Hate Crime Bill Passed

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 minute ago, GordonS said:

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.

Scotland is just one of many targets because they are a pair of obnoxious racist wanks.

The only people turning this into a "culture war" are the fucking bigots attacking it.

 

[GordonS]

Related fun fact: for religiously aggravated offences, nearly half of all the victims in Scotland over the past 5 years or so have been police officers. 

[GordonS]

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

Is that the same Ally McCoist that threw a hissy fit when Scotland fans booed God Save the King last year?

[Ludo*1]

Ally McCoist is a cracking football commentator and probably fun to have a pint or two with, but he's a right arsehole of a guy.

[strichener]

17 hours ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Murdo Fraser should be on a list.

He is, it's the only way he gets into parliament!

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Related fun fact: for religiously aggravated offences, nearly half of all the victims in Scotland over the past 5 years or so have been police officers. 

And despite the conspiracy theorists most of the arrests are for anti-catholic slurs. 

[tirso]

3 hours 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? 

what I don't understand is surely abusing anybody is already a crime so what's the point of this legislation?  Presumably we couldn't go about abusing disabled people last weekend?  not trying to be obtuse, i just can't see what the point of it is.  If someone was going about Buchanan street saying "euthanise disabled people" surely the police could move them on previously?  even just as a public nuisance.  

It seems to me some people want the impossible for the law to account for all behaviours when humans, on the whole, behave to social norms rather than the baseline criminal law.  There is deliberately a gap between bad behaviour and criminal law.  On the other hand, other people think unless something is expressly criminalised in law they should have the "right" to do it and go about deliberately stretching boundaries.  These mad "free speech" zealots.  This is quite an american view of behaviour and not one Scottish society has been used to.  i.e. just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  

don't know what im saying here lol but I do wonder what the net benefit of this legislation actually is.  It seems to have just got people's backs up.  I mean surely it's not suggesting you have to agree a transwomen is in fact a women?  That can't be right surely, I doubt it's saying that.

Edited April 2 by tirso

[alta-pete]

Agreed. I think the short version is the legislation is wholly unneccessary. I'm struggling to understand how exercised those mounting such a staunch defence of it are getting.

[Theyellowbox]

2 minutes ago, tirso said:

what I don't understand is surely abusing anybody is already a crime so what's the point of this legislation?  Presumably we couldn't go about abusing disabled people last weekend?  not trying to be obtuse, i just can't see what the point of it is.  If someone was going about Buchanan street saying "euthanise disabled people" surely the police could move them on previously?  even just as a public nuisance.  

It seems to me some people want the impossible for the law to account for all behaviours when humans, on the whole, behave to social norms rather than the baseline crime.  On the other hand, other people think unless something is expressly criminalised in law they should have the "right" to do it.  These mad "free speech" zealots.  This is quite an american view of behaviour and not one Scottish society has been used to.  i.e. just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  

don't know what im saying here lol but I do wonder what the net benefit of this legislation actually is.  It seems to have just got people's backs up.  I mean surely it's not suggesting you have to agree a transwomen is in fact a women?  That can't be right surely, I doubt it's saying that.

My take is that the legislation is to bring other groups in line with what already existed for hate based on race. Easier to bring them in line than to adjust the race hate law. Your point on it changing very little is why the big fuss seems interestingly strange to me. I don't think this will see any more people charged than would have been the case this time last week, but more makes the law a little clearer and could, of needed, give prosecutors something else to work with, when bringing appropriate charges and sentences to someone who would probably have been arrested.

As you say, because the law says can can currently do something, it does not mean you should, purely to prove a point. In the UK, we SHOULD be able to rely on people sense of right and general common sense. However, increasingly, that isn't the case.

To the specific points above, you could have shouted about euthanasia for disabled people and been arrested, but it wouldn't have been classed a hate crime, but if had said the exact same, but substituted the word disables for black/Asian etc, it would have been and therefore subject to a different sentence.

On agreeing about trans women being trans women, I don't think there is any intention for that. In fact, you could flip it to say that some pretty unsavoury trans activists stirring up hatred could/should fall foul of this law if they stir up hate based on the same parameters. Say a heterosexual Christian female was the target based on religion or sexual orientation, then they'd be prosecuted too. 

[welshbairn]

Given how few people get done for stirring up racial hatred despite all the dog whistling going on, the hysterical pearl clutching by the likes of JKR and Sunak is laughable. The bar for prosecution is so high you need to be actively participating in and encouraging a violent lynch mob to get charged.

[velo army]

3 hours ago, alta-pete said:

Would an Orange Walk fall foul of this legislation? 

Asking for a mate aye?

3 hours ago, Peil said:

Whether the police will actively participate is a different matter

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

I really think the quality of the debate on this subject in the media generally would be greatly improved if all those opposed to the legislation read, re-read and understood the quote from the Act set out by @welshbairn on page 1 of this thread, particularly the two sections in bold print.

James O'Brien on LBC had a pop at the subject earlier today and I'm not convinced that he "got it".  I think Shelagh Fogarty will be discussing it shortly. Hopefully she'll do a bit better.

A former boss of mine used to have a screensaver that said "when all else fails, read the instructions." Some sound advice there.

Edited April 2 by Salt n Vinegar

[GordonS]

45 minutes ago, tirso said:

what I don't understand is surely abusing anybody is already a crime so what's the point of this legislation?  Presumably we couldn't go about abusing disabled people last weekend?  not trying to be obtuse, i just can't see what the point of it is.  If someone was going about Buchanan street saying "euthanise disabled people" surely the police could move them on previously?  even just as a public nuisance.  

It seems to me some people want the impossible for the law to account for all behaviours when humans, on the whole, behave to social norms rather than the baseline criminal law.  There is deliberately a gap between bad behaviour and criminal law.  On the other hand, other people think unless something is expressly criminalised in law they should have the "right" to do it and go about deliberately stretching boundaries.  These mad "free speech" zealots.  This is quite an american view of behaviour and not one Scottish society has been used to.  i.e. just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  

don't know what im saying here lol but I do wonder what the net benefit of this legislation actually is.  It seems to have just got people's backs up.  I mean surely it's not suggesting you have to agree a transwomen is in fact a women?  That can't be right surely, I doubt it's saying that.

Before now, you could set up a stall on Buchanan St promoting euthanising disabled people and as long as you weren't committing another offence, that was lawful. It only became a factor if you were committing another offence at the time, like assault or breach of the peace - then it would have become become an aggravating factor to the offence.

Public nuisance isn't a thing in Scotland. Breach of the peace is our closest, but you have to cause alarm or serious disturbance for that.  

Those who say it's not changed anything don't seem to realise the things that were allowed before. 

[tirso]

24 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

My take is that the legislation is to bring other groups in line with what already existed for hate based on race. Easier to bring them in line than to adjust the race hate law. Your point on it changing very little is why the big fuss seems interestingly strange to me. I don't think this will see any more people charged than would have been the case this time last week, but more makes the law a little clearer and could, of needed, give prosecutors something else to work with, when bringing appropriate charges and sentences to someone who would probably have been arrested.

As you say, because the law says can can currently do something, it does not mean you should, purely to prove a point. In the UK, we SHOULD be able to rely on people sense of right and general common sense. However, increasingly, that isn't the case.

To the specific points above, you could have shouted about euthanasia for disabled people and been arrested, but it wouldn't have been classed a hate crime, but if had said the exact same, but substituted the word disables for black/Asian etc, it would have been and therefore subject to a different sentence.

On agreeing about trans women being trans women, I don't think there is any intention for that. In fact, you could flip it to say that some pretty unsavoury trans activists stirring up hatred could/should fall foul of this law if they stir up hate based on the same parameters. Say a heterosexual Christian female was the target based on religion or sexual orientation, then they'd be prosecuted too. 

Cool, thanks.  I'll have a look.

 

2 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I really think the quality of the debate on this subject in the media generally would be greatly improved if all those opposed to the legislation read, re-read and understood the quote from the Act set out by @welshbairn on page 1 of this thread, particularly the two sections in bold print.

James O'Brien on LBC had a pop at the subject earlier today and I'm not convinced that he "got it".  I think Shelagh Fogarty will be discussing it shortly. Hopefully she'll do a bit better.

A former boss of mine used to have a screensaver that said "when all else fails, read the instructions." Some sound advice there.

I have just done this and have to agree that if it is accurate, I don't think this is the great issue of our times.  Although, i'm still not totally convinced current legislation isn't sufficient either and they could be getting on with other things!

I suppose if i'm playing devils advocate, if a Trans person says someone is deliberately "mis"-gendering them, the offender (sic) doesn't agree their favoured identity is real... is it a hate crime?  Is that the nub of it?  In which case, surely any "reasonable" person would say that's bollocks and move on.  Just like the free speech zealots you could have trans people deliberately trying to force people to address them in their preferred identity and if their opponents fail to comply, put in a complaint.  

It's all a load of nonsense isn't it, this.  None of these things actually happen to any great degree other than in people's twitters, eh?  I doubt it's really going to make much odds in the grand scheme of things!  Front page news though today.

 

[tirso]

4 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Before now, you could set up a stall on Buchanan St promoting euthanising disabled people and as long as you weren't committing another offence, that was lawful. It only became a factor if you were committing another offence at the time, like assault or breach of the peace - then it would have become become an aggravating factor to the offence.

Public nuisance isn't a thing in Scotland. Breach of the peace is our closest, but you have to cause alarm or serious disturbance for that.  

Those who say it's not changed anything don't seem to realise the things that were allowed before. 

Breach of the peace seems to be a good law for basically "go and stop doing that, you're annoying everybody"  Up until now most folk have gone along with it (and still do) but with covid and youtube mangling some people's brains, some need to see an express law for everything!

The "don't be a dick law" can never be written down precisely because it's too hard to define.  "Reasonable" is the best word in law.

[Salt n Vinegar]

27 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I really think the quality of the debate on this subject in the media generally would be greatly improved if all those opposed to the legislation read, re-read and understood the quote from the Act set out by @welshbairn on page 1 of this thread, particularly the two sections in bold print.

James O'Brien on LBC had a pop at the subject earlier today and I'm not convinced that he "got it".  I think Shelagh Fogarty will be discussing it shortly. Hopefully she'll do a bit better.

A former boss of mine used to have a screensaver that said "when all else fails, read the instructions." Some sound advice there.

Nah, she's made a hash of it. She used an example where there was no, even arguable, attempt to "stir up hatred against a group of persons".

She hasn't quoted the Act that she's talking about nor referred to the protections for freedom of speech.

[HTG]

Listened to part of an interview on R4 with trans activist Katie Nerves at lunchtime. She's one of a number of trans people included by Rowling in a tweet thread yesterday - a list that started with criminals and moved on to activists. Predictably, she's suffered an absolute pile on since then.

She made the point that she's considering reporting a hate crime (although not sure whether Rowling was in Scotland when tweeting) but knows that this is exactly what Rowling wants. Rowling isn't going to stop until she's reported. So someone might as well get it going.

[Theyellowbox]

2 hours ago, tirso said:

Breach of the peace seems to be a good law for basically "go and stop doing that, you're annoying everybody"  Up until now most folk have gone along with it (and still do) but with covid and youtube mangling some people's brains, some need to see an express law for everything!

The "don't be a dick law" can never be written down precisely because it's too hard to define.  "Reasonable" is the best word in law.

I'd say what disappoints me most in the reactions to this and is why it has irked me, is that its all become about the trans issue. Whereas in fact, of the groups listed, they are arguably the most equipped to voice concerns. This legislation should be something to celebrate, that inciting hatred of someone based on a disability is now treated in the same way as race. But no, our PM and influential people in society do not celebrate this, they stick to the culture wars and who is the group caught in the cross fires? Disabled people, who are, in a lot of cases, least able to express an opinion.

To have excluded trans from the bill would have been a backwards step, so right to include.

 

Edited April 2 by Theyellowbox

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

18 hours ago, HTG said:

Just for the sake of clarity, I'd lmfao if Rowling got lifted. 

So will she, it's exactly her game plan.

18 hours ago, andyg83 said:

I think she is at the point (and has enough money) to call out what she sees as BS and take on this new law head first. 

Many would be shit scared to do what she doing but she genuinely believes in it so will be interesting to see how it plays out.