Hate Crime Bill Passed

[Cheese]

7 hours ago, GordonS said:

Where did you get the idea Scotland is on the front line of this?

Because a lot of (international) focus has been on Scotland over the past few years.

[Peil]

7 hours ago, GordonS said:

 

 

First of all, there are three levels of disclosure checks - basic, standard and enhanced - and PVG checks are another thing again.

For enhanced disclosure checks the police would reveal unspent cautions, spent convictions where they are relevant and - the bit of interest here - other "relevant information". It has to be relevant to the request.

Enhanced disclosure checks can only be requested by accredited bodies on the register for the purposes of adoption or gaming and lottery licences. That's it. No other circumstances.

If someone made a complaint the police found to be baseless, like in your example, it wouldn't be relevant to any check. If there was something in it but a decision was taken not to proceed, for whatever reason, then it could be considered relevant.

Section 33 of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 sets out the considerations for what should be considered as relevant. You get to see what will be disclosed before whoever requested it sees it and you can appeal. If you're not happy with the appeal outcome you can appeal to the independent reviewer, and on a point of law you can appeal their decisions to the Sheriff Court.

As you say, if you tweet something racist that COPFS decided not charge you with then that might be relevant if you're being considered for adoption of a minority ethnic child. It's hard to see any other circumstances.

And critically, the new hate crime legislation changes absolutely nothing about this.

As for PVG checks, that's for working with children or vulnerable adults. If you're applying for a role your information is not revealed to the organisation who want it - it's revealed to you, the individual that applied for your own record. Depending on the type of job and application, that could include "relevant information" as above. But you don't ever have to share it with the organisation, you can always withdraw your application while an issue is sorted out.

The only complication comes if you're already working with children or vulnerable adults and something happens. In that case, they will only inform your employer/ regulatory body if they are considering adding you to the lists or people banned from working with protected groups, or if they have done so immediately. There is simply no chance that this could happen just because someone complained about something you tweeted or said and the police took no action.

And again, the new hate crime legislation doesn't change this either.

People with their own agendas are preying on fears about all this stuff, but it's totally baseless. 

Thank you for taking the time to reply and explain.

 

[Cheese]

What's Ally planning on singing at the weekend ?

[Leith Green]

3 minutes ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

What's Ally planning on singing at the weekend ?

I quite like Ally as a co commentator, but hes clearly not too bright if he is admitting that;

either

1 - he and all other Rangers fans, commit acts of hatred (presumably sectarian) when supporting Rangers.

2 - he doesnt actually understand what a Hate crime is.

My vote is on number 2.

[Theyellowbox]

26 minutes ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

What's Ally planning on singing at the weekend ?

So when he is saying is that he is intentionally inciting hatred? If he is not, then he is not falling foul of the law.

Interesting is that he (and presumably every reader/listener) equates the 'hate' he is clearly referring to as religion. Focus has been on the trans element and in this case religion. But what about the other groups covered. What if for example someone is inciting hatred against disabled people? Is Ally sating that is OK? Is JK Rowling? Or are people only seeing what they want to see and this rubs against their existing prejudice?

Another angle/question I have for folk opposing this is, given this brings the discrimination in line with what already existed based an race, are you really really comfortable in arguing that by saying you think this law is wrong that in some way we should roll back the legislation that was already in place on racism? 

[Caledonian1]

44 minutes ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

What's Ally planning on singing at the weekend ?

That's incredibly stupid from McCoist.  I really like him as a pundit but seems he is pretty much condoning bigotry here....unless he cares to explain further?  

[HTG]

8 hours ago, alta-pete said:

It’d be a more convincing position for building on Devolution if these daft c***s weren’t getting themselves tied up with this, bottle deposits, an inability to deal with drug deaths and ferry procurement. 

 

Deposit Return works perfectly well in other countries and it's already been highlighted that somewhere like Germany has stronger hate crime legislation than is the case in this country. Poor procurement within the public sector is completely unsatisfactory but it's hardly something that's unique to the Scottish government (and pales in comparison to HS2 or track and trace). 

This is all set up as a culture war - at least politically - because the Scottish government is introducing something different from rUK. No matter what the Scottish Government seeks to introduce now, it'll be challenged by those on the right. 

Below is the definition of hate crime as taken from the Met Police website:

"A hate crime is defined as 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.'

A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related."

In Scotland, according to The Guardian:

'The act, which was supported by MSPs from Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats as well as the Scottish National party, also creates a new offence of “threatening or abusive behaviour that is intended to stir up hatred” on the grounds of age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics."

It's probably just me but I'm struggling to see just how much more Draconian the new bill in Scotland might be. If someone is intent on stirring up hatred in the areas identified, that's not really acceptable in modern society. I've seen people cite examples such as comedians being at risk as a result of the new law. But are they? Are they really? Or is it just bollocks being spouted so that those who really do want to stir up hatred towards certain communities can continue to do so with impunity?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

1 hour ago, Peil said:

Thank you for taking the time to reply and explain.

 

Most disclosure checks are pass/fail result type things. Most people will pass a disclosure check. An organisation wont be told ‘Peil was reported for a hate incident’ they’ll be told you’ve passed a check. People with a criminal record can pass a disclosure check. Its all about the type of work undertaken and the risk etc. ie they wont pass someone with sexual or physical abuse of children for something, but someone who did time for a housebreaking 20 years ago will be fine working in a community centre etc. Each case is assessed on its own merits and honestly being noted on the aforementioned ivpd system for something proven to be a ‘no crime’ will not impact a disclosure check. I’ve undergone vetting and been in a role where I’ve done certain aspects of vetting or highlighted information that is relevant to vetting bodies and genuinely dont feel that this legislation will change the goal posts for anyone. All it really does is take lots of individual pieces of legislation and streamline them into one act. 

I’ll maybe need to stop calling my dad an auld codger though…

[coprolite]

21 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

So when he is saying is that he is intentionally inciting hatred? If he is not, then he is not falling foul of the law.

Interesting is that he (and presumably every reader/listener) equates the 'hate' he is clearly referring to as religion. Focus has been on the trans element and in this case religion. But what about the other groups covered. What if for example someone is inciting hatred against disabled people? Is Ally sating that is OK? Is JK Rowling? Or are people only seeing what they want to see and this rubs against their existing prejudice?

Another angle/question I have for folk opposing this is, given this brings the discrimination in line with what already existed based an race, are you really really comfortable in arguing that by saying you think this law is wrong that in some way we should roll back the legislation that was already in place on racism? 

I think you're overcimplicating this. 

He intends to incite hatred. 

[Michael W]

57 minutes ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

What's Ally planning on singing at the weekend ?

He must've forgotten that the OBAF was never used against Rangers or Celtic either. 

Despite these clubs being the reason we were lumbered with it before its repeal. 

Edited April 2 by Michael W

[Dunning1874]

8 hours ago, GordonS said:

People with their own agendas are preying on fears about all this stuff, but it's totally baseless. 

 

Definitely isn't becoming a consistent tactic for the Tories and their far right outriders which has been used to derail any other recent Scottish Parliament legislation!

As with GRR, still waiting for someone who opposes it to present an objection to it based on what the bill actually says rather than what they've imagined it to say in their head.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

Because a lot of (international) focus has been on Scotland over the past few years.

I haven't seen that. Where? By who? 

[alta-pete]

Would an Orange Walk fall foul of this legislation? 

[GordonS]

36 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Or are people only seeing what they want to see and this rubs against their existing prejudice?

That's the nub of all of this. The vast majority of people who hate a group believe they're right and have legitimate grounds for it. Few racists hate people for the colour of their skin, it's about beliefs they hold about people who are from that racial group or country. Like Muslims are all terrorists who want to impose Sharia law, black African-origin people are lazy and violent, Jews are secretly controlling the world, that kind of thing. Homophobes and transphobes don't believe being gay or having a different gender identity from your body is a real thing, they think it's a sick perversion that shouldn't be tolerated. Growing up, my dad was told by his parents that Catholic women were on the hunt for Protestant men to have babies with so they could breed out the Protestants, and my mum was told by her parents that Protestants were trying to suppress and dominate them.

People who believe these things don't think they're the baddies, they think people like me are naive and being taken advantage of. So when we come along and ban them from acting on their beliefs in who they employ, who they rent a home to, who they sell cakes to, and now what they can say, they're going to lose their sh*t. 

It's pointless debating this with people who disagree, because there's no common ground at all.

There's another category that have completely fair concerns about free speech and the extent of the criminal law and I'm all for that. Singing about being up to your knees in ****** blood does not fall into that category.

[Cheese]

23 minutes ago, GordonS said:

I haven't seen that. Where? By who? 

World famous authors and the owners of widely used social media sites tend to get people's attention.

[GordonS]

Just now, D Angelo Barksdale said:

World famous authors and the owners of widely used social media sites tend to get people's attention.

Just because one of the world's most famous transphobes lives here does not mean Scotland is in the front line of this. Also, our media are dreadful at knowing what happens in other countries (apart from the USA) and telling us about it. Countries like France, Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Canada, Chile and dozens of others have had this legislation for years. Ireland made it an offence to stir up hatred in 1989 and they tightened it up last year. 

Elon Musk's lie about Humza Yousaf wasn't related to legislation or any of this debate, it was because Yousaf pointed out the fact that disproportionately few people at the top end of public life in Scotland are anything other than white. Musk took the hump because he says anyone who points out racial inequalities is an anti-white racist.

[Peil]

42 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Would an Orange Walk fall foul of this legislation? 

Probably not the marching and bands playing, the actions of some of the rockets following along with their bag of cans may, depending on what they shout/sing/say.

Whether the police will actually intervene is a different matter

[Cheese]

17 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Just because one of the world's most famous transphobes lives here does not mean Scotland is in the front line of this. Also, our media are dreadful at knowing what happens in other countries (apart from the USA) and telling us about it. Countries like France, Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Canada, Chile and dozens of others have had this legislation for years. Ireland made it an offence to stir up hatred in 1989 and they tightened it up last year. 

Elon Musk's lie about Humza Yousaf wasn't related to legislation or any of this debate, it was because Yousaf pointed out the fact that disproportionately few people at the top end of public life in Scotland are anything other than white. Musk took the hump because he says anyone who points out racial inequalities is an anti-white racist.

The front line.

[BucksburnDandy]

1 hour ago, Caledonian1 said:

That's incredibly stupid from McCoist.  I really like him as a pundit but seems he is pretty much condoning bigotry here....unless he cares to explain further?  

Of course he is condoning bigotry. He never will call out anti-Catholic bigotry because it was what he was brought up in and has believed all his life. He will claim it means nothing, of course, but will continue to commit it and boast about it.

 

As for the new law, just don't be a dick to other people and you'll be fine. It's really that simple.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

The front line.

My guess is those people are targeting Scotland in particular because of the race of the First Minister. It's definitely not because our legislation is ahead of other places.