Scotland hate crime bill

From what very little I understand of the EHCR, we will still be party to it but Brexit is likely to weaken its influence.

Thanks, Bovary. Interesting article.

'if you believe that your ordinary political opponents are not merely mistaken, but are evil, you have ceased to do politics and begun to do religion.'

Indeed. It's useful to see the roots of this in US cultural context, too - so different from UK history, politics, culture, even religion. We have at least a basically more secular political system here, I would say?

On the not currently including ‘sex’ as a characteristic under the Bill I have two points: 1) it takes some gall, some real disregard of women to protect every other category of persons who conceivably might suffer from harassment etc due to a shared characteristic and omit females - I cannot believe that abuse harassment discrimination and violence against females is not the most prevalent form of differential treatment in Scottish society. 2) On the other hand(!) the inclusion of ‘sex’ in the Bill is problematic from the perspective of females - this would potentially criminalise or at least inhibit sex class analysis e.g. pointing out that 98 per cent of sex crime is committed by males and any academic analysis etc based on sex class analysis.; it wòuld be another basis for criminalising the gender critical for example. Some women’s groups I think argued for the creation of a separate category of misogynistic abuse which would avoid this problem. My personal view is that the stirring up offences should be dropped altogether. Only activities intended to incite violence etc should be caught. We need freedom of speech.

I agree that the ECHR provides more robust opposition to the curtailing of free speech. I thought you may have initially cited the HRA instead on the basis that we may not be subject to the ECHR in the near future

The ECHR, or at least the council of Europe, was an initiative of Churchill’s following the Second World War, which is an entirely seperate legal system to, and completely predates, the EU.

Don’t see why we wouldn’t be ‘subjected’ to it when it was something we were very instrumental in the origins of.

It's weird, isn't It? Seems to be cross party, too. Not good for a healthy democracy, I seem to keep saying that and I don't want to. I want to trust our govts and systems to be robust and basically sound, I know they'll never be perfect but this divorce of politics from the populace I find deeply worrying.

As Daisley notes, though, the gov just doesn't seem bothered about alienating the electorate. The SNP are acting as though they are untouchable.

I am still amazed that they are planning to introduce legislation that they have acknowledged to be incomplete with (if they are to be believed) a plan to update it ‘at a later date’.
They know they haven’t included Sex on the list of protected entities, they acknowledge that it needs to be included and yet they haven’t. I can’t fathom the reasoning behind that. They either include it on the list or come out and state that it is not necessary (to protect women from hate crime).
Has there ever been a law that that introduced with the express intention of updating it at a later date? (Unless there was a time based reason like the recent Brexit/Covid related stuff)

www.spectator.co.uk/article/scots-poll-in-favour-of-free-expression

Today, Spectator again and another good article on the opinions of ordinary scots

Defence is another power retained by the UK government. The Scottish Parliament has no power to make any changes regarding defence instead Scotland has about 40 MPs who sit in the UK Parliament.

The Scottish Parliament only has certain powers devolved to it. Where a power is retain by the UK government (such as the Equality Act) the Scottish Parliament does not have powers to redefine the terms of that act.

We do and the HRA is of huge constitutional significance

Apologies, my (limited) understanding is that, since there is no core British constitution and Parliament holds sovereignty, it is effectively impossible for acts passed to be found unconstitutional. It seems as though the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament would carry the same weight, provided the legislation passed only applies to Scotland but I may also be misunderstanding their powers.

I agree that the ECHR provides more robust opposition to the curtailing of free speech. I thought you may have initially cited the HRA instead on the basis that we may not be subject to the ECHR in the near future.

the UK doesn't have a constitution, as such
We do and the HRA is of huge constitutional significance
Article 10 (2) of the HRA 1998 makes quite broad allowances for restriction of speech
It really doesn't. If you read the echr preamble and understand its context, it takes a lot for a restriction on freedom of expression to be considered 'necessary in a democratic society'. The ecthr established early on that 'freedom of expression … is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population'. States where journalists, editors, writers, directors, actors, artists etc face criminal sanctions for their work tend not to be the democratic kind.

ArabellaScott
What do the SNP think they are, Marvel superheroes?
I think you’ve nailed it, vigilantes swooping in with no regard for due process...

If “only” 22% of Scots think women can have penises does that mean 78% of us are going to be risking prosecution

Unfortunately, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is something of a historical and international oddity and there aren't many comparable rights elsewhere.

If it all goes through and they realise they've made a big mistake, how will they ever overturn it, being as if they then question it, they will then presumably be guilty of it themselves

I've had fairly good responses so far but one Green has failed to respond Alison Johnston. Andy Wrightman has. Ben Macpherson MSP was very non committal . Tories seems against and Labour concerned.

There was a piece on R4 yesterday (Tolerance: the unfashionable virtue) about the bill and the illiberal liberalism trend. Worth a listen.

It seems to be a feature of all nationalist regimes to exert totalitarian central control over their population. The Nazis were the perfect example.
The SNP are no different - they have centralised the police force, for ease of control, and starved local councils of funding by freezing council tax for 10 years, limiting their ability to function. Their leader, Obersturmfuhrer Sturgeon, brooks no dissent and makes her MSPs sign an undertaking not to criticise the party. She and her husband, the party’s ceo, run the entire show.
She has the media beaten into submission- her party’s multiple failures on education, the economy, Covid deaths in care homes, are all given a free pass.
And the sickening propaganda campaign - culminating in the “Clap for NIcola” shit show was worthy of North Korea.
The silencing of free speech under the guise of progressive wokeism is the logical next step.
Scotland at the moment reminds me of 1930’s Germany. How long before the thugs with their anti English banners start attacking English shopkeepers and businesses? Kristallnacht, anyone?