Scotland's Hate Crime Law

[BIAD]

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.

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...'

Archived BBC Artlcle:

[Ninurta]

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."

It's good to see that some Scots (see there how I avoided the term "Scotsmen" thereby not committing a gender-related thoughtcrime?) have mastered the fine art of passing the buck, and laying responsibility and blame on some doorstep other than their own!

Here's a tip: Police Scotland weren't the hateful gits that passed this law. Let those who did deal with the fallout themselves rather than trying to saddle someone else with it.

"Hate Crime" is really just a euphemism for Orwell's "Thoughtcrime". We're not heading towards 1984, we are THERE!

What has happened to Scotland? These people are alleged to be the descendants of Highlanders, Picts, Border Reavers, and other assorted folk who never had a history of being Milquetoasts. Where, and when, did they go off the reservation? When did they start letting mere words hurt them right in the butt?

.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

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.

I think that not too long from now, when they shut down or lock down the grid, that this will be contained.

Most people only developed a serious case of open mouth and flush all the crap you have stored in your brain, until the internet advanced past The Well and Usenet.

People say crap without giving one bit of thought to what they are regurgitating, and they definitely don't take one second to vet the information.

Even if they did do a brain dump, without the internet, the number of folk that would be exposed to the toxic spill is very small, and it would be easily dealt with. Much like it was done in the old days of fist to cuffs, klan rallies, and posses.

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.

[Ninurta]

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?



.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

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?
.

But it such a small part of the plan. We are so damn gullible and so damn programed, that we don't even see what is right in front of our eyes. We need to take responsibility for why we are where we are.

Even with my family, I have given up. Everyone has made their choice. Even if they they don't want to admit it.

All neighbors are not the same. Some neighbor are grafted in family. Some are those that you smile and wave at. I had a smile ans wave neighbor that sent his grandson over with with a bag of produce.

He could not have been more than 5 years old, and he was so mature and respectful that I was in awe.

I think we have a good chance of making it here out in the woods.


.

[BIAD]

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.

[Bally002]

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.

Hmm.  Bout time we cut ties with Britain and Scotland before it's too late.

Kind regards,

bally (

[BIAD]

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!!

[Bally002]

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!!

In 3 lengthy careers and ceremonies I swore allegiance to protect the Queen and her successors, my country, the realm etc. 

The King and his successors are powerless to stop this.  If anything, they are just protecting their wealth through going along with this.  If the King wants protection from me and mine then stand up to the plate and put these grommets in their place to respect the wishes of those that originally pledged their loyalty.

I'm no longer bound by those oaths.  God won't save the king nowadays.  It's minions like me and my family who will protect themselves even if disarmed by them and theirs. Stuff my Commonwealth and Territory medals and commendations. Fishing lures and fire starters now.

My thoughts,

Kindly,  Bally

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

In places where they have rulers, I understand how they can pull a rabbit out of their hat and the folk have to go along with it.

But in a land where the government is supposed to represent the people and carry out the rule of the people, when they come up with something the people are against, then, it should never make it past their mouths, and they should never last more than a day, if they go against the will of the people.

I think every country needs to do some serious housekeeping. It looks like there is a global hijacking going on, and what is at play is not for the best in interest of the people of any country.

[Ninurta]

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!!

That's becoming more and more prevalent in the Internet Age - jurisdictions trying to hold someone else in someone else's jurisdiction accountable for something someone in their jurisdiction read. New Zealand is bad for that, what with sending out "take-down" orders to people who can legitimately tell them to simply kiss their ass. California has tried it as well, and several other places - now Scotland, too?

It reminds me a bit of a Faltskog-ish individual trying th threaten us with "Interpol", as if Interpol had arrest powers here, or even any arrest powers anywhere. That didn't work out so well for them, now did it? Some folks just watch too much TV I think, and don't realize that some of the rest of us don't, and actually have an understanding of how the real world works.

My general response to them is "if you feel that strongly about it, come and get some". Belligerent folk, especially belligerent foreigners, can and will be met with a rough reception when getting belligerent against me on my own turf, and I can mete that out with impunity. We still have laws on the books here guaranteeing a right to self defense and against illegal detentions and false arrests.

Here's the deal: if you don't want someone reading something on YOUR turf, then block it and announce your totalitarian proclivities to the world in doing so. Don't come here and try telling me how to run my own house. That ain't gonna end well for the interloper.

This world could do with a good bit more of folks minding their own business instead of trying to mind everyone else's. There is no jurisdiction on this Earth that makes the rules that everyone else has to live by on their own patch. All they get to control is THEIR own patch, not ours too.

.

[Grace]

Wow... I was listening to some talks about this last week I think... I'm shocked that it passed, especially as you quoted:

In fact the law was approved by 82 votes to 32 with four abstentions after heated debate

Wow, just wow..

[BIAD]

It may well be that some in the Scottish Parliament believed it was a vote-winner!
However...

'...JK Rowling's comments about new hate crime laws "are not assessed to be criminal", police have
said, as they confirmed no further action would be taken. The Harry Potter author dared police to
arrest her on social media over the legislation that came into force in Scotland this week.

The new measures aim to tackle the harm caused by hatred and prejudice, extending protections
from abusive behaviour to people on grounds including age, disability, religion, sexual orientation
and transgender identity...'-Sky News:

So infotaining, that one wonders if we're not all merely in pods and getting this stuff fed to us
via a tube!!

Sh*t-stirring media trying to enhance a crappy ruling.

[Freija]

Joyce can go jump in a lake!

[Grace]

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.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

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.

I had an argument with my Brother regarding individual thought.

He seems to think that there would be peace and more production if we all thought alike. Regardless of what that thought was, if everyone thought and believed the same exact way, he thinks it would be like heaven.

I told him that he just described Hell to me.

I have to admit, that sometimes I have ideas that change with the circumstances. Circumstances don't remain the same, and I guess I can be labeled as fickle, because just as circumstances may change, my thoughts, feelings, and ideas can change.

If everybody thought the same thing, and felt the same, any deviation, would create conflict.

I seek out a different opinion. If for no other reason than to prove I am right.

[BIAD]

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.

[Grace]

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.

Trans ideology is about pushing Marxist Ideology by helping to upend the current system. 

It's all always been about ideology.... And not one of these laws will ever be enforced against someone with the "correct" ideology. It's about jailing and silencing us, not them.

The people just proved it for you... So the right there in Scotland will have to be super careful now, or prepare for jail.

These laws will jail anyone on the right who speaks their minds.

[BIAD]

Considering the Police are currently struggling with almost 4000 complaints of 'hate crime' in Scotland,
an offence the Police believe neither Rowling nor Yousaf are guilty of, it'll be interesting how they deal
with the 'Old Firm' football matches between Rangers and Celtic!

The usual problems at the games are grounded on sectarianism, a well-worn rivalry between Catholics
and Protestants. But since outrage is trending towards Jews, Muslims and certain sexual orientations,
the local Plod may turn a deaf ear to the name calling from football fans.