Quote:Scotland's new hate crime law comes into force

'Scotland's new hate crime law has come into force, with JK Rowling and Elon Musk among its critics.
The Harry Potter author and the owner of social media platform X both claim the legislation could harm
free speech. Senior police officers say they expect a flood of complaints about online posts.

But the Scottish government insists the law provides protection from hate and prejudice without stifling
individual expression. "I think there has been a lot of misinformation," about the legislation, said the Victims
and Community Safety Minister Siobhian Brown, before going on to claim, inaccurately, that it was "passed
unanimously" by MSPs in 2021.


Victims and Community Safety Minister Siobhian Brown. How did Scotland manage before she came along?

In fact the law was approved by 82 votes to 32 with four abstentions after heated debate about its contents.
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to
age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. The maximum penalty is
a prison sentence of seven years.

A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, "that a reasonable
person would consider to be threatening or abusive," with the intention of stirring up hatred based on the
protected characteristics.

Stirring up hatred based on race, colour, nationality or ethnicity was already illegal in Great Britain under
the Public Order Act 1986 but, in an attempt to streamline the criminal law in Scotland, that too is now
part of the Hate Crime Act. The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics,
as it also includes "insulting" behaviour, and as the prosecution need only prove that stirring up hatred
was "likely" rather than "intended".

Free speech protection
Supporters of the hate crime law point out that it contains safeguards designed to protect freedom of
speech. For example, it states that it is a defence for a person charged with stirring up hatred to show
that their actions were "reasonable."

It also references the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
which includes protection for "ideas that offend, shock or disturb." To be convicted of a hate crime, "you have to
be really threatening and really abusive, and there has to be reasonable assumption from others that that is the
case," said Ms Brown.

As well as the offence of stirring up hatred, the Hate Crime Act also consolidates the existing law on crimes
which are "aggravated by prejudice." These are where an offender demonstrates malice or ill-will towards their
victim based on a protected characteristic, which can be taken into account by a sheriff or judge with a longer
sentence or a higher fine than would otherwise have been the case.

For example, if an assailant punched someone in the face while also making a hateful comment about their
age, that might be assault aggravated by age-related hatred. This is the first time that age has been included
in the list of protected characteristics for aggravated offences, a move welcomed by some campaign groups.
"It's going to be a positive thing for the country," said Adam Stachura of the charity Age Scotland.

Others are less enthusiastic.
Adam Tomkins, professor of public law at Glasgow University, and a former Conservative MSP, voted against
the bill because it could see someone convicted of stirring up hatred for a comment they make in private in
their own home, not just in public, "and I just don't think that's where the criminal law belongs."

However, Professor Tomkins said he believed the law only posed a risk to free speech "if it's misunderstood,"
adding, "if it's properly understood, I think this is a fairly safe piece of legislation now." Susan Smith of For
Women Scotland, which campaigned against recent proposed changes to gender law, is not convinced.

"The tests are quite woolly and we don't know how people are going to interpret this," she told BBC News.
"We do anticipate that there will be a lot of malicious complaints, a lot of rather trivial complaints and
potentially people who are investigated will see their lives upended. "I imagine there will be many complaints,
for example, made against JK Rowling," she added.

Ms Rowling, a prominent critic of some transgender ideology, described the law as "ludicrous" in a defiant
post on X (formerly Twitter) last month. Mr Musk has cited discussion about the legislation as an "example
of why it is so important to preserve freedom of speech." Vic Valentine of the charity Scottish Trans said the
organisation supported the law because of the "serious impact that hate crime can have on LGBTI people."
It would not, Vic added, criminalise behaviour which transgender people might simply find upsetting, offensive
or even transphobic.

Police resourcing
The SNP-led Scottish government has tried to soothe concerns. Siobhian Brown described the act as "ambitious"
while also insisting it would "not necessarily" criminalise anything that was not already criminal. Asked whether "misgendering" someone or making a comment about their religion would be a crime the minister replied: "This
will be up to Police Scotland. I wouldn't say misgendering if you say something on social media for example it
would be up to Police Scotland to determine."

Ch Supt Rob Hay of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS), which represents senior officers,
said there was the potential for a "huge uplift" in complaints about social media posts. Mr Hay said his central
concern was that Police Scotland "haven't been provided with any additional resources in terms of dealing with
this piece of legislation."

Just last month the national force said it was no longer able to investigate every "low level" crime, including
some cases of theft and criminal damage. It has, however, pledged to investigate every hate crime complaint
it receives.

BBC News understands that these will be assessed by a "dedicated team" within Police Scotland including "a
number of hate crime advisers" to assist officers in determining what, if any, action to take. At a recent meeting
of the Scottish Police Authority board, Ch Con Jo Farrell said her force would apply the act "in a measured way"
under "close scrutiny."

Debate about the act has also resurrected a long-running row about how police forces throughout Britain record
allegations of hate crimes where no charges are brought. The Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser has been leading
a campaign against the recording of what are termed "non-crime hate incidents" after he discovered that Police
Scotland had recorded a comment he had made on social media as a hate incident, despite deciding that no crime
had been committed.

More generally, the publicity about the new law, and the controversy surrounding it, has prompted warnings that
it could lead to self-censorship. Roddy Dunlop KC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said it could have a "chilling
effect" on free speech. And some feminist groups have raised concerns that the absence of sex as a protected
characteristic in the legislation leaves women unprotected. The Scottish government has promised to introduce
a separate misogyny law "in due course" following a report by the barrister, Helena Kennedy KC...'

Quote:The SNP-led Scottish government has tried to soothe concerns. Siobhian Brown described the act as "ambitious" while also insisting it would "not necessarily" criminalise anything that was not already criminal. Asked whether "misgendering" someone or making a comment about their religion would be a crime the minister replied: "This will be up to Police Scotland. I wouldn't say misgendering if you say something on social media for example it would be up to Police Scotland to determine."

(04-01-2024, 08:46 AM)BIAD Wrote: The Thought Police landed in Scotland today and even though Orwell's book was a work of fiction,
he was bang-on the money when it comes to controlling the Message. There may've been a time
when Journalists would have rallied together to counter such restraints on free speech, sadly those
days are far behind us now.

(04-01-2024, 06:52 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote: I think that free speech can be costly. I think it is going to cost so much in the future that most folk will choose to budget their words.

(04-01-2024, 08:15 PM)Ninurta Wrote:

(04-01-2024, 06:52 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote: I think that free speech can be costly. I think it is going to cost so much in the future that most folk will choose to budget their words.

That seems to be the plan - make free speech too expensive to engage in. That's what is called "a chilling effect on free speech". Why bother following constitutional principles when you can just bypass them and go strait for the totalitarian authority they so crave?

Why bother engaging dissenting opinions when you can just shut them down and control the narrative all by yourself, unopposed?
.

(04-02-2024, 07:41 AM)BIAD Wrote: The key to most of the UK's poor decision-making involves using leaders that the public never elected!

Humza Yousaf -First Minister of Scotland, Vaughan Gething -First Minister of Wales and the British Prime
Minister -Rishi Sunak, were all elected by their respective political parties.

(04-02-2024, 07:58 AM)Bally002 Wrote: Hmm.  Bout time we cut ties with Britain and Scotland before it's too late.

Kind regards,

bally (

(04-02-2024, 08:19 AM)BIAD Wrote:

(04-02-2024, 07:58 AM)Bally002 Wrote: Hmm.  Bout time we cut ties with Britain and Scotland before it's too late.

Kind regards,

bally (

I agree with you Bally, this law suggests a Tweet, a re-Tweet or even a discussion that is seen
as 'offensive' under this law -regardless of where in the world this occurs and seen by someone
in Scotland, can be held accountable under the heading of a 'non-hate crime'!!

Will such an 'offender' be extradited from their home country to be held accountable by the
Scottish law courts?!

It's very East-Germany -ish!!

(04-02-2024, 08:19 AM)BIAD Wrote:

(04-02-2024, 07:58 AM)Bally002 Wrote: Hmm.  Bout time we cut ties with Britain and Scotland before it's too late.

Kind regards,

bally (

I agree with you Bally, this law suggests a Tweet, a re-Tweet or even a discussion that is seen
as 'offensive' under this law -regardless of where in the world this occurs and seen by someone
in Scotland, can be held accountable under the heading of a 'non-hate crime'!!

Will such an 'offender' be extradited from their home country to be held accountable by the
Scottish law courts?!

It's very East-Germany -ish!!

(04-03-2024, 07:49 AM)Freija Wrote: Joyce can go jump in a lake!

(04-03-2024, 02:06 PM)Grace Wrote:

(04-03-2024, 07:49 AM)Freija Wrote: Joyce can go jump in a lake!

These are just my thoughts here, but if we can't speak what we think about anything important ever again - how can we learn and grow and even begin to understand one another, from all sides so that we can come together to form a good society... 

We can't. The walls just go up and there's no where left to go but fight over who rules... 

Without speech it's the end.

(04-03-2024, 07:18 PM)BIAD Wrote: All of this may've been nothing to do with the Harry Potter writer or the trans-community.

"...BBC understands the national force has received more than 3,000 hate crime reports since the
new law was introduced on Monday. A large number were about a 2020 speech by Mr Yousaf
- then justice secretary - highlighting white people in prominent public roles.

However Mr Yousaf told BBC Scotland that the majority of "vexatious" complaints made about him
"come from the far right." "I'm not going to let them stop me from continuing to speak out about
racism or talk about that fact that we need more diversity in public life," he said.
"That was the point I was making in the speech that's been referenced."..." -Source:


It seems the law is about ideologies.