Humza Yousaf and Scottish Hate Crime Bill

what could be more misogynistic than telling women they are nothing but a figment of a man's imagination, their sex and source of oppression doesn't exist and they have no legal right to advocate for themselves.

Perfectly put

I'm not sure whether this is malicious, stupid, or both

We all know men like Humza know EXACTLY what they are doing. It's why they will never make misogyny a hate crime, because what could be more misogynistic than telling women they are nothing but a figment of a man's imagination, their sex and source of oppression doesn't exist and they have no legal right to advocate for themselves.

What he has done is made sure women can never question the behaviour of any man, anywhere in any circumstance.

This. In a nutshell.

It creates absolute supremacy and a total imbalance of power.

Historically what do we know always happens next? When one group has to rely wholly on the other group choosing to be generous and kind and not abuse their power? How does that end?

It really makes me want to laugh or cry that the absolute muppets in favour of this seriously think they have strong feelings about slavery, colonialism and fascism being wrong.

What he has done is made sure women can never question the behaviour of any man, anywhere in any circumstance.

Exactly this.

As Eresh says, it's hard to know if it's stupid, malicious or both. My money's on both.

So will it be a hate crime to say that Mrs Brown (of sitcom fame, played by a man called Brendan) is not funny??

I guess the best thing to do, when you need a rant, is to drive over the border and shout all your abusive woman stuff then drive back 🤣

Cross dressers can also be protected under the hate bill. But not women

By protecting cross dressers and drag queens, who don't even refer to themselves as trans, under 'trans identity' they are actually saying it's your simply your choice of clothes that makes you trans and a woman.
Never works the other way round though does it?

What he has done is made sure women can never question the behaviour of any man, anywhere in any circumstance.

I'm not sure whether this is malicious, stupid, or both.

Yes "a person who cross dresses" and also "a non-binary person" are included under the "transgender identity" definition.

FWS specifically mentioned this in their submission to the Justice Committee.
Making CD a protected characteristic, when CD is the number one paraphilia found amongst sex offenders - what could possibly go wrong?

Setting aside for a minute the utter nonsense that is a so called "non-binary identity", how the fuck can non-binary be included as a protected characteristic in a law when afaik there is no legal definition of it?

Seriously the people in charge of us are an utter joke, high on their own farts and sanctimonious fuds to boot.

Yes. Cos you'd hurt a feeling!

Just don't do it. Shut up!

Apparently cross dressers are protected in the hate bill but not women. Men - must be protected at all costs.

So no one can even say anything about a any actual cross dressers who don't identify as women full time using women's spaces purely because they find it exciting. Women are expected to be silent.

Apparently cross dressers are protected in the hate bill but not women. Men - must be protected at all costs.

In that sense it is as Orwellian as the NP issue - where anyone but the parents could be 'guardians' of the child, even when changed to 'voluntary' anything the parents said, including querying that, could be interpreted as a 'red flag'.
Those given that responsibility were given no / almost no training and had no accountability. Really, what could go wrong???

Yousaf says he rejects Rhoda Grant MSP’s amendment protecting those who ‘advocate for women’s rights’ claiming that it could allow expressions of transphobia, homophobia and islamophobia.'

Why "Islamophobia?" We aren't allowed to call out some forms (obviously there are plenty of others) of cultural misogyny in any way? This is chilling. Is "advocating for women's rights" considered bigotry in and of itself now?

Funny that this man wants to protect his own religion from any questioning isn't it. Why would he want females prevented from asserting their sex based rights.
The homophobia is thrown it to make people think it's bad to discuss these things, yet it is homophobic to pretend sex isn't real and their orientation meaningless and lesbians aren't female.

I'm not sure what amendments have been made since the initial Bill was introduced Arabella, but yes there was no need to prove intent and anyone could report the incident, not just the "victim".

There is no "dwelling defence" either so things said in your own home could be reported.

the great and the good who govern us up here in Scotland, with some notable exceptions, are a bunch of third rate fuds, fannies, fuckwits, bawbags, bams, dobbers and wallopers

Hear, fucking hear. I am about ready to email all the SNP MPs and MSPs to say precisely this. Absolutely scunnered with the lot of them.

Agreed, Named Persons was ridiculous too 52.

I've attached a section from Stephen Daisley's article yesterday that sums it up well I think, he calls it "coercive progressivism".

I don't see how you prove intent here anyway. Not unless the police just happened to find evidence where you admitted you were trying to stir up hate.

Do they have to prove intent? I thought the 'hate incident' was entirely dependent on the perception of the person reporting it - no need to be sure that the person has any intent or even is one of the special protected characteristics.

But I might be confusing existing hate crime laws with the new SNP Defconfuckingmental hate crime laws.

The 'Great and Good' in Westminster are 3rd rate fuds too, of another kind.

@terryleather

I came to that opinion over the Named Person legislation
(good idea, appallingly executed)

This issue is similar, only it is a poor idea to start with.

This is chilling. Is "advocating for women's rights" considered bigotry in and of itself now?

It would seen so Eresh, but in all honesty it's been heading that way for a long time.

The the great and the good who govern us up here in Scotland, with some notable exceptions, are a bunch of third rate fuds, fannies, fuckwits, bawbags, bams, dobbers and wallopers.

Beyond disgusted with the whole lot of them.

If they now have to prove intent to stir up hatred, then (it seems) it automatically becomes a defence to claim you were advocating for women's rights. (And so not acting with an intention to stir up hatred.)

As long as you haven't explicitly called for hating people, or made ultra-inflammatory statements way worse than "men aren't women", it should actually be very difficult to prove "intent" in this kind of case. It may be that they hardly get convictions.

I don't see how you prove intent here anyway. Not unless the police just happened to find evidence where you admitted you were trying to stir up hate.

How does the Holyrood election work? Is it one local msp then second choice from a list? I swear I will vote Tory if it kicks this misogynist wee shite in the goolies.

if we get rid of the SNP in May this bill would not go ahead?

SNP are planning to have this as law before Parliament dissolves at the end of March ahead of the Scottish elections.