Hate Crime Bill Passed

[Lyle Lanley]

 

[John Lambies Doos]

 

Oof, no one seems to like it. Why not?

Also, can we give Rowling the jail?

[Boo Khaki]

45 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

1 hour ago, Lyle Lanley said:

 

Oof, no one seems to like it. Why not?

It's largely the 'you can't say anything or they put you in prison these days' lot having fits about it, which tells you all you need to know.

Other than that, feminists are spitting feathers because it doesn't expressly include misogyny as a hate crime, even thought Lord Bracadale's independent review went to great lengths to explicitly state exactly why this is so complex that it requires entirely separate legislation of it's own, and that there is a provision within the bill to add 'sex' as an aggravator at a later date if required.

Existing hate crime legislation was deemed totally insufficient, and we needed shot of the ridiculous Blasphemy Law, which despite not having being prosecuted for 175 years was still technically in operation. So this bill addresses the concerns raised in the Independent Review, but most of the complaints seem to arise from the fact that the people complaining do not like the groups that were consulted, groups which include Women's Aid, Rape Crisis etc.

Another thing that's been hijacked by utterly obsessed GC feminists as another supposed example of 'wokeism'. Apparently it's an outrage that minority groups are now covered by more robust Hate Crime legislation. Go figure. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Boo Khaki

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The usual morons crying "Free Speech" clearly don't understand what it actually is.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/how-to-be-a-free-speech-bellend-20210311206047

[Glen Sannox]

1 hour ago, Mr Kane and the lemon cafe said:

It's the same as the Offensive behaviour at football act.   If you're acting like a normal human being you've absolutely nothing to worry about.   

The Wings guy isn't happy, but he's a hate filled mess.   

The same applies to ID cards, yet the prospect of that was met with derision.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/how-to-be-a-free-speech-bellend-20210311206047

Quite an accurate description from the Daily Mash.

[emoji23]

[Granny Danger]

The safe approach is to hate everyone equally regardless of colour, race, creed, gender, religion or sexuality that way you cannot be accused of discrimination.  It has worked well for me.

Mind you Tories are more detestable than others.

 

[scottsdad]

I'm not sure it will ever result in a conviction, as there are so many caveats. The offense has to be intentional, for example - how do you prove that? Or prove (legally) that something is offensive? 

[Detournement]

Did they take the stuff about books and plays out?

 

[Scary Bear]

I’ve not been following this story. I see this thread is from 2021. How come the legislation only came into force today? I assume it needed a bit of further tinkering to make it semi-usable?

Does this mean I can’t say outrageous stuff on the internet anymore? 

I am not a bot. Honestly.

However, have you ever thought of buying Cryptocurrencies?

Edited April 1 by Scary Bear

[welshbairn]

I think we'll be ok, being offensive, shocking or disturbing is perfectly fine.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person—

(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, or

(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and

(b)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3).

(3)The characteristics are—

(a)age,

(b)disability,

(c)religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,

(d)sexual orientation,

(e)transgender identity,

(f)variations in sex characteristics.

(4)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

(5)For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.

[Salt n Vinegar]

As this subject now has it's own thread, I'll lift a question that I asked on the BBC Bias thread and ask it again here... It referred to the morning phone-in

"The question that should have been asked of those opposed to the Act was 'what view, (or subject matter or approach to it) is it that you think you could have said yesterday without breaking the law that you think you can't say today?'

I've still not seen a convincing answer, possibly because the intention has to be to stir up hatred, not just to state an opinion, or tell a joke.

(Not looking for P&Bers to incriminate themselves in replies to this, btw.)

[coprolite]

What's the jurisdiction here? I'm not in Scotland but P&B might be. Does this mean i can be hateful towards other poster if they're also outside Scotland? I don't particularly want to have a go at disabled or trans people but i'd quite like to reserve the right to call some posters "old c***s" if circumstances render it appropriate. 

[Peil]

Just in time for next weekend.  I can see several thousand complaints being made.

One thing that isn't clear, is how complaints are recorded when they are deemed no further action.  There were reports last week that Humza Yousef wanted them kept on a record somehow, somewhere.  Does that then impact an enhanced disclosure check?  How does that square with GDPR?

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

What's the jurisdiction here? I'm not in Scotland but P&B might be. Does this mean i can be hateful towards other poster if they're also outside Scotland? I don't particularly want to have a go at disabled or trans people but i'd quite like to reserve the right to call some posters "old c***s" if circumstances render it appropriate. 

The responsible Minister was asked more or less this on Radio 4 this morning and said you wouldn't be liable.

[coprolite]

Excellent, i love a hate fuelled rant

[Silvio Tattiescone]

52 minutes ago, Peil said:

Just in time for next weekend.  I can see several thousand complaints being made.

One thing that isn't clear, is how complaints are recorded when they are deemed no further action.  There were reports last week that Humza Yousef wanted them kept on a record somehow, somewhere.  Does that then impact an enhanced disclosure check?  How does that square with GDPR?

Isn't that what some MP is suing about? He apparently made a quip about Trans folk, a complaint was made and the Police investigated. They decided it didn't breach the criminal threshold but they recorded the incident. Later, the police referred to it with a number - effectively, the guy was now on a list.  The police have also said they will investigate every complaint and presumably record the results. No idea what is being done with this list but as it's a public record, I presume other agencies will be able to access it. 

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

16 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The responsible Minister was asked more or less this on Radio 4 this morning and said you wouldn't be liable.

I recall reading some KC or other on Twitter stating strict liability inferring 'if it can be published in Scotland it's as good as being said in Scotland'

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said:

I recall reading some KC or other on Twitter stating strict liability inferring 'if it can be published in Scotland it's as good as being said in Scotland'

Normally you can't be extradited for doing something that's legal in your own country, no idea how it works across internal UK borders.

Edited April 1 by welshbairn