNews: NBC NEWS plans to drop ex RNC-chair Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor following on-air revolt from NBC/MSNBC talent. Execs are deliberating over details; announcement pending. Meanwhile, McDaniel is seeking legal representation.Full details, scoops &'...

'-- Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) March 26, 2024The decision to bring McDaniel aboard was backed by Carrie Budoff Brown, who heads political coverage at NBC News, the Journal reported.

Rashida Jones, the head of MSNBC, reportedly backed the decision to hire McDaniel, but in the face of the uproar among her stable of stars she let it be known that they would not be required to have her on their shows.

McDaniel is reportedly looking to hire a lawyer, according to Puck News.

Maddow on Monday went on to bash McDaniel as ''someone who hasn't just attacked us as journalists, but someone who is part of an ongoing project to get rid of our system of government.''

''You wouldn't hire a made man like a mobster to work at a DA's office, right? You wouldn't hire a pickpocket to work as a TSA screener,'' Maddow concluded.

Earlier Monday, Joe Scarborough and his wife, Mika Brzezinski, who co-host MSNBC's ''Morning Joe,'' pledged on the air that they would not invite McDaniel to their program, calling her an ''anti-democracy election denier.''

The decision to hire McDaniel sparked anger due to her backing of former President Donald Trump.

MSNBC star Rachel Maddow on Monday blasted her network's bosses for the decision to hire McDaniel. MSNBC/YouTubeLast month, Trump's campaign fired McDaniel and dozens of other RNC officials and replaced them with people perceived as more loyal to the presumptive GOP nominee.

The former president reportedly soured on McDaniel because she would not enthusiastically endorse his claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent.

McDaniel's name is mentioned in the Justice Department's indictment of Trump related to his role in the alleged fake elector scheme.

After the 2020 election, Trump and his allies in several states allegedly sought to create a slate of fraudulent electors who would falsely claim that the 45th president had won the Electoral College votes in those states.

According to federal prosecutors, Trump and an ally, attorney John Eastman, sought McDaniel's help in furthering the alleged scheme.

''Morning Joe'' co-hosts Joe Scarborough (right) and Mika Brzezinski pledged not to have McDaniel on their air. NBC NewsThe 45-page indictment handed down by special counsel Jack Smith found that McDaniel was misled.

Trump and Eastman ''falsely represented to [McDaniel] that such electors' votes would be used only if ongoing litigation in one of those states changed the results in [Trump's] favor.''

McDaniel gave an interview to ''Meet the Press'' moderator Kristen Welker on Sunday in which he acknowledged that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election ''fair and square.''

The interview was taped weeks before it was announced that McDaniel would be joining NBC News.

Welker provided an on-air disclaimer on Sunday informing viewers that she had no knowledge of McDaniel's hiring at the time she conducted the interview.

McDaniel and other RNC officials were fired by pro-Trump operatives last month. The former president reportedly soured on McDaniel after she would not enthusiastically endorse his claims about the 2020 election. APChuck Todd, Welker's predecessor, appeared during a separate segment of ''Meet the Press'' on Sunday.

In the panel discussion, Todd hit out at NBC News management for putting Welker in an awkward position.

Joy Reid and Jen Psaki of MSNBC echoed the criticisms aired by Todd, Maddow, Scarborough and Brzezinski.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:53

The original version of this story appeared in Quanta Magazine.

Two years ago, in a project called the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark, or BIG-bench, 450 researchers compiled a list of 204 tasks designed to test the capabilities of large language models, which power chatbots like ChatGPT. On most tasks, performance improved predictably and smoothly as the models scaled up'--the larger the model, the better it got. But with other tasks, the jump in ability wasn't smooth. The performance remained near zero for a while, then performance jumped. Other studies found similar leaps in ability.

The authors described this as ''breakthrough'' behavior; other researchers have likened it to a phase transition in physics, like when liquid water freezes into ice. In a paper published in August 2022, researchers noted that these behaviors are not only surprising but unpredictable, and that they should inform the evolving conversations around AI safety, potential, and risk. They called the abilities ''emergent,'' a word that describes collective behaviors that only appear once a system reaches a high level of complexity.

But things may not be so simple. A new paper by a trio of researchers at Stanford University posits that the sudden appearance of these abilities is just a consequence of the way researchers measure the LLM's performance. The abilities, they argue, are neither unpredictable nor sudden. ''The transition is much more predictable than people give it credit for,'' said Sanmi Koyejo, a computer scientist at Stanford and the paper's senior author. ''Strong claims of emergence have as much to do with the way we choose to measure as they do with what the models are doing.''

We're only now seeing and studying this behavior because of how large these models have become. Large language models train by analyzing enormous data sets of text'--words from online sources including books, web searches, and Wikipedia'--and finding links between words that often appear together. The size is measured in terms of parameters, roughly analogous to all the ways that words can be connected. The more parameters, the more connections an LLM can find. GPT-2 had 1.5 billion parameters, while GPT-3.5, the LLM that powers ChatGPT, uses 350 billion. GPT-4, which debuted in March 2023 and now underlies Microsoft Copilot, reportedly uses 1.75 trillion.

That rapid growth has brought an astonishing surge in performance and efficacy, and no one is disputing that large enough LLMs can complete tasks that smaller models can't, including ones for which they weren't trained. The trio at Stanford who cast emergence as a ''mirage'' recognize that LLMs become more effective as they scale up; in fact, the added complexity of larger models should make it possible to get better at more difficult and diverse problems. But they argue that whether this improvement looks smooth and predictable or jagged and sharp results from the choice of metric'--or even a paucity of test examples'--rather than the model's inner workings.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:07

Bat boxes have been attached to ultra low emission zone (Ulez) camera poles in what appears to be an attempt to frustrate efforts to enforce Sadiq Khan's clean air scheme.

The £10 animal boxes have been installed underneath number plate recognition cameras in Chessington and North Cheam, in south London.

Laminated signs underneath the boxes read: ''Stop! This is a bat box. Bats have been observed to be using this bat box as a resting place.''

Anti-Ulez campaigners have not claimed responsibility for attaching the bat boxes to the camera poles, but some have said the move could make it difficult for Transport for London (TfL) to install or repair cameras because of conservation laws designed to protect bat habitats.

Bats and their roosts are legally protected in Britain and it can be an offence to disturb or destroy a place used by the animals for feeding or resting, or to obstruct access to a bat roost.

'Think they are above the law'One anti-Ulez activist who claimed to be familiar with the strategy told MyLondon: ''The purpose of the bat box is to make it difficult for TfL on any installation, be it a new pole before the camera is installed or a pole where a camera has been damaged, removed or covered et cetera, and the team is returning to attempt to reinstall, repair or clean a camera.

''It will be interesting to see whether TfL and the sub-contractors think that they are above the law regarding bats and will ignore any warnings.''

Kingsley Hamilton, of the Action Against Unfair Ulez website, told The Sun: ''I'm sure whoever is behind it is extremely grateful to TfL for providing the poles to house this protected species.

''Sadiq Khan [the Mayor of London] will not want to be seen to be tampering with their homes after claiming to care so much about protecting the environment.''

TfL said it was a crime to interfere with its network of nearly 4,000 cameras, but a spokeswoman would not confirm if the boxes would be removed.

However, Joe Nunez-Mino, of the Bat Conservation Trust, said: ''A bat box by a main road is not going to be used. I'm not saying it's a zero per cent chance it will be used but it's very low.''

He added that boxes must only be opened by licensed bat workers.

Planning expert David Bird, a solicitor at VWV law firm, said: ''Unless bats have moved in, TfL can just take them down.''

There have been months of protests against the expansion of Ulez.

In February, protesters blocked more than 80 cameras in Sutton. In January 2024 police investigated a spate of suspected anti-Ulez attacks after eight sets of traffic lights were cut down with an angle grinder in Bromley, all of which had cameras attached to them.

In November 2023 the Met Police said nearly 1,000 recorded crimes had been linked to Ulez cameras either being vandalised or stolen.

The £12.50 daily charge for older polluting vehicles was widened to all 32 London boroughs in August 2023 following months of controversy, having previously ended at the North and South Circular roads.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:33

For the last several months, a city at the heart of Silicon Valley has been training artificial intelligence to recognize tents and cars with people living inside in what experts believe is the first experiment of its kind in the United States.

Last July, San Jose issued an open invitation to technology companies to mount cameras on a municipal vehicle that began periodically driving through the city's district 10 in December, collecting footage of the streets and public spaces. The images are fed into computer vision software and used to train the companies' algorithms to detect the unwanted objects, according to interviews and documents the Guardian obtained through public records requests.

Some of the capabilities the pilot project is pursuing '' such as identifying potholes and cars parked in bus lanes '' are already in place in other cities. But San Jose's foray into automated surveillance of homelessness is the first of its kind in the country, according to city officials and national housing advocates. Local outreach workers, who were previously not aware of the experiment, worry the technology will be used to punish and push out San Jose's unhoused residents.

City employees are driving a single camera-equipped vehicle through sections of district 10 ''every couple weeks'', said Khaled Tawfik, director of the San Jose information technology department. The city sends the training footage to participating companies, which include Ash Sensors, Sensen.AI, Xloop Digital, Blue Dome Technologies and CityRover.

Some of the areas in district 10 targeted by the pilot, such as Santa Teresa Boulevard, are places where unhoused people congregate, sometimes with the city's encouragement. The light rail station on Santa Teresa Boulevard, for example, is home to the city's only designated safe parking location for RVs, often used as homes.

There's no set end date for the pilot phase of the project, Tawfik said in an interview, and as the models improve he believes the target objects could expand to include lost cats and dogs, parking violations and overgrown trees.

''If the City were to productionize this technology, we envision the cameras to be on our fleet motor pool vehicles that regularly drive throughout city limits,'' a city employee wrote in a 22 January email.

Ken Salsman, chief technology officer for Ash Sensors, said his company, which specializes in sensors that monitor the structural health of buildings, had not explored homelessness detection before learning of San Jose's pilot. The experiment provided an opportunity to create potentially marketable technologies by solving challenging computer vision problems, such as distinguishing an empty RV parked outside a home from an RV that is a home. He said the company was training its algorithms to detect proxy signs of habitation.

''Are the windows covered inside the vehicle? Are there towels to provide privacy? Is there trash outside the vehicle, suggesting they're using food and having trouble getting rid of the waste?'' Salsman said. He added that successful detection of lived-in vehicles would probably require frequent scanning of city streets in order to establish whether the vehicles have moved.

A report from the company Sensen.AI shows that its system detected 10 lived-in vehicles in footage collected from two streets on 8 February. Several of the vehicles pictured in the report have tarps spread across windows or rolled up and tied to them. Another has traffic cones next to it. Sensen.AI did not respond to a request for comment.

Tawfik said the goal of the pilot was to encourage companies to build algorithmic models that could detect a variety of different objects from car-mounted cameras with at least 70% accuracy. The participating companies are currently detecting lived-in RVs with between 70 and 75% accuracy, he said, but the accuracy for lived-in cars is still far lower: between 10 and 15%. City staff are following the route of the camera-equipped car and confirming that the vehicles are occupied.

'We're not detecting folks. We're detecting encampments'City documents state that, in addition to accuracy, one of the main metrics the AI systems will be assessed on is their ability to preserve the privacy of people captured on camera '' for example, by blurring faces and license plates. Tawfik said that the city did not ''capture or retain images of individuals'' through the pilot and that ''the data is intended for [the city's housing and parks departments] to provide services''.

The data use policy for the pilot states that the footage cannot be actively monitored for law enforcement purposes, but that police may request access to previously stored footage.

''We're not detecting folks,'' Tawfik said. ''We're detecting encampments. So the interest is not identifying people because that will be a violation of privacy.'' However, in its report identifying lived-in vehicles, Sensen.AI wrote that its system included optical character recognition of the vehicles' license plate numbers.

San Jose sits at the heart of Silicon Valley. Photograph: StellaMc/Getty Images/iStockphotoTawfik said San Jose had delayed its release of a citywide AI policy in part to allow the department to examine its proposed guardrails through the lens of the object detection pilot.

Residents have complained to the city's 311 phone line about homeless encampments 914 times so far in 2024. They reported illegal dumping 6,247 times, graffiti 5,666 times, and potholes 769 times last year. The goal of the surveillance pilot is to address these complaints more efficiently, according to Tawfik.

According to Tawfik, the city's response might include sending outreach workers to visit a single tent before it can grow into an encampment, he said. The San Jose housing department and non-profits providing aid to unhoused people said they had not been involved in the pilot.

''Our ability to help the individuals directly is not really part of the pilot,'' Tawfik said. ''We're still learning what can be done. And then once the program is mature, then we can look at the data and see what makes sense.''

That approach worries people like Thomas Knight, who was formerly unhoused and now serves as executive member of the Lived Experience Advisory Board of Silicon Valley. The group, made up of dozens of current and formerly unhoused people, has recently been fighting a policy proposed last August by the San Jose mayor, Matt Mahan, that would allow police to tow and impound lived-in vehicles near schools.

''If their whole purpose is to better provide responses to calls to 311, then that means that this computer system is going to identify tents and lived-in vehicles that are in places that the city has deemed they shouldn't be,'' Knight said. ''The truth is, the only people you're going to be able to give [that data] to to fix the issue is the police department.''

San Jose is one of the least affordable housing markets in the country. In order to afford the average effective monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in the city, a renter would have to earn $96,000 a year, according to the latest available data. The city's unhoused population has grown from approximately 4,200 people in 2009 to more than 6,200 in 2023. More than two-thirds of those people are living outdoors and in vehicles rather than the city's overwhelmed shelter system.

Amid a lack of temporary shelter beds and permanent affordable housing, San Jose officials have cracked down on tent encampments and people living in cars and RVs. Housing advocates fear that identification of encampments by roving AI would add to those efforts.

''The approach to homelessness is to treat unhoused people as blight consistent with trash or graffiti,'' said Tristia Bauman, directing attorney for housing at the non-profit Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.

Last fall, the city cleared dozens of people out of tents and vehicles along a half-mile stretch of the downtown Guadalupe River trail and then announced plans for a ''no return zone''. This year, police distributed 72-hour notices ordering people to leave a nearby encampment in Columbus Park in order to clear space for the opening of a five-acre dog park.

San Jose: a technological bellwetherIn addition to providing a training ground for new algorithms, San Jose's position as a national leader on government procurement of technology means that its experiment with surveilling encampments could influence whether and how other cities adopt similar detection systems. The city's IT department is leading a national coalition of more than 150 municipal agencies working to develop policies for ''responsible and purposeful'' deployment of AI technologies in the public sector.

Tawfik said his staff had discussed the object detection pilot with coalition members and hoped that other agencies would participate in the review process. Companies participating in the pilot have also expressed interest in the ''scalability'' potential the coalition represents, according to emails they sent to IT department staff.

''As we see more interest from other cities to participate, we're sharing notes and hopefully that advances the program faster,'' Tawfik said.

Knight, from the Advisory Board, said the city's focus on perfecting a technological solution ignored the root cause of the housing crisis in San Jose.

''If you have no place to put people, it's pretty much useless,'' he said.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:42

Today (March 25) USDA confirmed highly pathogenic avian influenza in two dairy cattle herds in Texas and two herds in Kansas. That's bird flu in cows. There's no threat to human health, and milk and dairy products remain safe to consume. Even the cows are mildly affected, most recovering within two to three weeks.

We've carried stories in recent weeks about influenza among chicken and turkey flocks, but this is apparently the first occurrence of it in another species of farm animal.

''In keeping with the federal Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, milk from sick cows must be collected separately and is not allowed to enter the food supply chain,'' read a statement from four dairy associations. ''This means affected dairy cows are segregated, as is normal practice with any animal health concern, and their milk does not enter the food supply.''

The associations '' National Milk Producers Federation, International Dairy Foods Association, U.S. Dairy Export Council and Dairy Management Inc. '' did not specify how many cows had been affected.

''Pasteurization kills harmful microbes and pathogens in milk, including the influenza virus,'' they said. ''Also, routine testing and well-established protocols for U.S. dairy will continue to ensure that only safe milk enters the food supply.''

Information related to an illness affecting dairy cows in several states began to circulate over the past two weeks. Dairy producers with affected cows are reporting a rapid onset illness in herds, specifically among older, lactating cows. Signs include:

Decreased herd level milk productionAcute sudden drop in productionDecrease in feed consumptionAbnormal feces and some feverOlder cows may be more likely to be severely impacted than younger cowsUSDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service worked with state veterinary authorities as well as federal partners including the FDA to identify the cause and respond. Dairy farmers have been directed to implement enhanced biosecurity protocols on their farms, limiting the amount of traffic into and out of their properties and restricting visits to employees and essential personnel.

According to dairy farmers and veterinarians reporting on affected herds, most affected cows recover within two to three weeks.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:38

GET OUR FREE E-NEWSLETTER

''You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.''

Published March 24, 2024 Vaccines Findings from a new study published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research Public Health Surveillance showed that a new artificial intelligence (AI) tool is able to predict whether someone is willing to get a COVID-19 shot. Researchers at the University of Cincinnati and Northwestern University aimed to determine the predictive power of a small interpretable set of judgment variables using machine-learning algorithms to profile and predict an individual's likelihood of getting a COVID shot and interpret which judgment variables are important for accurate prediction.1

Machine-learning is a branch of AI and computer science that focuses on using data and algorithms to enable artificial intelligence to imitate the way that humans learn, gradually improving its accuracy.2

Nicole Vike, PhD, lead author of the study and senior research associate at University of Cincinnati College of Engineering and Applied Science, said:

COVID-19 is unlikely to be the last pandemic we see in the next decades. Having a new form of AI for prediction in public health provides a valuable tool that could help prepare hospitals for predicting vaccination rates and consequential infection rates.3

Vaccine Refusal During COVID Pandemic Drove Researchers to Develop AI Tools to Predict BehaviorDespite federal, state, and employment vaccine mandates, many Americans refused to get COVID shots, which led researchers to study the psychology underlying vaccine refusal and differences between people who were fully vaccinated versus those who were not. The researchers state that previous research confirms that reward and aversion judgments are important when making vaccination choices, but there have been no studies using cognitive science with machine-learning to predict if people will or will not take a COVID shot.4

The researchers surveyed 3,476 adult participants across the United States in December 2021 asking questions about their demographics, COVID shot status (whether or not they were fully vaccinated), and COVID precautionary behavior, such as mask wearing, social distancing, hand sanitizing, and not gathering in large groups. Participants also completed a picture-rating task using images from the International Affective Picture System. Images were rated on a Likert-type scale to determine the degree of liking and disliking.5 The Picture System included a large set of emotion provoking color photographs in six categories: sports, disasters, cute animals, aggressive animals, nature and food.6

Dr. Vike said the goal of the picture exercise was to quantify mathematical features of people's judgments when they see mild emotional stimuli. Measures from this task include concepts familiar to behavioral economists or people who gamble such aversion to risk (the point at which someone is willing to accept potential loss for a potential reward) and aversion to loss (the willingness to avoid risk, such as by purchasing insurance). Hans Breiter, a professor of computer science at University of Cincinnati said:

The framework by which we judge what is rewarding or aversive is fundamental to how we make medical decisions.7

Study Illustrates AI Can Make Predictions About Human Attitudes About VaccinesFindings from the study show that artificial intelligence can make accurate predictions about human attitudes with minimal data or reliance on costly clinical assessments. Aggelos Katsaggelos, PhD, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Northwestern University, said:

The study is anti-big-data. It can work very simply. It doesn't need super-computation, it's inexpensive and can be applied with anyone who has a smartphone. We refer to it as computational cognition AI. It is likely you will be seeing other applications regarding alterations in judgment in the very near future.8

The researchers believe that predicting vaccine uptake may assist in vaccine supply chain and administration logistics by identifying geographical areas that may need more or fewer vaccines, targeting messaging to locations with predicted low vaccine uptake, and preparing areas that are more likely to experience more cases of infection that impact health services and infrastructure.9

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view References:

Search by keyword

Search by Published Date

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:32

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)The next item is stage 3 proceedings on the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have with them the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. I remind members that I will sound the division bell for the first division and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first vote of the afternoon. The period of voting for each division will be one minute. Members who wish to speak in a debate on any group should press their request-to-speak button as soon as I call that group.

Section 1'--Aggravation of offences by prejudice

The Presiding OfficerGroup 1 is on characteristic of sex. Amendment 4, in the name of Johann Lamont, is grouped with amendments 17, 21 and 26.

Johann Lamont (Glasgow) (Lab)I have issued a detailed letter to all MSPs, outlining the thinking behind all my amendments, and I trust that colleagues have found that useful. I place on record my thanks to all those groups and organisations, women, and colleagues in the Parliament who have given me support in producing my amendments, and I hope that members will reflect on them positively.

We are dealing with a contentious piece of legislation, and I am happy to participate in debates in a serious way that, I trust, matches the seriousness of the challenges across our communities, which are confronted by hate, hostility, aggression and inequality. I am content to recognise that not everyone will agree with me, and that I shall be persuasive to some and not to others. What I shall not be is hateful'--and I do not think that that is the motivation of anyone in this chamber.

Why am I arguing for my amendments? One view, of course, is that I am driven by transphobia'--an accusation that has been levelled at some women MSPs, in the past, by fellow MSPs. Patrick Harvie MSP confirmed such a view last week, in a reaction to a Twitter comment about my speech last week on international women's day in which I sought to highlight the suffering, discrimination and violence that women suffer globally because of their sex. Patrick Harvie agreed with a comment that I had displayed

''a vicious bit of transphobia''

and added,

''I'm sorry to say we can expect more of that when it comes to stage 3 of the Hate Crime Bill.''

Perhaps we should forgive Patrick Harvie for letting his sense of male entitlement show. However, to foreshadow a debate in the Parliament by ascribing the motive of hatred to me or to any others who want to participate in the debate but who have the audacity to disagree with him, frankly, says a great deal more about his lack of self-awareness than about how we make good law.

I would defend to the death Patrick Harvie's right to make those comments about me, but we should remember that the challenge in this Parliament is to have a serious debate about the impact on our communities. Of course, it is easier to silence people for being full of hatred than it is to address their concerns.

The cabinet secretary has said that there is a very high bar to reach before anyone can be accused of threatening or abusive behaviour, but the truth of the matter is that Patrick Harvie regards what I said in the international women's day debate about the discrimination that women face because of their sex as reaching that bar. Would it not be an irony if I were to become the subject of a report, on the basis of what I said in a debate about the hate crime bill's provisions? That must trouble anyone who wants a serious discussion across our communities about what hatred means.

I am here to speak up for my constituents and for women with whom I have worked for many years, who understand the scale of hatred and violence that women face and have no well-funded lobbying groups to press the case to the Government on their behalf. Lobbying has been an issue in this Parliament'--my colleague Neil Findlay has highlighted that'--but most people have to put their hands in their own pockets if they want to lobby and push their case.

When it comes to this bill, however, the truth is that the key lobbyist, to which the Scottish Government has responded at every turn, and which has not stood with women or argued for women to be included in the bill, has operated at the expense of the public purse. The organisation has argued against women being included in the bill without actually speaking to the women who fund it through their taxes.

I have been patronised by many people over the years. We learn to live with that, but it has been taken to new levels by organisations that speak of equality and the needs of women but never think to test their views against the women in our communities.

Let me move on to the specifics of the amendments in my name and for which I seek support. I want to include sex as an aggravator and to define ''sex'' in the terms of the Equality Act 2010. The proposals are simple. They are supported by Lord Bracadale, who described the omission of sex as a lost opportunity. They are supported by many, many women and by men who stand with them. At heart, the proposition is very simple. If the bill sends a message about the unacceptability of hate crime and offers protections to potential victims of hate crime, as it should do, we might reasonably expect that the group that suffers most as a consequence of hatred'--women'--would be included.

Hatred of women is so commonplace that it is barely remarked on. A cursory glance at the news any day of the week will show it, not lurking but clear and brutal. Today, we saw a report that shows that the scale of the abuse of women across the world is massive and has not changed over time. Women being murdered by men who have gone on the rampage is upsetting but it is never a surprise. Men do these things; we know it. We see the tragedy and know that behind it is an angry man and a terrorised woman and her family. We see it in domestic abuse. We see it in crimes of sexual abuse. We see it in routine behaviour that means that, for women, whether we are walking or running in a park or going to work, anxiety about male violence is our constant companion, from our youth.

When we ask, out loud, the commonsense question of why women, who understand hate crime more than any other group does, are excluded, it is clear that there is no answer that can make sense of the decision. We are told that the issue is complex'--so is the bill. We are told that men are manipulative. We have no doubt that there are men who will manipulate any provision in the bill, including those that relate to other protected characteristics that are identified in the bill.

Huge issues arise for women, but we are content to outsource our thinking to a working group, rather than wrestle with the issues of principle here in the Parliament. We have been given no evidence of the scale of the problem that has been identified by the people who want the working group to consider it. I do not doubt that the working group can do very significant work, but the principle of whether women should be a protected group should be decided here, because it means that when we campaign and have a national push to discuss hate crime, women will be at the centre of the discussion and will not be ignored.

I will finish on these points. I believe that the case for including women is undisputable, but if members are not persuaded, I urge them to at least support amendment 17, which provides the definition of ''sex'' as outlined in the Equality Act 2010. The cabinet secretary said clearly that the sex aggravator should align with the provision in the 2010 act. Even if people accept the outsourcing of work on that huge decision to a working group, with no evidence of why, it is essential that the Parliament defines the work of the group. The amendment makes clear what the definitions of ''men'' and ''women'' are. If members think that those definitions are wrong or are up for debate, say so, and we can have that debate. It should not be for the working group that is being asked to look at the sex aggravator to come back with a new definition of ''sex'' and new definitions of ''men'' and ''women''. Those are big decisions that should be taken by the Parliament.

I trust that members will support my amendments, so that women, who are at the front line of crime that is driven by hatred, are included. As Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network said,

''it is important that people can see themselves in the bill.'''--[Official Report, Justice Committee, 17 November 2020; c 22.]

Well, women are people, too, and they should be seen in the bill and should be included.

I move amendment 4.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)I will speak to the amendments in Johann Lamont's name in group 1, and I thank Johann Lamont for lodging them so that we can debate what I and many women regard as a very serious omission from the bill.

Sex is a characteristic that matters when it comes to understanding levels of violence, which is why hundreds of women have written to me and pleaded for the inclusion of sex as an aggravator in law. Many women constituents are not prepared to wait three years for a working group, and I wonder why the Scottish Government is so convinced of that route in the midst of daily reports of male violence against women.

According to the World Health Organization, one in three women have faced physical or sexual violence in their life. That is why we have 16 days of action for women and girls who face human trafficking, female genital mutilation, rape, murder, forced prostitution, sexual violence and intimate partner violence. The Parliament has involvement in 16 days of action to amplify the voices of women.

I wonder why Scotland is not leading on the issue. Women are regularly the target of offending behaviour based on hostility towards their sex, and it is now well established that women in public life face much higher levels of online abuse than men, which has consequences for their participation. The proposal to add age to the hate crime protected characteristics leaves sex as the main characteristic that would not be protected but is included in the 2010 act. It is a glaring omission and I do not understand why the Scottish Government is asking women to wait for three years. The longer the law is unchanged, the more the message is reinforced that this is not something that is a priority for the Parliament, and it perhaps reinforces fears that women have.

If it was the committee's view and Lord Bracadale's view'--and, as I have said, the view of hundreds of women'--that sex as an aggravator should be included in the hate crime bill, why is that not good enough? I do not understand that, either. Why is Lord Bracadale not good enough but Helena Kennedy and the working group are? It does not make any sense to me to that one legal opinion is rejected as the one that is not wanted. That concerns me deeply.

I have two questions for the cabinet secretary. It would be helpful to know what kind of new law he thinks would include a standalone crime of misogynistic harassment. What would that look like and how would it differ from domestic violence and all the violent crimes that I have outlined? I am genuinely struggling to see what such a crime would look like, since women are already the victims of a range of crimes.

Why can the Scottish Government not put sex as an aggravator in the bill, but still have a working group three years later? If the argument is that if the working group thinks that it should go in the legislation, the Government will include it at that point, surely it could put it in now. If Helena Kennedy takes a different view, we could then change the law. I urge the Parliament to think seriously about omitting sex as an aggravator in a bill about hate crime.

The bill is one of the last pieces of legislation to be dealt with in this parliamentary session, and I urge members to seriously consider voting in favour of the amendments in this group.

16:15

Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)A YouGov poll for UN Women UK that was published this week found that nearly every young woman in the United Kingdom had suffered sexual harassment. Claire Barnett, executive director of UN Women UK, pointed out that it is a human rights issue. As Ms Barnett said,

''It's just not enough for us to keep saying, 'this is too difficult a problem for us to solve''--it needs addressing now''.

It does need to be addressed now, and that is why putting off the issue until the next parliamentary session is not convincing. That is why I will vote against the Government whip to support Johann Lamont's amendments on the issue today. Initially, I did not take that view, because I understand that the proposed sex aggravator is gender neutral. I preferred the idea of an offence of misogyny, or even a female sex aggravator, which was never on the cards'--although, given that the hate crime protections in the bill extend to characteristics that do not exist in the Equality Act 2010, perhaps there is really no reason why that could not be the case.

I became convinced that the scale of the sexist violence that women experience at male hands, including the two women a week who are killed by men in the UK, meant that it would be bizarre to exclude them from at least part 1 of the bill. The thing that finally turned me to my current position was the Government's decision to expand the definition of transgender identity to include cross-dressers who are not trans identified. That is not the definition of gender reassignment in the Equality Act 2010. It will seem bizarre to many people that men who enjoy cross-dressing are protected from hate crime, but women are not.

When we last debated violence against women last November, several members, including ministers, praised the femicide census, which documents the killing of 1,425 women by men in the UK last year, yet we seem to be saying that femicide is not hate. I know that a sex aggravator would protect men, but that is already the case under the 2010 act. In the 2010 act, sex is the characteristic, but it mainly protects women. In the bill, as in the 2010 act, the protected characteristics of race and sexual orientation also protect straight people and white people but would be applied most often in crimes against gay people and black people, who face the most oppression. Therefore, why not also include sex, which would protect women more than men?

A number of official women's organisations, which have been mentioned by Johann Lamont and which work closely with and are funded by central Government, have backed the decision not to include a sex aggravator. However, as the ForWomen Scotland briefing points out, none of those organisations did any research, even in their own networks, before getting to that position. Those organisations suggest that men could weaponise hate crime in domestic violence cases, but our domestic violence laws are already gender neutral.

Members should be aware that there is a reason why funded organisations take such a view. In the past few years, a major ideological schism has opened up in feminist thought, which has its roots in university gender and so-called queer studies courses, in which it is argued that gender is a personal choice and that sex is an identity. That view is taken by the leadership of most Government-funded organisations. However, it is increasingly being challenged by a growing number of grass-roots feminist movements, which argue that gender roles are oppressive and that women face discrimination, violence and subjugation due to the sex that they were born.

The debate is polarised, but it is dynamic and changing. Only yesterday, one of the grass-roots feminist groups succeeded in a legal challenge to the UK census, which will force the Office for National Statistics to collect only sex at birth and legal sex information in the census. Just two years ago, when my committee took evidence on that issue for our census, the public authorities and some of those funded women's organisations told us that it was not possible to do so. Those organisations also opposed Johann Lamont's amendment 28 to the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Bill, which ensured that rape victims were able to choose the sex, not just the gender, of their medical examiner. Make no mistake'--such positions are as ideological as they are absurd and they have nothing to do with protecting women. I am therefore proud to support Johann Lamont's amendments today.

Elaine Smith (Central Scotland) (Lab)I will make a short intervention in support of the amendments in group 1 that have been lodged by Johann Lamont.

Over the past few weeks, members from across the chamber have spoken up against the growing inequalities that women in our society face; they have all expressed concerns about the unacceptability of continuing violence and abuse against women and the urgent need to take action, which Johann Lamont, Pauline McNeill and Joan McAlpine have just outlined in their contributions.

However, today, when we are discussing measures to tackle hate crime, the cabinet secretary proposes to refer the inclusion of the characteristic of sex as an aggravator to a working group. It is not just Johann Lamont who is concerned about that. Women across Scotland are asking whether that is really the best that this Parliament can do.

This is not a new discussion. Thirteen years ago, in 2008, my colleague Marlyn Glenn raised the same point when the Parliament was considering the Offences (Aggravation By Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill. However, violence against women, misogyny and hatred of women were not included. During the evidence sessions on this hate crime bill, voices from the Muslim community called for support for mechanisms to measure hate crimes that are perpetrated against Muslim women.

I agree with all those grass-roots women's organisations that spoke up during evidence sessions and with all those who cannot understand why we would effectively exclude women in this piece of legislation.

As the working group gets on with its work, additional measures to tackle misogyny can, of course, be considered although, when the cabinet secretary rises, a response to Pauline McNeill's question on that would be most welcome.

For the legislation to be meaningful and understood, we have a responsibility to be very clear on what this Parliament means when defining men and women as two sexes. From the correspondence that I have received, I know that the people of Scotland, in the great majority, understand that, too. We cannot put women's concerns and fears to one side, and I was shocked by the lack of serious consultation with the women of Scotland, as well as the number of men who are queueing up to tell women what we should think and how we should feel and, frankly, trying to stop our voices from being heard.

I support the amendments in the name of Johann Lamont.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)This is an important debate and I do not wish to silence anyone's voices. There are important issues at stake here and it is right that that is reflected in the debate.

Like many men'--I know that people would say that that is a privileged position'--I have frequently spoken about women's experiences of sexism, misogyny, harassment and abuse. There is no acceptable level of toxic masculinity.

Like everyone on the Justice Committee, I warmly welcome the appointment of the distinguished human rights campaigner Helena Kennedy QC and, more recently, I have commended the strong and talented group of women who were appointed to her working group. There is no doubt that progress in dealing with sexism, misogyny, harassment and abuse has been slow, as we have heard from the previous speakers. However, with this working group, it will gather pace. I want the world to be a better place quicker. I am not sure where some of the contributors get a figure of three years from; perhaps we will hear from the cabinet secretary about that.

However, the misrepresentation that is endemic in much of the discourse around this debate is, at best, disappointing, sometimes mischievous and, on some occasions, simply malicious. Some of the horrendous circumstances that women face, which we have heard about, are already covered by legislation, but we need to look at the concerns that have been highlighted.

However, one might reasonably anticipate the furore that would follow if a male politician such as me said, ''Let's disregard this working group, with its distinguished woman leader. It doesn't matter that the group's work, with all these talented women, is under way. I want to put in the legislation what I want at this time, regardless of what they might plan.'' Words, tactics and intent are important. As before, I will not support amendments of that nature because, as before, I am not prepared to pre-empt or jeopardise the important work of Dame Helena Kennedy's group.

Elaine SmithOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is unfortunate that, given the way in which the Parliament has to operate during the Covid pandemic, there is no way of intervening on members to clarify points. I do not hear anyone in the chamber saying anything about the membership of the misogynistic harassment working group. As women, we are quite happy to support the group and to see what happens at the end of its work, but we have waited 13 years for legislation. We do not see why we should wait any longer and why a sex aggravator should not be included in the bill. The working group, with its distinguished members, can, of course, continue with its work.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Ms Smith. The point of order relating to proceedings is accurate, in the sense that debates and discussions in which members participate online are very restricted, and it is not possible for those members to take interventions. I recognise that, but I am afraid that all members have to work with the current system.

However, the point of argument that Ms Smith raised has now been put on the record.

Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)Labour will support all the amendments in the group. As Johann Lamont and Pauline McNeill said, in his review of existing hate crime legislation, Lord Bracadale recommended that we introduce sex as a protected characteristic in the bill, and he said that the decision not to include it was ''perhaps a missed opportunity.''

I note the concerns of many, including the Scottish Government, on the issue, and that the Justice Committee, in its stage 1 report, said that the arguments are ''finely balanced''.

The establishment of the working group on misogynistic harassment, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, is important, and we will follow its work closely. We welcome the commitment to publish a report within 12 months, and we hope that it will not take three years. However, as Pauline McNeill said, we worry that there will be a gap in the legislation for those 12 months if we do not include a sex aggravator in the bill, and we worry about the time that it will take for further legislation to be enacted.

As others have said, women are subjected to hate because of their sex, and I am concerned, as other members are, that not only is there a gap in the legislation, but that we might send the message that women are less deserving of the protections that are afforded by the bill from the hate crimes that they experience.

The Government suggests that a sex aggravator can be added later, pending the working group's conclusions, but the reverse is also true. Any primary legislation that results from the working group's conclusions could remove or replace the sex aggravator if consensus on a preferred alternative can be found.

Amendment 4 would add sex as an aggravator and would allow courts to record offences as having been aggravated by ''malice and ill-will'' towards the victim because of their sex.

Amendment 17 provides the definition of sex, as it is defined in the Equality Act 2010, for the purposes of amendment 4. Amendments 21 and 26 are incidental to amendments 4 and 17.

For those reasons, Labour will support all the amendments in the group, and I urge the cabinet secretary and other members to support them, too.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)As a member of the Justice Committee'--I should say that I am also a member of the Law Society of Scotland'--I have had the opportunity to consider the copious amount of written and oral evidence that the committee received. We received a lot of evidence from a lot of different people, who had a lot of different perspectives on a lot of different issues.

On the issue at hand, and further to consideration of the evidence, it is clear to me that, through the approach that is proposed, we have the opportunity to do something different, substantial and meaningful in relation to the abuse that women suffer day and daily. I have to ask myself the question: what is the point of pursuing the same legislative approach that we have seen decade after decade? That approach has not produced any better results for women; it has not delivered for women. The term ''gender neutral'' does not deliver for women. Provisions of the Istanbul convention lend support to that.

Johann LamontDoes Annabelle Ewing agree that the women's groups that argue against the sex aggravator on that basis welcomed the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which was gender neutral, as being the gold standard?

Annabelle EwingI think that we all welcomed the 2018 act, which is, indeed, the gold standard and something that the Parliament and the Scottish Government can be very proud of. On the specifics, I do not think that we can make quite the same analogy.

16:30

However, as I said, after decade after miserable decade of the abuse that every woman in this chamber will have suffered at some time'--while it will perhaps have been, in the main, verbal abuse, for some women it will have been more than that, and I would include myself in that category'--I think that it is time to try to do something different.

What is proposed here is a working group that is to report within 12 months, which is from an amendment that I proposed and to which the committee agreed in terms of the principle of a time limit being put in place. The working group will look at the misogynistic harassment issue, but it will also look at the issue of a sex aggravator. The group will report to the Parliament, and it will therefore be the Parliament, as the democratic Parliament of our country, that will consider the issues and take decisions.

Colleagues will know that I very much recognise the importance of the principle of the immutability of sexual dimorphism and the importance of not conflating sex and gender, and that I have argued for that in the Parliament and in the committee on the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, to which my colleague Joan McAlpine referred. I therefore very much recognise the concerns about those issues, but I feel that, having studied the evidence and as a lawyer, the concerns about that debate are becoming part of the debate on the bill before us. I do not necessarily see the two issues as being contemporaneous in that regard.

The Equality Act 2010, which has been mentioned, remains part of the legislation that governs our activities, and we cannot act ultra vires of the 2010 act. Therefore, inserting into the bill before us definitions from the 2010 act and other pieces of legislation seems to me, from a legal perspective, not to make much sense. The Equality Act 2010 is on the statute book and it governs everything that we can do. For the reasons that I have stated, I will not support the amendments in group 1.

The Presiding OfficerI call the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Humza Yousaf.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Humza Yousaf)I start by thanking Johann Lamont and all those members who have spoken to her amendments. Although I am about to explain in detail why the Government will not support her amendments, I state for the record that I have known Johann Lamont for quite a few years. We were political opponents in Glasgow Pollok during the most recent election and for years before that. For all the disagreements that I have with her, I do not doubt for one second'--not for one millisecond'--her commitment to tackling hatred. I have known her to stand on the same platform and denounce hatred in all its forms. Although our debate will be robust'--we have heard much of that robustness already'--I state for the record that I do not doubt at all her intentions in relation to her proposed amendments. I welcomed the respectful but robust manner in which issues were debated at stage 2, and I am certain that contributions throughout today's proceedings will be made in a similar manner.

There remains a pressing need, as members have already stated, to tackle misogyny and gender-based violence in Scotland, and the Government is committed to doing so. Indeed, it is clear that there is a shared ambition across the Parliament to doing so. However, it is also clear that there are strong but often diverging views on how that important issue should be tackled. Johann Lamont's amendments would result in the characteristic of ''sex'' being added to the list of characteristics in section 1 of the bill and would add a provision to define sex. She is right that, in principle, I do not oppose the intention behind the inclusion of sex in the hate crime legislative framework. I said publicly on the record, when Lord Bracadale's report came to me, that my initial view was to include a sex aggravator.

As I outlined at committee during stage 2, I know that, on the face of it, including ''sex'' in the bill seems appealing. To exclude the category of sex, as members have said, seems counterintuitive. However, we also heard during the committee's oral evidence sessions and know from its written evidence that a number of organisations that have decades of experience of standing up for women's rights, such as Scottish Women's Aid, Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland and Zero Tolerance Scotland, expressed concerns that a neutral sex aggravator could do harm to women. I will come to some of the reasons why that is shortly.

However, there is a concerning element in the remarks that have been made. We can accept that there are differences of opinion, but I am deeply disturbed by the insinuation that a few members have made about organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland, Engender and Zero Tolerance Scotland. Members have every right to disagree, but we should recognise not only that those groups provide a life-saving service for many women but that they have decades of credibility in this area. It is absolutely true that they are Government-funded, but the dangerous insinuation behind labelling them as such is that they are simply doing what the Government wants. Anybody who has had any dealings with Dr Marsha Scott, Sandy Brindley or Emma Ritch knows that they are no Government patsies. When they need to challenge the Government, they do so strongly. Therefore, although we are right to disagree, I plead with members not to denigrate those organisations that have done so much to advance women's rights over the years.

I was struck by a number of the concerns that Women's Aid organisations raised regarding the introduction of a neutral sex aggravator that would apply to men just as it would to women. They said that it could become another tool for domestic abuse perpetrators to use as part of a wider pattern of coercive control. We know that perpetrators of abuse often use the criminal or, indeed, the civil justice process to perpetuate that abuse.

I want to read a quote from Grampian Women's Aid. Some members have talked about national organisations and have made an insinuation'--in fact, not an insinuation but a direct accusation'--that those organisations have not spoken to women on the ground. This is what Grampian Women's Aid said:

''we see time and time again, attempts by perpetrators to use elements of the criminal and civil justice system to enforce or extend control and abuse of children and women ... including calling the police and claiming to be victims when they are in fact abusers ... We of course can only speculate about the impact of a gender aggravation for hate crime laws. However, it is our understanding that there is no evidence that such an aggravation has helped protect women where it has been used elsewhere, and we are absolutely confident that perpetrators will attempt to use it to their own benefit should it be introduced in Scotland.''

In her intervention on Annabelle Ewing, Johann Lamont made a point about the domestic abuse aggravator being neutral. Given what Grampian Women's Aid said, why would we want to give perpetrators a potential additional tool to use in the perpetuation of their abuse?

That is not the only argument that women's organisations have used. Engender has a 35-page report. I will not go into the policy detail of that, but it is worth recognising that serious concerns have been raised by serious organisations that have a pedigree, a credibility and an integrity when it comes to standing up for women's rights.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me to ask experts'--as we have done with the working group, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy, who is a lifelong feminist and a human rights lawyer'--to look at where there might be gaps in the law and to examine a stand-alone offence of misogyny, but also to examine the issue of the inclusion in the bill of a sex aggravator.

Johann Lamont referred to that a couple of times as outsourcing that work. I happen to disagree. As legislators, we are at our best when we ask experts such as Baroness Kennedy to look at issues in great detail. She has a panel of experts with specialisms in Scots law, human rights and women's equality, and she has managed to bring in advisory counsel from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to support the working group. That group had its first meeting on 12 February and the next one is scheduled for later this month.

Pauline McNeill kept referring to a period of three years. I have no idea where that number has come from. She joined us online, so she might not be able to intervene, but I would be happy to take an intervention because, as I have already set out in writing to every member, and as the working group has confirmed, the group will conclude its work within 12 months of 12 February. I have also confirmed that if, after exploring all the arguments that have been raised by Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and members of this Parliament, it concludes that a sex aggravator should be included, the Scottish National Party Government, if we are re-elected, will include a sex aggravator. I would bring forward the draft order to do that within a month. That work is continuing at pace. It will not take three years, and I am not sure where that figure has come from.

Regarding a definition of sex, as I have said previously, I do not have an in-principle objection to alignment with the Equality Act 2010. What I will not do, though, is prejudge the work that Baroness Helena Kennedy is undertaking in that regard. I do not have a fundamental, in-principle objection to what Johann Lamont is suggesting or doing; it is simply the case that I recognise what has been said by organisations that have decades of credibility in standing up for women's rights. They have expressed very serious concerns, many of which were articulated very well by my colleague Annabelle Ewing.

I ask members to give the working group the time that it needs'--12 months, as the committee asked'--to explore the issue, come forward with recommendations and create, potentially, a world-leading approach. Therefore, I ask members to vote against Johann Lamont's amendments 4, 17, 21 and 26.

The Presiding OfficerBefore I invite Johann Lamont to wind up on the group, I notice that Pauline McNeill has requested to speak, so I will bring her in.

Pauline McNeillThank you, Presiding Officer. I asked the cabinet secretary a number of questions. Many commentators have concerns about the length of time that his approach would take. Whatever commitment the cabinet secretary gives, he will have to allow some legislative time and the committee will have to pursue the matter, so many people think that it will take at least a few years. I will not be tied to the three years, but there are certainly concerns about the timescale. I also note the extraordinary times that we are in.

The cabinet secretary might not be able to reply to this, but I asked a question about what a crime looks like. He did not answer that, nor did he answer another question that I put. If he is not against a sex aggravator, which is what he said at the beginning, and given that Helena Kennedy is going to look at the matter, what would be the problem with inserting it now and then revising it in the future? He could have done that, and it seems to me that he has got into an argument for no reason.

Humza YousafI thank Pauline McNeill for that and I thank you, Presiding Officer, for facilitating that intervention.

On the reason why we should not include a sex aggravator now, I note that Rhoda Grant, who might take part in the stage 3 proceedings later on, suggested that we should include it now and then remove it later if the working group says that it should not be in the legislation. However, a concern is held by Scottish Women's Aid and many others that a sex aggravator, which could apply to men as much as it would apply to women, could do harm. If the suggestion is that we should include it, allow it to do harm to women and then remove it because the expert working group has said, ''Yup'--it has done harm'', I would ask how many women would be harmed in that process. To me, that seems the wrong way to go about it.

Forgive me'--I did not understand Pauline McNeill's question about what would be a crime, but I am happy to take that away and perhaps address it in writing to her.

The Presiding OfficerI call Johann Lamont to wind up on the group.

Johann LamontThank you, Presiding Officer. You will appreciate that there are quite a significant number of areas that I want to get through.

I have asked why we would ask the question out loud and then not include women in a hate crime bill when we all know that women are the most serious victims. People have said, ''Well, it's all a bit complicated'', but people have been saying that to women since I was a child. They have said that it is too difficult to get women into public spaces or to deal with difficult behaviour and that women have caring responsibilities. If we had taken that attitude, we would never have changed anything.

I commend Pauline McNeill, Joan McAlpine and Elaine Smith for their contributions, which proved that there are a lot of talented women who have something to say about the issue. We should listen to them, because those women are speaking up on behalf of women across the country who have lobbied the Government on the matter.

I very much respect Annabelle Ewing for what she has said and done, particularly around the issue of not conflating sex and gender. I recognise that, but I think that she is wrong in the conclusion that she has come to. She understands that there is a problem for women in relation to hate crime, but says that it should not be central to any strategy or Government legislation, or the campaign around it that says that women should be part of that work.

A number of arguments have been made on the subject. We are told that it is very complex, but I make the point again that hate crime legislation in its entirety is complex. It is our job to work our way through complex legislation.

16:45

We are told that a sex aggravator might work against women because of manipulative men. Therefore, because the perpetrators are ultra-manipulative, we have to pull back. That, again, is a counsel of despair; if we had listened to it in the past, we would never have legislated on rape, coercive control or domestic abuse. I make the point again that although the domestic abuse legislation is gender neutral, it protects women, who overwhelmingly are the victims of domestic abuse.

We are also told that women can wait. It might only be a year'--we are a bit vague about how long it will take'--but women can wait until we make sure that we get this absolutely right. On the other hand, when people have said, ''Given the complexities of the bill as a whole, perhaps it might be better to try to bring people together and get our communities to understand what we are doing, pause the bill and build consensus,'' we have been told, ''No'--we cannot wait.'' Let the women wait, but not every other issue in relation to the bill. That does not make sense.

In his contribution, John Finnie said that he was not willing to jeopardise the talented group of women, at least one of whom will be representing a group that is actively opposed to the sex aggravator being in legislation. I accept that it is a very talented group of women, but our point is that there are a lot of very talented women right across our communities who understand exactly what hate crime is, and we should be talking to them about what protections they should have.

It is ludicrous to say that the only way forward to address the needs of women is to set up a working group. I am sure that the working group can do a lot of really good work; they are very talented people. However, there is no reason to prevent the sex aggravator from being put into legislation and then let the group work on the detail. If there are unintended consequences, the group can address them.

A lot has been made of the evidence that manipulative men would make things more difficult for women, but, of course, we are talking about an aggravator. The men are already manipulating the initial charge of violence'--we know that, and we need to deal with it. The argument does not make any sense.

I want to talk briefly about what the cabinet secretary has said. Let me be clear: I have a lot of respect for the groups that are opposed to the position that I have taken. Indeed, when I was a minister, I funded those organisations to ensure that women were protected in the justice system and given refuge and support, so I have no problem with them whatsoever.

My argument is not that those groups are silenced by their connection to funding from the Scottish Government; it is that the Scottish Government overwhelmingly listens to them above any other groups. Indeed, we found out this week that the Scottish Government does not have a list of groups of women to test its ideas against. The only people that they have are the four groups that they fund. That is a closed circle, and we want to break into that circle and say that there is another set of ideas and arguments: that women need protection in the law. That can be done in principle; afterwards, let the working group do its very best.

I commend Joan McAlpine in particular, partly for her fantastic speech making the case, but also for having the courage to indicate that she will support my amendments against the position of her own Government. I am absolutely confident that if the cabinet secretary allowed his back benchers to do what they know is right, they would support the sex aggravator, support the working group doing the detailed work and definitely support the definition of sex that is in current legislation.

It is clear that this Government has form on changing definitions. It is in the courts at this very moment, defending a change in definition regarding the legislation on gender representation on public boards. That has been changed. Joan McAlpine was the person who took to the Scottish Government the attempt to change the Census Act 1920 and redefine the question on sex; she has informed a lot of the work around what is now in court.

I will finish on this point. If we listen to women and look at women's experience, it is self-evident that women should be covered by the bill. Women would not argue for something that would make their lives worse. I urge the Scottish Government to listen to women and to what Tim Hopkins said. People need to see themselves in the legislation. Women are people, and they, more than anyone, know that they need the protection of the law.

I urge members across the chamber to support my amendments. If they feel that they cannot, they should at least ensure that we do not have a working group coming back in a year's time having redefined behind our backs the meaning of sex and men and women and, when people ask about it, saying, ''Why are you moving against that change?'' Let the working group do its best, but we make the decisions on that.

Fundamentally, as we all know, women face hate, violence and abuse, and they deserve the protection of the law as much as anyone else.

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, I will suspend the meeting for five minutes to summon members to the chamber and to allow members, including those who are offline, to access the voting app.

16:51 Meeting suspended.

17:00 On resuming'--

The Presiding OfficerWe come to the division on amendment 4, in the name of Johann Lamont. Members may cast their votes now.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you had any difficulty in voting.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division on amendment 4, in the name of Johann Lamont, is: For 53, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

Section 3'--Offences of stirring up hatred

The Presiding OfficerGroup 2 is on the threshold for and operation of offences relating to stirring up hatred. Before I call the first amendment, in the name of Liam Kerr, as we are already nearing the agreed time limit, I am prepared to exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate on group 2 to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being curtailed unreasonably.

Amendment 32, in the name of Liam Kerr, is grouped with amendments 33, 5 to 10, 15, 30 and 31.

Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)My amendments in group 2 are split into two broad principles, and I will speak to each in turn.

Amendments 32 and 33 try to protect the right to private and family life, but in slightly different ways. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to provide a defence for words that are spoken in a private dwelling and that are not heard by any other person except those within the dwelling. The defence is similar to those in public order laws in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. My intention was to reflect the fact that, as the committee unanimously agreed, the proposed legislation describes itself as being concerned with ''public'' disorder. Under stirring-up laws, prosecution over private conversations in the home must surely constitute a violation of privacy and the human right to a family and private life.

During its evidence taking, the committee heard concerns that allegations could be made by individuals after an argument at a dinner party or similar social event and could then be investigated by the police. Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation warned us that conversations on contentious issues could be repeated innocently by children at school, which could then lead to reporting. The police would have no choice but to investigate and take witness statements from others present at the time of the speech, which could presumably include one's own children.

Without a private and family life defence, the bill could lead to a scenario in which parents censor themselves in their own homes because they are anxious that their children might repeat, out of context, something that they have said. We must not make it the job of the police to investigate private disputes and to use the criminal law to set the parameters of acceptable opinion, even in the private sphere.

At stage 2, the cabinet secretary expressed concerns about people stirring up hatred in the home and folk then going out and expressing that. I heard his argument on that, so I have drafted my amendments specifically to address those concerns.

Amendment 32 makes it clear that, if a person is in their usual residence and behaves in a way that could constitute stirring up hatred, or communicates material that could constitute that, but no one outside the dwelling hears or sees it, they do not commit an offence. However, the caveat that I have added is that that defence is applicable only if the other people in the house at that time are either their family or people with whom the house is shared, plus another person from a different household. The beauty of that clause is that it entirely addresses the cabinet secretary's concerns while ensuring that people can speak freely, without fearing an investigation or prosecution.

Humza YousafI have a simple question for Mr Kerr. If I were to be beaten up because of the colour of my skin, does he think that I would care whether that hatred had been stirred up within a stranger or, for example, his own brother? It would not make a difference to me, as the victim of such a hate crime, whether I had been beaten up by a relative of his or by a stranger.

Liam KerrNo'--of course it would not. However, here we are talking about the dwelling defence and how we protect people from hate speech that might happen around their dinner table. I will address the cabinet secretary's point as we move through the debate.

I have lodged a further amendment, just in case members remain concerned about the reference to an extra non-family person. Amendment 33 provides a defence if

''the only people present when the behaviour or communication of material occurs''

are the family of or those who live with

''the person engaging in the behaviour or communication''.

None of what I propose is ground breaking. There is precedent for a family and private life defence. Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 provides that an offence is not committed if the accused's behaviour takes place inside a dwelling and is not seen or heard by others. Interestingly, the Law Commission in England recently reviewed whether such a dwelling defence should remain in public order laws. Just last month, it announced that the mechanism should stay to ensure a proper balance between tackling vile behaviour and respecting privacy.

Since the bill that is before us seeks to increase the coverage of the stirring-up offence, it makes sense to import a similar dwelling defence, to protect the right to a private family life and ensure that the public order element of the bill's title remains pertinent. I therefore intend to press amendments 32 and 33.

Amendments 6 to 10, 15 and 31, in my name, all go towards the same point. From the start of the bill process, I have argued that part 2 needed to be removed and rethought, because we have to get this right. On this'--the most controversial bill in the Scottish Parliament's history'--most of the concerns have centred on part 2. In a truncated timetable, and extraordinarily difficult and unprecedented circumstances, parliamentarians and the committee have worked well, and vital changes have been made. However, despite all the evidence taking, all the amendments at stage 2 and all the committee's emergency sessions, significant concerns remain.

The bill, as amended, requires that behaviour must be judged abusive or threatening by a ''reasonable person'' and must be

''intended to stir up hatred'',

which is a considerable improvement. However, those terms are not further defined. Although it has been argued that their meaning will be obvious and that they will set a high bar, there is no doubt that the meaning of what is hateful, abusive or reasonable is contested.

Even should some of the many further amendments be agreed to today, huge questions will remain around, for example, what the police could be dragged into adjudicating under part 2. Murray Blackburn Mackenzie warned:

''if the Bill is passed in the form the government is seeking ... the freedom to ... make certain types of statements ... without risking at least serious disruption to life will now rest wholly on what front-line police officers decide in practice a 'reasonable person' might judge 'abusive'''.

On the freedom of expression provisions, which we will consider shortly, although the Scottish Government has lodged an alternative section, which may still be further amended in the next group, we will all have had extensive representations suggesting that it might still not be quite right.

Members will have seen recent representations from many reputable organisations this week raising concerns that the wording is not wide enough to put it beyond doubt that merely offensive or controversial speech is not grounds for a stirring-up hatred prosecution to take place. The Society of Editors illustrates my point, saying:

''The SoE fears that unless there are safeguards put in place the 'reasonable person' test stands every chance of being highjacked and used to silence free speech and penalise a free media.

At the very least, the definition stands the chance of creating a chilling effect of the UK's media.''

Is the society right? I do not know, but what if it is?

Much more thought needs to be given to the content and compass of the stirring-up offences. The cabinet secretary, the Parliament and hundreds of groups have tried for a year now to find the solution, but too many people think that the solution may not have been found. I therefore offer my solution to Parliament. If part 2 is removed from the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, it will allow the bill to proceed, to consolidate existing provisions, to add a new statutory aggravator on age and to remove the blasphemy offence. We can then come back in the next parliamentary session, and a new Administration can look afresh at this disputed area.

I can anticipate the worry that people will have that, if part 2 were to be removed, it could leave people unprotected. Let me allay those fears, as I have also lodged amendment 31, which reinstates the existing protections provided by the Public Order Act 1986, ensuring that there is no reduction in existing protection should my amendments be accepted.

I will move amendment 6, and its consequentials, to remove part 2, so that the Parliament can be secure in the knowledge that there will be no reduction in protections, so that it can pass the rest of the bill and so that, in the next session, it can allow more time for renewed scrutiny and stakeholder engagement on the stirring-up offences to ensure that we get them right in order to protect what must be protected and who must be protected, while not infringing rights that must not be infringed.

I move amendment 32.

Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con)It has been clear for months that, notwithstanding all the criticisms that have been made about the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, a majority of MSPs support the proposed legislation, it will pass at stage 3 tonight and it will be enacted into law.

In all my involvement with the bill, I have sought to improve it. Of course, I could have spent the past few months simply trying to obstruct the bill, but it has been clear for a long time that it will pass, so what would have been the point of that? I want to ensure that the Parliament passes good law. My amendments'--both those in this group and those in the next group to be debated'--are designed not to thwart the policy objectives of those whose bill it is but to improve the delivery of those policy objectives in the law that we make.

I am in favour of hate crimes being crimes. I do not want to live in a country where people are free to threaten or abuse one another with the intention of stirring up hatred against them. I am also passionately in favour of individual freedom and liberty. When we are seeking to criminalise behaviour that stirs up hatred, we must do so with extreme care and caution. In particular, we must guard against two vices, either one of which could hole the good intentions of the bill below the waterline. We must guard against vagueness, and we must guard against overbreadth. We must specify, as precisely as we can, exactly what it is that we are seeking to criminalise, and we must ensure that we do not inadvertently catch within the web of our criminal law behaviour that ought properly to be left free.

That is what my amendments, both in this group and in the next, are designed to achieve. They do it by remembering this: that when we legislate, as we do here, on the terrain of fundamental human rights, our rights and liberties should be interpreted and understood expansively, and restrictions on our rights and liberties should be contemplated only where necessary, in the public interest, to safeguard a legitimate aim.

17:15

Stirring-up offences are not new. The bill does not invent them, although it expands them considerably. We have had stirring-up offences with regard to racial hatred since the 1960s, and they are found now in the Public Order Act 1986. The full short title of the bill is the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill. That is no accident, yet it seems to have been overlooked in much of the debate on and commentary about the bill. The stirring-up offences are offences of public disorder, and they sit alongside other public order offences such as riot, affray, violent disorder and breach of the peace.

One does not need to be a lawyer to understand that, in order to commit a public order offence, there needs to be a public element to what one does. One cannot commit riot in private, and nor should it be possible for someone to be convicted of stirring up hatred if what they have done occurred only in private and there was no public element to it. That is the effect of the law at the moment. Section 18 of the 1986 act, which criminalises the stirring up of racial hatred, provides that the offence is not committed if the accused's behaviour takes place inside a dwelling and is not seen or heard by others.

It is, of course, the case that the criminal law does not stop at the threshold of one's home. Our domestic abuse statutes are just one example of that. If I were to invite half a dozen pals to my home and treat them to a rant of antisemitic bilge, and they were to go off and desecrate the nearest synagogue, I should, of course, be liable for a hate crime. I would have invited people into my home and used it as a platform for sharing my racist, bigoted views. Such behaviour would be caught by the bill as it is presently drafted, and my amendment 5 would do nothing to alter that.

Let us consider a different example, however. Let us imagine that I have a family gathering'--a Friday night supper'--at which my unreconstructed and somewhat embarrassing elderly uncle makes disparaging remarks about a same-sex couple and my somewhat oversensitive 15-year-old daughter, offended at what she has heard, tells her best friend about what has been discussed at my family dinner table. Her friend's father is a police officer, and the next thing we know is that there is a knock at the door and my elderly uncle is under criminal investigation. Is that really where we want the hate crime bill to go? Do we really want it to deal with family dinner table conversations that take place only in private, with no public element at all? I do not think so, and the Justice Committee did not think so, either.

In its stage 1 report, the committee reached the following unanimous conclusion:

''The Committee believes that there should not be an absolute defence against prosecution based on whether someone was inside a dwelling or not when it comes to words expressed, behaviour or the display of written material. However, care also needs to be taken that people are not investigated for, charged with, or prosecuted for, offences based on their personal views, however abhorrent others may consider them to be, if the expression of those views took place in a private space, such as their own house, and there was no public element.''

That was the unanimous, all-party conclusion of the Justice Committee, which took extensive evidence on that point. Giving effect to that conclusion is exactly what my amendment 5 would do.

We all need a safe space where we can let off steam. The right to respect for private and family life and for home is a fundamental human right. If we abuse our homes, inviting others into them and converting them into platforms for threatening or abusive behaviour that is intended to stir up hatred, the criminal law should of course apply. Therefore, my amendment is not a dwelling defence: it does not exclude everything that happens inside the home from the criminal law. It is a criminal defence. It protects the privacy of wholly private family conversations, and it reminds us that offences against public order need a public element.

If there was any public element, of whatever nature, my amendment 5 would not apply. It would apply only to wholly private behaviour. That zone of privacy, as it were, is defined expressly by reference to the right to respect for private and family life in article 8 of the European convention on human rights. There is a realm of personal liberty that the Government may not enter. Existing stirring-up offences recognise that, and so should the new stirring-up offences that we are creating in the bill. For those reasons, I urge the Parliament to support amendment 5.

Humza YousafI will speak to the amendments in group 2, beginning with amendment 6. However, I will start in the same place as I did in my response to Johann Lamont's amendments. I suspect that many Conservative members and I will disagree on a number of amendments, but not for one second do I doubt the commitment of Liam Kerr, Adam Tomkins or any Conservative MSP to tackling inequality or hatred in any form. I think that it is important to state that'--although I will not do so in every contribution that I make'--because the debate has been heated at times, not just in the Parliament but outwith it. I certainly know about that, because I have been the victim of hatred, as many know, and I have had messages of support from members of all parties, which I greatly appreciate.

I turn to the amendments at hand, starting with amendment 6. I confess that I am somewhat surprised that Liam Kerr chose to lodge amendment 6, which would, effectively, strike out the stirring-up offences. It was only a few weeks ago that he lodged an absolutely identical amendment at stage 2 and then, after listening to my very persuasive speech, which it must have been, he was so convinced by my arguments that he voted against it. I very much hope that this will be a case of history repeating itself. Although I commend Liam Kerr's persistence, if not his confusion, on the issue, I cannot support what I consider to be quite a regressive amendment.

I urge members to wholeheartedly reject amendment 6. I believe that our criminal laws should provide comprehensive protection for our most vulnerable groups in society from the very damaging effects of behaviour that stirs up hatred, through a stand-alone offence that reflects the precise nature and gravity of those effects. The bill's provisions make it clear that that type of behaviour attracts the particular condemnation of society and that it simply will not be tolerated. Liam Kerr's amendment 6, unfortunately, disregards the recommendations of the Justice Committee in that area. It would result in Scotland having the weakest protections in the UK in the area of stirring up hatred. In debate, we sometimes forget that stirring-up offences exist across the UK'--in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. If we were to accept Liam Kerr's amendments, Scotland would have the weakest protection in law, by quite some distance, for those vulnerable communities.

Supporting Liam Kerr's amendment 6 would send a very damning message to all victims of hate crime. As has been recognised time and again, through the very compelling testimony of stakeholders who represent victims and of victims themselves, behaviour that stirs up hatred can have a really corrosive effect. It can result in entire communities feeling isolated, scared and vulnerable to attack. In the most serious cases, it can directly encourage activity and assault that threaten or endanger life.

Members may well remember the so-called punish a Muslim day in 2018. If I remember correctly, Anas Sarwar raised the issue in the chamber with the First Minister. Leaflets were distributed in schools and workplaces and were put through the doors of mosques, all in order to threaten an entire community. People were to be ''awarded points'' for pulling off the hijab of a Muslim woman or for pulling the beard of a Muslim man. That was with the intent of frightening, scaring, intimidating and, at its worst, assaulting and endangering the lives of the Muslim community. Muslims were frightened; I know that not just from my personal experience but from speaking to that community often. They feared for their safety. Some of them took a day off work; some felt that they had to keep their kids off school; some did not attend their university or college'--all because they feared attack for no reason other than their faith. If we accepted Liam Kerr's amendment, we would not be giving the protection in law that an entire community'--such as the Muslim community during punish a Muslim day'--so well deserves.

In short, I hope that members will stand shoulder to shoulder with victims of hate crime and will vote against amendment 6, which, if agreed to, would send a very harmful message to the people of Scotland.

Amendments 7 to 10, 15 and 31, in the name of Liam Kerr, are largely consequential to amendment 6, so I ask members to reject those amendments, too.

I turn to the various amendments that would introduce a dwelling defence or public element to the offences of stirring up hatred. Amendment 5 was lodged by Adam Tomkins. I appreciate the Justice Committee convener's engagement with me on the bill and in particular on this issue, which has genuinely exercised him since the bill's introduction. Amendment 5 would introduce a statutory defence for people who commit offences of stirring up hatred under section 3, where such offending behaviour occurs ''wholly in private'' and there is ''no public element'' to it. Similar amendments were lodged by Liam Kerr at stage 2 and heavily defeated; all members, with the exception of the Scottish Conservatives, voted against them.

I listened carefully to what Adam Tomkins said. He rightly highlighted the dangers of vagueness and the bill not being specific enough about how the criminal law would operate. However, I take issue with the characterisation that somehow the offences as they are provided for in the bill'--much improved as they have been during the scrutiny process'--are vague.

Liam KerrThe cabinet secretary will be aware that Lord Bracadale supported the inclusion of a dwelling provision when he gave evidence to the Parliament. Precisely why, in legal terms, is the cabinet secretary not going for that? Has he had legal advice on the issue?

Humza YousafYes, of course. I have had advice from the Scottish Government legal directorate and from my officials. I will explain why I do not agree with Lord Bracadale. I did not accept all his recommendations, such as those on the race and gender aggravators.

It is entirely clear that the new stirring up hatred offence could be committed only where a reasonable person'--that is the common law term, and the reasonable person test is an objective test'--would consider behaviour or communication of material, wherever that took place, to be threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred, and where the behaviour or communication of that material was not reasonable.

Amendment 5 creates the same, entirely artificial, distinctions as were created by the amendments that were roundly rejected at stage 2. Fundamentally, it fails to recognise that the fact that an offence of stirring up hatred occurs within a private space does not mean that the wider harmful impacts that such offences seek to prevent are avoided. Let us all be clear: the effects of behaviour that stirs up hatred can and will be felt well beyond the four walls of the private space or dwelling in which the behaviour occurred. There are potentially life-threatening implications for members of the targeted group if the incitement of acts of violence through threatening or abusive behaviour that is intended to stir up hatred are acted upon.

I am firm in my view that if someone engages in threatening or abusive behaviour or communication with the intention of stirring up hatred, the criminal law should be capable of addressing such conduct, regardless of where it occurs.

It is also important to ask ourselves what is meant by behaviour that occurs ''wholly in private'' with ''no public element'', which is the wording in amendment 5. I am afraid that the amendment is not at all clear and provides very little guidance. Wholly private from whom? Members of the public? People who do not live at the address at which relevant behaviour might have occurred? Amendment 5 provides no definition in that regard.

Amendment 5 refers to

''the right to respect for private and family life by virtue of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.''

That right does not preclude the application of the criminal law in private spaces. If it did, laws that protect people from assault, domestic abuse, threatening or abusive behaviour or sexual offences, to name but a few, would not apply if the conduct occurred in private. Why should stirring up hatred be any different?

The effect of the proposed defence in amendment 5 and the behaviour that it seeks to exclude from the scope of the stirring up hatred offences is therefore, potentially, far reaching. It appears to me that amendment 5 would mean that if a large group of people were invited to meet in a private space for the purpose of stirring up hatred against a group'--for example, Catholics attending their local parish church or Jewish people attending their local synagogue'--and words or materials were exchanged during that meeting that were threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred, and were seen or heard only by people within that private space, no ''public element'' would have occurred and no offence of stirring up hatred would have been committed.

17:30

Instead, for an offence to be committed it would seem to require people in public places'--for example, on a street pavement'--to see or hear the abusive or threatening behaviour or material. That ignores entirely the point that private stirring up of hatred can still inspire equally harmful acts of hatred outside that private space.

Adam TomkinsI fear that the cabinet secretary, no doubt inadvertently, is mischaracterising the nature of amendment 5. It is perfectly clear from the wording of the amendment that if anybody invites members of the public who are not members of their family into their home for a meeting about anything, that is not a wholly private event and is an event with a public element. The cabinet secretary says that the amendment lacks definition, but I say to him that ''public element'' is a phrase that is drawn directly from Scots law on breach of the peace and ''wholly in private'' is expressly defined in the amendment by a reference to the fundamental human right to respect for private and family life. None of the cabinet secretary's criticisms of the wording of my amendment 5 are, with respect, justified.

Humza YousafI will come to that point. MSPs will be well aware by now that the first element of the threshold of the new stirring up of hatred offence is a requirement for behaviour or communicated material to be threatening or abusive. For me, that is the same threshold that has existed in Scots criminal law since 2010 with the statutory offence of threatening or abusive behaviour, but that offence, which has been prosecuted thousands of times over the past decade, does not have a defence if it occurs in private for very good reason: why should threatening or abusive behaviour be treated differently depending on where the conduct may have occurred?

It would mean that Scots law operated so that threatening or abusive behaviour without the intention to stir up hatred is an offence when committed wholly in private while threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred would not be an offence if committed wholly in private. That does not appear to be a sensible approach for Parliament to adopt.

I note that Mr Tomkins suggests that one does not need to be a lawyer to understand that a public order offence requires a public element. I should say that the public order element of the long title is to do with the repeal of the blasphemy law. I may not be a lawyer and I do not claim to have the expertise that Adam Tomkins does as a professor of law, but I fundamentally disagree with that statement on a point of principle. The very purpose of the offence is that hatred is stirred up in others, so comparisons about being able to riot in private completely miss the point of the offence. If a person stirs up hatred in others and those others attack, for example, Catholics, Protestants or Sikhs as a result of hatred being stirred up in them, it should not matter at all where the hatred was stirred up. The effect is the same'--groups being singled out for hatred and attacked for who they are.

I thought that Dr Kayembe, the newly elected rector of the University of Edinburgh, who was on BBC ''Reporting Scotland'' last night responding to Adam Tomkins's amendments, made a very persuasive case when she talked about her children having been racially abused by other children and said that, no doubt, a lot of that hatred came from the family home, probably in a private space and possibly from the parents or an older sibling. That is worth listening to.

On Adam Tomkins's example of an unreconstructed uncle, who we all have in our families, saying something perhaps unacceptable or offensive to a same-sex couple, that would not be prosecuted. That is because it would not meet the threshold that a reasonable person would view that as threatening or abusive. However, let us say for the purpose of his hypothesis that it did'--do we genuinely think that it would reach the threshold of being intended to stir up hatred and be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court? I do not believe that to be the case.

Similarly, amendments 32 and 33 by Liam Kerr are a further attempt to introduce a dwelling defence. I do not think that I have to go into too much detail on that, as I have taken a fair bit of time on Adam Tomkins's amendment. As I said before, simply creating an artificial distinction whereby if hatred is stirred up in one's sister, brother, child, step-child or grandchildren, somehow that should not be prosecuted, is a misunderstanding.

It is a misunderstanding to suggest that when hatred is stirred up in an individual, and they go and beat up or threaten somebody due to their sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability, faith or colour, the individual should not be prosecuted simply because the person who instigated that hatred was their brother, uncle, father or mother. To me, that makes no sense whatever. I ask members to oppose amendments 32 and 33.

Amendment 30, in my name, makes a change to schedule 1, which deals with the treatment of offences in the bill in relation to providers of ''information society services''. The inclusion of provisions in schedule 1 follows the requirements of certain articles in the European e-commerce directive, and is commonly done in legislation. In accordance with the e-commerce directive, paragraph 1 of schedule 1 provides that proceedings for such offences

''may not be instituted against a non-UK service provider''

that is established in the European Economic Area, unless it is necessary and proportionate in the public interest. The change in relationship between the UK and the EU arising from the EU exit and the end of the transition period has given rise to a concern that paragraph 1 of schedule 1, as currently framed, makes an unjustifiable distinction in that context between non-UK service providers that are established in the European Economic Area and those that are established elsewhere, including in the UK. Such a difference in treatment could conflict with rights under the European convention on human rights. Amendment 30 simply seeks to rectify that.

I ask members to support amendment 30 and oppose all other amendments in the group.

John FinnieI will try to be brief. It is important to say that the extension of the existing offence of stirring up racial hatred to cover other characteristics is to be welcomed. It seems to me that it does not matter how mildly Mr Kerr wants to revisit the matter, the idea'--particularly coming from a unionist'--that our communities would have less protection from elsewhere in the United Kingdom is at best confusing, which I think is the word that the cabinet secretary used.

In relation to the dwelling offence, I will not reiterate what the cabinet secretary said. Of course, there is the sanctity of a dwelling, but that does not mean that there cannot be state intrusion when that is appropriate. If a local family of neo-Nazis are getting together to discuss their vile deeds, the location is irrelevant'--it is about how the hatred manifests. We must protect our communities.

We have heard various examples of what could happen if Mr Kerr's amendments to remove the stirring-up provisions were agreed to. In a briefing that we have been given, there is the example of leaflets being put through doors. On one side of the leaflet was an image of a mannequin being hanged; the other side said that the only debate about homosexuality was about how to carry out the execution. The leaflet also called for the death penalty. That was clearly threatening and intended to stir up hatred. We need to be cautious of whom we are pandering to.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)I am grateful to Adam Tomkins and Liam Kerr for allowing Parliament as a whole the opportunity to consider the so-called dwelling defence, or as Adam Tomkins referred to in with regard to his amendment, a privacy defence.

I am afraid that, in pursuing their objective, amendments 32 and 33 get rather lost down a rabbit hole. However, amendment 5, in the name of Adam Tomkins, better reflects the point of principle that is at stake. He has talked with great force and some persuasiveness about how the bill should not engage with discussions that take place around the family dinner table. As a liberal, I tend to agree with that sentiment, which'--as he reminded us'--is reflected in one of the recommendations that the committee reached unanimously.

However, I do not think that amendment 5 would give effect to what Adam Tomkins is seeking to achieve. To avoid the rabbit hole down which Liam Kerr's amendments have disappeared, Adam Tomkins has opted for a broader definition of the protection that he seeks to afford. Unfortunately, that leads to the opposite problem of vagueness, which opens up the potential for unintended consequences and loopholes that could be exploited for all manner of behaviour that I know Adam Tomkins would be the first to condemn and abhor.

In the digital age, the effects of actions and speech that take place behind closed doors can be more far-reaching than was the case when such a dwelling defence might have been more reasonably argued. Moreover, it is worth bearing it in mind that the right to privacy under article 8 of the European convention does not preclude the application of criminal law in private spaces, as the cabinet secretary reminded us. If that were the case, laws that protect people from assault, domestic abuse, threatening or abusive behaviour or sexual offences would be hard to prosecute if the conduct occurred in private. Why should stirring up hatred be different?

I recognise and respect the genuine and legitimate concerns that Adam Tomkins seeks to address through his amendment 5. Liam Kerr's motivations, as evidenced by his amendments, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 31, appear to be rather different. On balance, the changes would risk doing more harm than good. The idea that private places should be sanctuaries for harmful behaviour requires to be challenged. On that basis, the Scottish Liberal Democrats cannot support amendments 5, 32, 33 or amendments, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 31, from Liam Kerr.

Neil BibbyPart 2 of the bill has been one of its most controversial elements. We acknowledge and welcome the significant amendments that the Justice Committee made at stage 2 to strengthen the provisions in the bill. By introducing the reasonable person test and a requirement to prove intent to stir up hatred, the provisions are now stronger and have a higher legal threshold than the current stirring up hatred offences in the Public Order Act 1986.

However, we have carefully considered additional amendments at stage 3 to provide further clarity and reassurance. There has been much debate around the decision not to include a dwelling defence, as is currently provided for in the 1986 act. As Liam Kerr said, there are real questions about enforceability.

We understand the evidence, which was brought forward and reiterated by the cabinet secretary and Liam McArthur, that a dwelling defence does not exist for other criminal acts in Scotland but, as Adam Tomkins believes, we believe that there must, in criminalising speech in particular, be due regard given to the rights that are afforded under the ECHR.

I note the view of Dr Andrew Tickell, who told the Justice Committee that although he was not convinced of the need for a dwelling defence, consideration might be needed for ''a requirement of publicity'' to comply with the ECHR, as is now required for common-law breach of the peace. I am persuaded that Adam Tomkins's amendment 5 strikes that balance to ensure that there must be a public element to the offence and to clarify the right to a private life under article 8 of the ECHR. Therefore, we will support amendment 5, although we will not support amendments 32 or 33.

There were significant amendments at stage 2, with further amendments being determined today at stage 3. We believe that part 2 of the bill is necessary and that it provides the legal protections that are required, so we will not support amendment 6'--or the other amendments from Liam Kerr'--to remove it from the bill. We will also support amendment 30 in the name of the cabinet secretary.

Liam KerrI thank members for their contributions to the debate and I associate myself with the cabinet secretary's opening remarks about respectful debate.

I will quickly address some of the points that have been raised. On the dwelling or privacy defences, the cabinet secretary raised the concern, which he expressed at stage 2 and in response to Adam Tomkins, that people could be invited into a home and hatred could be stirred up, with no criminality attaching to the home owner. I do not think that that stacks up, because I have drafted my amendments, as has Adam Tomkins, precisely to ensure that the home owner cannot do that. MSPs will have noted Adam Tomkins's intervention on that matter to the cabinet secretary.

The cabinet secretary also said that he is concerned about people intentionally stirring up hatred from the privacy of their house, perhaps through remarks made in the media and on the internet, because that defence would potentially protect them. Again, I do not think that that stacks up because, as the cabinet secretary will have noted, Free To Disagree pointed out that people who publish vile statements online could already be committing a crime, so I cannot see that that is an argument against a dwelling defence.

In any event, I remind the cabinet secretary and the chamber that Lord Bracadale, whose review formed the basis of the bill, told the Justice Committee that concerns about extending public order offences into purely private settings are ''well founded''.

Adam Tomkins reminded us that the all-party committee was unanimously clear in its stage 1 report, which says:

''care also needs to be taken that people are not investigated for, charged with, or prosecuted for, offences based on their personal views, however abhorrent others may consider them to be, if the expression of those views took place in a private space, such as their own house, and there was no public element.''

The committee was unanimous, and it was correct.

Adam Tomkins hit the mark. The bill is called the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill; there has to be a public element. Without it, we will be policing private thought. That is precisely what the bill should not be doing.

17:45

Finally, on the dwelling or privacy defence, given that Lord Bracadale, the Law Commission in England and distinguished legal experts support such a provision, and given that existing laws catch harassment, threatening or abusive behaviour and breach of the peace, I cannot understand why the cabinet secretary is so opposed to it. His arguments do not defeat theirs, so I will press the amendments.

On removal of part 2, I have listened carefully to the points that have been made across the chamber. I readily acknowledge how far the bill has come in its development. However, the bill'--even in amended form'--does not allay the concerns that have been raised by many people.

I listened to the concerns that several members raised about the protections if part 2 was not there, but none of what we heard changes the fact that something is already there, as Adam Tomkins said. I lodged amendment 31, which would reinstate the existing protections that are provided by the Public Order Act 1986, precisely to ensure that there would be no reduction in existing protections should my amendments be agreed to.

The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 covers ''threatening or abusive'' conduct. Statutory aggravators already attach greater severity to crimes that are motivated by hatred against others. By way of example, I note that support for my position comes in the Government's financial memorandum, which states:

''the conduct in question would already constitute existing criminal offences such as breach of the peace or threatening or abusive behaviour.''

We must make law to protect people, but we must also make good law'--law that does what it needs to do without unintended consequences. That is what I seek to do through my amendments.

I press amendment 32.

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division. Members may exercise their vote now.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were not able to vote.

Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to vote. I would have voted no on amendment 32.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Ms Johnstone. I will make sure that your vote is added to the vote list.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 30, Against 89, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 32 disagreed to.

Amendment 33 moved'--[Liam Kerr].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 30, Against 90, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 33 disagreed to.

The Presiding OfficerGroup 3 is on freedom of expression. Before I call amendment 1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, I highlight to members that we are exactly 45 minutes behind where we thought that we would be at this stage and that we are already scheduled to run until 8 o'clock. I recognise that these are important matters about which members feel strongly, but if members could curtail their remarks slightly, that would be helpful.

Amendment 1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 11, 11G, 11B, 11C, 11D, 11E, 11F, 13, 14, 34, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 22.

Adam TomkinsWe come now to the core issue that the bill confronts. I fear that, despite what you have just said, Presiding Officer, my remarks might take some time. However, I hope that members will feel that they can speak freely about the issue.

The core issue is how to legislate effectively against hate crime while at the same time protecting freedom of speech. That is a dilemma on the horns of which the bill has been caught since it was first introduced, and it is still not resolved. We have, however, come a long way and, in order to set the debate on this group in context, I will briefly remind the chamber of the moves that have already been made to bring the bill into line with freedom of expression.

First, all the stirring-up offences, other than with regard to race, can be committed only intentionally. If someone is merely reckless as to whether hatred will be stirred up, that will not be enough to trigger the criminal law; they must intend it. Secondly, specific offences relating to theatres and public performances have been removed from the bill entirely. Likewise, the offence of possessing inflammatory material that may stir up hatred has been removed from the bill. All those changes were made because of the huge volume of concerns about free speech that the bill as introduced generated.

At stage 2, a further and, to my mind, critical change was made. All the stirring-up offences were amended so that they can be committed only where a reasonable person would consider behaviour to be threatening or abusive. From a free speech perspective, that is the single most important change that the bill has undergone. Just because someone feels threatened or abused will not be enough to trigger criminal liability, unless a reasonable person would find the behaviour to be threatening or abusive.

Johann LamontDoes Mr Tomkins accept that, in some contexts, the ''reasonable'' person would be directed by an institutional drive to have a particular attitude and that, for some women, the idea of the test of a reasonable person is not sufficient?

Adam TomkinsI certainly accept that some women have forcefully expressed that view on social media and elsewhere, and I will go on to address it directly in my remarks.

Essential though that change of reasonableness is, and welcome as it is, even that does not go far enough to ensure that the bill can operate in a way that fully respects freedom of speech. There has been much to-ing and fro-ing about how the bill should reflect and incorporate that all-important free speech principle.

Some commentators have quite wrongly said that this aspect of the bill has been rushed. That could not be further from the truth. The Justice Committee took extensive evidence on the free speech implications of the bill at stage 1 and wrote about that evidence at length in the stage 1 report. At stage 2, although most of the amendments relating to free speech were not pressed to a vote, there was a very full and open debate on the issues. That debate, as ever in the Justice Committee, was conducted both robustly and respectfully. After stage 2 was completed, the cabinet secretary published a number of options for a free speech provision to be added to the bill. We published a full and open call for evidence on those options and we were delighted to be able to host a public round table with a broad range of stakeholders and expert witnesses to discuss those with the cabinet secretary.

I do not know of any issue, relating to any bill passed in this session, that has been subject to more scrutiny'--and to more detailed and expert scrutiny'--than the free speech implications of this bill.

That brings me to the substance of the amendments before us. I welcome amendment 11, in the name of the cabinet secretary, and will vote for it, but on its own and in the context of this particular bill, it does not go quite far enough. I shall explain why.

Amendment 11 provides that, as regards the protected characteristics of age, disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity, and variations in sex characteristics, behaviour or material is not to be taken as being threatening or abusive if it involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to those characteristics. To be clear, and coming to the point that was raised by Johann Lamont, it will not be a hate crime to criticise aspects of policy relating to transgender identity and it will not be a hate crime to discuss whether marriage, or the adoption of children, should be extended to same-sex couples.

So much fear has been stoked in relation to those matters that it is important to set that out. Criticising policy relating to transgender identity is not a hate crime under the bill. Even if you express yourself in a manner that others find transphobic, it is not a hate crime to discuss or to criticise matters relating to transgender identity.

Elaine SmithFor clarity on that point, would your amendment mean that a woman could be sure that she would not be treated as being abusive or threatening solely for saying things such as the following: ''There are two sexes, and people can't change sex.'' ''A woman is an adult human female.'' ''Male people shouldn't play women's sports.'' ''Access to single-sex spaces like changing rooms should be based on sex, not gender identity.'' ''Women's prisons should only be used for biological women.'' Those are just a few examples. I would be grateful if the member could be clear about what amendment 1 means.

Adam TomkinsThose questions go to the heart of the issue and I very much welcome the fact that we are having the debate here today. I want to address those questions.

If you want to argue'--or even to campaign robustly'--for women's sex-based rights, or to argue that sex is immutable or is binary, you are not committing a hate crime, even if someone else is offended, shocked or disturbed by what you say. Even if someone else is very upset by what you say and accuses you of transphobia, you are not committing a hate crime unless you cross that threshold of saying something that is not merely offensive but is something that a reasonable person would hold to be threatening or abusive in a manner that intends to stir up hatred. That will be the effect of the bill if the cabinet secretary's amendment 11 is accepted by the Parliament and if my amendment 1, which I am now speaking to, is also accepted. I will turn to the detail of those amendments.

18:00

Amendment 11 makes additional provision relating to religion. It provides not only that ''discussion or criticism'' of religion is not to be taken as threatening or abusive behaviour but that

''expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult''

are not to be taken as threatening or abusive as regards religion. With that, the bill will bring into Scots law the free speech safeguards as regards religion that already exist in the law of England and Wales.

However, it is to be noted'--this goes directly to the point that Elaine Smith makes'--that, under amendment 11,

''expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult''

are protected as free speech only as regards religion, and not as regards any of the other protected characteristics. Therefore, speech that is so critical of, for example, policy relating to transgender identity that it crosses the line and may be regarded as an expression of antipathy or dislike will not be protected by the cabinet secretary's amendment.

That is where my amendments 1, 2 and 3 come in. My amendments, which are not probing amendments'--I intend to press them'--are designed to sit alongside and complement the cabinet secretary's amendment 11. There is nothing in any of them that cuts across his policy intentions or objectives. They represent three different ways of seeking to achieve the same thing. We do not need them all; we need only one of them. If amendment 1 is agreed to, I will not move amendments 2 or 3. If amendment 2 is accepted, I will not move amendment 3.

The aim of all three amendments is to clearly distinguish in the bill the threatening or abusive behaviour that we are seeking to criminalise from speech that is, as it were, merely offensive, shocking or disturbing, which should not be caught by the criminal law.

Let me explain a little more about that distinction, Presiding Officer. My right to free speech extends to and includes speech that you might find offensive, shocking or disturbing. I do not have the right to express myself in a way that threatens or abuses you, but if, short of that, I choose to speak in a way that upsets, shocks, disturbs or offends you, that is too bad.

Those principles are fundamental to the way in which the European Court of Human Rights understands the right to freedom of expression in article 10 of the ECHR. Indeed, the words ''offend, shock or disturb'' in my amendments are lifted directly from that court's case law, which has been endorsed and read into our law by the courts here in Scotland, as has happened elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This could not be more important. As the English judge Lord Justice Sedley said in one of the leading cases, the right to speak only inoffensively or in a manner that the state approves of is not worth having. That is not free speech at all. It is controlled speech, or licensed speech.

Happily, in the context of the bill, those principles have been uncontroversial, uncontested and accepted by all. The cabinet secretary endorsed them when he gave evidence to the Justice Committee in October, and the committee, in turn, did likewise, again unanimously.

However, it is not enough that we all think and say that the bill does not seek to criminalise speech that others may find offensive, shocking or disturbing but which does not meet the threshold of being threatening or abusive. It would not even be enough to say that in the bill's explanatory notes. We need to write it into the bill, and I am offering Parliament three different ways of doing that. The first'--amendment 1'--is based on wording in the Human Rights Act 1998, the second is based on wording in the European Communities Act 1972 and the third is based on wording in the Public Order Act 1986.

Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)The member is making an excellent speech. I have said very little on the bill as it has gone through Parliament, and that is why I am in the chamber to listen to stage 3 today. However, the more I have heard, the more concern it has caused me. I think that many of us, if we are being honest, believe that there should be a form of hate crime legislation but how it is being done in the bill is not it. Many people'--out in the community and in here'--would want the Government to withdraw the bill so that whichever party wins the election could come back with properly thought-out legislation that carries not only an overwhelming majority in this place but the confidence of the people who are victims of hate crime.

Adam TomkinsThat is exactly the position of the Scottish Conservatives'--I welcome Mr Findlay aboard. That would be the effect of amendment 6, which was moved by my friend and colleague Liam Kerr and was debated in the previous group.

Amendments 1 to 3 are three different ways of achieving the same policy ambition. My preference is for the first formulation, which provides that when considering whether behaviour was reasonable, as the bill requires the courts to do, the courts must have regard to the right to freedom of expression, including the general principle that that right extends

''to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.''

The formulation in amendment 1 has been carefully drafted. Its language is drawn directly from, and mirrors, the Human Rights Act 1998, article 10 of the ECHR itself, and the European Court's key case law on free speech. As I said, the amendment is designed to sit alongside and to work with the cabinet secretary's amendment 11. It writes into our law core principles of free speech that were unanimously accepted and endorsed by this Parliament's all-party Justice Committee in its stage 1 report on the bill. I very much hope, therefore, that Parliament will be able to accept both my amendment 1 and the cabinet secretary's amendment 11.

Elaine SmithIt boils down to this: what is a reasonable person? Could the member perhaps answer that? It may be that an MSP is a reasonable person but they objected last week to speeches as being transphobic that other members thought were reasonable. That is the first thing. Would the principal of the University of Edinburgh be considered a reasonable person? He has reported stickers that say ''adult human female'' to the police. We have to understand what a reasonable person is.

Adam TomkinsI completely agree, which is exactly why I am moving my amendment. Relying on the idea of a reasonable person is essential, but it is not enough. In addition to that, we need to specify in the bill exactly what we mean. What we mean is that, just because someone is offended by what I have to say with regard to transgender identity or any of the other protected characteristics, that does not mean that I am committing a hate crime. Yes, they can go off and call me transphobic if they want, but that does not mean that I am committing a hate crime. Someone's sense of being offended, shocked or disturbed by what I have said might very well upset them, but it does not trigger the criminal law. Relying on a test of reasonableness alone'--important and essential though that is'--does not do the job, which is why I am saying that, in addition to that, we need to legislate expressly to say that speech that is offensive, shocking or disturbing does not meet the criminal threshold. The criminal threshold is threatening or abusive speech that intends to stir up hatred and in the circumstances is not reasonable.

If the cabinet secretary's amendment 11 and my amendment 1 are both accepted by the Parliament, there will, with respect, be no need for any of the amendments to amendment 11 that have been lodged by Joan McAlpine and Johann Lamont. The substance of what Joan McAlpine wants to do in her amendment 11G will be done by my amendment 1, but in a manner that works with, rather than cuts across, what the cabinet secretary is seeking to achieve. The specific examples of speech that ought to be permitted that are in Johann Lamont's amendments, which Elaine Smith has put to me during the course of this speech, will not need to be written into the law, because it will be clear in each case that the combination of amendments 1 and 11 already have the effect that Johann Lamont is seeking to achieve.

I urge the Parliament to accept my amendment 1, the cabinet secretary's amendment 11 and the consequential amendments in our names: amendments 13, 14, 34, 16, 18 to 20 and 22. If those amendments are accepted, it follows that amendments 11G, 11B, 11C, 11D, 11E and 11F, in the names of Joan McAlpine and Johann Lamont, do not need to be pressed.

I move amendment 1.

Humza YousafI will speak to amendment 1 and all the other amendments in the group, but I would not mind addressing Neil Findlay's point first'--and I am happy for him to come back in an intervention. He said that he has spoken to victims of hate crime and that they do not want the bill. I have no idea who on earth he has talked to. BEMIS, which is one of the national racial equality organisations, sent round a letter that said that it supports the bill, and 20 organisations signed up to that. The Muslim Council of Scotland, the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, the Humanist Society Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid, Victim Support Scotland'--

Neil FindlayOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. We have a duty to be accurate in the Parliament. I never said what the cabinet secretary has just accused me of saying. I say to him: please correct the record.

The Presiding OfficerThat is not a point of order, Mr Findlay; it is an argument.

Humza YousafI would have given way after I finished my point. I am happy to look back on what Neil Findlay said, but he said, in a way, that the bill is not supported by victims of hate crime, and I tell him that it is supported by victims of hate crime. I have just read out a list, and I could go on. I gently suggest to him that, when he is purporting to speak on behalf of victims of hate crime, he should speak to the organisations that have represented victims of hate crime for many years.

I agree with many members who have spoken about the issue that we are discussing during the parliamentary process. Some have argued that there is a tension between hate crime law and freedom of expression, but I am not persuaded by that. I do not think that the two have to be mutually exclusive, and I think that there can be strong protections in law against hate crime and strong freedom of expression provisions.

Let me state very clearly that the bill has never been about prosecuting the offensive. In fact, the word ''offensive'' does not appear in the bill. I and others might find a person's speech to be distasteful, abhorrent and deeply offensive, but that in itself is not a ground for prosecution under the bill.

The bill is fundamentally different from what it was when it was introduced to the Parliament. Many changes have been made; Adam Tomkins articulated some of them well, particularly in relation to the stirring up of hatred offences in part 2. The bill now requires the following: that there is an intention to stir up hatred; that the court will objectively assess whether behaviour or material is threatening or abusive; that each element of the stirring up of hatred offences is to be proven beyond reasonable doubt with corroborated evidence; and that there is the availability of a reasonableness defence.

The convener of the Justice Committee articulated things well when he said:

''The way in which the scope of those offences has been narrowed and sharpened will do much more to protect and reassure than any formulation of words about freedom of expression''.'--[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 February 2021; c 29-30.]

I agree. The amendments in my name in the group will complement those safeguards. I agree with Adam Tomkins's point. We need to have words on the face of the bill that give reassurance to people who have genuine and legitimate concerns about the impact of legislation'--particularly, of course, this legislation'--on their free speech and freedom of expression.

Amendment 11 was one of the four options that I provided to the Justice Committee for the round-table session. I agree that that was a very good session. The issue has had a lot of scrutiny. I was quite persuaded by what Danny Boyle of BEMIS'--an organisation that many members know'--said about the harm that could be caused if race were included in any freedom of expression provision. He essentially argued that that freedom of expression provision does not exist in other stirring up of racial hatred offences across the UK, so why is race being included in our discussion? I was convinced by that argument.

Amendment 11 will tie the freedom of expression provision to the operation of the stirring up of hatred offences. It does that by indicating whether certain types of expression used in behaviour or material could in themselves meet the thresholds of the offences. For example, the amendment makes it very clear that criticism of matters relating to transgender identity are not solely to be taken to be threatening or abusive. However, if the criticism was expressed in a way that a reasonable person would consider threatening to trans people or that threatened trans people with violence, that could, of course, still amount to behaviour that is threatening or abusive.

18:15

I say to Elaine Smith, who intervened on Adam Tomkins, that none of the statements in the list that she articulated would be prosecuted if they were simply made in a chamber or in discussion, even if that discussion were robust. By the way, the reasonable person test is commonly used in many pieces of legislation; I can write to Elaine Smith with a list of a number of pieces of legislation that use that test.

For such statements to be prosecuted, it would have to be proven that they were made in

''a threatening or abusive manner''.

Even if that test were met'--let us say that there was some dubiety about the test'--it would still have to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that those statements were intended to stir up hatred. Someone who simply and solely'--I think that Elaine Smith used the word ''solely'''--articulated those statements would not be prosecuted, regardless of the robust nature of the discussion.

Amendments 13, 14, 16, 18 to 20 and 22 are consequential to amendment 11.

Before I discuss further amendments in the group, I will reflect on the Justice Committee's round table on 22 February. We heard very powerful evidence from Iain Smith of Inclusion Scotland. Many colleagues will recall him from his service as a Liberal Democrat MSP. I thought that he spoke incredibly eloquently at the round table on the importance of our freedom of expression provision. He said:

''it important that the bill should send out a clear message about what is and is not acceptable. In that regard, we do not think it appropriate that the bill should list behaviour or language that is acceptable. As I have mentioned, expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult are not without consequences for those who are subjected to them. They can legitimise prejudice and lead to more serious consequences, even if that is not intended. ... do we want to say that it is acceptable to ridicule a disabled person who finds it difficult to get on to a bus thereby causing it to be late, or who is prevented from doing their daily shopping because they are subjected to expressions of dislike or insult? I do not think that the Parliament will want to say that for disabled people. Why should it want to say so for any other group in society? We ask members to think very carefully about that.'''--[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 February 2021; c 11-12.]

Amendment 11B, from Johann Lamont, would insert new wording into the freedom of expression provision. It would have the effect of adding new, specific wording on the operation of the provision, so that certain matters that are asserted, and the advancement or rejection of propositions that follows from those assertions, would be explicitly referred to in the provision.

All of the matters that are listed in amendment 11B are covered by the wording of amendment 11, which captures discussion or criticism of matters relating to each of the characteristics, except'--crucially'--race, which I have already mentioned. I do not think that there is a need to include a laundry list of specific wording, as is suggested. My worry is that, if we do that, we run the risk of suggesting that

''discussion or criticism of matters'''--

which is a wide category'--somehow does not already encapsulate the matters that are listed by Johann Lamont. If we create a non-exhaustive list, the problem is that it is, by definition, non-exhaustive, so there can be confusion over what is not included in the list. Therefore, I ask members to oppose amendment 11B.

I also agree with Adam Tomkins that, if his amendment 1, which I will speak to shortly, is accepted, there is no need for the other freedom of expression provisions that are being advanced by Joan McAlpine and Johann Lamont. I will explain that Adam Tomkins's approach in amendment 1, which has regard to freedom of expression'--including with respect to the effects of behaviour and material as part of the operation of the reasonableness defence'--is a better approach to the issue.

Amendment 11G, from Joan McAlpine, is similar to elements of amendment 11F. It would add wording to the freedom of expression provision in amendment 11, such that, with regard to ''discussion'' and ''criticism'' being covered, it would make clear that that included when such discussion or criticism was ''perceived as offensive''.

Although I understand what Joan McAlpine is trying to do with her amendment, my concern has always been that such an approach could have the unintended consequence of implying that criticism that is offensive could never be considered abusive, no matter how extreme the offensive nature of that criticism. If behaviour was, by a reasonable person's definition, threatening or abusive, and it was intended to stir up hatred, it may not be prosecutable because it would also'--in most cases, I suspect'--be perceived to be offensive.

I turn to Adam Tomkins's amendments. The Government will support amendments 1 and 34.

Amendment 1 would apply to all the offences of stirring up hatred when a person has been found to have behaved in a way, or communicated material, that was threatening or abusive and that was intended to stir up hatred, and claims that such behaviour or communication of material was reasonable in the particular circumstances. For the offences of stirring up racial hatred, the additional threshold of being insulting and likely to stir up hatred is also covered.

The effect of amendment 1 is that a court would be required to have particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression under article 10 of the ECHR when determining whether a reasonableness defence was made out. In so doing, the court must have particular regard to the general principle that the right to freedom of expression applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. It is right for the bill to give that reassurance. A number of stakeholders have expressed concern that their right to shock, offend or disturb might be compromised by the bill. Amendment 1 puts that beyond reasonable doubt and does it by tying it to the reasonableness defence, so that it does not have unintended adverse consequences.

I note that Adam Tomkins said'--if I heard him correctly'--that if amendment 1 is accepted, he will not move amendments 2 and 3. Therefore, in the interests of time, I will not go into the details of my concerns about those amendments.

Given the concerns that I have expressed, I cannot support amendments 2, 3, 11G, 11B, 11C, 11D, 11E and 11F. I will support amendments 1 and 34 in the name of Adam Tomkins and ask MSPs to support my amendments 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 to 20 and 22.

The Presiding OfficerBefore I call the next speaker, I should say that we have just gone past the deadline for group 4 amendments. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move a motion to extend the time limit.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the second time limit (and, as a result, subsequent time limits) be moved by up to 30 minutes.'--[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

The Presiding OfficerWe might have to revisit that. [Interruption.]

I call Joan McAlpine to speak to amendment 11G and the other amendments in the group.

Joan McAlpineI welcome the cabinet secretary's freedom of expression amendment and will of course support it. I also support amendment 1 in the name of Adam Tomkins. However, I do not think that either amendment goes far enough to protect people from vexatious complaints of hate crime. Adam Tomkins's amendment might offer a defence in court, which is welcome, but it will not necessarily prevent arrests, accusations or investigations. Both amendments fall short of implementing Bracadale's recommendation that there need to be clear lines in law between what is criminal and what is not.

I totally oppose threatening and abusive behaviour that stirs up hatred: I am in full agreement with the cabinet secretary on that. It is very clear, however, that many individuals and organisations are concerned that citizens could be falsely accused of such crimes.

The bill's ''reasonable person'' safeguard is welcome and will work well in most instances, but it will not work where views are polarised. In particular, the debate around women's rights and trans identity means that views that might be considered inoffensive and factual by some people will be perceived as hateful and abusive by others. My amendment 11G seeks to address that problem without extending the freedom of expression given to religion to other characteristics, as I am also aware of the unintended consequences that that might have, particularly for the protected characteristic of disability.

I know that it is not the cabinet secretary's intention to see people falsely accused. He told the Justice Committee:

''People should have the right to be offensive and to express controversial views.'''--[Official Report, Justice Committee, 27 October 2020; c 4.]

Amendment 11G puts that reassurance into the bill, within the cabinet secretary's freedom of expression provision, in a way that is crystal clear and which will help law enforcement. I do not agree with the cabinet secretary's suggestion that amendment 11G will allow anyone who has been accused of stirring up hatred somehow to get away with it by using the defence that what was said was only perceived to be offensive. In his amendment 11, the words ''solely ... involves or includes'' would still stand, leaving wide scope for genuine hate crime to be prosecuted even if my amendment 11G were to be agreed to.

Members will have seen from their inboxes that many people share my concerns about the need to strengthen freedom of expression. In particular, women who are concerned about calls that anyone who identifies as female must be accepted as such'--''without exception'', to use the words of campaigning groups'--have been accused of hate speech, including by people in positions of authority such as politicians. Here I associate myself with Johann Lamont's earlier remarks about comments made by Patrick Harvie.

Women who have been branded hateful include sportswomen such as Martina Navratilova and Sharron Davies, after they raised concerns about female sports; Jenni Murray, the former presenter of ''Woman's Hour'', who is often considered a national treasure; Germaine Greer; and even J K Rowling, after she disclosed details of her own domestic abuse. They have all been no-platformed and accused of hate. Lesbian feminist philosophers such as Professor Kathleen Stock OBE of the University of Sussex have been subjected to terrible abuse, and the human rights lawyer Professor Rosa Freedman, of the University of Reading, had urine smeared over her office and was followed home.

Even doctors who express concerns about the significant rise in children being medicalised through approaches such as the use of puberty blockers, such as Marcus Evans and David Bell of the Tavistock clinic, have been accused of hate. In England, the criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey, a black lesbian feminist, is currently challenging a very well-known, publicly funded charity that had pressed her employer to take action against her. Some women have already lost their jobs for talking about such issues.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the individuals who have no-platformed, bullied and tried to silence those respected men and women will use hate crime legislation against them'--and in doing so they will consider themselves to be perfectly reasonable. Many will be in influential senior positions in public bodies.

A couple of years ago, a spokesperson for Scottish Trans Alliance urged supporters to report as a hate crime the use, in public places in Edinburgh, of feminist stickers opposing the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Many public authorities, including the police, receive training from trans rights organisations whose definition of hateful behaviour is very wide indeed. In England, groups of police officers have taken public positions on such matters, including some on Merseyside who recently displayed on social media a poster that said:

''Being offensive is an offence''.

The chief constable there later apologised, but clearly there are people in law enforcement and in other senior positions who share such views, all of whom would consider themselves to be reasonable. It would be nice to think that Police Scotland would take a more sensible view'--I hope that it will'--but good laws should not be made by crossing our fingers.

I believe that my amendment 11G will give clarity to the police and protection to members of the public. For those reasons, I encourage members to support it.

Johann LamontI recognise that we are under pressure of time, but unless some members have been absent for the past couple of years they might not have noticed that this is a very serious debate, which is highly contentious. If they are fed up about having to sit and listen to it, perhaps they should not be in the chamber at all, especially if they do not recognise the significance of what we are doing here. [Interruption. ] I am sorry if we are boring those members, but I remind them that, as members of the Parliament, it is our responsibility to address such serious questions.

I am happy for members to stay and listen, and perhaps to contribute, but I resent in the strongest terms the implication that we are wasting people's time by considering the bill. The minister is not saying that, but from their reaction to what the Presiding Officer said earlier it was clear that some members were concerned that we might be taking too long over this. Forgive me, but I am not going to take'--[ Interruption .]

The Presiding OfficerOrder, please.

Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) rose'--

Johann LamontDoes someone want to come in?

Bob DorisI thank Johann Lamont for taking this intervention.

I am listening carefully to all the contributions on these amendments, and I greatly value and appreciate them. I am not always agreeing with everything that is said, but I am finding the debate informative and helpful. I would not want Ms Lamont to suggest that I am somehow not engaged with this; I promise her that I am.

18:30

Johann LamontI apologise for having been rather broad brush, particularly given the bill. We heard groans at the idea that we might be kept here a bit longer. This is a serious matter for all of us. I very much appreciate what Bob Doris said.

I will not go through all the amendments in the group; members will have read my letter already, of course. However, I will talk quickly about some of them and I will make some important points about the whole question of freedom of expression.

Of the amendments in this group, amendment 11B most fully implements Lord Bracadale's recommendation that the bill should include provisions that help to clarify the line between the criminal and the non-criminal. It puts in the law a range of statements that should not be deemed abusive just in their own right. We have never really had an explanation from the cabinet secretary for his rejection of a number of Lord Bracadale's recommendations, but that amendment is one of them.

Amendment 11C adds a subsection to the new section contained in amendment 11 on the protection of freedom of expression in relation to religion, expanding it to cover non-religious ''beliefs or practices''.

Amendment 11D comprises a new free-standing section that provides that

''Nothing in this Act shall be taken as requiring a person to profess any belief or to use language as if they held any belief.''

It is remarkable that we might feel that we need to put that in legislation.

Amendment 11E adds two new subsections to the section contained in amendment 11. Taken together, those subsections allow

''examples of behaviour or material which is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive''

to be added to that proposed new section, using

''Regulations ... subject to the affirmative procedure.''

Amendment 11F introduces a definition of ''discussion or criticism'' to make it clear that it

''includes the expression of opinions which have the capacity to offend, provoke, discomfort, shock or disturb, including those expressed as antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult, and includes the rejection of any belief.''

I recognise that this is a very difficult debate, and I agree with the cabinet secretary, in particular, that the comments by Inclusion Scotland have force, but we should be ensuring that the law does not allow somebody to berate anybody or to deny people their rights. It is not just about speech; that, in my view, would constitute a breach of the peace. Behind that, we should of course have a whole series of measures to address why on earth somebody thinks that that is acceptable behaviour.

I do not want to do anything in particular around the rights of disabled people. I know that they can be targeted and can suffer all sorts of disadvantage. That is the dilemma: it is about finding the balance in ensuring that people are protected from hateful and terrible behaviour while we also have the right to debate ideas.

I sometimes think that folk have now got to a place where they think that demands for freedom of expression are for people on the right or for people who are conservative in their views'--socially conservative or whatever. Clearly, some people are making that case on the basis of their particular views at a particular time, which some people may regard as being on the right of the political spectrum. The truth is that we all need protection when it comes to freedom of expression. My party was founded on saying and believing things that, at the time, were regarded as out there or unacceptable.

The women's movement knows that women had to break barriers and to say things that were seen as unacceptable, that the establishment did not regard as reasonable and that would have been regarded at the time as beyond the pale. We can see in more recent history how social movements'--lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities themselves'--have said and challenged things that people would have regarded as being beyond the pale. We know that it is necessary for us to have freedom of expression.

I note Adam Tomkins's amendments. I feel that he is being optimistic in his interpretation of what they would do. A number of tests would still need to be passed, and people would need to be persuaded that someone was being reasonable. They might end up in court, even if they had done something entirely reasonable and even if they were exonerated. People might end up having to face challenges in court, which I do not think it is reasonable to expect from people who are simply expressing a view.

The cabinet secretary talks about the important work that was done at stage 2, and I recognise that. However, even at the round table, where the level of response on freedom of expression was massive, the truth is that, in the positions that were taken by some witnesses, particularly members of the women's organisations, there was no evidence of a shift.

The cabinet secretary was very good about meeting me and listening to my views, but it did not shift his position. There is a difference between facilitating a debate and moving the debate on as a consequence of what people have said, and I do not think enough has been done in that regard. Therefore, my amendments try to test what it is reasonable for people to be able to say.

I must underline the points that were made so effectively by Joan McAlpine about what the debate is and what the challenges are for many women just now. There are issues about what is regarded as reasonable and acceptable, about what is losing people their jobs and about what is silencing many of our young women, some of whom contact me privately and say, ''I cannot do that or say that because, in my work community or social circles, it is utterly unacceptable, and there would be consequences.''

A couple of years ago, I went to a meeting at the University of Edinburgh. I have been going to political meetings for a very long time, and I cannot remember ever being at a meeting that was so conscious of the need for security. It was a women's meeting, to talk about these issues, and we needed security of a level that I do not recall ever before seeing. That tells us what it is like for a woman who wants to express the views that are set out in the amendments that I have spoken about today. The scale of the challenge, the silencing and the chilling effect is real. It is not that real for me, because I am old, but it is real for younger people who feel that they cannot freely express their views, and I think, with respect, that Adam Tomkins is offering hope but no guarantees.

I will finish on a point on amendment 11B. It provides a clear point of reference in the face of the law for those taking part in debates on sex and gender identity. It puts beyond doubt that asserting, advancing or rejecting certain things should not be treated as being abusive or threatening under the law, based simply on their content. Those things are:

''that ... sex is a physical, binary characteristic that cannot be changed ... that the terms 'woman', 'man' and related terms refer to sex as such a characteristic''

and

''that a person's sex may be relevant to that person's experience or relevant to other persons.''

Members have had a briefing about amendment 11B from the Equality Network, which calls that an ''unnecessary laundry list'''--what are we women like, with our laundry lists?'--of matters relating specifically to transgender identity that

''includes propositions that fundamentally undermine trans people's long-established right ... to be legally recognised in their transitioned gender.''

It says that it is

''a list of 'approved' statements that include attacks on the fundamental rights of one group of people''

and that

''trans people's rights are open season for attack.''

That is the Equality Network's interpretation of what other people would regard as an entirely reasonable, legal, logical and sensible thing to say: that there are two sexes. The call for us to be entitled to say that is described as a fundamental attack on the rights of one group of people. Well, I say that sex is a physical, binary characteristic that cannot be changed; that the terms ''woman'' and ''man'' refer to sex as such a characteristic; and that a person's sex may be relevant to that person's experience or relevant to other persons.

Colleagues, we have a choice: we can give women the protection that they need to talk about their reality in ordinary words safely, or we can endorse the view that just talking about that reality and what it means to them in their own words is, of itself, some form of attack and something to be condemned. I know what my choice is. It is the one that will let me leave this Parliament knowing that I fought right to the end for women's rights, including the most basic right of all: the right for women to name those rights in their own terms.

I urge members to support the amendments in my name and particularly to support the amendment in Joan McAlpine's name.

Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)I want to touch on amendments 1, 34 and 11. The speeches from Johann Lamont and Joan McAlpine were absolutely excellent. Freedom of expression is for everyone'--that is an important part of the bill.

I, too, was a bit concerned about judicial issues and going to court. However, having listened to members' contributions'--Adam Tomkins's, in particular'--I feel that amendment 1 covers most of the issues about which I had a bit of concern. I thank Adam Tomkins for amendment 1 and the cabinet secretary for amendment 11 and others'--I am going to support all of those as well as Adam Tomkins's amendments.

I have two wee questions. First, will the amendments to the bill apply to someone who happens to communicate or say something about a Government in another country and cover that against being a hate crime? That is very important to me, because I look at things internationally, not just in Scotland.

Secondly'--perhaps the cabinet secretary will answer this'--in talking about the bill and about how it is going to go through, members have raised the issue of people knowing about the bill. I suggest'--I am sure that it will be in the bill'--that, if we are going through with the bill, and particularly when it comes to freedom of expression, we need to ensure that Police Scotland officers are trained and told about the legislation and how they should approach it. I also think that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has to be trained and educated about it. Most important, the general public has to be educated on what exactly the bill means'--in particular, for freedom of expression.

I will leave it at that'--whether the bill covers the two things that I have asked about.

Neil BibbyThere has been widespread concern and debate about the potential effects of part 2 of the bill on freedom of speech. Although there are strong protections against hate crime in the bill, it is important that there is clarity about what sort of speech is protected. Scottish Labour welcomes amendments that seek to provide such clarity and that provide further reference to existing protections on freedom of speech that are afforded by the ECHR'--by article 10, in particular.

We support the Government's amendment 11, which provides for general freedom of expression whereby

''discussion or criticism''

of any of the protected characteristics is not in and of itself to be taken as

''threatening or abusive.''

It is important that there is a general provision for that, rather than specific provisions that are aimed at specific groups'--other than for religion, the provision for which is slightly different but widely accepted.

We also support the technical and consequential amendments in the name of Humza Yousaf, which replace the existing freedom of expression provisions and clarify the language in the bill.

We also support Adam Tomkins's amendment 1 and his consequential amendment 34. Amendment 1 provides further clarity on rights under article 10 of the ECHR and reminds the police and the courts that, in the enforcement of the provisions, due regard must be had to those rights. Those rights under the ECHR are well established and well understood by the courts. They apply to

''information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.''

I welcome the clarity that amendment 1 provides, and it is important that Parliament supports it.

In confirming our support for amendment 11, I noted that we believe that there should be a general freedom of expression provision. In general, it is bad law for legislation to be so prescriptive about what is allowed, as any text cannot cover every eventuality. We believe that general provisions such as those in amendment 1 better protect freedom of expression than non-exhaustive lists, which might be relevant only in the context of current political debate, so we cannot support amendments 11B and 11E. We accept that there will be deeply held or contested views on some of the characteristics that are protected under the bill, but we are not certain that that will be the case for all'--for example, for age and disability. For that reason, we cannot support amendment 11C.

Finally, we will support amendment 11G, in the name of Joan McAlpine, and amendments 11D and 11F, in the name of Johann Lamont. Although those amendments may not be strictly necessary'--especially should amendments 1 and 11 be agreed to'--we believe that they will provide additional clarity and reassurance in the bill.

John FinnieI thank Adam Tomkins. I am a member of the Justice Committee, and Mr Tomkins gave a very accurate r(C)sum(C) of the progress'--yes, the progress'--that has been made on the bill. I am sure that he will confirm that absolutely no one has been in touch to say that they were not in favour of freedom of expression, and he has rightly identified that fear has been stoked about the issue. I ask his colleagues to reflect on any role that they may have played in that stoking.

18:45

What we have is a threshold and a high bar, which has been raised as we have gone along. I perhaps have more confidence than some of my colleagues in the police's judgment in dealing with reported incidents and in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service's approach to prosecution.

It is disappointing that some people characterised the everyday operation of our legislature, with on-going talks between parties and the Government to resolve issues, as sinister. The convener and the cabinet secretary are to be commended for their work. There was extensive consultation and additional evidence was taken.

The Scottish Greens will be happy to support amendment 1, in Adam Tomkins's name, and amendment 34, which will provide additional assurance. It is important that the court will have ''regard'' to the provisions. Likewise, we support amendment 11, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which is a product of the engagement to which I referred and which makes it clear that legitimate comment or criticism'--including opposition to proposed reforms to gender recognition law'--will not fall foul of the law.

The purpose of a freedom of expression provision is to provide the assurance that means that self-censorship is avoided when it comes to legitimate free speech, but that is not to carve a hole in the stirring-up offence. Should amendments 1 and 11 be agreed to, they will cover all discussion and criticism of any matters that relate to any characteristic.

Amendment 11B would add a list of matters that relate specifically to transgender identity. A previous speaker used a quotation, but it was not a complete quotation, so I will add an important word: it was about the inclusion of provisions that fundamentally undermine transgender people's long-standing ''convention'' right to be legally recognised in their transitioned gender. Gender recognition has enabled trans women to be legally recognised as women for all purposes since 2004. Recognition has been in place longer when it comes to many areas, such as for the purpose of passports, driving licences and medical records.

Of course, people should be free to discuss and criticise that fundamental human right without being criminalised, unless they do so in a way that is objectively threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred. Amendment 11 already provides that reassurance. As the Equality Network said,

''to add into legislation a list of 'approved' statements that include attacks on the fundamental rights of one group of people is entirely wrong.''

I agree.

The Presiding OfficerI apologise for interrupting the flow of the debate on this group, but we are again up against the time limit that has been set for the debate. Let me explain what has to happen. Normally, we can allow only an extra 30 minutes for a debate, so we have to suspend the standing orders and then ask for another 30 minutes.

Neil FindlayOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you advise us about timings? Some members are not allowed to stay over and must take public transport, and the trains are running on a limited timetable. If we are going to stay late, that is fine. We just need to know that very early, so that we can arrange accommodation or whatever.

The Presiding OfficerWe are not at that stage at all, Mr Findlay. We voted this afternoon, before we started to consider the amendments, on a timetable for the debates at stage 3 that anticipated that we would finish considering the amendments at around 7 o'clock and then finish the subsequent debate at around 8 o'clock. We are running roughly 45 minutes behind, and we have extended for half an hour, but I am going to ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move a motion to extend the debate for a further half hour.

I implore members to try to curtail their remarks a little so that we can catch up, but I recognise that this is an important debate and I want to allow time for it.

Minister, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to suspend the final sentence of rule 9.8.5A.

Motion moved,

That the last sentence of Rule 9.8.5A be suspended.'--[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

The Presiding OfficerI am now minded to accept another motion without notice to extend the time limit by a further 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That the second time limit (and, as a result, subsequent time limits) be moved by up to a further 30 minutes.'--[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek guidance on timings. This is one of the best debates that I have heard in the Parliament, and it is important that members are allowed to have their say on these important issues. I foresee several extensions to the timings. Can some guidance be provided on what the finish time might be?

The Presiding OfficerIt is very difficult to say. The group that we are on now is perhaps one of the most contentious; others may not be quite as robustly debated, but we will see. Like you, Ms Smith, I recognise the need to debate these matters properly and fully, allowing members the chance to express themselves. I therefore ask that members try to do so concisely, if they can. I am not asking members not to speak, just to do so concisely.

Johann LamontOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. As someone who is perhaps one of the culprits, I wonder whether it is possible for you to take soundings about moving the debate after the stage 3 amendments to tomorrow or to a point that parties could agree. That would mean that we could concentrate on the amendments without feeling that the last bit would be rushed or that it would be keeping people back. I appreciate that people have caring responsibilities.

The Presiding OfficerI recognise that point of order. I have already taken soundings on the issue and, at that stage, business managers were not minded to move the debate. However, things might change as the evening progresses, so I will take soundings again on the issue. I stress again that these technical matters about process should not get in the way of the debate. It is very important that members have the confidence to express themselves and feel satisfied with the nature of the debate. As far as I am concerned, that is what is happening at the moment.

We move back to the debate, and I call Jenny Marra to be followed by Patrick Harvie.

Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)I am glad that the Presiding Officer said that, because I am keen to express myself as fully as I feel is necessary. Amendment 1 in the name of Adam Tomkins is helpful, but it does not go far enough. I speak in support of the amendments that have been lodged by my colleague Johann Lamont.

Hate is now such a contested term, and I am worried that members of the Parliament are complacent about the atmosphere in which women are currently arguing that sex continues to matter in shaping their experiences of the world. I know that from my experiences over the past two years. I was branded online as hateful for questioning NHS Scotland's policy that stated that a baby's gender was assigned at birth. I know that not to be true and that my son's own sex was clearly observed and recorded at birth, but for that to be branded as hateful is perhaps an example of the atmosphere that we are operating in.

The campaign group Women's Place UK, which submitted written evidence on the bill at stage 1, told us about the violent threats and protests that it has faced at almost all of its 27 public meetings, including a bomb threat. I was at the meeting that Johann Lamont talked about, as were many colleagues in the chamber, and never in more than 25 years of going to political meetings have I felt the intimidation that I felt then.

That was at the University of Edinburgh and, just yesterday, its student newspaper reported that ''transphobic stickers'' had been found on campus. Those stickers included one that said:

''Do you believe that male-sexed people should have the right to undress and shower in a communal changing room with teenage girls?''

When similar stickers were found on campus previously, an activist group encouraged people to report them to the police. The university principal was reported to have said that the perpetrators would be traced via closed-circuit television footage and he reported the stickers to the police.

Adam Tomkins told us that the test is that the person shows that they were being reasonable in the circumstances. I ask him about the sticker posters and the University of Edinburgh principal'--were they being reasonable in the circumstances? I do not think that the Tomkins amendment is clear enough. Professor Tomkins knows as well as I do that, over the years, the courts have been biased in relation to women. Indeed, a book, which draws on Scottish examples, was written about the matter by Helena Kennedy, the very person who is heading up the working group.

We know that there has been bias over the years. It was just about two years ago that a dental student in Scotland got off with sexually abusing a young girl because the male sheriff said that it would be harmful to that student's dental career to have the crime against his name. The bias is apparent, so I ask Professor Tomkins, does his amendment not require the more specific detail that Johann Lamont has provided? His contribution in the group 2 debate, in which he said that more specifics are required in the legislation, suggests that perhaps it does.

I will draw to a close by saying that, in such an atmosphere, anything short of a provision that puts beyond doubt that basic statements about sex are not of themselves abusive under the bill will leave women exposed to unpredictable judgments by front-line police officers and the courts, and, before that, maybe even their employers. The only safe option for women will be constant self-censorship, which will have an invisible corrosive effect that is antithetical to healthy democratic debate. The Parliament should not be so complacent about setting up such a situation.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, which shows that I am a member and supporter of a number of equality groups that, for decades, have fought for not only my human rights, but the human rights of many others.

I certainly do not intend to speak in the debates on all the groups today, but I feel the need to contribute to the debate on this group, especially given the extraordinary personal comments that were made about me earlier.

We all know that legislation that we pass in the Parliament cannot breach the ECHR. If it attempts to do so, it can be struck down by the courts. We also know that a stirring up hatred offence has been in operation for decades without having been found to breach freedom of expression rights. However, not everybody knows that such a protection exists; therefore, if there is a need for reassurance in the bill that does not undermine the operation of the offence, which has been agreed though cross-party discussions and led to amendment 11, so be it. However, some members have instead sought, either directly or tacitly, to have the bill endorse behaviour that is prejudiced, even if it is not in the scope of the offence.

We have already seen attempts to secure explicit legal protection in the bill for practices such as deadnaming and misgendering. Although it might be possible for such expressions to be made in ways that do not meet the tests of the offence, nobody should be in any doubt that they very frequently form the basis of abuse that is directed against trans people in our society. Now, among other troubling amendments, amendment 11B seeks specific legal protection, not for all views on a contentious topic, but solely for the expression of three beliefs, which, taken together, represent a position that is incompatible with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in any form. That act has been in place for more than 15 years precisely because its absence was ruled a breach of trans people's human rights.

Although some people seem unwilling to acknowledge the existence of transphobia, and even seek to defend its proponents, recent years have seen the growth of an extraordinary wave of hostility to trans people in politics and in the media, and promises made to them by all five parties here in this Parliament have been broken. Attacks against their equality and human rights and their access to healthcare are routine, as are attempts to claim that everyone who supports trans equality is a misogynist.

19:00

Of course, I am not referring just to the spurious and absurd allegations that have been made against me; that claim also ignores the fact that so many of Scotland's women's and feminist organisations are intersectional and trans inclusive, which rejects the idea that trans people's rights and women's rights are in conflict. Even well respected organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland and Glasgow Women's Library have been denounced as misogynist, simply because they do not discriminate against women who are trans.

Of course, all that is deeply harmful to trans people, and the situation would be made far worse today if Parliament agreed to amendments that seem to legitimise such attacks against them. However, we should also be clear about the deeper threat. Anti-trans campaigners are openly working with religious far-right organisations from the US, which, in turn, are open about their strategic goal of using trans equality as a wedge issue, in order to fragment the equalities movement. At least one such organisation is already active in Scotland and has been quoted approvingly by members of this Parliament. Let us not kid ourselves that, if they succeed in opposing trans people's equality and human rights, they will be satisfied with that. Their next target might be sex education, equality in family law, HIV drugs on the national health service or abortion rights. We do not need to look far to find anti-trans activists arguing against all those things.

I was elected to this Parliament in 2003 in the wake of the defeat of the appallingly hostile and prejudiced campaign to prevent the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. That issue was a test case and, since then, this Parliament has never voted directly to oppose the equality and human rights of Scotland's queer community, although there have been some close calls. It is dismaying to see amendments today that would end that proud track record.

I hope that the Parliament will reject the hostile amendments in this group, which are designed not to improve the treatment of hate crime in our society but to further an agenda of fragmenting the equalities movement because, whether in the remaining days of this parliamentary session or in the years ahead for the next, that is an agenda that threatens not only trans people; ultimately, it will threaten any and every marginalised group whose rights have been won by solidarity and are opposed by those who seek to fragment us against one another.

Elaine SmithI think that we are now quite clear about Mr Harvie's views and motivations. I had remarks that I wanted to make, so I was not going to do this, but I will read out a tweet about last week's international women's day debate. The tweet said:

''Oh there's a bit of vicious transphobia in the #IWD2021 debate. Thanks Johann.''

The reply from Mr Harvie said:

''I'm sorry to say we can expect more of that when it comes to stage 3 of the Hate Crime Bill.''

I ask everybody in the chamber to look at those international women's day speeches last week then tell me where the transphobia was in any of them.

Presiding Officer, I rise to support the amendments in the name of Johann Lamont and Joan McAlpine. I will also support amendment 1, which is in Adam Tomkins's name.

Many grass-roots women's groups, some religious bodies and many constituents have expressed concern to me about freedom of expression. They are concerned that the Government's amendments do not go far enough to protect free speech. Women are particularly concerned that the Government's amendments will not be enough to prevent the chilling effect on women's ability to discuss and debate their rights.

We are seeing that being played out just now. If anyone wants to go on to Twitter to see what people are saying about me and Johann Lamont, they will find that there are some chilling effects already. The rights that we want to discuss'--the rights that exist in law'--are protected for good reason and are based on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

I have to say that I am now extremely careful about what I say about rights that I have taken for granted in the past. I cannot believe that that is what women face in 21st century Scotland. It is shocking that they are being silenced from speaking about rights that are protected by law'--they are self-censoring, as Jenny Marra said.

I am conscious that any reference to sex-based rights, sex discrimination and sexism'--not gender'--will immediately attract accusations that I am being hateful or transphobic. My carefully drafted factual speech, much of which was based on my lived experience as a woman, for last week's international women's day debate, was attacked in that way. As I said, we see such attacks right now all over Twitter.

Therefore, I will support the amendments from Johann Lamont and Joan McAlpine, which will give clarity to those, including the police, who will have to interpret the legislation.

Liam McArthurI echo Liz Smith's earlier comments. Contributions that we have heard on this group of amendments have probably seemed shocking, disturbing and offensive to some, but everything that has been said needed to be said, in the context of the debate.

Johann Lamont spoke very passionately on the issue from her perspective, and her voice needed to be heard in the debate, as did Patrick Harvie's. Although I cannot necessarily support Johann Lamont's amendments, I thank her for pursuing the matter through stage 2 and stage 3, and for providing colleagues with very detailed and cogently argued evidence to support her amendments.

I also thank Adam Tomkins for the way in which he initiated the debate on the group, which is the way in which he has stewarded the committee through the scrutiny process. He laid claim to having helped to secure the reasonableness test. I merely claim to have pushed the cabinet secretary towards making the stirring-up offences intent only, on the back of the debate that we had in September. I certainly agree with him that, even in combination, those two changes were insufficient, which is why we are back here considering stage 3 amendments.

The amendments are at the crux of the debate on the bill. The Justice Committee has faced a fairly remarkable challenge in how to strike an appropriate balance between, on one hand, protecting those who might be vulnerable to hate speech and, on the other, protecting our fundamental right to freedom of expression. Of course, that right is not unfettered, but nor should it be unduly constrained by a requirement to be polite or respectful. In the words of Lord Justice Sedley, who is the unofficial patron saint of the bill, so frequently has he been prayed in aid:

''Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having''.

However, striking the appropriate balance by turning intention and aspiration into black-letter law has proved to be enormously challenging.

At stage 2, various amendments were lodged that sought to provide protections in relation to speech and debate around various protected characteristics, but none was entirely satisfactory. My attempt involved adopting a broader catch-all provision, rather than applying different thresholds for different characteristics. That approach, if not the precise wording of my amendment, seemed to attract majority support, and it has formed the basis of amendment 11, which has been lodged by the cabinet secretary.

Amendment 11 offers reassurance on freedom of expression for each of the new characteristics that are added in the bill. It avoids singling out and reflects the fact that freedom of expression is a general right that should apply across all subjects. The exception, of course, relates to religion, which reflects the pretty much universal support that the committee heard from representatives of faith groups, the Humanist Society Scotland and other key stakeholders, for the bill to go further in that area. That can be justified in making a distinction between, for example, the right to ridicule or express hostility towards ideas and beliefs, and hostility that is directed towards an individual's identity, which would be more problematic. Others have reflected on that, particularly in relation to disability.

Amendments 13 and 14, which will remove sections 11 and 12, are also sensible and to be welcomed. Nothing here, though, requires anyone to subscribe to any particular belief or to express themselves in ways that suggest that they do'--which I hope helps to address the point in Johann Lamont's amendment 11D'--nor do any of the provisions in the bill cut across an individual's rights under the ECHR. However, I accept that, as Adam Tomkins set out, amendment 11 on its own is insufficient. In that light, I very much welcome amendment 1, which makes explicit reference to the ECHR. Importantly, it would put in the bill the general principle that the right of freedom of expression applies to

''the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.''

As Adam Tomkins suggested, that perhaps renders Joan McAlpine's amendment 11G redundant. My sense, too, is that amendment 1 would meet with Lord Sedley's approval.

Although I am nervous about the regulating powers that Johann Lamont seeks to introduce under amendment 11E, there is no doubt that there is merit in the argument that future Parliaments will need to keep the issues under review. We do post-legislative scrutiny far too rarely in the Parliament, but the bill is perhaps an obvious example of where it could usefully and sensibly be deployed.

The Presiding OfficerI call Adam Tomkins to wind up on this group.

Adam TomkinsI will try, Presiding Officer, but this is a hell of a debate to try to respond to and to wind up. It has been an extraordinary and outstanding debate. As everybody knows, I am shortly to leave the Parliament and am not seeking re-election. I have had my criticisms of things that have been going on in this place in the past few weeks and I have no doubt expressed myself sometimes in a manner that has offended, shocked and disturbed others. However, the treatment of the bill and, indeed, the debate this afternoon have shown the Scottish Parliament at its best, which is not to say at all that I agree with everything that has been said.

I will start with something that Patrick Harvie said: that he found aspects of Johann Lamont's amendment 11B ''troubling''. I have to say that I am deeply troubled by that remark, because there should be nothing troubling about an amendment'--it is not my amendment'--that simply seeks to set out what speech in the context of the debate around transgender identity is lawful and acceptable, even if it upsets people, and what speech is not. Saying or even arguing robustly that sex is a physical binary characteristic that cannot be changed is not a hate crime under this legislation and there should be no doubt about that. Saying that the terms ''woman'' and ''man'' and related terms refer to sex as such a characteristic is not a hate crime under this legislation and there should be no doubt about that.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Whichever side of the argument one is on, is it not going into too much detail in the legislation to have that kind of thing in it?

Adam TomkinsYes, I think that it is, but that is not my amendment. However, I have to say that, as I leave the Parliament, I am troubled that members of the Parliament are themselves troubled by amendments that seem to me to be innocent, such as Johann Lamont's amendments.

To answer Mr Mason's question, I do not think that we need to go there if we accept amendment 11, in Humza Yousaf's name, and amendment 1, in my name. I thank the cabinet secretary for his support for amendment 1 and I also thank Joan McAlpine, Sandra White, Neil Bibby and Elaine Smith for voicing their support for amendment 1. More broadly than that, I thank John Finnie and Liam McArthur for their kind words, not just about amendment 1 but about my role in the making of the legislation more generally.

The cabinet secretary came to give evidence at the beginning of the Justice Committee's discussions of freedom of speech and the hate crime bill. He said that he recognised that we in Parliament must do two things about freedom of speech in the bill: we must both broaden and deepen the protection of free speech.

19:15

The cabinet secretary's amendment 11 broadens the protection of free speech and my amendment 1 deepens it. The combination of those two amendments, with no conflict between them, will achieve that aim of broadening and deepening the protection of free speech.

Joan McAlpine, Johann Lamont, Jenny Marra and Elaine Smith voiced sincere and deep concern about whether even that combination of amendments goes far enough. Johann Lamont said that my amendment 1 offers hope but no guarantees. Joan McAlpine said that good laws should not be made by crossing our fingers. I do not often agree with Joan McAlpine, but I absolutely agree with her on that point.

I agree with Johann Lamont that amendment 1 does not offer guarantees, because I do not think that we can do so. What we can do when we make criminal law is offer clarity. My concern from the beginning has been to guard against vagueness in the hate crime bill by offering clarity as a solution and to guard against overbreadth by narrowing the scope of the offences as a solution to that. As Neil Bibby said, that combination of amendments delivers the clarity that we need in our criminal law.

Johann LamontI say respectfully that women who have faced this may strongly feel the need for more than Adam Tomkins's perception of what clarity is. We heard a speech from a colleague who made very clear that what I had put in amendment 11B was hate speech. What assurance and clarity can Adam Tomkins give to me and to the women who want to express their views in this regard that our words will not end up being reported as a hate crime? There is evidence in front of him'--we have been told that what is said in amendment 11B is hateful. What consequence comes from that for us? What clarity do we have in that regard?

Adam TomkinsWhat is in the amendment is hateful in that member's subjective opinion, but that does not make it a hate crime or make it criminal. Any of us can throw around accusations or allegations of transphobia or of any other kind of phobia, but that does not make it criminal.

In order for a point of view to be criminal, if amendments 1 and 11 are accepted, it must be not merely hateful, transphobic or offensive but threatening or abusive. There is nothing threatening or abusive in anything that anyone has said here. It would have to be intended to stir up hatred and the Crown would have to prove that on corroborated evidence. It would have to be unreasonable in the circumstances and, if amendment 1 is accepted, it would also have to be proved to be speech that is more than merely offensive, shocking or disturbing.

No one of the amendments offers the guarantee or the clarity that Johann Lamont is looking for, but they do when taken together.

Liam McArthurPart of the problem that we have wrestled with throughout the process is the risk or threat of people bringing complaints. There seems to be no way of writing something into law that will remove that risk. This point might be better directed to the justice secretary than to Mr Tomkins as convener of the Justice Committee, but is there anything that can be done to provide some assurance about the way in which the police would respond to any complaints that are made?

Adam TomkinsThat is the point that I was going to close on. It was addressed very powerfully by someone else with whom I do not always agree, Sandra White. She said that much of the answer to this will depend on police training. The police must be appropriately trained about the parameters of the criminality that we are setting down. I believe that that must happen not only with regard to freedom of speech but with regard to privacy, although I will not reopen that debate. If the police are well trained, we can get a long way there.

Johann LamontWill the member take an intervention?

Adam TomkinsIf I am permitted to, I will.

Johann LamontI just want to make the point that there is one way of making it clear in law that it is entirely reasonable for anybody to make these points, and that is to put it into the law. The only reason why I am asking for it to be put into the law is precisely because folk have complained that they are hate speech. Frankly, it is not a comfort for me to know that I am going to have a good case when I get to the court. I would quite like to be told that I am allowed to say that without any danger of being reported to the police.

Adam TomkinsThere are two things that we can do. The other thing, of course, is to do what Neil Findlay suggested, which is the same as what Liam Kerr suggested all the way back in September, and take the bill off the table. We will all have a choice, whether it is tonight or tomorrow, to vote for or against the bill at stage 3. If members do not believe that the bill is fit for purpose, they should not vote for it. We could then invite the next Scottish Parliament, which will soon be elected, to revisit the issues in the light of all the debate that we have had. We have been trying to put forward that proposition for some months, but we have not yet had any support from anybody in other parties.

Presiding Officer, what do I have to do now? I think that I need to press amendment 1.

The Presiding OfficerThat was a successful conclusion, Mr Tomkins. Thank you. [ Applause. ] Unanimity has broken out.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved'--[Adam Tomkins].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a one-minute division.

Voting is now closed. Members should let me know if they were unable to vote.

Colin Beattie (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Presiding Officer, I was unable to access the system. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Beattie, I will make sure that you are added to the tally.

Gil Paterson (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Presiding Officer, I was unable to access the app. I am still struggling to do it now. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Paterson. I will make sure that your name is added to the tally.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 53, Against 69, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Amendments 2 and 3 not moved.

Amendment 6 moved'--[Liam Kerr].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were unable to vote.

Gil PatersonOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that I was unable to tune in again. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerI will make sure that that is added to the vote tally.

Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes on amendment 6.

The Presiding OfficerI will make sure that that is added to the vote tally.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 30, Against 91, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

Section 6'--Powers of entry etc with warrant

Amendment 7 not moved.

Section 7'--Recording conviction for offence under section 3

Amendment 8 not moved.

Section 8'--Forfeiture and disposal of material to which offence relates

Amendment 9 not moved.

Section 9'--Individual culpability where organisation commits offence

Amendment 10 not moved.

After section 9

Amendment 11 moved'--[Humza Yousaf].

Amendment 11G moved'--[Joan McAlpine].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 11G be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed. I ask members to let me know if they were not able to vote.

19:30

Gil PatersonOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry about this, but again I was unable to vote. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Paterson. You would have voted no. I will make sure that your vote is added.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 51, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11G disagreed to.

Amendment 11B moved'--[Johann Lamont].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 11B be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were not able to vote.

Gil PatersonOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to vote. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Paterson. You would have voted no. I will make sure that that is added.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 36, Against 84, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 11B disagreed to.

Amendment 11C moved'--[Johann Lamont].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 11C be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were not able to vote.

Gil PatersonOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to vote yet again. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Paterson. You would have voted no. I will make sure that that is added.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app seems to have frozen again. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerYou would have voted no, Mr Rumbles. I will make sure that that is added.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 34, Against 86, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 11C disagreed to.

Amendment 11D moved'--[Johann Lamont.]

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 11D be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were unable to vote.

Rachael HamiltonOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

The Presiding OfficerThank you very much. I will make sure that that is added. You would have voted yes.

Gil PatersonOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that I could not vote again. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Paterson. Your no vote will be added.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote has not registered, and I would have voted yes.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Ms Baillie. I will make sure that your vote is added.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the vote is: For 52, Against 69, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11D disagreed to.

Amendment 11E not moved.

Amendment 11F moved'--[Johann Lamont.]

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 11F be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a one-minute division.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were unable to vote.

Maurice Corry (West Scotland) (Con)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Corry.

Gil PatersonOn a point of order, Presiding Officer'--yet again, I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Paterson. You would have voted no. I will make sure that that is added.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 52, Against 69, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11F disagreed to.

Amendment 11 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

Section 11'--Protection of freedom of expression: religion

Amendment 13 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

Section 12'--Protection of freedom of expression: sexual orientation

Amendment 14 moved'--[Humza Yousaf].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 93, Against 29, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

Section 13'--Interpretation of Part 2

Amendment 34 moved'--[Adam Tomkins]'--and agreed to.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Section 14'--Meaning of the characteristics

Amendment 16 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

Amendment 17 moved'--[Johann Lamont].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to.

Members: No.

19:45

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

That vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were not able to vote.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 51, Against 67, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 17 disagreed to.

The Presiding OfficerWe have reached the end of voting on group 3. We will now have a short suspension.

I am not sure whether members will consider this good news, but business managers have agreed that we will postpone the debate on the bill until another date, which will probably be tomorrow. However, there are still four groups of amendments to get through, so I would like to consult business managers and any of the main participants in the debate who might wish to join us. I ask them to come down to the well of the chamber in a few seconds to discuss how much progress, or otherwise, we can make tonight. However, we must still have decision time tonight, because a number of important votes must take place.

I suspend the meeting for at least five minutes, after which I will summon members back to the chamber.

19:46 Meeting suspended.

19:56 On resuming'--

The Presiding OfficerWe are now back in session. I will just update members on where we are. Business managers have agreed to postpone the debate on the bill until tomorrow. However, we think that we can make progress through the remaining four groups. It is slightly difficult to time things exactly, but we think that we will be able to get through those groups and have decision time before 9 o'clock'--that is what we hope. There will be a five-minute pause between the end of consideration of amendments and decision time, to ensure that members are available, because decision time is now quite delayed.

Group 4 is on the characteristic of sexual orientation. Amendment 35, in the name of Johann Lamont, is grouped with amendments 36, 39 and 40.

Johann LamontBefore I speak to the amendments, I note that Patrick Harvie was concerned that there had been an ''extraordinary personal'' attack on him. For the avoidance of doubt, I point out that I literally quoted his own words and said that I defended his right to say whatever he wished to say.

Also, in the context of the bill, it is important to note that he is quite right to say that Parliament has a proud record of action on LGBT issues. I recall that when section 2A was debated in the chamber, there were, among those who fought hardest for its repeal, some very brave women, including Wendy Alexander, who was pilloried for her troubles. Therefore, the idea that the group of women whom I represent are funded by the alt-right or conservative American groups is ludicrous. I respect anyone who disagrees with me, but the idea that I or the women whom I speak for are funded by some mysterious deep-state conservative group could not be further from the mark.

Amendments 35 and 36 would amend two of the three definitions in section 14(6), which defines sexual orientation. They would amend subsections (b) and (c), which describe those who are not exclusively same-sex attracted as having a sexual orientation towards people of ''a different sex''. The amendments would change ''a different sex'' to ''the other sex''.

Amendments 39 and 40 are consequential, and would make the same change in a proposed new section on police recording. The effect of the amendments would be to put beyond doubt that the legislation is based on the understanding that there are only two sexes. When I raised the issue at stage 2, the cabinet secretary argued that the term ''different sex'' is needed in order to be inclusive of non-binary persons. That argument concerns me'--although, of course, it is essential that we are respectful and inclusive in our legislation.

Section 14(7) of the bill provides that ''non-binary'' is a ''transgender identity'''--not a sex. My amendments in group 4 would therefore make sure that we do not legislate in a way that would confuse sex with gender identity. As we have debated previously'--it is a distinction that the cabinet secretary and many of his Cabinet colleagues have made and recognised'--we ought not to conflate gender and sex. The cabinet secretary has been clear that he does not want to do that, so I was surprised by his argument at stage 2. I hope on this occasion to hear that the official understanding of sex in Scotland remains that female and male are the only ones that we have.

I move amendment 35.

20:00

John FinnieThe existing bill language'--''persons of a different sex'''--is consistent with other Scottish legislation over the past decade, including the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 and the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020. As I said at stage 2, I was a member of what was then the Equal Opportunities Committee, which scrutinised that legislation, and I do not recall that the issue was a feature in what many will recall was a very rigorous debate. Changing the language would be inconsistent.

I am particularly concerned about unintended consequences, so I will relay the information that the Equality Network and Scottish Trans Alliance have shared with members about that. They said:

''It is likely also to mean that the statutory aggravation could not be applied where a sexual orientation hate crime was committed against a person because they are in a relationship with a non-binary person (that is, because their partner is presumed to be neither of the same sex nor of the other sex to them, but of a different sex). It is important to bear in mind that what matters for the application of the statutory aggravation is the motivation of the attacker, and what the attacker presumes the sexual orientation of the victim is. The actual identity or legal sex of the victim or their partner is not relevant.

Non-binary people are explicitly included in the transgender identity characteristic in the bill, and it is consistent, and important, that their relationships are also included in the sexual orientation characteristic.''

I hope that colleagues will resist Ms Lamont's amendments in group 4.

Neil BibbyAmendments 35, 36, 39 and 40 in the group aim to alter the definition of sexual orientation in the bill. I know that members of the Justice Committee discussed that at stage 2 and, as John Finnie said, the language that is currently included in the bill, which refers to ''persons of a different sex'' is in line with other Scottish legislation such as the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 and the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020. As others do, I understand the concerns that have been raised about the need for consistency with other Scottish legislation.

As John Finnie also said, concerns have also been raised that the amendments could lead to unintended legal consequences, whereby some people could, through a narrow change in wording, find themselves losing the protections that are afforded by the bill. That could lead to a situation in which a victim who is in a relationship with a non-binary person, who identifies as being neither male nor female, would not be caught under the proposed new definition. It is important that the bill provides clarity on who is covered by it and what obligations it is placing on people's speech. By changing the wording as is proposed in the amendments in group 4, we might, unfortunately, lose that clarity.

Humza YousafPresiding Officer, I will be equally brief. I agree with and associate myself with the comments of Neil Bibby and John Finnie.

That is not to dismiss the concerns that Johann Lamont has raised. However, our two arguments have always been about precedent and inclusivity. The point has already been made that precedent is in Scottish legislation that has been passed by the Parliament and which was, in fact, voted for by Johann Lamont.

We have used the term that is used in the bill: ''different sex''. The reason why we have done that is to be more inclusive. The term has done, and will do, no harm in legislation. That is not just my view; it is the view of those who support equality'--our stakeholders including the Equality Network and Stonewall Scotland. Although I do not dismiss the points that Johann Lamont made, we believe that the bill is using the most inclusive term that includes non-binary people.

Johann LamontOf course we wish to be inclusive. Who would not want to be inclusive? However, it is clear in the legislation that non-binary is a transgender identity, not a sex.

If we want a debate in the Parliament about whether there are two sexes, we should have that debate. I am aware that that is a live debate in parts of our community. People believe that sex is on a spectrum and that sex is assigned at birth, not observed. Those are entirely legitimate things for people to argue, but if we want to have that debate we should have it and we should vote on it, so that it is clear.

What is happening here is that we are creating the impression that there are more than two sexes without having the debate on whether that is the case. There is language creep in the bill. When it talks about

''persons of a different sex'',

it means that there are more than two sexes. We know that'--yet we know that non-binary people regard themselves as having a transgender identity. That should be respected.

The case of a person who is targeted for having a preference for non-binary sexual partners has been raised, but section 1(5) already covers that, by providing that an aggravator applies when a person is targeted for offending because of their association with any person with any protected characteristic. Any offending that the person in that case suffered would be recorded as being motivated by prejudice against transgender identity. That would be right. Therefore, we do not need to confuse sex and gender identity to provide for any such case.

I repeat that we do not require to conflate the two terms. The language that I have used is consistent with that of the Equality Act 2010, but since stage 2, to try to be helpful, I have said ''the other sex'', rather than what the Equality Act says, which is ''the opposite sex''. The same point remains. The fundamental question of whether there are two sexes or whether sex is a spectrum is something that we have to decide. We do not decide it by putting it in a bit of legislation, which will be referred to later.

The minister could have settled the point for me if he had simply said that there are two sexes.

John MasonI agree with the member's fundamental argument that there are only two sexes, but I wonder whether this is the best bill to put that in or whether we should put it somewhere else.

Johann LamontI think that I made that point. If people think that sex is on a spectrum, they should introduce a bill in that regard and we can vote on it. What is currently happening is that language is being imported into legislation without our having that discussion. Members say that the language is reasonable and sensible and all the rest of it, but then they will discover that people are arguing, ''You have already conceded the argument that sex is a spectrum, because'--look'--here it is in that legislation.''

I emphasise that non-binary people themselves regard themselves as having a transgender identity. We have to respect that.

If a Government minister is not happy saying, in the Parliament, that there are two sexes, how does he expect a high school biology teacher to feel safe doing so? What about a modern studies teacher who is trying to help her class to explore the issues?

It comes back to the point about confusing sex with gender identity. In that confusion, some of the argument about transphobia and hatred emerges. As Adam Tomkins said, the law should be clear. It should not signal; it should be clear. If we want to make that decision, we should do so. As the law stands, there are two sexes, but people are finding themselves caught up in being reported to the police for saying so.

That is why we need to make laws that are clear and not set precedents that are ambiguous. The language should put beyond doubt that, as a Parliament, we understand that there are only two sexes. I urge members to support amendment 35.

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division. This is a one-minute division.

That vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were not able to vote.

Johann LamontOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to vote and I would have voted yes. [ Laughter. ] I got carried away.

The Presiding OfficerThank you very much, Ms Lamont. I will make sure that your vote is recorded.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 34, Against 85, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 35 disagreed to.

Amendment 36 moved'--[Johann Lamont].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division. This will be a one-minute division.

That vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were not able to vote.

Johann LamontOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to vote and I would have voted yes.

The Presiding OfficerThank you very much. That will be added to the register.

For

Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the vote is: For 34, Against 84, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 36 disagreed to.

The Presiding OfficerGroup 5 is on the characteristic of transgender identity. Amendment 37, in the name of Johann Lamont, is grouped with amendment 41.

Johann LamontMy amendments in the group seek to deal with groups that are covered by the characteristic of transgender identity in section 14(7). Amendment 37 would remove section 14(7)(d) and so remove cross-dressers from the scope of the bill. Amendment 41 is a consequential amendment that would remove the same group from the data collection provision. Paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 14(7), which cover female-to-male and male-to-female transgender people and those who are non-binary are unaffected.

The amendment would have the limited effect of removing people who occasionally cross-dress from the list of those who are covered by an aggravator based on prejudice and the new stirring-up offence. The existing criminal law protects everyone against attack, but the question today is only about which groups we want to send a message, as some have put it, that hatred is especially serious and damaging. I regret that, earlier, I was unable to persuade colleagues to use the bill to recognise the overwhelming scale of hatred that is experienced by women based on their sex.

20:15

The bill also excludes hatred of those living in poverty, even though Lord Bracadale acknowledged clear evidence of verbal abuse, harassment and physical assaults, particularly against homeless people. The bill also excludes groups such as goths, emos and punks, even though there is evidence of those groups being targeted for serious offending, including at least one case of murder.

Although women, homeless people and goths have been rejected, even in the face of evidence that they are targeted for offending based on prejudice, the Scottish Government has recently confirmed that it holds no evidence that cross-dressers experience it, despite the fact that their inclusion in the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 has enabled the collection of data for more than a decade. When the minister said that the Equality Network had provided examples of the group having been targeted for hate crime, it turned out that he meant entirely theoretical examples.

Some arguments have been put forward for including the group in order to avoid leaving a loophole, and I will come back to those arguments in my closing comments. However, it is my strong view that the only reason to include any group in the legislation is that we accept that inclusion is merited in its own terms. It is not a commentary on the crime or the person against whom the crime is perpetrated'--we are making judgments about who is included and who is not. Therefore, we should be clear who the provision covers. The cabinet secretary has talked about

''a man who is not a trans woman but wears a dress for a drag performance''.'--[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 February 2021; c 39.]

The Equality Network brought up examples of a man dressing up for a night out at ''The Rocky Horror Picture Show'', or men who cross-dress for what it terms ''emotional need''. When women would be likely to be recognised as cross-dressers is obviously much less clear. In the letter that I sent to colleagues, I mentioned that, when the existing legislation was introduced, at no point was the issue discussed. However, I was prompted by hearing the cabinet secretary's arguments at stage 2, and I would like us to now have the proper debate that we did not have in 2009. Why do we believe that hatred towards occasional cross-dressers should be covered by the bill but not hatred towards all the other groups that I have mentioned, especially women? I would like to hear colleagues' answers to that question.

I move amendment 37.

John FinnieAs has been said, amendments 37 and 41 relate to the characteristic of transgender identity and would remove protection from crimes that are targeted at cross-dressing people. That is an existing hate crime, for which the protections have been in place for 10 years. Johann Lamont said that she would return to the arguments about including the group, and I hope that she does. It is not about how frequently such offences are committed'--if one person is made vulnerable, that is one person too many. To remove existing provisions is simply ridiculous.

I will give an example of what might happen if the protection was removed. A person who is accused of a transgender identity-aggravated crime could use an excuse and say, ''My motivation was that I disliked that person because I thought they were a cross-dresser. I didn't know that they were a trans woman or a trans man.'' I am keen to hear the response to that point.

The bill is about consolidation and enhancement, not removing existing protections. These are deeply disappointing amendments.

Neil BibbyAmendments 37 and 41 seek to remove people who cross-dress from the definition of the protected characteristic of transgender identity under the bill. Although it is true that a person who cross-dresses will not be trans simply because they are cross-dressing, as John Finnie said, their status and protection has been included in hate crime legislation for the past decade. I understand that they are included because the removal of such language and protections from the bill would create a potential loophole that would weaken protections for all those who suffer hate crime as a result of their transgender identity.

It is important that, under the legislation, the application of the aggravation is based on the presumption of the offender that the person is a part of the group that is covered by the protected characteristic, and it is that presumption that drove their ill will and malice towards the victim. By removing people who cross-dress from the provision, we could potentially, and unfortunately, introduce a defence that their offending against a trans person was based on their presumption that the person was cross-dressing, not that they were trans. If that belief was accepted by the court, an aggravation could no longer be applied.

Although I understand the points that have been raised, ultimately it is important to ensure that we do not leave open any loopholes in the legislation, which could happen with amendments 37 and 41.

Humza YousafAs Johann Lamont has said, the amendments seek to remove people who cross-dress from the definition of transgender identity. Again, I associate myself with the remarks of John Finnie and Neil Bibby. In my view, the amendments would limit the protections that are provided in the bill and remove protections that are already provided in the existing definition of transgender identity in the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009.

Without existing protection being lost, people who cross-dress are also included in the bill because they experience hate crime. As the Equality Network noted,

''The amendments could ... create a loophole which would undermine the protection for trans women and trans men''.

John Finnie also made the point well. The Equality Network is concerned that a person who is accused of a hate crime in relation to transgender identity

''could use the excuse, 'My motivation was that I disliked that person because I thought they were a cross-dresser'''

and not because they were a trans woman or a trans man.

Elaine SmithI am puzzled about that, and I hope that the cabinet secretary can enlighten me. We include cross-dressers in the bill but we do not include women. What happens if someone says that they did not know that someone was a trans woman and thought that they were a woman? Is that a loophole?

Humza YousafThe reverse could also be true. If a woman who was born a woman was the subject of transphobic hate, a transphobia aggravator could be applied, because it was the prejudice that motivated the hatred. That is how an aggravator works'--it has always worked in that way. [ Interruption .] Elaine Smith is saying that she does not understand. I can give a simpler example. If somebody of my colour of skin'--

Elaine SmithOn a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not appreciate anyone in this chamber telling me that I do not understand something. It is not that I do not understand; I want to have clarity and I do not wish to be patronised.

Humza YousafI did not intend to patronise Elaine Smith. I thought that she said, ''I don't understand,'' so I offered to provide another example.

The way that an aggravator works is that it depends on the motivation of the prejudice. For example, members might have seen the written submission from Sikhs in Scotland, which said that Sikhs are often targeted for Islamophobic hate. Sikhs are not Muslim, but they are often the target of Islamophobic hate. Therefore, if women are targeted for transphobic hate, they will be covered by a transphobia aggravator. That is how aggravators tend to work.

It is important to stress that, in the bill, cross-dressing is not its own characteristic in the way that it has been portrayed; rather, it is included in the wider definition of transgender identity. That takes into account how people could be targeted for transphobic hate crime due to how they present in public irrespective of their personal sense of gender identity.

As I keep saying, an offence that was committed against someone that was proved to have been aggravated by a prejudice towards cross-dressing would be recorded as an offence aggravated by prejudice against transgender identity. To me, it is clear that prejudice can be based on the fact that a person'--a man or a woman'--cross-dresses and not on the fact or the presumption that they are trans. Therefore, it is essential that we keep cross-dressing within that definition.

The use of up-to-date and inclusive language is an important overall objective. We are modernising the hate crime bill, and if we were to lose, dilute or weaken any of the protection that is currently afforded to cross-dressing people under the 2009 act, we could not consolidate or modernise the hate crime bill.

I take exception to some members continuing to say that women are not protected by the bill. In saying that, they completely ignore the intersectionality that exists in our society. We know that there is a gendered element to hate crime. Female Muslims are more likely to be subject to religious prejudice than male Muslims, and the same is true of black women, women with a disability and lesbian women. Women are protected by the bill if they are targets of hatred in relation to characteristics that they have or are perceived to have. That highlights the complexity of misogyny and that there is a need for more detailed consideration'--as we have said in previous amendments'--by the working group, which is chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy. To suggest that women are not protected at all is to dismiss much of the hatred that many of them are subjected to. I am certain that Johann Lamont and others do not mean to do that, but it is important to put the point about intersectionality on the record.

I therefore ask members to reject amendments 37 and 41.

The Presiding OfficerI call Johann Lamont to wind up on this group.

Johann LamontWho knew? It was helpful of the cabinet secretary to explain to me that women of different groups suffer hate. The one thing that they have in common is that they are women.

I heard what John Finnie said about how hurtful it would be to remove cross-dressers from the bill, and I heard his point that we cannot have one person excluded. However, he voted today to exclude women from the bill, despite the fact that we know that women of all races, of all classes and of all disabilities or none suffer from crimes of hatred simply because they are women. He did so and then had the audacity to give me a lecture on being less inconsiderate about people who are cross-dressers.

Let me be clear: I respect people who have a transgender identity, and the bill seeks to protect them. Nobody believes that someone who cross-dresses as a hobby, as a lifestyle or as a matter of emotional need would ever be perceived as being in the same category as transgender people, who, as we have heard, face challenges and difficulties and have the right to respect, the right to healthcare and so on. Frankly, that is to trivialise a serious debate. I know that some people think that I am trivialising it, but I am highlighting that the bill offers more protection to somebody who dresses as a woman in his spare time than it offers to women. That cannot be right.

My colleague Neil Bibby made the point that there is a loophole. If a cross-dressing man was mistaken for a trans woman, the aggravator would apply only under section 1(5), which makes the offender's presumption the relevant factor. However, if a cross-dresser was mistaken for a woman, there would be no offence. The cabinet secretary said that he is concerned about the loophole. However, if somebody who commits a hate crime mistakes a trans woman for a woman, the woman does not have the protection, so the loophole exists whether or not cross-dressing is included in the bill. The loophole exists because the Government has turned its face against including women in the bill until such time as a working group reflects on what we all already know.

I must make this point in conclusion. I am all in favour of trying to understand how we can protect people through the bill. However, in my view, the term ''cross-dresses'' has been included in the bill not because members have any issue about transgender or do not recognise all those challenges, but because some folk inside the trans activist community talk about what is called a trans umbrella, which includes cross-dressers. We need to decide whether somebody who cross-dresses in their leisure time should be in the same group as trans people, given what we have said about their lives. I think that most people do not think that they should. In fact, if that point is made to people, trans people very often react against it, because they regard it as an offensive term.

The problem that we have is that we are affording greater protection to a group who describe cross-dressing as something that they do in their leisure time, for emotional need or whatever it might be, and who are not saying that they are trans. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we have ended up in that place, but it reflects the problem. If the cabinet secretary is concerned about the loophole, women should have been included in the bill, and then we would not have that problem. There is already an issue that trans women might not have the protection that they might have expected if the defence against the charge is, ''I thought you were a woman and not a trans woman.'' That is the problem that we have here. It will take more than a working group to undo the damage that has been done by the exclusion of women from hate crime legislation.

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were not able to vote.

20:30

The Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands (Paul Wheelhouse)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Unfortunately, my page did not reload and I was unable to vote, but I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you. I will make sure that your vote is added.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 34, Against 85, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 37 disagreed to.

Amendments 18 and 19 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

Section 15'--Power to add the characteristic of sex

Amendment 20 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

Amendment 21 moved'--[Johann Lamont].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed. Any member who was not able to vote should let me know.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to connect to the voting app, but I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Mountain. You would have voted no. I will make sure that that is added.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism (Fergus Ewing)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerFergus Ewing would have voted no. Thank you very much, Mr Ewing.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The voting app would not let me vote, but I would have voted yes.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Johnson. You would have voted yes. I will make sure that that is added, as well.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 24, Against 95, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 21 disagreed to.

Amendment 22 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

The Presiding OfficerGroup 6 is on reports relating to hate crime. Amendment 23, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 24, 25, 12 and 27 to 29.

Humza YousafI will speak to amendments 12, 23 to 25 and 27 to 29 in my name. I recognise that the value of the data and evidence on hate crime in Scotland must be improved, because it is not good enough to give us the granular detail that we need to understand how pervasive hate crime is here in Scotland.

In response to calls from a number of stakeholders, particularly BEMIS, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 requiring Police Scotland to publish disaggregated data on police-recorded hate crime annually. That will provide vital information at the earliest stage of the justice system about which groups are being targeted, alongside key information about victims and perpetrators. We know that underreporting of hate crime is a real problem and an issue that must be tackled. Having the data and evidence to inform our response will be invaluable.

My amendments 27 to 29 will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to publish the reports and on the chief constable to provide information to the Scottish ministers. That will allow flexibility in how those reports are published and will allow, for example, the publication of figures on both police-recorded hate crime and convictions to be brought together in future, if that was deemed appropriate.

Amendment 12 seeks to ensure that disaggregated data on convictions is published annually by the Scottish ministers. It places a duty on the Scottish ministers to consider the information available and to take reasonable steps to obtain that information and to include it in an annual report.

Members will recall that amendments seeking to achieve a similar outcome were lodged at stage 2 by Dean Lockhart. Although I supported the intention behind those amendments, there were some technical issues. I committed to work with Dean Lockhart between stage 2 and stage 3 and I thank both him and Liam Kerr for raising this important matter and for working constructively with the Government.

As I highlighted at stage 2, the courts are currently unable to provide disaggregated data. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has told us that its system cannot record the disaggregated data in the way that we need it. Amendment 12 is therefore drafted to ensure a degree of flexibility and does not place any restrictions on how the information will be provided to Scottish ministers to include in a report; for example, the information might come from systems that Police Scotland maintains on behalf of justice partners. I am delighted that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the SCTS and Police Scotland have committed to work together and with us to determine how best to ensure that Scottish ministers are provided with the relevant disaggregated data that we will need in future. I thank them for their valuable engagement to date.

Amendments 23 to 25 ensure that the enabling power to add sex to the bill can also be used to make provision relating to the publication of both police-reported data and convictions data in relation to the targeting of the characteristic of sex, should that characteristic be added to the hate crime legislative framework in future. If that were to be the case, I would want to ensure that we would also be required to publish data about convictions as well as data on police-recorded crime in which victims were targeted because of their sex.

Amendment 24 is a technical amendment that better aligns the enabling power with the provisions on police-recorded crime and convictions data. It amends

''is to be included in reports''

to

''may require to be included in reports'',

and it does so because the information may not always be available in such detail for every recorded crime or conviction. If sex were to be added in future, the amendments would enable the regulations to specify which information relating to the characteristic of sex is required to be included in a report on police-recorded hate crime, where it is available.

Amendments 23 to 25 are important, because they will enable vital information to be provided on which groups are being targeted, information about the age, sex, ethnicity and national origins of victims and perpetrators, and further information on convictions. Underreporting of hate crime is a key issue that must be tackled: having the data and evidence to inform our response will be key to ensuring that that is effective and provides the necessary support for victims.

I move amendment 23.

Pauline McNeillI asked to speak on group 6 because I want to ask the cabinet secretary about his rationale for amendment 24. It seeks to amend the phrase

''the information relating to the characteristic of sex which is to be included in reports''

by changing ''is'' to ''may require''. I agree with the minister that one of the benefits over the many years for which we have had an aggravation to a substantial offence in law has been that it has enabled us to collate relevant statistics on crime. The publication of police reports that break down that information is essential.

However, amendment 24 gives me the impression that the cabinet secretary might be diluting any requirement to collate statistics on the basis of sex. I ask him to confirm when he sums up on the group that that is not the intention. I want to be clear that, if we get to a point where there is a new law or a sex aggravator is included, statistics will be collated on the basis of sex. The reason for my concern about that is not just my perspective on violence against women. It is important to recognise that young men, for example, are often the victims of crimes for which there is not necessarily an aggravator.

The cabinet secretary proposes the wording ''may require'', which suggests that information may be included where it is available. I would have preferred wording that required the information to be included in all cases. To remove the word ''is'', which is definite, and replace it with ''may require'' seems to make the provision looser. It would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could make clear the circumstances in which the information will be included in reports. I hope that he can reassure me on the purpose of amendment 24 and what he is seeking to do.

Johann LamontThe cabinet secretary said that, basically, we will start to gather the information if a sex aggravator is included. Earlier, however, he explained to me clearly that women suffer hate crime in a whole range of ways, whether they are disabled women, Muslim women or whatever. As has been said, groups that represent Muslim women have made the point that it is important to record those crimes against Muslims on the basis of sex because that clearly tells us something about the nature of that ghastly form of Islamophobia. I certainly do not need to lecture the cabinet secretary on this, but women are seen as being very visible targets for abuse.

For those reasons, I cannot for the life of me work out why the cabinet secretary is not going to record the sex of people who are victims of hate crimes. The protected characteristic of sex may not be included at present, but it is really important to understand the way in which hate crime expresses itself. I made the point about Muslim women. It may be the same for disabled women'--I do not know'--but I cannot for the life of me work out why we are now diluting the requirement. I obviously have other concerns about the bill, but it seems that the cabinet secretary's amendments in the group will dilute it further and delay even more our ability to understand the experience of women who face hate crimes.

The Presiding OfficerI invite the cabinet secretary to conclude on group 6.

Humza YousafI simply make the point that the bill's provisions and the duties that it places on the Scottish ministers will require us to report on the sex of the victim and the perpetrator. As I mentioned in my remarks'--I hope that this gives Pauline McNeill a level of comfort'--the only reason for the change in language is that all the information that we would like to publish may not be available. If we put a duty on ourselves such that its publication will be required, but the data is not available, we would technically be in breach of that duty. The amendment will give us a little more flexibility.

Johann LamontWould the fact that we asked in law for the information to be collated not make it more likely that the information would be collated? Does legislation not drive the information that we gather? The cabinet secretary said that it might not be possible to make the information available, but does it not in fact work in the opposite direction?

Humza YousafNobody is saying that there is not a duty. There is a duty on ministers to publish the information. That is why the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, Police Scotland and so on will update their systems. I may have misheard Ms Lamont, but I clarify that the police will record the sex of the victim where it is known and will include that in the report. That information was included in the deep dive on hate crime that we published last month.

I hope that that gives some degree of comfort to Pauline McNeill and Johann Lamont. This is not an attempt to wriggle out of or water down any duty; it is simply ensuring that we have a little bit of flexibility in case we cannot get the information that we are looking for straight away. We certainly commit to go into real detail about the sex of the victims and perpetrators where that is known, as the deep dive did last month'--I will be happy to send that to any member. I hope that that gives some element of comfort.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Amendment 24 moved'--[Humza Yousaf].

20:45

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed. Members should please let me know if they were unable to vote.

Gordon Lindhurst (Lothian) (Con)On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I tried to vote, but for some reason my voting app did not work. I would have voted no.

The Presiding OfficerThank you, Mr Lindhurst. You would have voted no. I will make sure that that is added to the vote tally.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 70, Against 49, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

Amendment 25 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

Amendment 26 not moved.

After section 15

The Presiding OfficerGroup 7, which is our last group, is on the characteristic of age. Amendment 38, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, is grouped with amendment 42.

Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)During the scrutiny of the bill, there was significant discussion about the inclusion of age as a characteristic and the issue of vulnerability.

In its evidence at stage 1, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service stated:

''Prosecutorial experience is that there are relatively few cases of age hostility''.

The Justice Committee concluded:

''the approach to this issue should be one based on vulnerability and not age.''

That is a view that I support and set out in probing amendments at stage 2.

We are where we are, and the cabinet secretary's view has prevailed. Under the bill, age-related offences will be prosecuted on the basis of prejudice. In recognition of that, amendment 38 provides that, when considering whether an offence has been committed under sections 1 to 3, regard must be given to the vulnerability of the victim, including whether the victim is a child or an older person. The drafting of the amendment recognises that both young people and older people can be the victims of age-related crime.

Legitimate concerns have been raised about how our criminal justice system responds to cases that involve children and the elderly, and their treatment as victims or witnesses. By providing that regard must be given to the vulnerability of the victim, it is hoped that the special measures afforded to victims and witnesses under the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 could also be available to victims and witnesses under sections 1 and 3 of the bill. That would include, for example, the ability of a victim to record their evidence as soon as possible after the alleged offence has been committed, when the details are fresh in their mind. Furthermore, that recorded account would then be provided as evidence without the victim having to appear at any hearing or court case, which could be many months or even years later. Crucially, they would not have to continually repeat their account of what happened many times to different people, perhaps becoming frustrated and, in some cases, if the victim is elderly, even more unsure of themselves and confused.

Amendment 42, which is supported by Age Scotland, would place a duty on ministers to raise awareness of the inclusion of age as a characteristic under the bill. That would aid public understanding of the new age-related hate crime offence and what it means in practice for victims, whether old or young. The amendment recognises that legislation alone may help but cannot guarantee change. A campaign would help to address concerns that have been expressed that other crimes against older people ought to be part of wider awareness of support that could be offered, as suggested by the Law Society of Scotland, through helplines, systems and guidelines to assist those who work with older people in reporting crimes. In effect, such a campaign would promote and highlight the advantages of a holistic approach to the work that is already being done under current strategies.

On that basis, I hope that the cabinet secretary will feel able to support both amendments in my name.

I move amendment 38.

Humza YousafI will do my best to be brief. I have a one-and-a-half-year-old who does not sleep, and it is getting dangerously close to my bedtime, so I will try to be quick.

Members: Aw!

Humza YousafThat is more sympathy than my wife gives me. I thank members for that.

As Margaret Mitchell has said, amendment 38 would add a new section to the bill that would impose a duty on, among others, the police, the Crown Office and the courts to have regard to the vulnerability of the victim in considering whether, for the purposes of sections 1 and 3 of the bill, an offence had been committed in relation to the characteristic of age.

I am pleased that we are having a debate about Margaret Mitchell's amendments, but the Government cannot support them. Ultimately, that is because, although we recognise that people can be targeted for their vulnerability, hate crime is quite different. I have said on the record that I am absolutely committed to exploring in future the area of vulnerability under the criminal law, but we cannot try to insert such provisions in a hate crime bill. Fundamentally, Lord Bracadale agreed that an offence that targets vulnerability is not motivated by hatred, and hatred is exactly what we are looking at in a hate crime bill.

Crimes that are motivated by seeking to take advantage of a person's actual or perceived vulnerability are not crimes that are motivated by prejudice'--that is, they are not, essentially, hate crimes. To include a new statutory aggravation for offences that take advantage of a person's actual or perceived vulnerability simply would not fit within legislation that is fundamentally about offences that are committed as a result of prejudice. The focus of the bill can be seen in its long title, which includes the wording

''to make provision about the aggravation of offences by prejudice''.

Having age as a characteristic in hate crime law and considering separate criminal law reforms in respect of vulnerability are, of course, not mutually exclusive, but vulnerability does not belong in hate crime legislation. People might be targeted for their age because somebody is motivated by hatred of the elderly or of people who are younger, but prejudice by vulnerability is not a hate crime category on its own.

The provisions in amendment 38 also apply for the purposes of sections 1 and 3, so that

''When considering whether an offence has been committed in relation to the characteristic of age, regard must be had to the vulnerability of the victim''.

The provision then provides that an assessment of vulnerability includes having regard to whether the victim is

''under the age of 16, or ... An older person.''

There are no offences created under section 1 of the bill. As we know, having debated it, section 1 provides for a number of statutory aggravations, including age, that can be added to the general offences. There is no consideration of whether an offence has been committed under section 1, and, as such, the amendment is technically deficient, because there are no offences under section 1.

The concept of stirring up hatred relates to groups who are associated with the characteristics, who can be victimised as a result of the effect of stirring up hatred, but the offences in section 3 are not offences against an individual victim. To make sense, amendment 38 would seem to require a specific individual victim of the offence, so the amendment is technically deficient on that basis as well.

Although I am committed to looking at the area of vulnerability under the criminal law, for practical policy reasons and because of its clear technical deficiencies, I ask members not to support amendment 38.

Amendment 42 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to promote public awareness and understanding of offences under the bill that are related to the characteristic of age. We are absolutely committed to raising awareness and promoting the new protections that we hope that the bill will introduce, once it passes. That will include marketing campaigns as well as updated guidance and educational tools, which we will work on in partnership with stakeholders.

I am very supportive of the principle behind amendment 42, but I do not think that it is necessary or, to be frank, advisable to place such a narrow duty on ministers to raise awareness for offences against one characteristic as opposed to all the characteristics. Instead, a more holistic approach will achieve the intention behind Ms Mitchell's amendment, as well as securing wider engagement once the bill is, as we hope, passed and commenced.

Therefore, although I appreciate the intention behind Margaret Mitchell's amendments 38 and 42, I encourage members to oppose them.

The Presiding OfficerMs Mitchell, do you wish to wind up on the group?

Margaret MitchellI have set out my arguments. Given the lateness of the hour and the work that we still have to get through, I am content to leave it at that and let members make up their own minds when it comes time for those decisions.

The Presiding OfficerThank you. We will go straight to the question. The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding OfficerThere will be a division.

The vote is now closed. Members should please let me know if they were not able to vote.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

21:00

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 33, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38 disagreed to.

After section 10

Amendment 12 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

Section 15A'--Publication of reports by police on recorded hate crime

Amendments 27 and 28 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

Amendments 39 to 41 not moved.

Amendment 29 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

After section 15A

Amendment 42 moved'--[Margaret Mitchell].

The Presiding OfficerThe question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No. [ Interruption. ]

The Presiding OfficerThe lights going out are part of the Parliament's energy-saving measures. I am sure that members approve.

We will move to the division on amendment 42.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding OfficerThe result of the division is: For 54, Against 67, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 42 disagreed to.

Schedule 1'--Offences relating to stirring up hatred: information society services

Amendment 30 moved'--[Humza Yousaf]'--and agreed to.

Schedule 2'--Modifications of enactments

Amendment 31 not moved.

The Presiding OfficerThat ends consideration of amendments. We still have decision time to come. I have a few items to go through and then we will have a short suspension to make sure that everybody is here for decision time.

First, as members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill relates to protected subject matter'--that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. The bill does no such thing, so it does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

I am also minded to accept a motion without notice from the cabinet secretary to move the stage 3 debate on the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill to a later day.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5C, the remaining Stage 3 proceedings on the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill be adjourned to a later day.'--[Humza Yousaf]

Motion agreed to.

We still have to have decision time, which will include a number of important votes. I will therefore suspend business to ensure that everyone is here, given that decision time has been delayed.

Decision time will be at 10 past 9. [ Interruption .] Is that too long a break? Okay'--I will move it to 8 minutes past 9. There will now be a three-minute suspension to ensure that everyone is on board for that time.

21:05 Meeting suspended.

21:09 On resuming'--

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:57

If you followed my research on banking and the reality of the Russian sanction regime, this report from Reuters today takes on an entirely new dimension.

ME: '...''The same way the Patriot Act was not designed to stop terrorism but rather to create a domestic surveillance system. So too were the ''Russian Sanctions'' not designed to sanction Russia, but rather to create the financial control system that will lead to a USA digital currency. The Western sanctions created a financial wall around the USA (dollar-based west), not to keep Russia out, but to keep us in. The Western sanction regime, the financial mechanisms they created and authorized, created the control gate that leads to a U.S. digital currency.'' (more)

REUTERS TODAY: '...''The firm [SWIFT] has gone from being virtually unknown outside banking circles to a household name since 2022 when it cut most of Russia's banks off from its network as part of the West's sanctions for the invasion of Ukraine. (more)

[The map shows the global financial cleaving, an outcome of sanctions against Russia]

I first started to deep dive research into these CBDC datapoints when the Russian sanctions were triggered.

You see, nothing about the sanctions really made sense from the way they were structured. Never before, not with Iran, North Korea, Venezuela or Cuba was the dollar weaponized against any entity who did not conform to the sanctions. Additionally, the intensity of the drive to make the sanctions the tip of the Western spear was just too pointed; something about it didn't make sense. That's what took me to dig deep into the sanction impact and realize nothing said about these financial sanctions made sense when compared against their actual outcome. {Go Deep}.

So, let's start with the latest development:(Reuters) '' Global bank messaging network SWIFT is planning a new platform in the next one to two years to connect the wave of central bank digital currencies now in development to the existing finance system, it has told Reuters.

The move, which would be one of the most significant yet for the nascent CBDC ecosystem given SWIFT's key role in global banking, is likely to be fine-tuned to when the first major ones are launched.

Around 90% of the world's central banks are now exploring digital versions of their currencies. Most don't want to be left behind by bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, but are grappling with technological complexities.

SWIFT's head of innovation, Nick Kerigan, said its latest trial, which took 6 months and involved a 38-member group of central banks, commercial banks and settlement platforms, had been one of the largest global collaborations on CBDCs and ''tokenised'' assets to date.

''We are looking at a roadmap to productize (launch as a product) in the next 12-24 months,'' Kerigan said in an interview. ''It's moving out of experimental stage towards something that is becoming a reality.''

Although the timeframe could still shift if major economy CBDC launches get delayed, getting out the blocks for when they do would be a major boost for maintaining SWIFT's incumbent dominance in the bank-to-bank plumbing network.

['...] A raft of heavyweight commercial banks including HSBC, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, Societe Generale, Standard Chartered and the CLS FX settlement platform all took part too, as did at least two banks from China.

The idea is that once the interlink solution is scaled-up, banks would have one main global connection point able to handle digital asset payments, rather than thousands if they were to set up an individual one with every counterparty. (read more)

The sanction regime against Russia was always intended to generate this outcome. This is the feature of the sanctions, not a flaw.

This dollar based CBDC was the intended destination of the people who constructed the Russian sanction plan (ex. BlackRock/WEF types). The Western politicians then were recruited and given instructions to support. Their cover story was ''Build Back Better,'' ie climate change, which was the predicate to the Russian sanctions.

I know at first blush a lot of this CBDC discussion seems esoteric, difficult to understand, and there are a lot of other issues happening simultaneously in the background. However, if you contemplate the biggest threat on this overarching power arc of Western government, you arrive to understand how serious this seemingly opaque issue really is.

2022 '' NEW YORK, March 24 (Reuters) '' BlackRock Inc's (BLK.N) chief executive, Larry Fink, said on Thursday that the Russia-Ukraine war could end up accelerating digital currencies as a tool to settle international transactions, as the conflict upends the globalization drive of the last three decades.

In a letter to the shareholders of the world's largest asset manager, Fink said the war will push countries to reassess currency dependencies, and that BlackRock was studying digital currencies and stablecoins due to increased client interest.

''A global digital payment system, thoughtfully designed, can enhance the settlement of international transactions while reducing the risk of money laundering and corruption'', he said.

['...] In the letter on Thursday, the chairman and CEO of the $10 trillion asset manager said the Russia-Ukraine crisis had put an end to the globalization forces at work over the past 30 years.

['...] ''While companies' and consumers' balance sheets are strong today, giving them more of a cushion to weather these difficulties, a large-scale reorientation of supply chains will inherently be inflationary,'' said Fink.

He said central banks were dealing with a dilemma they had not faced in decades, having to choose between living with high inflation or slowing economic activity to contain price pressures. (read more)

When the White House first started openly saying the Biden administration was reviewing how to implement CBDC's, yes THAT Announcement ACTUALLY HAPPENED, September 2022, things from a research perspective really started to get serious. ''While the U.S. has not yet decided whether it will pursue a CBDC, the U.S. has been closely examining the implications of, and options for, issuing a CBDC.'' Whenever the U.S. govt says they're ''undecided,'' pay close attention.

First things first with the Western financial sanctions- specifically the SWIFT exchange. It is true you cannot use VISA, Mastercard or any mainstream Western financial tools to conduct business in Russia; however, the number of workarounds for this issue are numerous. One of those tools is the use of a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin; and within that reality, you find something very ominous about the USA motive against crypto.

(Newsmax) '' JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon on Wednesday suggested bitcoin currency should be banned. Dimon was speaking during a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

''I've always been deeply opposed to crypto, bitcoin, etc.,'' Dimon said in response to a question from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. ''The only true use case for it is criminals, drug traffickers '... money laundering, tax avoidance because it is somewhat anonymous, not fully, and because you can move money instantaneously. ''If I was the government, I would close it down.'' (read more)

Dimon was/is positioning JPMorgan to be one of the facilitating beneficiaries of the financial control system evident within any CBDC process.

The US Treasury has set the financial system on an almost irreversible path to a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency. As direct consequence, crypto currency alternatives are a threat to the establishment of that Western objective. This reality also pulls in the explanation around why the USA is so all-in for the banker-driven World War Reddit '' the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Conflict with Russia created the opportunity for the USA to create a sanctions regime that doesn't truly sanction Russia; instead it controls the world of USA dollar-based finance. At the end of that control mechanism is a digital dollar, a Central Bank Digital Currency'.... and by extension full control over U.S. citizen activity. The Marxist holy grail.

Take those reference points as an overlay, and now consider this little discussed 2022 announcement from the Biden administration:

[White House] '' President Biden often summarizes his vision for America in one word: Possibilities. A ''digital dollar'' may seem far-fetched, but modern technology could make it a real possibility.

A United States central bank digital currency (CBDC) would be a digital form of the U.S. dollar. While the U.S. has not yet decided whether it will pursue a CBDC, the U.S. has been closely examining the implications of, and options for, issuing a CBDC. If the U.S. pursued a CBDC, there could be many possible benefits, such as facilitating efficient and low-cost transactions, fostering greater access to the financial system, boosting economic growth, and supporting the continued centrality of the U.S. within the international financial system. However, a U.S. CBDC could also introduce a variety of risks, as it might affect everything ranging from the stability of the financial system to the protection of sensitive data.

Notably, these benefits and risks might vary significantly based on how the CBDC system is designed and deployed. That is why Executive Order 14067, Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets, placed the highest urgency on research and development efforts into the potential design and deployment options of a U.S. CBDC. The Executive Order directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in consultation with other Federal departments and agencies, to submit to the President a technical evaluation for a potential U.S. CBDC system.

Today, OSTP is publishing its report, Technical Evaluation for a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency System, which lays out policy objectives for a potential U.S. CBDC system and analyzes key technical design choices for a U.S. CBDC system. The report also estimates the technical feasibility of building a CBDC minimum viable product and describes how a U.S. CBDC system might affect Federal operations. The report makes recommendations on how to prepare the Federal Government for a U.S. CBDC system. Importantly, the report does not make any assessments or recommendations about whether the U.S. should pursue a CBDC, nor does it make any decisions regarding particular design choices for a potential U.S. CBDC system. (read more)

When you read that full announcement, you realize they have already built the system.

If the system is built, and they are now making policy recommendations for implementation, the question becomes, 'What's the goal'?

We do not have to look far for the explanation.

Prior to the White House announcement, the World Government Summit 2022 took place on March 29 and 30 in Dubai, hosting more than 4,000 individuals from 190 countries including senior government officials, heads of international organizations, and global ''experts.'' The invited participants presented ideas and worldviews from within their various fields of specialty.

One presentation was from Dr. Pippa Malmgren, an American economist who served as special adviser on Economic Policy to President George W. Bush.

Her father, Harald Malmgren, served as a senior aide to US Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. In this segment, Mrs. Malmgren says the quiet part out loud. Yes, they are no longer hiding the construct; indeed, as you will hear, they are saying quite openly what the future will look like. WATCH (2 minutes):

[Full Source '' 6 hours ( internal segment at 18:30 )]

Transcript '' Dr. Malmgren: ''What underpins a world order is always the financial system. I was very privileged. My father was an adviser to Nixon when they came off the gold standard in 71. And so, I was brought up with a kind of inside view of how very important the financial structure is to absolutely everything else.

And what we're seeing in the world today, I think, is we are on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to, and I'll say this boldly, we're about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one. And the new one. The new accounting is what we call blockchain.

It means digital, it means having a almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what's going on. It also raises huge dangers in terms of the balance of power between states and citizens.

In my opinion, we're going to need a digital constitution of human rights if we're going to have digital money. But also this new money will be sovereign in nature. Most people think that digital money is crypto, and private. But what I see our superpowers introducing digital currency, the Chinese were the first the US is on the brink, I think of moving in the same direction the Europeans have committed to that as well.

And the question is, will that new system of digital money and digital accounting accommodate the competing needs of the citizens of all these locations, so that every human being has a chance to have a better life? Because that's the only measure of whether a world order really serves!''

The entry into a digital currency, needs a digital identity.

The end goal of a digital currency is why Western political leaders have not been worried about following the COVID-19 spending demands from the World Economic Forum. {Go Deep}

When the global trade currency does not need to be pegged, it is completely fiat. This is the current problem with global trade and transactions taking place in U.S. dollars, which arbitrarily lifts the standard of life for Americans while providing no similar benefit to other nations. That view became the underlying motive for Osama Bin Laden to target the World Trade Center, Twin Towers. That view was/is also the perspective carried by Barack Obama, that lay behind his ''fundamental change'' statement.

A digital currency allows ultimate control, on a global basis, by a one world government, or Western system of collective governments, that can assign value. No other mechanism will have as much control over the life of a person than a digital currency that will create a system of transactional credits and debits, perhaps also influenced by your social credit score.

Can it be stopped? I struggle with that question. I look in the mirror, think about the reality of how many people think this is an absurd conspiracy theory, and respond with'.... How many people even know about the thing you are asking them to oppose?

How many people would believe the Western sanctions against Russia were really the USG building a cage to keep us in? Information, we need to start there. That's my answer.

During remarks in New Hampshire, President Trump announced he would never allow the creation of a central bank digital currency. WATCH:

.

Of course, it should be noted'..... as if the entire global system didn't already oppose Donald Trump, this position against CBDC's just puts an exclamation point on how the multinational financial systems will hate/oppose him even more.

This 2024 election is critical for a variety of reasons. However, high atop that list is this issue of how a dollar based CBDC is a threat to every liberty we cherish.

We will win this battle and eventually this war, or I'll die fighting it.

They are trying to move fast, because people are catching on now.

We are on the right side of every issue; we cherish liberty and individual freedom. Our opposition is built upon a foundation of fraud and lies. The politicians are corrupt, and their arguments collapse when put in the sunlight; but they are not the root of the problem '' they are vessels. That's why the multinationals like BlackRock need the rules and referees (politicians) slanted in their favor. That's why they need censorship, deplatforming, and beyond everything else'.... they must control information.

'...The key battle right now is an information war.Tell your family, friends, neighbors. At first, they may think you are crazy, don't quit. Share the information. Use the internal citations to help you bolster your arguments. Don't quit planting seeds of information, and then update with additional information as it surfaces. Keep driving the awakening.

Support Our Fight Here

[source]

Posted in Big Government,

Big Stupid Government,

Big Tech,

Conspiracy ?,

Deep State,

Donald Trump,

Election 2024,

Environmentalism,

Joe Biden,

President Trump,

Trade Deal,

Typical Prog Behavior,

Uncategorized,

USA,

World Economic Forum

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:52

Steve Harvey (r.) hangs out with Merit Street Media's Dr. Phil McGraw. (Image credit: Merit Street Media)Steve Harvey is joining Dr. Phil McGraw's Merit Street Media, the partners said Thursday, with Harvey taking an equity stake in the new network.

As part of the deal, Merit Street acquired 300-plus episodes of Harvey's NBC-produced daytime talker, Steve, which originally aired on TV stations from 2017-19. Harvey also hosts syndicated game show Family Feud as well as a celebrity version on ABC primetime. He's also hosted his nationally syndicated morning radio show, The Steve Harvey Morning Show, since 2000.

Harvey's first project for the network will see him co-executive producing a documentary special about his Steve Harvey Mentoring Program for the network, which will feature both Harvey and McGraw. The mentorship program is about giving young men the tools they need to grow into leaders. The special is slated to air this fall.

''Partnering with my good friend on such an innovative network allows me to continue my mission of empowering and inspiring individuals through entertainment,'' Harvey said in a statement. ''The docustyle special highlighting the impactful work of the Steve & Marjorie Harvey Foundation is particularly close to my heart. I believe in the power of mentorship to transform lives and look forward to sharing this journey with viewers. The positive impact we can create together will be unlike anything seen before," said Harvey in a statement.''

''Steve and I have been personal friends for over a decade, and it's always the best experience when we work together,'' said McGraw, also in a statement. ''It's easy to say that he's the funniest human I've ever met,'' he continued. ''But his kindness and his passion to help others are really unmatched.''

Besides Harvey, Merit Street also has signed such talent as Chris Harrison, former host of ABC's The Bachelor, and Nancy Grace, former host of an eponymous show on HLN. Grace is anchoring a true-crime show that airs weekday afternoons on Merit Street.

Merit Street also runs morning and evening news blocks. The morning block, titled ''Morning on Merit Street,'' is co-hosted by Dominique Sachse and Fanchon Stinger, while evening's "The News on Merit Street" features senior anchor Kris Gutierrez and co-hosts Lyndsay Keith and Loni Coombs.

The smarter way to stay on top of broadcasting and cable industry. Sign up below

McGraw, who starred in and executive produced daytime talker Dr. Phil for 21 years, will launch his new series, Dr. Phil Primetime, on Merit Street April 2. Merit Street Media launched across the Trinity Broadcast Network on February 26.

Contributing editor Paige Albiniak has been covering the business of television for more than 25 years. She is a longtime contributor to Next TV, Broadcasting + Cable and Multichannel News. She concurrently serves as editorial director for The Global Entertainment Marketing Academy of Arts & Sciences (G.E.M.A.). She has written for such publications as TVNewsCheck, The New York Post, Variety, CBS Watch and more. Albiniak was B+C's Los Angeles bureau chief from September 2002 to 2004, and an associate editor covering Congress and lobbying for the magazine in Washington, D.C., from January 1997 - September 2002.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:04

Residents will be confined to their local neighbourhood and have to ask permission to leave it all to 'save the planet'.

Oxfordshire County Council yesterday approved plans to lock residents into one of six zones to 'save the planet' from global warming. The latest stage in the '15 minute city' agenda is to place electronic gates on key roads in and out of the city, confining residents to their own neighbourhoods.

Under the new scheme if residents want to leave their zone they will need permission from the Council who gets to decide who is worthy of freedom and who isn't. Under the new scheme residents will be allowed to leave their zone a maximum of 100 days per year, but in order to even gain this every resident will have to register their car details with the council who will then track their movements via smart cameras round the city.

Communism will make the weather better.

Oxfordshire County Council, which is run by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, secretly decided to divide-up the city of Oxford into six '15 minute' districts in 2021 soon after they were elected to office. None of the councillors declared their intention of imprisoning local residents in their manifestos of course, preferring to make vague claims about how they will 'improve the environment' instead.

Every resident will be required to register their car with the County Council who will then monitor how many times they leave their district via number plate recognition cameras. And don't think you can beat the system if you're a two car household. Those two cars will be counted as one meaning you will have to divide up the journeys between yourselves. 2 cars 50 journeys each; 3 cars 33 journeys each and so on.

Under the new rules, your social life becomes irrelevant. By de facto Councils get to dictate how many times per year you can see friends and family. You will be stopped from fraternising with anyone outside your district, and if you want a long distance relationship in the future, forget it, you are confined to dating only those within a 15 minute walk of your house.

A single person's life will be at the mercy of Communists in central office, dictating the same type of draconian rules we had to avert the last crisis, a mild flu virus so deadly 80% of people didn't even know they had it.

An entirely new social structure is being imposed on Oxford's residents ( and more cities are to follow) under the lie of saving the planet. but what it really is, is a plan for Command and Control. There will be permits, penalties and even more ubiquitous surveillance. Council officials will determine where you can go and how often, and will log every time you do. 15-minute cities, or 15 minute prisons?

Vision News is the only independent news agency reporting on things that really matter to you. Keep ahead of the pack, sign-up to our newsletter using the link below.

Related:

TRUE: Oxfordshire County Council ARE Planning Climate Lockdown Trials in 2024

The article makes the claim:

Oxfordshire County Council Pass Climate Lockdown 'trial' to Begin in 2024.

Residents will be confined to their local neighbourhood and have to ask permission to leave it all to 'save the planet' and goes on to list the ways in which this will be done.

Analysis:

Oxford Council(s) Declared a Climate Emergency in 2019.

Oxford City Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019, and held a Citizens Assembly on Climate Change. Their declaration states: " In January 2019, Oxford City Council members unanimously declared a climate emergency and agreed to create a citizens assembly in Oxford to help consider new carbon targets and additional measures to reduce emissions."

(A citizens assembly is an idea created by Extinction Rebellion founder Roger Hallum .)

Oxfordshire County Council's Climate Plan

In conjunction with City councillors; Oxfordshire County Council created a Climate Action Plan to ' Tackle the Climate Emergency' This includes the head of the County Council stating: "There will be significant challenges to our ambitions. It requires rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society and a strong lead from national government. But we are experiencing a moment in time at which our pace of learning and appetite for change is rapid. We have adopted new skills and adapted how we live and work. It is this ingenuity that we will draw upon as we address the climate emergency. We will 'build back better' for a zero-carbon, resilient economy, strong communities and a healthy place to live."

"The future we will create will not be based on business-as-usual decision making."

Oxfordshire County Council Declaration

The action Oxfordshire County Council are: a Climate Active Council, that Oxford is a 'Living Laboratory ' for its experiments and that the council intend to 'design-out energy inequality' whilst also declaring that 'electric and active travel as the new normal' see here: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/file/about-council/OCC_Climate_Action_Framework2020.pdf

Oxfordshire County Council Awarding themselves extra powers to implement 15 Minute City Scheme

In declaring a 'Climate Emergency' Oxford Councils afforded themselves new powers including what they call ETROs (Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders)

The powers Oxfordshire County Council awarded themselves were over and above their constitution enabling the council to implement the plans that they otherwise would not have the powers to do.

Duncan Enright, Oxfordshire County Council's Head of Travel and Development Strategy, stated to the The Sunday Times :

Roadblocks stopping most motorists from driving through Oxford city centre will divide the city into six ''15 minute'' neighbourhoods. 15 Minute City Plan

Oxfordshire County Council have passed a plan to divide the city into 6 Zones. with Its 150,000 residents being allowed to use their cars as much as they like 'within their district'. However, those 150,000 residents will only be able to drive outside their allotted zone a maximum of 100 occasions a year. Private cars are the entire focus of these strict new plans.

Under the new proposals, if any of Oxford's 150,000 residents drives outside of their designated district more than 100 days a year, he or she will be fined £70 for each breach of the rules.

Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras will be installed to monitor vehicles going through the traffic filters. Traffic signs will identify the location of each traffic filter, including operational hours and vehicles that are exempt to travel through.

Enright also told the Sunday Times that 'the plan would go ahead whether residents like it or not.'

Forcing residents to stay in an allotted zone or face fines in the name of a climate emergency is a form of climate lockdown.

Oxfordshire County Council is planning to introduce "climate lockdowns" and have past a series of measure to this effect. So called 'fact-checkers' and activists claiming to be journalists have deliberately misinterpreted the article to push their various agendas whilst the inevitable straw-man argument about conspiracy theorists is trotted out about the authors rather than putting a robust argument about the original article, which they have not read.

Verdict: TRUE

References: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/residents/roads-and-transport/connecting-oxfordshire/traffic-filters https://letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk/traffic-filters-2022 https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/6a74c9568df27b93fefc7c077bad6c4638f23040/original/1661526225/ed7d1c3c800b0d5fbd6b7e01359b41b4_Traffic_filter_brochure.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20221206%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20221206T192128Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=1e76ee3d1ca36af64d33cbe620a122f5cb069275bbf41989f3d0d0aabd0c77a5 https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23073992.traffic-filters-will-divide-city-six-15-minute-neighbourhoods-agrees-highways-councillor/ https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ec54fef9dc7e48d96123fe8655b5e6070cfa59a8/original/1660832565/8f77e07b61f1ed386ae45cd4646e767c_The_Central_Oxfordshire_Travel_Plan_Executive_Summary.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20221206%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20221206T204335Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=b1f63258ebaeb440ae50d8807ab2dad6d7a4dc33ee1ca4f068fb8dba223d3834

Related:

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:39

The United States has positioned troops on a tiny island chain less than four miles from the Chinese coast, Taiwan has admitted.

In an apparent escalation of the American military presence in Taiwan, a Taiwanese defence minister told reporters the country was running an ''exchange'' with the US to ''figure out how to improve'' its military.

Although the US has announced it was training Taiwanese forces on the country's main island, Formosa, the Pentagon has never acknowledged the presence of American troops on the Kinmen Islands, which lie 3.7 miles from the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen.

In response to reports that US special forces were operating on the islands, Chiu Kuo-cheng, the Taiwanese minister, admitted on Tuesday that his country's military was learning from American forces there.

''This exchange is for mutual observation, to identify the problems we have, figure out how to improve and to recognise their strengths so we can learn from them,'' he said.

He added: ''We can learn from each other to see what strengths we have. This is a fixed thing.''

The Kinmen Islands sit on the far side of the Taiwan Strait, the 110-mile body of water that separates Taiwan and China. They are around 100 miles from Taiwan, but easily visible from the Chinese mainland.

Taiwan has stationed its amphibious soldiers, known as ''frogmen'', on both the Kinmen Islands and other outlying islands, amid concerns about a Chinese invasion that US officials have said could take place by 2027.

In recent months, China has stepped up military exercises in the Taiwan Strait and Communist Party officials have not ruled out occupying Taiwan with military force in the future.

On Thursday the Taiwanese government said nine Chinese aircraft had crossed the median line in the strait, prompting it to deploy ''appropriate forces and assets in response to the detected activities''.

Air defence violationsTaiwan says its air defence identification zone has been violated on a near-daily basis by Chinese aircraft as tensions have mounted.

Earlier this week, Taiwan said the country had constructed ''enormous'' bases on three islands nearby.

The admission that US forces are operating so close to China risks inflaming tensions between Washington and Beijing, which has long objected to the American military operating in the region.

In January, the Chinese government accused the US of ''dangerous provocations'' after a US naval destroyer sailed through the Taiwan Strait, in what was perceived as a show of force.

While the US does not support full political independence for Taiwan, the countries maintain informal diplomatic relations and Joe Biden has said that American forces would defend the country in the event of an invasion.

The row over Taiwan's sovereignty is viewed by the US as part of its wider competition with China in the Indo-Pacific region.

A Pentagon spokesman refused to confirm reports of American troops on the outlying islands, telling the Wall Street Journal: ''Our commitment to Taiwan is rock-solid and contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and within the region.''

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:11

If couch-potato lab mice had beach-body dreams and if they could speak, they might tell you they're thrilled by advances in the science of exercise and calorie-restriction (CR) mimetics.

In recent studies conducted at research centers across the United States, mice have chowed down, fattened up, exercised only if they felt like it, and still managed to lose body fat, improve their blood lipids, increase muscle power, avoid blood sugar problems, and boost heart function.

How did these mice get so lucky? They were given mimetics, experimental drugs that "mimic" the effects of exercise and calorie reduction in the body without the need to break a sweat or eat less.

"The mice looked like they'd done endurance training," said Thomas Burris, PhD, a University of Florida pharmacodynamics professor and coauthor of a September 2023 study of the exercise mimetic SLU-PP-332, published in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

"The mice looked like they'd done endurance training."Meanwhile, the CR mimetic mannoheptulose (MH) "was incredibly effective at stopping the negative effects of a high-fat diet in mice," said Donald K. Ingram, PhD, an adjunct professor at Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center, who began studying CR mimetics at the National Institute on Aging in the 1980s. In a 2022 study published in Nutrients, MH also increased insulin sensitivity.

These "have your cake and eat it, too" drugs aren't on the market for human use '-- but they're edging closer. Several have moved into human trials with encouraging results. The National Institutes of Health and the pharmaceutical industry are taking notice, anteing up big research dollars. At the earliest, one could win US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 4-5 years, Burris said.

The medical appeal is clear: Mimetics could one day prevent and treat serious conditions such as age- and disease-related muscle loss, diabetes, heart failure, and even neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, said the scientists studying them.

The commercial appeal is unavoidable: Mimetics have the potential to help non-dieters avoid weight gain and allow dieters to build and/or preserve more calorie-burning muscle '-- a boon because losing weight can reduce muscle, especially with rapid loss.

How do these drugs work? What's their downside? Like the "miracle" glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) weight-loss drugs that are now ubiquitous, are mimetics an effective pharmaceutical way to replicate two of society's biggest lifestyle sticking points '-- diet and exercise?

It's possible'...

CR Mimetics: The Healthspan Drug?CR mimetics, despite the easy assumption to make, aren't really for weight loss. Not to muscle in on the GLP-1 turf, the CR drugs' wheelhouse appears to be extending healthspan.

From nematodes and fruit flies to yeast, Labrador Retrievers, and people, plenty of research shows that reducing calorie intake may improve health and prolong life. By how much? Cutting calories by 25% for 2 years slowed the pace of aging 2%-3% in the landmark CALERIE study of 197 adults, according to a 2023 study in Nature Aging. Sounds small, but the researchers said that equals a 10%-15% lower risk for an early death '-- on par with the longevity bonus you'd get from quitting smoking.

Trouble is low-cal living isn't easy. "Diets work," said George Roth, PhD, of GeroScience, Inc., in Pylesville, MD, who began studying CR at the National Institute on Aging in the 1980s with Ingram. "But it's hard to sustain."

That's where CR mimetics come in. They activate the same health-promoting genes switched on by dieting, fasting, and extended periods of hunger, Roth said. The end result isn't big weight loss. Instead, CR mimetics may keep us healthier and younger as we age. "Calorie restriction shifts metabolic processes in the body to protect against damage and stress," he said.

Roth and Ingram are currently focused on the CR mimetic mannoheptulose (MH), a sugar found in unripe avocados. "It works at the first step in carbohydrate metabolism in cells throughout the body, so less energy goes through that pathway," he said. "Glucose metabolism is reduced by 10%-15%. It's the closest thing to actually eating less food."

Their 2022 study found that while mice on an all-you-can-eat high-fat diet gained weight and body fat and saw blood lipids increase while insulin sensitivity decreased, mice that also got MH avoided these problems. A 2023 human study in Nutrients coauthored by Roth and Ingram found that a group consuming freeze-dried avocado had lower insulin levels than a placebo group.

Other researchers are looking at ways to stimulate the CR target nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+). NAD+ assists sirtuins '-- a group of seven enzymes central to the beneficial effects of CR on aging '-- but levels drop with age. University of Colorado researchers are studying the effects of nicotinamide riboside (NR), an NAD+ precursor, in older adults with a $2.5 million National Institute on Aging grant. Small, preliminary human studies have found the compound reduced indicators of insulin resistance in the brain, in a January 2023 study in Aging Cell, and reduced blood pressure and arterial stiffness in a 2018 study published in Nature Communications.

Another NAD+ precursor, nicotinamide mononucleotide, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diastolic blood pressure, and body weight in a Harvard Medical School study of 30 midlife and older adults with overweight and obesity, published in August 2023 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. And in an April 2022 study published in Hepatology of people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a proprietary supplement that included NR didn't reduce liver fat but had a significant (vs placebo) reduction in ceramide and the liver enzyme alanine aminotransferase, a marker of inflammation.

"I think it was a pretty interesting result," said lead researcher Leonard Guarente, PhD, professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and founder of the supplement company Elysium. "Fatty liver progressively damages the liver. This has the potential to slow that down."

Exercise Mimetics: Fitness in a Pill?Physical activity builds muscle and fitness, helps keeps bones strong, sharpens thinking and memory, guards against depression, and helps discourage a slew of health concerns from weight gain and high blood pressure to diabetes and heart disease. Muscle becomes more dense, more powerful and may even burn more calories, said Burris. The problem: That pesky part about actually moving. Fewer than half of American adults get recommended amounts of aerobic exercise and fewer than a quarter fit in strength training, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Enter the exercise mimetics. Unlike CR mimetics, exercise mimetics affect mitochondria '-- the tiny power plants in muscle and every other cell in the body. They switch on genes that encourage the growth of more mitochondria and encourage them to burn fatty acids, not just glucose, for fuel.

In mice, this can keep them from gaining weight, increase insulin sensitivity, and boost exercise endurance. "We can use a drug to activate the same networks that are activated by physical activity," said Ronald Evans, PhD, professor and director of the Gene Expression Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.

Among notable mimetics moving into human studies is ASP0367, a drug in a class called PPAR delta modulators first developed in Evans' lab. ASP0367 was licensed to the pharmaceutical company Mitobridge, later acquired by Astellas. Astellas is currently running a phase 2/3 human trial of the investigational drug in people with the rare genetic disorder primary mitochondrial myopathy.

"We can use a drug to activate the same networks that are activated by physical activity."At the University of Florida, Burris and team hope to soon move the exercise mimetic SLU-PP-332 into human studies. "It targets a receptor called ERR that I've been working on since the 1980s," Burris said. "We knew from genetic studies that ERR has a role in exercise's effects on mitochondrial function in muscle." The calorie mimetics he's studying also activate genes for making more mitochondria and driving them to burn fatty acids. "This generates a lot of energy," he said. In a January 2024 study in Circulation, Burris found the drug restores heart function in mice experiencing heart failure. "Very little heart function was lost," he said. It's had no serious side effects.

The Future of Exercise and CR PillsThe field has hit some bumps. Some feel inevitable '-- such as otherwise healthy people misusing the drugs. GW1516, an early experimental exercise mimetic studied by Evans and abandoned because it triggered tumor growth in lab studies, is used illegally by elite athletes as a performance-enhancing drug despite warnings from the US Anti-Doping Agency. Burris worries that future CR mimetics could be misused the same way.

But he and others see plenty of benefits in future, FDA-approved drugs. Exercise mimetics like SLU-PP-332 might one day be given to people alongside weight-loss drugs, such as Mounjaro (tirzepatide) or Ozempic (semaglutide) to prevent muscle loss. "SLU-PP-332 doesn't affect hunger or food intake the way those drugs do," he said. "It changes muscle."

Mimetics may one day help older adults and people with muscle disorders rebuild muscle even when they cannot exercise and to delay a range of age-related diseases without onerous dieting. "The chance to intervene and provide a longer healthspan and lifespan '-- that's been the moon shot," Roth said.

Guarente noted that CR mimetics may work best for people who aren't carrying extra pounds but want the health benefits of slashing calories without sacrificing meals and snacks. "Fat is still going to be a problem for joints, cholesterol, inflammation," he said. "Calorie mimetics are not a panacea for obesity but could help preserve overall health and vitality."

And what about the billion-dollar question: What happens when these drugs become available to a general public that has issues with actual exercise and healthy diet?

Evans sees only positives. "Our environment is designed to keep people sitting down and consuming high-calorie foods," he said. "In the absence of people getting motivated to exercise '-- and there's no evidence the country is moving in that direction on its own '-- a pill is an important option to have."

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:04

That virus likely came from a single employee who happened to be shedding an enormous quantity of a very weird variant. The researchers would desperately like to find that person. But what if that person doesn't want to be found?

A few years ago, Marc Johnson, a virologist at the University of Missouri, became obsessed with weird covid variants he was seeing in wastewater samples. The ones that caught his eye were odd in a couple of different ways: they didn't match any of the common variants, and they didn't circulate. They would pop up in a single location, persist for some length of time, and then often disappear'--a blip. Johnson found his first blip in Missouri. ''It drove me nuts,'' he says. ''I was like, 'What the hell was going on here?'''

Then he teamed up with colleagues in New York, and they found a few more.

Hoping to pin down even more lineages, Johnson put a call out on Twitter (now X) for wastewater. In January 2022, he got another hit in a wastewater sample shipped from a Wisconsin treatment plant. He and David O'Connor, a virologist at the University of Wisconsin, started working with state health officials to track the signal'--from the treatment plant to a pumping station and then to the outskirts of the city, ''one manhole at a time,'' Johnson says. ''Every time there was a branch in the road, we would check which branch [the signal] was coming from.''

They chased some questionable leads. The researchers were suspicious the virus might be coming from an animal. At one point O'Connor took people from his lab to a dog park to ask dog owners for poop samples. ''There were so many red herrings,'' Johnson says.

Finally, after sampling about 50 manholes, the researchers found the manhole, the last one on the branch that had the variant. They got lucky. ''The only source was this company,'' Johnson says. Their results came out in March in Lancet Microbe.

Wastewater surveillance might seem like a relatively new phenomenon, born of the pandemic, but it goes back decades. A team of Canadian researchers outlines several historical examples in this story. In one example, a public health official traced a 1946 typhoid outbreak to the wife of a man who sold ice cream at the beach. Even then, the researcher expressed some hesitation. The study didn't name the wife or the town, and he cautioned that infections probably shouldn't be traced back to an individual ''except in the presence of an outbreak.''

In a similar study published in 1959, scientists traced another typhoid epidemic to one woman, who was then banned from food service and eventually talked into having her gallbladder removed to eliminate the infection. Such publicity can have a ''devastating effect on the carrier,'' they remarked in their write-up of the case. ''From being a quiet and respected citizen, she becomes a social pariah.''

When Johnson and O'Connor traced the virus to that last manhole, things got sticky. Until that point, the researchers had suspected these cryptic lineages were coming from animals. Johnson had even developed a theory involving organic fertilizer from a source further upstream. Now they were down to a single building housing a company with about 30 employees. They didn't want to stigmatize anyone or invade their privacy. But someone at the company was shedding an awful lot of virus. ''Is it ethical to not tell them at that point?'' Johnson wondered.

O'Connor and Johnson had been working with state health officials from the very beginning. They decided the best path forward would be to approach the company, explain the situation, and ask if they could offer voluntary testing. The decision wasn't easy. ''We didn't want to cause panic and say there's a dangerous new variant lurking in our community,'' Ryan Westergaard, the state epidemiologist for communicable diseases at the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, told Nature. But they also wanted to try to help the person who was infected.

The company agreed to testing, and 19 of its 30 employees turned up for nasal swabs. They were all negative.

That may mean one of the people who didn't test was carrying the infection. Or could it mean that the massive covid infection in the gut didn't show up on a nasal swab? ''This is where I would use the shrug emoji if we were doing this over email,'' O'Connor says.

At the time, the researchers had the ability to test stool samples for the virus, but they didn't have approval. Now they do, and they're hoping stool will lead them to an individual infected with one of these strange viruses who can help answer some of their questions. Johnson has identified about 50 of these cryptic covid variants in wastewater. ''The more I study these lineages, the more I am convinced that they are replicating in the GI tract,'' Johnson says. ''It wouldn't surprise me at all if that's the only place they were replicating.''

But how far should they go to find these people? That's still an open question. O'Connor can imagine a dizzying array of problems that might arise if they did identify an individual shedding one of these rare variants. The most plausible hypothesis is that the lineages arise in individuals who have immune disorders that make it difficult for them to eliminate the infection. That raises a whole host of other thorny questions: what if that person had a compromised immune system due to HIV in addition to the strange covid variant? What if that person didn't know they were HIV positive, or didn't want to divulge their HIV status? What if the researchers told them about the infection, but the person couldn't access treatment? ''If you imagine what the worst-case scenarios are, they're pretty bad,'' O'Connor says.

On the other hand, O'Connor says, they think there are a lot of these people around the country and the world. ''Isn't there also an ethical obligation to try to learn what we can so that we can try to help people who are harboring these viruses?'' he asks.

More from MIT Technology ReviewLongevity specialists aim to help people live longer and healthier lives. But they have yet to establish themselves as a credible medical field. Expensive longevity clinics that cater to the wealthy worried well aren't helping. Jessica Hamzelou takes us inside the quest to legitimize longevity medicine.

Drug developers bet big on AI to help speed drug development. But when will we see our first generative drug? Antonio Regalado has the story.

Read more from MIT Technology Review's archiveThe covid pandemic brought the tension between privacy and public health into sharp relief, wrote Karen Hao in 2020.

That same year Genevieve Bell argued that we can reimagine contact tracing in a way that protects privacy.

In 2021, Antonio Regalado covered some of the first efforts to track the spread of covid variants using wastewater.

Earlier this year I wrote about using wastewater to track measles.

From around the webSurgeons have transplanted a kidney from a genetically engineered pig into a 62-year-old man in Boston. (New York Times)'†' Surgeons transplanted a similar kidney into a brain-dead patient in 2021. (MIT Technology Review) '†' Researchers are also looking into how to transplant other organs. Just a few months ago, surgeons connected a genetically engineered pig liver to another brain-dead patient. (MIT Technology Review)

The FDA has approved a new gene therapy for a rare but fatal genetic disorder in children. Its $4.25 million price tag will make it the world's most expensive medicine, but it promises to give children with the disease a shot at a normal life. (CNN)'†' Read Antonio Regalado's take on the curse of the costliest drug. (MIT Technology Review)

People who practice intermittent fasting have an increased risk of dying of heart disease, according to new research presented at the American Heart Association meeting in Chicago. There are, of course, caveats. (Washington Post and Stat)

Some parents aren't waiting to give their young kids the new miracle drug to treat cystic fibrosis. They're starting the treatment in utero. (The Atlantic)

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:20

ABC7 New York 24/7 Eyewitness News Stream

LIVE | NYC unveils subway gun scanner pilot program

THE LOOP | NYC Weather and Traffic Cams

LIVE: Trump's attorneys seek to dismiss Georgia election charges

WATCH LIVE

Welcome,

Manage MyDisney Account

Log Out

Wednesday, March 27, 2024 2:56PM

Dollar Tree announced the maximum price of items in its stores will increase to $7 this year.

A dollar won't go quite as far at Dollar Tree these days.

The maximum price of items in its stores will increase to $7 this year.

The retailer's CEO, Rick Dreiling, announced the change during an earnings call earlier this month. He said the increase is due to a wealthier customer base.

Dreiling said the company's fastest-growing customer demographic is people who earn at least $125,000 a year.

Dollar Tree announced that it will be closing 1,000 stores over the next several years after reporting year-end profits.

Three years ago, Dollar Tree raised the base price of its items to $1.25.

The company reported a net loss of more than $1.7 billion in the fiscal quarter ending Feb. 3. In response, it announced plans to close nearly 1,000 stores.

Copyright (C) 2024 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:16

By Ramishah Maruf , CNNWire

Tuesday, March 26, 2024 6:52PM

McDonald's customers can soon pair Krispy Kreme donuts with their morning McCafe, in a new food partnership that seeks to expand both brands.

CHICAGO -- McDonald's customers can soon pair Krispy Kreme donuts with their morning McCafe, in a new food partnership that seeks to expand both brands but that could wind up weakening them instead.

Three types of Krispy Kreme donuts - original glazed, chocolate iced with sprinkles and chocolate iced "kreme" filled- will go on sale at McDonald's restaurants starting later this year, the companies told CNN on Monday.

Krispy Kreme shares jumped roughly 18% on Tuesday morning. McDonald's shares lost 0.2%.

It's not the first time two competitors have teamed up. For example, Wendy's brought in Cinnabon to its breakfast lineup earlier this year. Some research suggests brand partnerships open possibilities for new customers, brand expansions and innovation. But some retail experts suggest partnerships can also be a risky move, and one that can put off McDonald's franchise owners, create communication hurdles and weaken the respective brand names.

McDonald's has also faced pushback from customers as prices on its other menu items rise. Ian Borden, McDonald's chief financial officer, said earlier this month that some lower-income Americans are opting to cook at home instead of dining at its restaurants. In February, CEO Chris Kempczinski addressed McDonald's "affordability" problem and indicated the chain would cut prices on some menu items.

Krispy Kreme is giving away a free glazed donut to guests who visit a Krispy Kreme location between 5 and 9 pm on Tuesday to celebrate the partnership.

The addition of a Krispy Kreme donut to the McDonald's customer's breakfast order began as a test at 160 restaurants in Kentucky. The donuts will be available nationwide at participating restaurants by the end of 2026, after a phased rollout beginning later this year.

Krispy Kreme is offering one free glazed donut to customers with a losing lottery ticket for the Mega Millions jackpot drawing.

The donut will be available to purchase individually or in a pack of 6, starting at breakfast, and will continue selling until they run out.

There are far fewer Krispy Kreme locations than McDonald's, which had almost 13,500 US locations in 2022. But customers can buy Krispy Kreme donuts in other places, such as Walmart and other grocery stores. The partnership could increase the scope of Krispy Kreme, which said it has been scaling its supply chain to keep up with its promise to deliver fresh daily.

"By making Kreme Krispy (sic) accessible to fans nationwide through this partnership, we expect to more than double our points of access by the end of 2026," said Krispy Kreme President and CEO Josh Charlesworth in a statement.

The CNN Wire' & (C) 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:14

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:12

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:08

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:00

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:58

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:53

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:48

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:42

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:35

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell teed up Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday to comment on how billionaire Elon Musk poses a potential threat to national security.

Musk's Tesla has a factory in Shanghai that has manufactured 2 million cars, and the billionaire has reportedly expressed caution with criticizing China. Mitchell cited a New York Times report on Musk's connections to China as well as his contracts with the U.S. government for defense and other initiatives before asking Yellen about the possible risks. (RELATED: 'In China's Pocket': Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy Slams Elon Musk For Cozying Up To CCP)

''Let me finally ask you about a New York Times report, but other reporting that we have done on Elon Musk and his relationship with China,'' Mitchell said. ''Obviously Tesla competing now against their cheaper EVs, but he is really dependent on that Chinese market, very tied in with them. He has huge defense contracts. His satellites or the satellites we rely on for so much of our communication. Is it a national security problem for '-- and his rockets, of course '-- isn't it a national security problem for our government to have so much reliance on this one entrepreneur?''

WATCH:

Yellen did not directly address Musk in her answer to the question.

''Well, look, we take national security very seriously and want to protect our national security,'' she said. ''Our desire is not to shut down economic relations with China. We want to diversify our supply chains, but many American firms operate in China and gain from the ability to sell to China's large market.''

''China obviously sells a lot in the United States and the competition among our firms is by and large a healthy thing,'' Yellen added. ''We want to stabilize that relationship, not shut it down. But also, we need to make sure that the playing field is level, and we are concerned about Chinese subsidies and the impact on our firms.''

Musk's SpaceX entered a classified $1.8 billion contract with an unnamed U.S. agency in 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing company documents.

Musk met with Shanghai Chinese Communist Party Committee Secretary Chen Jining and China's foreign, commerce and industry ministers in 2023, according to Reuters.

''The interests of the United States and China are intertwined like conjoined twins,'' China's foreign ministry quoted Musk as remarking following a meeting, according to CNN Business.

Musk has faced numerous investigations stemming from President Joe Biden's administration since he acquired social media platform Twitter '-- now X '-- in October 2022.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter's byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 04:27

Lara Logan: The Media is Lying to You About What Really Happened to the Baltimore Bridge",0);return i.querySelector("template").content}switch(r){case"thead":case"tbody":case"tfoot":case"colgroup":case"caption":return a("

",1);case"col":return a("

",2);case"tr":return a("

",2);case"td":case"th":return a("

",3);case"script":case"style":return a("

"+n+"

",1);default:return a(n,0)}}function ie(e){if(e){e()}}function I(e,t){return Object.prototype.toString.call(e)==="[object "+t+"]"}function k(e){return I(e,"Function")}function P(e){return I(e,"Object")}function ae(e){var t="htmx-internal-data";var r=e[t];if(!r){r=e[t]={}}return r}function M(e){var t=[];if(e){for(var r=0;r=0}function se(e){if(e.getRootNode&&e.getRootNode()instanceof window.ShadowRoot){return re().body.contains(e.getRootNode().host)}else{return re().body.contains(e)}}function D(e){return e.trim().split(/\s+/)}function le(e,t){for(var r in t){if(t.hasOwnProperty(r)){e[r]=t[r]}}return e}function E(e){try{return JSON.parse(e)}catch(e){b(e);return null}}function U(){var e="htmx:localStorageTest";try{localStorage.setItem(e,e);localStorage.removeItem(e);return true}catch(e){return false}}function B(t){try{var e=new URL(t);if(e){t=e.pathname+e.search}if(!/^\/$/.test(t)){t=t.replace(/\/+$/,"")}return t}catch(e){return t}}function t(e){return Tr(re().body,function(){return eval(e)})}function F(t){var e=Q.on("htmx:load",function(e){t(e.detail.elt)});return e}function V(){Q.logger=function(e,t,r){if(console){console.log(t,e,r)}}}function j(){Q.logger=null}function C(e,t){if(t){return e.querySelector(t)}else{return C(re(),e)}}function f(e,t){if(t){return e.querySelectorAll(t)}else{return f(re(),e)}}function _(e,t){e=g(e);if(t){setTimeout(function(){_(e);e=null},t)}else{e.parentElement.removeChild(e)}}function z(e,t,r){e=g(e);if(r){setTimeout(function(){z(e,t);e=null},r)}else{e.classList&&e.classList.add(t)}}function n(e,t,r){e=g(e);if(r){setTimeout(function(){n(e,t);e=null},r)}else{if(e.classList){e.classList.remove(t);if(e.classList.length===0){e.removeAttribute("class")}}}}function $(e,t){e=g(e);e.classList.toggle(t)}function W(e,t){e=g(e);oe(e.parentElement.children,function(e){n(e,t)});z(e,t)}function v(e,t){e=g(e);if(e.closest){return e.closest(t)}else{do{if(e==null||h(e,t)){return e}}while(e=e&&u(e));return null}}function s(e,t){return e.substring(0,t.length)===t}function G(e,t){return e.substring(e.length-t.length)===t}function J(e){var t=e.trim();if(s(t,"")){return t.substring(1,t.length-2)}else{return t}}function Z(e,t){if(t.indexOf("closest ")===0){return[v(e,J(t.substr(8)))]}else if(t.indexOf("find ")===0){return[C(e,J(t.substr(5)))]}else if(t==="next"){return[e.nextElementSibling]}else if(t.indexOf("next ")===0){return[K(e,J(t.substr(5)))]}else if(t==="previous"){return[e.previousElementSibling]}else if(t.indexOf("previous ")===0){return[Y(e,J(t.substr(9)))]}else if(t==="document"){return[document]}else if(t==="window"){return[window]}else if(t==="body"){return[document.body]}else{return re().querySelectorAll(J(t))}}var K=function(e,t){var r=re().querySelectorAll(t);for(var n=0;n=0;n--){var i=r[n];if(i.compareDocumentPosition(e)===Node.DOCUMENT_POSITION_FOLLOWING){return i}}};function ue(e,t){if(t){return Z(e,t)[0]}else{return Z(re().body,e)[0]}}function g(e){if(I(e,"String")){return C(e)}else{return e}}function ve(e,t,r){if(k(t)){return{target:re().body,event:e,listener:t}}else{return{target:g(e),event:t,listener:r}}}function de(t,r,n){jr(function(){var e=ve(t,r,n);e.target.addEventListener(e.event,e.listener)});var e=k(r);return e?r:n}function ge(t,r,n){jr(function(){var e=ve(t,r,n);e.target.removeEventListener(e.event,e.listener)});return k(r)?r:n}var me=re().createElement("output");function pe(e,t){var r=ne(e,t);if(r){if(r==="this"){return[xe(e,t)]}else{var n=Z(e,r);if(n.length===0){b('The selector "'+r+'" on '+t+" returned no matches!");return[me]}else{return n}}}}function xe(e,t){return c(e,function(e){return te(e,t)!=null})}function ye(e){var t=ne(e,"hx-target");if(t){if(t==="this"){return xe(e,"hx-target")}else{return ue(e,t)}}else{var r=ae(e);if(r.boosted){return re().body}else{return e}}}function be(e){var t=Q.config.attributesToSettle;for(var r=0;r0){o=e.substr(0,e.indexOf(":"));t=e.substr(e.indexOf(":")+1,e.length)}else{o=e}var r=re().querySelectorAll(t);if(r){oe(r,function(e){var t;var r=i.cloneNode(true);t=re().createDocumentFragment();t.appendChild(r);if(!Se(o,e)){t=r}var n={shouldSwap:true,target:e,fragment:t};if(!ce(e,"htmx:oobBeforeSwap",n))return;e=n.target;if(n["shouldSwap"]){Fe(o,e,e,t,a)}oe(a.elts,function(e){ce(e,"htmx:oobAfterSwap",n)})});i.parentNode.removeChild(i)}else{i.parentNode.removeChild(i);fe(re().body,"htmx:oobErrorNoTarget",{content:i})}return e}function Ce(e,t,r){var n=ne(e,"hx-select-oob");if(n){var i=n.split(",");for(var a=0;a0){var r=t.replace("'","\\'");var n=e.tagName.replace(":","\\:");var i=o.querySelector(n+"[id='"+r+"']");if(i&&i!==o){var a=e.cloneNode();we(e,i);s.tasks.push(function(){we(e,a)})}}})}function Oe(e){return function(){n(e,Q.config.addedClass);zt(e);Nt(e);qe(e);ce(e,"htmx:load")}}function qe(e){var t="[autofocus]";var r=h(e,t)?e:e.querySelector(t);if(r!=null){r.focus()}}function m(e,t,r,n){Te(e,r,n);while(r.childNodes.length>0){var i=r.firstChild;z(i,Q.config.addedClass);e.insertBefore(i,t);if(i.nodeType!==Node.TEXT_NODE&&i.nodeType!==Node.COMMENT_NODE){n.tasks.push(Oe(i))}}}function He(e,t){var r=0;while(r-1){var t=e.replace(H,"");var r=t.match(q);if(r){return r[2]}}}function je(e,t,r,n,i,a){i.title=Ve(n);var o=l(n);if(o){Ce(r,o,i);o=Be(r,o,a);Re(o);return Fe(e,r,t,o,i)}}function _e(e,t,r){var n=e.getResponseHeader(t);if(n.indexOf("{")===0){var i=E(n);for(var a in i){if(i.hasOwnProperty(a)){var o=i[a];if(!P(o)){o={value:o}}ce(r,a,o)}}}else{var s=n.split(",");for(var l=0;l0){var o=t[0];if(o==="]"){n--;if(n===0){if(a===null){i=i+"true"}t.shift();i+=")})";try{var s=Tr(e,function(){return Function(i)()},function(){return true});s.source=i;return s}catch(e){fe(re().body,"htmx:syntax:error",{error:e,source:i});return null}}}else if(o==="["){n++}if(Qe(o,a,r)){i+="(("+r+"."+o+") ? ("+r+"."+o+") : (window."+o+"))"}else{i=i+o}a=t.shift()}}}function y(e,t){var r="";while(e.length>0&&!t.test(e[0])){r+=e.shift()}return r}function tt(e){var t;if(e.length>0&&Ze.test(e[0])){e.shift();t=y(e,Ke).trim();e.shift()}else{t=y(e,x)}return t}var rt="input, textarea, select";function nt(e,t,r){var n=[];var i=Ye(t);do{y(i,Je);var a=i.length;var o=y(i,/[,\[\s]/);if(o!==""){if(o==="every"){var s={trigger:"every"};y(i,Je);s.pollInterval=d(y(i,/[,\[\s]/));y(i,Je);var l=et(e,i,"event");if(l){s.eventFilter=l}n.push(s)}else if(o.indexOf("sse:")===0){n.push({trigger:"sse",sseEvent:o.substr(4)})}else{var u={trigger:o};var l=et(e,i,"event");if(l){u.eventFilter=l}while(i.length>0&&i[0]!==","){y(i,Je);var f=i.shift();if(f==="changed"){u.changed=true}else if(f==="once"){u.once=true}else if(f==="consume"){u.consume=true}else if(f==="delay"&&i[0]===":"){i.shift();u.delay=d(y(i,x))}else if(f==="from"&&i[0]===":"){i.shift();if(Ze.test(i[0])){var c=tt(i)}else{var c=y(i,x);if(c==="closest"||c==="find"||c==="next"||c==="previous"){i.shift();var h=tt(i);if(h.length>0){c+=" "+h}}}u.from=c}else if(f==="target"&&i[0]===":"){i.shift();u.target=tt(i)}else if(f==="throttle"&&i[0]===":"){i.shift();u.throttle=d(y(i,x))}else if(f==="queue"&&i[0]===":"){i.shift();u.queue=y(i,x)}else if(f==="root"&&i[0]===":"){i.shift();u[f]=tt(i)}else if(f==="threshold"&&i[0]===":"){i.shift();u[f]=y(i,x)}else{fe(e,"htmx:syntax:error",{token:i.shift()})}}n.push(u)}}if(i.length===a){fe(e,"htmx:syntax:error",{token:i.shift()})}y(i,Je)}while(i[0]===","&&i.shift());if(r){r[t]=n}return n}function it(e){var t=te(e,"hx-trigger");var r=[];if(t){var n=Q.config.triggerSpecsCache;r=n&&n[t]||nt(e,t,n)}if(r.length>0){return r}else if(h(e,"form")){return[{trigger:"submit"}]}else if(h(e,'input[type="button"], input[type="submit"]')){return[{trigger:"click"}]}else if(h(e,rt)){return[{trigger:"change"}]}else{return[{trigger:"click"}]}}function at(e){ae(e).cancelled=true}function ot(e,t,r){var n=ae(e);n.timeout=setTimeout(function(){if(se(e)&&n.cancelled!==true){if(!ct(r,e,Wt("hx:poll:trigger",{triggerSpec:r,target:e}))){t(e)}ot(e,t,r)}},r.pollInterval)}function st(e){return location.hostname===e.hostname&&ee(e,"href")&&ee(e,"href").indexOf("#")!==0}function lt(t,r,e){if(t.tagName==="A"&&st(t)&&(t.target===""||t.target==="_self")||t.tagName==="FORM"){r.boosted=true;var n,i;if(t.tagName==="A"){n="get";i=ee(t,"href")}else{var a=ee(t,"method");n=a?a.toLowerCase():"get";if(n==="get"){}i=ee(t,"action")}e.forEach(function(e){ht(t,function(e,t){if(v(e,Q.config.disableSelector)){p(e);return}he(n,i,e,t)},r,e,true)})}}function ut(e,t){if(e.type==="submit"||e.type==="click"){if(t.tagName==="FORM"){return true}if(h(t,'input[type="submit"], button')&&v(t,"form")!==null){return true}if(t.tagName==="A"&&t.href&&(t.getAttribute("href")==="#"||t.getAttribute("href").indexOf("#")!==0)){return true}}return false}function ft(e,t){return ae(e).boosted&&e.tagName==="A"&&t.type==="click"&&(t.ctrlKey||t.metaKey)}function ct(e,t,r){var n=e.eventFilter;if(n){try{return n.call(t,r)!==true}catch(e){fe(re().body,"htmx:eventFilter:error",{error:e,source:n.source});return true}}return false}function ht(a,o,e,s,l){var u=ae(a);var t;if(s.from){t=Z(a,s.from)}else{t=[a]}if(s.changed){t.forEach(function(e){var t=ae(e);t.lastValue=e.value})}oe(t,function(n){var i=function(e){if(!se(a)){n.removeEventListener(s.trigger,i);return}if(ft(a,e)){return}if(l||ut(e,a)){e.preventDefault()}if(ct(s,a,e)){return}var t=ae(e);t.triggerSpec=s;if(t.handledFor==null){t.handledFor=[]}if(t.handledFor.indexOf(a)0){if(!u.throttle){o(a,e);u.throttle=setTimeout(function(){u.throttle=null},s.throttle)}}else if(s.delay>0){u.delayed=setTimeout(function(){o(a,e)},s.delay)}else{ce(a,"htmx:trigger");o(a,e)}}};if(e.listenerInfos==null){e.listenerInfos=[]}e.listenerInfos.push({trigger:s.trigger,listener:i,on:n});n.addEventListener(s.trigger,i)})}var vt=false;var dt=null;function gt(){if(!dt){dt=function(){vt=true};window.addEventListener("scroll",dt);setInterval(function(){if(vt){vt=false;oe(re().querySelectorAll("[hx-trigger='revealed'],[data-hx-trigger='revealed']"),function(e){mt(e)})}},200)}}function mt(t){if(!o(t,"data-hx-revealed")&&X(t)){t.setAttribute("data-hx-revealed","true");var e=ae(t);if(e.initHash){ce(t,"revealed")}else{t.addEventListener("htmx:afterProcessNode",function(e){ce(t,"revealed")},{once:true})}}}function pt(e,t,r){var n=D(r);for(var i=0;i=0){var t=wt(n);setTimeout(function(){xt(s,r,n+1)},t)}};t.onopen=function(e){n=0};ae(s).webSocket=t;t.addEventListener("message",function(e){if(yt(s)){return}var t=e.data;R(s,function(e){t=e.transformResponse(t,null,s)});var r=T(s);var n=l(t);var i=M(n.children);for(var a=0;a0){ce(u,"htmx:validation:halted",i);return}t.send(JSON.stringify(l));if(ut(e,u)){e.preventDefault()}})}else{fe(u,"htmx:noWebSocketSourceError")}}function wt(e){var t=Q.config.wsReconnectDelay;if(typeof t==="function"){return t(e)}if(t==="full-jitter"){var r=Math.min(e,6);var n=1e3*Math.pow(2,r);return n*Math.random()}b('htmx.config.wsReconnectDelay must either be a function or the string "full-jitter"')}function St(e,t,r){var n=D(r);for(var i=0;i0){setTimeout(i,n)}else{i()}}function Ht(t,i,e){var a=false;oe(w,function(r){if(o(t,"hx-"+r)){var n=te(t,"hx-"+r);a=true;i.path=n;i.verb=r;e.forEach(function(e){Lt(t,e,i,function(e,t){if(v(e,Q.config.disableSelector)){p(e);return}he(r,n,e,t)})})}});return a}function Lt(n,e,t,r){if(e.sseEvent){Rt(n,r,e.sseEvent)}else if(e.trigger==="revealed"){gt();ht(n,r,t,e);mt(n)}else if(e.trigger==="intersect"){var i={};if(e.root){i.root=ue(n,e.root)}if(e.threshold){i.threshold=parseFloat(e.threshold)}var a=new IntersectionObserver(function(e){for(var t=0;t0){t.polling=true;ot(n,r,e)}else{ht(n,r,t,e)}}function At(e){if(Q.config.allowScriptTags&&(e.type==="text/javascript"||e.type==="module"||e.type==="")){var t=re().createElement("script");oe(e.attributes,function(e){t.setAttribute(e.name,e.value)});t.textContent=e.textContent;t.async=false;if(Q.config.inlineScriptNonce){t.nonce=Q.config.inlineScriptNonce}var r=e.parentElement;try{r.insertBefore(t,e)}catch(e){b(e)}finally{if(e.parentElement){e.parentElement.removeChild(e)}}}}function Nt(e){if(h(e,"script")){At(e)}oe(f(e,"script"),function(e){At(e)})}function It(e){var t=e.attributes;for(var r=0;r0){var o=n.shift();var s=o.match(/^\s*([a-zA-Z:\-\.]+:)(.*)/);if(a===0&&s){o.split(":");i=s[1].slice(0,-1);r[i]=s[2]}else{r[i]+=o}a+=Bt(o)}for(var l in r){Ft(e,l,r[l])}}}function jt(e){Ae(e);for(var t=0;tQ.config.historyCacheSize){i.shift()}while(i.length>0){try{localStorage.setItem("htmx-history-cache",JSON.stringify(i));break}catch(e){fe(re().body,"htmx:historyCacheError",{cause:e,cache:i});i.shift()}}}function Yt(e){if(!U()){return null}e=B(e);var t=E(localStorage.getItem("htmx-history-cache"))||[];for(var r=0;r=200&&this.status=0}function wr(e,t){var r=t?t:ne(e,"hx-swap");var n={swapStyle:ae(e).boosted?"innerHTML":Q.config.defaultSwapStyle,swapDelay:Q.config.defaultSwapDelay,settleDelay:Q.config.defaultSettleDelay};if(Q.config.scrollIntoViewOnBoost&&ae(e).boosted&&!br(e)){n["show"]="top"}if(r){var i=D(r);if(i.length>0){for(var a=0;a0?l.join(":"):null;n["scroll"]=u;n["scrollTarget"]=f}else if(o.indexOf("show:")===0){var c=o.substr(5);var l=c.split(":");var h=l.pop();var f=l.length>0?l.join(":"):null;n["show"]=h;n["showTarget"]=f}else if(o.indexOf("focus-scroll:")===0){var v=o.substr("focus-scroll:".length);n["focusScroll"]=v=="true"}else if(a==0){n["swapStyle"]=o}else{b("Unknown modifier in hx-swap: "+o)}}}}return n}function Sr(e){return ne(e,"hx-encoding")==="multipart/form-data"||h(e,"form")&&ee(e,"enctype")==="multipart/form-data"}function Er(t,r,n){var i=null;R(r,function(e){if(i==null){i=e.encodeParameters(t,n,r)}});if(i!=null){return i}else{if(Sr(r)){return pr(n)}else{return mr(n)}}}function T(e){return{tasks:[],elts:[e]}}function Cr(e,t){var r=e[0];var n=e[e.length-1];if(t.scroll){var i=null;if(t.scrollTarget){i=ue(r,t.scrollTarget)}if(t.scroll==="top"&&(r||i)){i=i||r;i.scrollTop=0}if(t.scroll==="bottom"&&(n||i)){i=i||n;i.scrollTop=i.scrollHeight}}if(t.show){var i=null;if(t.showTarget){var a=t.showTarget;if(t.showTarget==="window"){a="body"}i=ue(r,a)}if(t.show==="top"&&(r||i)){i=i||r;i.scrollIntoView({block:"start",behavior:Q.config.scrollBehavior})}if(t.show==="bottom"&&(n||i)){i=i||n;i.scrollIntoView({block:"end",behavior:Q.config.scrollBehavior})}}}function Rr(e,t,r,n){if(n==null){n={}}if(e==null){return n}var i=te(e,t);if(i){var a=i.trim();var o=r;if(a==="unset"){return null}if(a.indexOf("javascript:")===0){a=a.substr(11);o=true}else if(a.indexOf("js:")===0){a=a.substr(3);o=true}if(a.indexOf("{")!==0){a="{"+a+"}"}var s;if(o){s=Tr(e,function(){return Function("return ("+a+")")()},{})}else{s=E(a)}for(var l in s){if(s.hasOwnProperty(l)){if(n[l]==null){n[l]=s[l]}}}}return Rr(u(e),t,r,n)}function Tr(e,t,r){if(Q.config.allowEval){return t()}else{fe(e,"htmx:evalDisallowedError");return r}}function Or(e,t){return Rr(e,"hx-vars",true,t)}function qr(e,t){return Rr(e,"hx-vals",false,t)}function Hr(e){return le(Or(e),qr(e))}function Lr(t,r,n){if(n!==null){try{t.setRequestHeader(r,n)}catch(e){t.setRequestHeader(r,encodeURIComponent(n));t.setRequestHeader(r+"-URI-AutoEncoded","true")}}}function Ar(t){if(t.responseURL&&typeof URL!=="undefined"){try{var e=new URL(t.responseURL);return e.pathname+e.search}catch(e){fe(re().body,"htmx:badResponseUrl",{url:t.responseURL})}}}function O(e,t){return t.test(e.getAllResponseHeaders())}function Nr(e,t,r){e=e.toLowerCase();if(r){if(r instanceof Element||I(r,"String")){return he(e,t,null,null,{targetOverride:g(r),returnPromise:true})}else{return he(e,t,g(r.source),r.event,{handler:r.handler,headers:r.headers,values:r.values,targetOverride:g(r.target),swapOverride:r.swap,select:r.select,returnPromise:true})}}else{return he(e,t,null,null,{returnPromise:true})}}function Ir(e){var t=[];while(e){t.push(e);e=e.parentElement}return t}function kr(e,t,r){var n;var i;if(typeof URL==="function"){i=new URL(t,document.location.href);var a=document.location.origin;n=a===i.origin}else{i=t;n=s(t,document.location.origin)}if(Q.config.selfRequestsOnly){if(!n){return false}}return ce(e,"htmx:validateUrl",le({url:i,sameHost:n},r))}function he(t,r,n,i,a,e){var o=null;var s=null;a=a!=null?a:{};if(a.returnPromise&&typeof Promise!=="undefined"){var l=new Promise(function(e,t){o=e;s=t})}if(n==null){n=re().body}var M=a.handler||Mr;var X=a.select||null;if(!se(n)){ie(o);return l}var u=a.targetOverride||ye(n);if(u==null||u==me){fe(n,"htmx:targetError",{target:te(n,"hx-target")});ie(s);return l}var f=ae(n);var c=f.lastButtonClicked;if(c){var h=ee(c,"formaction");if(h!=null){r=h}var v=ee(c,"formmethod");if(v!=null){if(v.toLowerCase()!=="dialog"){t=v}}}var d=ne(n,"hx-confirm");if(e===undefined){var D=function(e){return he(t,r,n,i,a,!!e)};var U={target:u,elt:n,path:r,verb:t,triggeringEvent:i,etc:a,issueRequest:D,question:d};if(ce(n,"htmx:confirm",U)===false){ie(o);return l}}var g=n;var m=ne(n,"hx-sync");var p=null;var x=false;if(m){var B=m.split(":");var F=B[0].trim();if(F==="this"){g=xe(n,"hx-sync")}else{g=ue(n,F)}m=(B[1]||"drop").trim();f=ae(g);if(m==="drop"&&f.xhr&&f.abortable!==true){ie(o);return l}else if(m==="abort"){if(f.xhr){ie(o);return l}else{x=true}}else if(m==="replace"){ce(g,"htmx:abort")}else if(m.indexOf("queue")===0){var V=m.split(" ");p=(V[1]||"last").trim()}}if(f.xhr){if(f.abortable){ce(g,"htmx:abort")}else{if(p==null){if(i){var y=ae(i);if(y&&y.triggerSpec&&y.triggerSpec.queue){p=y.triggerSpec.queue}}if(p==null){p="last"}}if(f.queuedRequests==null){f.queuedRequests=[]}if(p==="first"&&f.queuedRequests.length===0){f.queuedRequests.push(function(){he(t,r,n,i,a)})}else if(p==="all"){f.queuedRequests.push(function(){he(t,r,n,i,a)})}else if(p==="last"){f.queuedRequests=[];f.queuedRequests.push(function(){he(t,r,n,i,a)})}ie(o);return l}}var b=new XMLHttpRequest;f.xhr=b;f.abortable=x;var w=function(){f.xhr=null;f.abortable=false;if(f.queuedRequests!=null&&f.queuedRequests.length>0){var e=f.queuedRequests.shift();e()}};var j=ne(n,"hx-prompt");if(j){var S=prompt(j);if(S===null||!ce(n,"htmx:prompt",{prompt:S,target:u})){ie(o);w();return l}}if(d&&!e){if(!confirm(d)){ie(o);w();return l}}var E=xr(n,u,S);if(t!=="get"&&!Sr(n)){E["Content-Type"]="application/x-www-form-urlencoded"}if(a.headers){E=le(E,a.headers)}var _=dr(n,t);var C=_.errors;var R=_.values;if(a.values){R=le(R,a.values)}var z=Hr(n);var $=le(R,z);var T=yr($,n);if(Q.config.getCacheBusterParam&&t==="get"){T["org.htmx.cache-buster"]=ee(u,"id")||"true"}if(r==null||r===""){r=re().location.href}var O=Rr(n,"hx-request");var W=ae(n).boosted;var q=Q.config.methodsThatUseUrlParams.indexOf(t)>=0;var H={boosted:W,useUrlParams:q,parameters:T,unfilteredParameters:$,headers:E,target:u,verb:t,errors:C,withCredentials:a.credentials||O.credentials||Q.config.withCredentials,timeout:a.timeout||O.timeout||Q.config.timeout,path:r,triggeringEvent:i};if(!ce(n,"htmx:configRequest",H)){ie(o);w();return l}r=H.path;t=H.verb;E=H.headers;T=H.parameters;C=H.errors;q=H.useUrlParams;if(C&&C.length>0){ce(n,"htmx:validation:halted",H);ie(o);w();return l}var G=r.split("#");var J=G[0];var L=G[1];var A=r;if(q){A=J;var Z=Object.keys(T).length!==0;if(Z){if(A.indexOf("?")0&&t==null){var r=e.shift();if(se(r)){t=r}}if(t){ce(t,"htmx:afterRequest",I);ce(t,"htmx:afterOnLoad",I)}}ie(o);w()}catch(e){fe(n,"htmx:onLoadError",le({error:e},I));throw e}};b.onerror=function(){lr(k,P);fe(n,"htmx:afterRequest",I);fe(n,"htmx:sendError",I);ie(s);w()};b.onabort=function(){lr(k,P);fe(n,"htmx:afterRequest",I);fe(n,"htmx:sendAbort",I);ie(s);w()};b.ontimeout=function(){lr(k,P);fe(n,"htmx:afterRequest",I);fe(n,"htmx:timeout",I);ie(s);w()};if(!ce(n,"htmx:beforeRequest",I)){ie(o);w();return l}var k=or(n);var P=sr(n);oe(["loadstart","loadend","progress","abort"],function(t){oe([b,b.upload],function(e){e.addEventListener(t,function(e){ce(n,"htmx:xhr:"+t,{lengthComputable:e.lengthComputable,loaded:e.loaded,total:e.total})})})});ce(n,"htmx:beforeSend",I);var Y=q?null:Er(b,n,T);b.send(Y);return l}function Pr(e,t){var r=t.xhr;var n=null;var i=null;if(O(r,/HX-Push:/i)){n=r.getResponseHeader("HX-Push");i="push"}else if(O(r,/HX-Push-Url:/i)){n=r.getResponseHeader("HX-Push-Url");i="push"}else if(O(r,/HX-Replace-Url:/i)){n=r.getResponseHeader("HX-Replace-Url");i="replace"}if(n){if(n==="false"){return{}}else{return{type:i,path:n}}}var a=t.pathInfo.finalRequestPath;var o=t.pathInfo.responsePath;var s=ne(e,"hx-push-url");var l=ne(e,"hx-replace-url");var u=ae(e).boosted;var f=null;var c=null;if(s){f="push";c=s}else if(l){f="replace";c=l}else if(u){f="push";c=o||a}if(c){if(c==="false"){return{}}if(c==="true"){c=o||a}if(t.pathInfo.anchor&&c.indexOf("#")===-1){c=c+"#"+t.pathInfo.anchor}return{type:f,path:c}}else{return{}}}function Mr(l,u){var f=u.xhr;var c=u.target;var e=u.etc;var t=u.requestConfig;var h=u.select;if(!ce(l,"htmx:beforeOnLoad",u))return;if(O(f,/HX-Trigger:/i)){_e(f,"HX-Trigger",l)}if(O(f,/HX-Location:/i)){er();var r=f.getResponseHeader("HX-Location");var v;if(r.indexOf("{")===0){v=E(r);r=v["path"];delete v["path"]}Nr("GET",r,v).then(function(){tr(r)});return}var n=O(f,/HX-Refresh:/i)&&"true"===f.getResponseHeader("HX-Refresh");if(O(f,/HX-Redirect:/i)){location.href=f.getResponseHeader("HX-Redirect");n&&location.reload();return}if(n){location.reload();return}if(O(f,/HX-Retarget:/i)){if(f.getResponseHeader("HX-Retarget")==="this"){u.target=l}else{u.target=ue(l,f.getResponseHeader("HX-Retarget"))}}var d=Pr(l,u);var i=f.status>=200&&f.status=400;var m=Q.config.ignoreTitle;var o=le({shouldSwap:i,serverResponse:g,isError:a,ignoreTitle:m},u);if(!ce(c,"htmx:beforeSwap",o))return;c=o.target;g=o.serverResponse;a=o.isError;m=o.ignoreTitle;u.target=c;u.failed=a;u.successful=!a;if(o.shouldSwap){if(f.status===286){at(l)}R(l,function(e){g=e.transformResponse(g,f,l)});if(d.type){er()}var s=e.swapOverride;if(O(f,/HX-Reswap:/i)){s=f.getResponseHeader("HX-Reswap")}var v=wr(l,s);if(v.hasOwnProperty("ignoreTitle")){m=v.ignoreTitle}c.classList.add(Q.config.swappingClass);var p=null;var x=null;var y=function(){try{var e=document.activeElement;var t={};try{t={elt:e,start:e?e.selectionStart:null,end:e?e.selectionEnd:null}}catch(e){}var r;if(h){r=h}if(O(f,/HX-Reselect:/i)){r=f.getResponseHeader("HX-Reselect")}if(d.type){ce(re().body,"htmx:beforeHistoryUpdate",le({history:d},u));if(d.type==="push"){tr(d.path);ce(re().body,"htmx:pushedIntoHistory",{path:d.path})}else{rr(d.path);ce(re().body,"htmx:replacedInHistory",{path:d.path})}}var n=T(c);je(v.swapStyle,c,l,g,n,r);if(t.elt&&!se(t.elt)&&ee(t.elt,"id")){var i=document.getElementById(ee(t.elt,"id"));var a={preventScroll:v.focusScroll!==undefined?!v.focusScroll:!Q.config.defaultFocusScroll};if(i){if(t.start&&i.setSelectionRange){try{i.setSelectionRange(t.start,t.end)}catch(e){}}i.focus(a)}}c.classList.remove(Q.config.swappingClass);oe(n.elts,function(e){if(e.classList){e.classList.add(Q.config.settlingClass)}ce(e,"htmx:afterSwap",u)});if(O(f,/HX-Trigger-After-Swap:/i)){var o=l;if(!se(l)){o=re().body}_e(f,"HX-Trigger-After-Swap",o)}var s=function(){oe(n.tasks,function(e){e.call()});oe(n.elts,function(e){if(e.classList){e.classList.remove(Q.config.settlingClass)}ce(e,"htmx:afterSettle",u)});if(u.pathInfo.anchor){var e=re().getElementById(u.pathInfo.anchor);if(e){e.scrollIntoView({block:"start",behavior:"auto"})}}if(n.title&&!m){var t=C("title");if(t){t.innerHTML=n.title}else{window.document.title=n.title}}Cr(n.elts,v);if(O(f,/HX-Trigger-After-Settle:/i)){var r=l;if(!se(l)){r=re().body}_e(f,"HX-Trigger-After-Settle",r)}ie(p)};if(v.settleDelay>0){setTimeout(s,v.settleDelay)}else{s()}}catch(e){fe(l,"htmx:swapError",u);ie(x);throw e}};var b=Q.config.globalViewTransitions;if(v.hasOwnProperty("transition")){b=v.transition}if(b&&ce(l,"htmx:beforeTransition",u)&&typeof Promise!=="undefined"&&document.startViewTransition){var w=new Promise(function(e,t){p=e;x=t});var S=y;y=function(){document.startViewTransition(function(){S();return w})}}if(v.swapDelay>0){setTimeout(y,v.swapDelay)}else{y()}}if(a){fe(l,"htmx:responseError",le({error:"Response Status Error Code "+f.status+" from "+u.pathInfo.requestPath},u))}}var Xr={};function Dr(){return{init:function(e){return null},onEvent:function(e,t){return true},transformResponse:function(e,t,r){return e},isInlineSwap:function(e){return false},handleSwap:function(e,t,r,n){return false},encodeParameters:function(e,t,r){return null}}}function Ur(e,t){if(t.init){t.init(r)}Xr[e]=le(Dr(),t)}function Br(e){delete Xr[e]}function Fr(e,r,n){if(e==undefined){return r}if(r==undefined){r=[]}if(n==undefined){n=[]}var t=te(e,"hx-ext");if(t){oe(t.split(","),function(e){e=e.replace(/ /g,"");if(e.slice(0,7)=="ignore:"){n.push(e.slice(7));return}if(n.indexOf(e) ."+Q.config.indicatorClass+"{opacity:0} ."+Q.config.requestClass+" ."+Q.config.indicatorClass+"{opacity:1; transition: opacity 200ms ease-in;} ."+Q.config.requestClass+"."+Q.config.indicatorClass+"{opacity:1; transition: opacity 200ms ease-in;} ")}}function zr(){var e=re().querySelector('meta[name="htmx-config"]');if(e){return E(e.content)}else{return null}}function $r(){var e=zr();if(e){Q.config=le(Q.config,e)}}jr(function(){$r();_r();var e=re().body;zt(e);var t=re().querySelectorAll("[hx-trigger='restored'],[data-hx-trigger='restored']");e.addEventListener("htmx:abort",function(e){var t=e.target;var r=ae(t);if(r&&r.xhr){r.xhr.abort()}});const r=window.onpopstate?window.onpopstate.bind(window):null;window.onpopstate=function(e){if(e.state&&e.state.htmx){ar();oe(t,function(e){ce(e,"htmx:restored",{document:re(),triggerEvent:ce})})}else{if(r){r(e)}}};setTimeout(function(){ce(e,"htmx:load",{});e=null},0)});return Q}()});$$.user={username:false,logged_in:false};addThemeSwitcher( '.theme-option' , '.theme-option-group' );$$.addServiceClick('.header-user','user.login');window.dataLayer=window.dataLayer||[];function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}gtag("js", new Date());gtag("config","UA-44331619-1",{custom_map:{dimension1:"server",dimension2:"user",metric1:"prebid",metric2:"loadtime"},"server":"web20","user":"Guest",'transport_type':'beacon'});gtag("config", "G-PRRJGSG9MK", {custom_map: {dimension1: "server", dimension2: "user", metric1: "prebid", metric2: "loadtime"}, server: "web20", user: "Guest"});gtag("event","web20",{"event_category":"ws","event_label":"US"});$$.include('//www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-PRRJGSG9MK&ext=.js');$$.includedJSLibs={"main":1,"web_services":1,"events":1,"error":1,"facebook_events":1,"darkmode":1,"provider":1,"ui_header":1,"main-menu-item-hover":1,"search-bar":1,"htmx.org":1};$$.includedCSSLibs=[]

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:12

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:55

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:54

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:51

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:50

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:50

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:48

It used to be when you turn 65, most people put down the work and retire. However, the newest trend is "unretiring," with as many as 20% of older workers rejoining the labor market in their 60s and 70s.

As of late 2023, there were nearly twice the percentage of Americans over age 65 working compared to the 1980s, according to Pew Research.

One example is walking into an ACE Hardware store, where you might find an associate like Ed Rooch.

This 74-year-old has been the "helpful hardware man" since retiring from a computer job in Silicon Valley almost 10 years ago. After a couple of years at home, he decided retirement wasn't for him,

"Well, I've always been handy," he said, "so this seemed like a perfect fit."

So, like a growing number of people over 65, he returned to the workforce, in his case for 30 hours a week. And he's loving it.

"It's no pressure. But it's also very challenging because everyone who comes in has a challenge," he said,

Carly Roszkowski of AARP says that given the tight labor market, it makes good business sense for employers to hire older workers.

"We have seen an increased interest in hiring older workers nationally," she said.

A major reason is inflation, which is battering the value of their 401k and monthly Social Security checks.

What to know before you apply

Roszkowski says a majority of older workers feel age discrimination can hurt their chances of getting a new job. So in your resume, highlight your skills, not your age, she says.

"Make sure you are highlighting your most recent experience. And while you want to include your credentials, you don't have to include graduation dates," she said.

And if you're hanging on to an old HotMail or AOL email account, upgrade to something more modern like Gmail. She also says it's never too late to create a LinkedIn profile.

Whether for the money or to stay active, millions of retirees like Rooch are now working again.

"It's something to do, or I wouldn't know what to do," he said.

And that way you don't waste your money.

________________________

"Don't Waste Your Money" is a registered trademark of Scripps Media, Inc. ("Scripps").

Follow John:

Facebook:John Matarese MoneyInstagram: @johnmataresemoneyTwitter: @JohnMatareseFor more consumer news and money saving advice, go to www.dontwasteyourmoney.com

Copyright 2024 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Sign up for the Headlines Newsletter and receive up to date information.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:44

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:18

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:13

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:13

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:11

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:08

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:07

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:05

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:04

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:30

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:45

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:44

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:43

NEW YORK CITY (WABC) -- The MTA has determined which modes of transportation will be exempt from congestion pricing fees.

The announcement comes about 48 hours out from the MTA's final vote on whether to launch the controversial plan that would charge most drivers a fee of at least $15.

Yellow school buses, most private commuter buses and city-owned vehicles are among the vehicles exempt from congestion pricing. The determination comes after public hearings were held on the topic in February and this month.

Of yellow school buses in the city, those under contract with the New York City Department of Education, including buses the city contracts for some charter and private schools, are exempt.

Commuter buses that run on a regular schedule, even those operated by private bus companies, long distance buses like MegaBus and regional bus services like the Hampton Jitney, are also exempt.

The MTA has deemed a majority of city-owned vehicles as exempt, expanding the initial definition from vehicles like police cruisers, fire engines and garbage trucks.

Employee shuttles will not be exempt. The MTA is not considering exemptions for municipal employee private vehicles.

MTA officials say they needed to keep the number of exemptions to a minimum to maintain the once a day $15-base toll for passenger vehicles to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street.

The MTA is finalizing some additional exceptions ahead of the scheduled vote on a final proposal this Wednesday.

The MTA hopes the congestion pricing charge will go into effect around June.

Mayor Eric Adams' office released a statement Monday, saying the exemptions are "critical steps to ensuring that congestion pricing is equitable for all New Yorkers."

"Congestion pricing is here, and we are glad that this plan will deliver for working-class New Yorkers," the statement said. "As a result of our advocacy, we've secured discounts for low-income New Yorkers and shift workers, exemptions for school buses and essential city vehicles, and $100 million to reduce the impacts of car traffic on vulnerable communities in the South Bronx and across the five boroughs. While this is just the beginning, these are critical steps to ensuring that congestion pricing is equitable for all New Yorkers. We have full confidence in our newest MTA appointees, Deputy Mayor for Operations Meera Joshi and City Planning Chair Dan Garodnick, who will help ensure that congestion pricing dollars improve underserved neighborhoods and enhance our transit system while simultaneously delivering on the promised environmental benefits."

ALSO READ | Bill filed to prevent squatters from having rights in New York Investigative Reporter Dan Krauth speaks to officials about the squatting loophole.

----------

* Get Eyewitness News Delivered

* More New York City news

* Send us a news tip

* Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts

* Follow us on YouTube

Submit a tip or story idea to Eyewitness News Have a breaking news tip or an idea for a story we should cover? Send it to Eyewitness News using the form below. If attaching a video or photo, terms of use apply.

Copyright (C) 2024 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:43

By Andrea Fujii Friday, March 22, 2024 12:47PM

A new warning for travelers as hackers have uncovered a security flaw that could open your hotel-room door

There is a new warning for travelers after researchers, posed as hackers, expose a security flaw that could open millions of hotel-room doors.

The good news is, they're helping to fix the problem after Wired Magazine reported about the security vulnerabilities within the lock's encryption system.

"With just two taps, they can open these doors in seconds," said Andy Greenberg, a senior writer at Wired.

The researchers said using a key card, they cracked the code and essentially made a "master key."

"These security researchers have actually exposed this and that's a good thing because now dormakaba, the lock manufacturer, can start the process of trying to update all these locks around the world and fix this," Greenberg said.

They say the lock company has updated about one-third of the locks so far.

ALSO SEE: New Jersey woman who 'fought for her life' during trip to Turks and Caicos hopes to warn travelers

"Our customers and partners all take security very seriously, and we are confident all reasonable steps will be taken to address this matter," dormakaba said in a statement.

"We also have to consider that they may have actually done it in the past these more professional, profit-motivated, or you know, politically-motivated hackers and they may have even exploited these locks in secret to get into hotel rooms for profit, or even for kind of intelligence purposes," Greenberg added.

How to protect yourself

How can hotel guests protect themselves? ABC News was told the locks in question have a round card reader with a wavy line cutting through it.

Apps can help you determine if it's been updated.

If it hasn't been, experts say the deadbolt won't help since it's connected to the keycard, so use your door's key chain instead.

The researchers have not revealed the exact method of how they made a master key, being careful as to not allow the information to get into the wrong hands.

Copyright (C) 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:41

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:40

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:39