Scottish Government's Hate Crime bill

Links here:

www.gov.scot/policies/crime-prevention-and-reduction/hate-crime/

There is an Equality Impact assessment that may be of interest with regards to women's rights.

www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crime-public-order-scotland-bill-equality-impact-assessment/

Extract from the latter:

'What might prevent the desired outcomes being achieved?

Although there was broad support for hate crime laws and for consolidation and modernisation among organisations, the majority of individuals were not supportive of hate crime laws suggesting that they restrict freedom of expression and create a hierarchy of victims.'

Gosh, better get EDUCATING the general populace, eh, ScotGov? Can't have the majority of people ignorantly objecting to you extending the reach and remit of the law, surely?

To be perfectly honest I am slightly wary about filling in this consultation, as I have the vague feeling anything I do say may be taken and used against me.

I would HUGELY welcome some more qualified peoples' responses, advice and guidance on how to go about filling this consulatation in - as we know the ScotGov sees 'consultations' as veiled opportunities to educate, scold and persuade, rather than the more commonly used meaning of the word as 'a means to solicit opinion and engage with the public'.

Received an email regarding hate crime bill asking if I want to make a written submission, further details on Scottish Parliament website. Also they have posted eight topical notes covering the main provisions on the SG's hate crime website. Queries to [email protected] titled 'Hate Crime Bill'. I participated in the consultation but I would assume anyone's views will be welcome.

• and thanks for the links, Nonny and Dido.

the law to serve an important symbolic and educative function

IANAL, but is this really what the law is for? Symbolism and Making An Example of people?

Sturgeon's brand is well constructed and she's doing very well at reinforcing it right now.

It's extra fun when people who've yet to grasp the basic terminology tell you to educate yourself! And yeah, a lot of people seem to think "trans" just means "super mega gay".

I had a listen to the one on universities.

Freedom of speech in universities: Who draws the line? - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0749

Prof. Selina Todd makes an appearance about 16 minutes into the programme. I had to facepalm though when the host described the debate around transgenderism as having to do with people's sexual identity being assigned at birth and wanting to change it later!! 🙄🤯
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people fail to grasp the basic terms around the transgenderism debate. I'd imagine it's very convoluted and confusing for anyone new to the discussions, but I don't know if sexual identity makes things any clearer for listeners or what it's meant to be defined as, compared to gender identity. I think he might have conflated sexual orientation with gender identity.

Anyway it was an interesting bit and to his credit, he does say at the end that while he recognises the right of minority groups to be respected, ultimately universities should be places that examine challenging ideas and uncomfortable truths. I thought it was a very interesting phrase - uncomfortable truths.

Hopefuly this will go the same way as the utterly misguided named person bill, which was never enacted, and the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 which got as far as an Act but was repealed.

I have no time for Sturgeon. At the moment all she is doing is looking for pointless and irrelevant distinctions so that she can contradict anything coming out of Westminster.

This will ‘allow the law to serve an important symbolic and educative function, sending a clear message that this type of behaviour attracts particular condemnation by society and will not be tolerated’

Again with the desire to "educate" people. When the Chinese government does this we call it propaganda.

I'm understanding more and more over time why my dad dislikes Sturgeon so much.

It is not possible to have a society where people aren't allowed to offend each other without getting into dystopia territory, and that's before you even get into the issue of asking why it's fine to offend some people but not others.

Good article in Spiked

www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/30/the-snps-war-on-free-speech/

For one thing, the whole idea that hostility should aggravate an offence in relation to certain characteristics but not others needs reining in, not extending. To say that assaulting someone because he is old (and within the charmed circle of victim categories) deserves a heavier sentence than assaulting a teenager because he is the teacher’s pet (and therefore outside it) is discriminatory, grotesque and insulting. It is the hostility that matters, not whether the target falls within a group which has managed to persuade a government that it deserves victimhood status

That's so true. The examples I fall back on to show how lacking in logic "hate crime" is are attacking Goths - just because Goth (sadly numerous really life examples) or attacking a school boy just because he's wearing a uniform for a private school- just because posh boy (a specific real life example). These aren't covered and still wouldn't be covered. Nor would attacking anyone who just looks a bit odd or weird be covered.

It's been quoted before but here's the Gene Hunt quote.
Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime
Gene Hunt: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?

Not directly related to the Scottish Bill, but I came across this five part series called The Future of Free Speech.
I haven't listened to them all yet, but decided to post about them here as they sounded interesting and might help in discussions. (Plus I can find them easily again!)
I'm about to start with the blasphemy one first....

1. Courts and the right to free speech - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0748

1. Freedom of speech in universities: Who draws the line? - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0749

1. Blasphemy or free speech? - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct074b

1. Journalists: Free speech v personal safety - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct074c

1. Tech companies and free speech - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct074d

Linking discussion threads.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3903608-Does-Scotland-not-have-sex-as-a-protected-characteristic

Glad there is a thread on this as I had seen this and wanted to know more about it:

"The Scottish Government is committed to taking this opportunity to shape hate crime legislation so that it is fit for 21st century Scotland and, most importantly, affords sufficient protection for those that need it,” the justice minister explained. Astonishingly, women are not deemed in need of such protection. This is particularly odd given that “sex” appears in the 2010 Equality Act, and that sexual harassment and equal pay are frequently the source of legal disputes between employers and employees. Though women have suffered historic abuse and exploitation on the basis of sex, the bill neglects them, prioritizing “transgender identity” (which operates by self-declaration) and intersex conditions (most of which are not even visible to other people)."

www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/scotland-blasphemy-law-repeal-new-speech-restrictions-replace-old-ones/

Also, up thread, someone posted that they thought the GRA in Scotland had been kicked into the long grass. Not at all. The SNP have made it clear they are committed to changing it, and it is just on hold during the coronavirus crisis.

There was an impressions given that the Tories had pushed the Westminist GRA reforms into the long grass, and that somehow Boris couldn't be bothered with it.

But since then we know that Liz Truzz has said they will be published the results of that consultation this summer.

And despite the efforts of many women's groups - and of course mumsnet - I fear the results will show (be slanted like the survey itself) towards self identity.

So both in Scotland and Westminster think we should be thinking we missed the first skirmish (2004), put up a strong fight back in 2019, but must be prepared to keep up the battle in 2020.

(For all we know Carrie Symonds is woke and bending Boris' ear)

www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/23/good-riddance-to-the-named-person-scheme/

In their verdict on the named person case, the judges said: “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”

Fairly harsh words.

I can't understand why anyone thinks the SNP are progressive. Their first actions in this coronavirus crisis were to get rid of jury trials and FOI requests. They are an authoritarian party.

Named Person

“The judges concluded that sharing private information at the level of ‘wellbeing’ “may in practice result in a disproportionate inference with the article 8 rights of children, young persons and their parents”.

The ruling noted that “the sharing of personal data between relevant public authorities is central to the role of the named person” (para. 78).
It then concluded that these information-sharing provisions:
• Were incompatible with the rights of children, young persons and parents under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
• May in practice result in a disproportionate interference with the article 8 rights of many children, young persons and their parents, through the sharing of private information;
• Were “not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”, deeming the legislation “defective” and blocking it from coming into force.“

no2np.org/

Named Person scheme caused a LOT of argument.

It was someone who was appointed to be responsible for a child's wellbeing - usually a health worker/head teacher. In principle it was probably not a terrible idea - a sort of simple way to try and make sure no chld fell through the gaps.

But I think the implementation of it (the legalities, I expect) really freaked a lot of people out, there were rumours that it was somehow undermining the family relationship, etc, that kids who weren't conforming to a set agenda could be taken away from the family.

As ever, probably a grain of truth from both sides. I would guess (though my memory of it is patchy) that it was a generally not bad idea that was botched in execution, as with so much legislation.

Can someone explain the Named Person thing to me please? I’ve seen it discussed here before but not sure what it’s supposed to be in aid of?

I think that quote from Chomsky is highly relevant Cunty

And yes, I've always been at the idea of the SNP being liberal and progressive - they certainly seem to identify as that though!

I'm pleased Murdo Fraser tackled this bill in his Scotsman column. He particularly mentioned concerns that saying transwomen are men could be sern as hate speech www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scotlands-hate-crime-and-public-order-bill-must-not-stifle-free-speech-murdo-fraser-msp-2552473

Exactly Now NP was horrific & the parallels with GRA are strong - lots of getting ahead of the law, not listening to the public (or professionals) etc

Not sure if this is appropriate here but someone sent me this this morning.
Noam Chomsky said in 1998:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.