Scottish Hate Crime Bill - information and resources.

https://jameschalmers.substack.com/p/the-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-d9e

'Will the 2021 Act see more complaints to the police, and more records of non-crime hate incidents? An overly legalistic answer to this question would be to point out that the 2021 Act does not change the law very much and that even where it does (e.g. by extending the stirring up offences) any conduct caught by the new offences would likely already be criminal in some form, under existing offences I mentioned in my earlier post.11 And given that non-crime hate incidents are, by definition, not crimes, the new law provides no greater scope for such reports and records - the report against Murdo Fraser, for example, pre-dates the 2021 Act coming into force. But that answer is overly legalistic, because what happens next depends on public perceptions of the law, not Substacks by law professors. If a public perception develops (or already exists) that the 2021 Act’s commencement on the 1st April does significantly expand the law and for example allows people to silence those on social media with whom they disagree, then it seems inevitable that there will be additional complaints, with the potential chilling effects that implies. For that reason, there is some value in being legalistic: it is important that what the Act does and does not do is clearly understood.'

James Chalmers is Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow.

(edited to bold for emphasis)

https://jameschalmers.substack.com/p/the-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland

'It's important to remember that “stirring up hatred” is a very high threshold. Lord Bracadale gave a series of examples of prosecutions for stirring up racial hatred in his report (para 5.12), noting that such offences “attack the group generally rather than individual members of the group”. His examples included people posting materials online calling for members of particular racial groups to be killed or injured. The offence does not cover people being rude – even vile – to other people on social media. (It does not, for example, make misgendering a crime.) And where conduct on social media goes beyond the pale, police and prosecutors already have long-standing tools at their disposal which are easier to use. There is, for example, a statutory offence of sending a “grossly obscene” or “indecent, obscene or menacing” message via a public electronic communications network,8 and a general offence of “threatening or abusive behaviour”.9 These already existing offences are significantly easier to prosecute than stirring up hatred.'

Two important controversies: sex and policing. The text above focuses on what the letter of the law does. In order to keep this a (relatively) concise explainer of those points, I haven’t discussed two other important issues. One of these is police practice in relation to the Act, where there has been a lot of news coverage about Police Scotland’s public statements and policy commitments. The second is the exclusion of sex as a protected characteristic. Here the Scottish Government has chosen to take a standalone approach, having commissioned a report on misogyny and criminal justice* *by Baroness Helena Kennedy KC, and has committed to bringing forward legislation later this year.10 There is a useful discussion of the difficulties of including sex as a protected characteristic in hate crime law in this 2021 report by the Law Commission (pages 13-16).11 The Commission recommended that sex not be added to the list of protected characteristics for the English equivalent of Scotland’s system of aggravations, but that there should be a stirring up offence in respect of sex. The 2021 Act includes (in section 12) a power for the Scottish Ministers to add sex as a protected characteristic in the Act (either for aggravations or stirring up or both), and it would be surprising if the Scottish Government did not return to this issue alongside its forthcoming legislation.

https://twitter.com/kathmurray1/status/1772765731920241006/photo/2

Concerns from the SPF (Scottish Police Federation) that police training has been inadequate.

'Are Police Scotland prepared for the commencement of the Hate Crime and Public Order Act next week? Training began in early February. The SPF have told the Criminal Justice Committee it’s possible that not all officers will be trained.'

'The training package is limited, there’s no proper opportunities for interaction or questions. There’s no information on the training for the 500 ‘hate crime champions’. The SPF hasn’t had sight of the new Standard Operating Procedure, or seen a EQIA. Apart from that…'

To clarify, that article above is from 2021, when the Bill was going through the parliament.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/2866399/hate-crime-bill-amendment/

'“I am alarmed and distressed, and perhaps even, if I’m honest, a little afraid of the reaction or aspects of the reaction to it (the amendment).” Mr Tomkins told MSPs: “I think we have come to the point where if we are going to criminalise hate speech on grounds of transgender identity, we have got to define what we mean.'

Tomkins voted against the Bill.

https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1772887780625957279

Michael Foran and Adam Tomkins on the news last night.

The Scotgov have basically created a law to serve narcissists and misogynists, to enable them to use the police as a weapon to abuse women.

We already have males on Twitter making it clear they are gearing up to report women next week. For the 'crime' of failing to accept males as women, for failing to use speech as compelled.

It certainly lays bare the dynamic at the heart of genderist ideology.

I've realised the main threat with this Act is the removal of phones and computers. Most people need these for day to day life, work, commmunicating with school, banking, etc.

On one hand we are being pushed into accepting everything, from social life, to finances to all comms, being online, on a phone, and on the other, we've got a new law that will make it very easy to make false accusations with no requirement for evidence that can result in having all of those things removed in one swoop when they take your devices.

I can already imagine that some people will be protected from accusations, and some people will be more vulnerable to them (women, especially those who are vocal, will be a target).

Yes, it's a bit like the social credit system, only not quite as overt. And specifically weighted in favour of males to the detriment of women.

MBM note that Police Scotland have taken the definition of 'religion' from the Equality Act, not the Hate Crime Act.

https://twitter.com/mbmpolicy/status/1772611360876089412

'It has come to our attention that the protected characteristic of 'religion' under hate crime legislation is misrepresented on Police Scotland's website. https://scotland.police.uk/advice-and-information/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/'

['religion or belief']

'The protected characteristic is 'religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation'. https://legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/part/1'

'Police Scotland appeared to have muddled it with the protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/1'

https://twitter.com/theneonrequiem/status/1772679673333354728

A useful Twitter thread.

A service advisor (frontline call handler) from Police Scotland has kindly answered some questions. My questions are in italics, I've bolded some responses for emphasis and removed any potentially identifiable info:

Is the guidance I posted upthread current or will it be updated:

‘That's the guidance that we've got. And tbh, service advisors didn't even get that - we had a 6 minute briefing (basically a powerpoint) delivered by another service advisor that couldn't answer any of my (many) questions. That guidance is for officers, although we have access to it. A lot of the SA's aren't bothered about the officer's SOP and will just follow procedure, but a few of us are worried. Technically, if we say something on the phone or over email that someone takes a dislike to, they can report us. So even taking reports are going to be fraught with "am I saying the right thing?". We won't even be able to give advice’

‘we have had NO guidance so far about the third party reporting. I have no idea at the minute how this will work.’

will the police really and truly investigate every report of 'stirring up hatred'?

Resolution Team officers say they will be initially, but that will change pretty quickly. At the moment, a hate crime is prioritised, so officers will attend. But RT officers have said that will change and they will be passed all the HC reports (RT work from the service centre over the phone).
Service Advisors are encouraged to resolve at first point of contact (to lighten the load basically), but I don't think we're going to be able to do that when hate "crimes" are being reported - I can't count how many times I've told a caller or emailer that being an arsehole (name calling, swearing, staring, basically being a pita) isn't a crime. I don't think I will be able to do that any more. Mainly because it looks like that being an arsehole WILL become a crime if someone says "but it's a hate crime because....". Those narcs and personality disordered know exactly what words to say to get a response
I can't imagine that officers would be able to go out and arrest everyone that has been accused of a "hate crime" as they don't have the resources to arrest everyone that's been accused of a real crime! I suspect (unfortunately) that it's going to come down to who picks up the report as to what happens, as it is all subjective.

have you any advice for how we can deal with this?

Unfortunately, only advice I can give is report every time you feel any interaction could be classified as "hate". I hate to say it, but crashing the system with so many reports is the only way to get people to take notice - staff are struggling already with the volume of work. To give you an idea, I have been starting a shift with 4-500 emails sitting waiting to be answered (I work overlay which is evening into early morning) so that is after day shift have been working on them.

And if you do report, and feel able to do this under your own name, this is more likely to be investigated. Anonymous emails … are very low on the list of priorities as there is no-one to answer to, if you see what I mean. If an email is not anonymous, you can request either an incident number (which means an incident has been raised and will be seen by an officer) - this doesn't mean a crime has been committed, just that something has been reported.

Or you can request a reference number, which is the number that is assigned to the query itself, even if an incident isn't raised.
Report on the weekend - there are actually fewer emails to deal with over a weekend. Monday is the busiest day (lots of admin from courts/social work/healthcare workers/prisons, etc)

Final word:

There are a few of us that think this HC law is a disaster, and we're sleepwalking into 1984.

Thank you, anonymous police SA.

Great, I'll look out for it!

The DSL claims it's gendered, which surprised me. I had thought it was a unisex descriptor.

https://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/glaikit