SNP supporters and the hate crime bill

[Ifyourefeelingsinister]

Scottish government are passing a bill tonight that will give hate crime protection to every protected characteristic - apart from sex. Yes, women apparently don't register as far as hate crimes go.

But cross dressers will be protected so that's fine - don't insult a man in a kilt even in your own home, as you could be arrested. However, every day misogyny - that's fine.

SNP supporters - are you ok with this????

Some people might take some heart in Humza Yousaf's words during the final debate on Thursday - making the point that the amendments would protect freedom of speech.

He said: "To those who think they may accidentally somehow fall foul of the law... because they believe sex is immutable, or they believe an adult man cannot become a female or they campaign for the rights of Palestinians... or those that proselytise that same-sex relationships are sinful, none of these people would fall foul of the stirring up of hatred offence for solely stating their belief - even if they did so in a robust manner.

"Why? Because solely stating any belief, which I accept may be offensive to some, is not breaching the criminal threshold."

Also, as StarryEye mentioned earlier, there is to be a working party to look separately at misogyny. Though, frustrating that we have to wait longer, I know.

And there is this, we surely all remember the debates that took place to decide the governments view that TWAW...

May I say no one should be reassured by that, because of how narrow it is.

Solely doesn’t sound very free, does it?

Does anyone know what the prosecution standard is, btw? I’d think about that carefully before taking comfort from these words of HY.

by 'solely', I think he means you can't be prosecuted for just stating any of those things. Saying, simply, that that's your view.

The article I read that in also says an earlier draft of the bill was criticised by the Law Society of Scotland for having a perceived low threshold for prosecution. However amendments made the bar far higher. Wording was changed from 'likely to stir up hatred' to 'with the intent of.'
So it would have to be proven there was intent there.
I'm certainly not here to champion the bill though. Like others, I have concerns. Here's the article here if anyone's interested.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821

The day I take comfort in Humza Yousaf’s words will be the day my brain is dead and hell freezes over.

I've just read this Bill and I am horrified; so much power taken and given to the Government as to the scope of prejudice.

Is this now the standard - looks like they had both ways.

^either—

(i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3),

or

(ii) as a result, it is likely that hatred will be stirred up against such a group^

Just reading through bill now Lex - is that the 'as amended at stage 3'? one you are looking at - in that version 'likely to' has been replaced with 'intend to'.

So 'likely to' isn't in the final bill

Ah thank you - I see I had the Bill as introduced, good call by yourself and the Law Society.

But if you amended b), I don't see what intends adds. You would be duplicates the test in a). I will look at the final bill now.

Its a little bit better done now as it says "intends" as you say happy - however, I do not understand the use of the reasonable person test in criminal law, because that suggests a very subjective standard to be used to determine intention.

So it now reads -

b) either—

(i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or

(ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.

I would like to see what the Crown Office says as to how this will actually work. It seems very very unclear.

reasonable person test in criminal law, because that suggests a very subjective standard to be used to determine intention.

yeh, as a non legally minded person I always think that 'reasonable person' phrase seems very subjective Lex. But is it not quite commonly used?
Like in defamation for example, a judge will decided whether a statement is capable of being defamatory based on whether the 'reasonable woman or man' would understand it in a defamatory sense?
So it doesn't seem all that outlandish that it's used in this legislation?
I'm definitely not an expert though!!
As I say, I do have concerns about many aspects of this bill.

Who decides who a 'reasonable person' is? For example, imagine that a woman objects to a transwoman being in a female changing room and the transwoman takes massive offense and refers the incident to the police. Is the 'reasonable person' who decides whether this constitutes hateful behaviour more sympathetic to Patrick Harvie, who seems to think merely believing the dictionary definition of 'woman' is a hate crime, or is it someone with views more in line with those expressed here? And while this is being sorted out, has the woman had to get counsel to defend herself? Has she faced some kind of disciplinary action at work for 'transphobic behaviour' because her sex-based rights were explicitly rejected by the Scottish parliament? I worry about the knock-on implications of all this, and I'm afraid I'm not reassured by Humza.

My best friend is a woman. She has a daughter and two grand daughters. She votes SNP and says she will continue to do so. I despair. I truly despair. The women of Scotland need to make a stand. I am, apparently a TERF and a Transphobe. Whatever. This is a hill I will die on if needs be.

@happygolurkey

reasonable person test in criminal law, because that suggests a very subjective standard to be used to determine intention.

yeh, as a non legally minded person I always think that 'reasonable person' phrase seems very subjective Lex. But is it not quite commonly used?
Like in defamation for example, a judge will decided whether a statement is capable of being defamatory based on whether the 'reasonable woman or man' would understand it in a defamatory sense?
So it doesn't seem all that outlandish that it's used in this legislation?
I'm definitely not an expert though!!
As I say, I do have concerns about many aspects of this bill.

Well I suppose the risk is that it doesn't add anything to likely, the Crown Office would have to say that a "reasonable person" would have thought the conduct likely to result in hatred.

That "likely" still seems to me a low standard, and the use of "reasonable person" might also make it difficult to defend against.

"Likely" would usually connate "on the balance of probabilities" in law.

In other words, you have to show some less than criminal intent evidentially, but a likelihood on the basis of the reasonable person. I am not satisfied it makes a difference in a jury trial, and that they would therefore focus on "likely", but this may have been dealt with in debate.

Seems a concerted effort to stop Johann Lamont from appearing on the BBC this morning by refusing to put someone up to debate her.

I can't understand why she still couldn't be on - if the other side don't want to debate, it's their loss.

@dementedma

My best friend is a woman. She has a daughter and two grand daughters. She votes SNP and says she will continue to do so. I despair. I truly despair. The women of Scotland need to make a stand. I am, apparently a TERF and a Transphobe. Whatever. This is a hill I will die on if needs be.

I'm a woman with two daughters I'll still be voting SNP. If this is the hill you're dying on then your only other choice is Tory and to think that they are somehow better for the population as a whole or women in particular is laughable.

This bill is far from perfect but l think some of the claims on here and Twitter are a bit overblown. I do flip flop on this issue right enough so might be back tomorrow with the opposite view. 🙈

@Ifyourefeelingsinister

I can't understand why she still couldn't be on - if the other side don't want to debate, it's their loss.

I couldn't agree more. That's the BBC for you

Agree on the BBC. Only watched Debate Night Scotland a couple of times and only lasted about 10 minutes because the panel is usually 4 people splitting hairs while agreeing with each other. In contrast anytime they do have anyone out of step with the received wisdom there is 10 minute health warning from the presenter on their controversial views and a concerted effort to marginalise their every utterance.

For balance STV post 10pm News is equally as bad and Sky / Channel 4 rarely understand the nature of the Scottish landscape at all. Gordon Brewer on a Sunday has been known to ask difficult questions but so scunnered with them all I've mostly disengaged.

I do wonder who the "target audience" is these days.

tbh it is a hill worth dying on, the safety of women and girls around the world. It's not as if women being left out of a hate crime bill is the only problem in Scotland, Nicola's government has presided over an attempt to get Alex Salmond that was handled so badly I doubt if there will ever be another retrospective prosecution in Scotland. Other complaints of harassment have been mishandled.

I'm still swithering about whether labour have done enough for women to get part of my vote but the recent evidence of the Scottish govt has been dismal.

The pandemic has been especially terrible for women with kids with additional needs - there's no data available of course but the groups I'm on say provision in Scotland has been worse than provision in RUK, some variation by council.

What have the SNP done for women? They adopted a labour proposal for free period products, that's all I recall. It's not much to set against the complete lack of security that I or my daughters could access justice here.

I agree @anon444877

If ever there were a hill to die on this is it.

The consequences could be very grave.

@LexMitior

May I say no one should be reassured by that, because of how narrow it is.

Solely doesn’t sound very free, does it?

Does anyone know what the prosecution standard is, btw? I’d think about that carefully before taking comfort from these words of HY.

The problem is when the law is draconian, people have to self-censure anyway and that is an attack on their liberty/freedom of thought and speech. What are we free to think and say 'inside our own homes'?

This is a hill to die on. We cannot continue to Wheesht for Indie. The SNP need to be held accountable at the ballot box for what they do, otherwise we could easily carry on for another 10 or more years like this until there is a referendum. And then what? We get independence and the SNP write the constitution? I don’t think they are capable, way too much terrible legislation and corruption. I am not willing to be a second class citizen in my own country because I happen to be born a women. And I write this as an ex SNP activist, this will be the first election in 20 years that I won’t be leafleting for them. My membership of over 25 years lapsed on Friday.

@OatcakeCravings I feel your pain. It’s utterly heartbreaking.

It absolutely is a hill to die on. I can't think of anything more important to me at the moment politically.

The tories at the moment are the only party not completely captured by woke ideology so that is where my vote is going.

It will be my hill to die on.

Tonight some little article threatened to break their wkd bottle, cut my face and ‘fuck me up in my cunt’ (with the bottle I presume)

My crime?

I raised an eyebrow at the language they’d all been using.

All bravado I’m sure in front of their mates. Who said nothing.

There’s a hell of a way to go here NS when they are threatening (what must be to them) a wee solitary old lady in her fifties who is a full foot shorter than them.

At least the SNP see this as a hate crime.

Oh. Wait...