An MSP (Murdo Fraser) threatening legal action against Police Scotland after his twitter/x post was logged as a hate incident

You're doing that thing of looking for basic sanity again.

There ain't any.

Hang on a minute, I'm sure I read an article recently about a serial rapist in the police that said that because he was only accused of rape and not convicted of it it didn't come up in any pre employment screening checks. So does this mean that what Murdo said would come up in a pre screen but a rape allegation wouldn't? Not saying either should if there isn't a conviction but it does seem a bit mental that saying something someone doesn't like would and being accused of rape wouldn't.

I wonder how the police will justify going after Mrs Jones, who mentioned that women don't have penises, and Ms Smith, who was caught suggesting that homosexuality meant same sex attracted, who will be nice and easy to destroy the lives of, but stepping around Mr Fraser and Ms Rowling because the press/ court case would be a fricking nightmare?

Next law: ending of FOI

😂 at “recent graduates of the university of despond with a 2:1 in grievance studies”.

Thanks, @lonelywater 😂

Yes I must admit I wondered if this will be the new way to get the unemployable out of Mum's basement and into a job. By the million.

Quoting myself. On the other hand, there will definitely be just as many people determined to take it right to the wire.

Perhaps they just won't go after those people.

They're going to look like an absolute laughing stock, and the media will be all over it.

But, it will still have a chilling effect. Which, to my mind, is the entire point. Shut people up.

Why? Because people want the power to do this to other people and they don't really think anyone is going to do it to them. It's an irregular verb. We stand up for what's right. You have controversial opinions. They hate.

I complained on Site Stuff a while ago about using "hate speech" as a reporting tag. I disliked it then and I like it even less now. I hope it isn't going to bite MN on the bum.

do we not think this will collapse overnight as being entirely unworkable? Come April 1 the koolaid nutters will think Christmas has come and will be flooding the Babylon with vexatious complaints by the skipload. This will be literally unmanageable -unless they recruit an entire cadre of admin staff. I dare say there must be a bunch of otherwise unemployable recent graduates from the university of despond with a 2:1 in grievance studies who would jump at the chance.

He has the backing of the Free Speech Union. Not sure if that means financial help with legal costs or just advice and moral support.

According to his website, Murdo Fraser is himself a lawyer (solicitor). Interesting bloke.

Does he have sufficient collateral to take it to court? Police costs will be well into 5 figures at least, and losing can never be ruled out.

That's my understanding - at least on an extended DBS. Interesting that the police said hate incidents are not recorded against alleged perpetrator. Though the alleged perpetrator's name remains on file in relation to the NCHI. We could do with clarity on this, as the prospect of failing a DBS is a massive stifling factor for critics of GI and a major weapon for TRAs.

@ArabellaScott Thank you for this. Mind well and truly blown.

Sorry, cross post.

I am not in Scotland but can see that if its the case that something I type down here in England is opened and read up there that this could (if I say something objected to) be logged as an NCHI and I would never know.

MN being registered in England will make no difference.

The response quoted above defending this..... well nuff said. I cannot say what I think of such people, it's not illegal but I can be made to pay by those with major issues going on between their ears.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/03/scotlands-hate-speech-act-and-abuse-of-process/

'It is a well-established principle in Scots law that anything published on the internet, which can be read in Scotland, is deemed to be published in Scotland. The act of publication is not deemed to be the person actually publishing the item, let us say in Tahiti. The act of publication is deemed to be the reader opening the item on their device in Scotland.
(To emphasise the total illogic of this approach, while it is the person opening it which constitutes the act of publication, it is not the person who opened it who is deemed to have published it but the original creator/publisher. To emphasise the state’s dishonest thinking still more: if however what is being opened is not, say, libel or hate speech but rather illegal pornography, then it is in that case the person who opened it who is deemed to have published it.)
So a person in Tahiti who publishes a tweet which is opened by and offends somebody in Scotland because it offends a protected characteristic, had committed a crime in Scotland, even though they never left their home in Tahiti and may never have been anywhere near Scotland.
I know this sounds completely crazy, but I do assure you it is absolutely true. As kindly confirmed here by the Dean of Faculty.'

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1768733847171010678

'Scottish law holds that anything on social media which can be read in Scotland is published in Scotland. Clive Thomson was jailed for contempt of court for material he published in France. I have been questioned by police over material I published in Iceland. Those were not for hate crime, but the Scottish Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021, which has severe implications for freedom of speech, will be enforced from 1 April. The principle that anything that can be read online in Scotland is published in Scotland - which I strongly oppose as ridiculous - is the same as that which fuels the London libel industry. It has nothing to do with residence, which is why you have had Russian oligarchs sue each other in London. I can see nothing in the Act which limits this principle. Therefore any alleged hate against a protected characteristic, published by anybody anywhere in the world, can be reported to Scottish police by someone who read it in Scotland, from 1 April.'

This is confirmed by Roddy Dunlop, Faculty of Dean of Advocates (Scottish legal bod, KC)

I am not in Scotland but can see that if its the case that something I type down here in England is opened and read up there that this could (if I say something objected to) be logged as an NCHI and I would never know.

Addressing @Tallisker 'But if you submit a SAR to find out if you've been targeted, doesn't that just mean you give the polis a heads-up that you might be a person of interest to them? If, for example, you are a member of SEEN, or support FWS, or the Women's Rights Network, or KPSS, or the LGB Alliance?' The only solution I can see is that everyone asks for an SAR and continues to do so on a regular basis such that its seen as normal - like an annual dental check up. I assume this is a request to the Scottish Police but could be police in other parts of the UK. However I do notice that some requests may be refused.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/getting-copies-of-your-information-subject-access-request/why-organisations-might-partially-or-fully-refuse-a-subject-access-request/

I am concerned that the use of community centres, sex shops and mushroom farms in Scotland to log hate crimes may lead to people with like-minded interests being supported and encouraging in making accusations. Perhaps using their exisiting customer base (putting notices in public view, adding newsletter items, etc) shops/centres can help people in their circle make complaints. This could lead to certain hot spots for complaints (perhaps the sex shop might help people report 'kink shaming' statements). So, perhaps we also need some FOI requests on regular basis asking what the distribution of reports is (where they originated geographically and what proportion came from the same individuals - frequency of complaint per individual). I would be very interested in that latter information as a gay guy locally pointed to the surge in reporting of hate crimes against trans people as being evidence of growth in hate. (I felt it was more likely an increase in reporting, but without knowing where reports are coming from I won't know whether I was correct - for now its only an assumption). Gosh what a mess.

Guess what? People are actually defending the law.

Several are saying he's a Tory, so he deserves it. Some are talking about the EHCR, tangentially. And one is even saying he should have been prosecuted:

'Mr Fraser clearly expressed a desire to see the rights of others infringed, by claiming that the right to define oneself as non-binary is not possible. By such indication he showed that he was opposed to non-binary people being able to define themselves as non binary and as a legislator in a substantive position to do something about it. That he was let off by Police Scotland is a disappointment as he clearly sought to infringe the rights of others using his position. The equivalence he used was nasty and demeaning he made it and his intent to deprive rights to others in a very clear way and this was laden with hate. He wants to claim the human rights he would deny others and that is intolerable. Tories are by definition nasty but Fraser sinks to new depths.'

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24207820.tory-msp-threatens-legal-action-police-log-hate-incident/#comments-anchor

IADefinitelyNAL so please excuse me if this question sounds dim: can Police Scotland investigate perceived “hate crimes” that take place outside Scotland? Why would posters on MN need to worry - is the site registered in Scotland?

Ah clownfish, proof that humans can change sex and breathe underwater naturally

Really sinister

It will just be endless lessons about clownfish.

I have older relatives who went to religious schools that didn't teach biology (involved reproduction) but did teach botany (that also taught reproduction but without the need to discuss it in animals or humans).

Maybe we'll be regressed to that. Although I wouldn't bank on botany being wholly acceptable unless the emphasis is on the reproduction of yeast with some fudging on the binary nature of plants in general but highlight the asexual reproduction of spider plants and such?

Will biology GCSE and a level be banned?