Proposed hate crime legislation in Scotland

[2rebecca]

www.gov.scot/Publications/2018/05/2988/1 link to it.
Supported by the SGP who I campaigned for for many years greens.scot/news/greens-welcome-recommendations-from-hate-crime-report
I do think "hate crime" offences and "free speech" can't go together.
Calling a man a man will probably become a hate crime if they want to be called a woman.

The report, which looked around the world, included detailed case studies in relation to Scottish politicians, including First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, Conservative Party leader Ruth Davidson and former leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale.

There is nothing in that report which protects Nicola Sturgeon as a white, heterosexual woman. The only possible protection for her might be the hate crime was based on her being "Scottish".

I don't actually see any merit in keeping the concept at all.

At the moment you can be as hateful as you want (taking account of general principles of criminal law) to Ms Sturgeon and any other white, heterosexual woman or Goths of either sex or ugly people or poor people (or for that matter rich people) or fat people of either sex or any one , of either sex who is just a bit odd looking but if you add in one random characteristic it becomes a hate crime.

The Greens have been down the rabbit hole for some time now. Especially that wee prick Harvie

The Greens in Scotland have little to do with green issues. Andy Wightman is obsessed with land reform for example.

Which bit of it is worrying you?
I am not too worried by expanding the groups which are protected, as that wouldn't make "calling a man a man" a hate crime; there would still need to be an actual crime.
eg, hate itself (no matter who you hate or why) is not in itself a crime.
As long as this remains the case I think that "hate crime" and "free speech" can go together.

The bit I would be cautious of is the "stirring up hatred" offence, and where the threshold is set:

5.37. I consider that the requirement for threatening behaviour sets the threshold too high. Abusive conduct which was not necessarily threatening could still be intended to stir up hatred in relation to a protected characteristic or could give rise to the likelihood that hatred could be stirred up. The use of the phrase 'threatening or abusive' would be consistent with the approach in section 38 CJLSA. I recommend that the threshold about the nature of the conduct in a stirring up of hatred offence should use the words 'threatening or abusive'. '

"Threatening" is non-ambiguous enough, imo.
It should not be OK to tell someone to "die in a fire", and not should it be OK to accompany more mild language with a photo of a gun etc.

But "abusive" is too open to interpretation, and would have to be very clearly defined to protect free speech.

I find the very term "hate crime" incomprehensible.
As Gene Hunt said in Ashes to Ashes: Hate crime? What, as opposed to all those "Love you to bits" crimes?!
Surely, a crime is a crime. It makes little difference to the poor victim whether you punched them in the face because you intended mugging them, or because you were racist and they were black. They're still a human being who has been punched. You hit them with equal premeditation in either case.
When it comes to speech, without physical violence, it's even more of a minefield. The line between freedom of expression and incitement to riot is a thin one. When I was young, you could express almost any opinion, which people were free to debate or disagree with. Nowadays, people, particularly the young, seem to want to silence any debate that disagrees with their own limited world view, by "no platforming", "safe spacing", or otherwise intimidating people trying to attend meetings. I fear for the future of democracy and free speech if this continues. We will all be forced to use Orwellian Newspeak, calling gender dysphoric men "women", etc.

It was the term abusive that concerned me. I think threatening someone is already enshrined in legislation.
The idea of special groups that you have to be extra careful with and the concept of "protected characteristics" makes me wary. Why should something be considered a hate crime if directed towards person a but not if directed to person b?
As a woman living in Scotland I find the concept of needing a category of gender based hate crime odd and I'm not sure when i'd actually involve the police if I thought someone was hurling gender based hate at me.
I'm uneasy with the whole idea of hate legislation.

"It makes little difference to the poor victim whether you punched them in the face because you intended mugging them, or because you were racist and they were black."
Is that true?

Also, crime and punishment is not just about the effect on the victim, its about the effect on society. And I would argue that people who go around punching others for being black cause more damage to society than those who punch people for their money.

I think a better example than punching would be something less inherently violent, like ripping off a headscarf. Without hate crime laws, that wouldn't be very serious at all would it?

Knocking off a strangers hat in the street seems like a dickish, anti-social thing to do but would be unlikely to cause as much distress as pulling off a muslim woman's headscarf to punish her for wearing one.

Likewise, leaving crisps on a neighbours doorstep to annoy them is dickish, but not comparable to leaving a sausage on a Jewish neighbour's doorstep. There should be a legal means of recognising the latter as more serious.

Very difficult. There has been zero tolerance of race related stuff, eg. shouting P word, N, Ch words etc. for some time, and most don't have a problem with that. Likewise misogyny, disability though less well enforced. Politicians are seeing trans and gay issues under the same umbrella as others. Telling someone they are black could be argued "the truth" but still unacceptable. What counts as transgender hate crime is clearly proving difficult to pin down.

I think a better example than punching would be something less inherently violent, like ripping off a headscarf. Without hate crime laws, that wouldn't be very serious at all would it?

Knocking off a strangers hat in the street seems like a dickish, anti-social thing to do but would be unlikely to cause as much distress as pulling off a muslim woman's headscarf to punish her for wearing one.

Likewise, leaving crisps on a neighbours doorstep to annoy them is dickish, but not comparable to leaving a sausage on a Jewish neighbour's doorstep. There should be a legal means of recognising the latter as more serious

I completely disagree with this. In all of the examples the intention is to cause humiliation and distress to the victim. I see no reason for affording greater protection for one victim solely because of their religious sensibilities.

Why should something be considered a hate crime if directed towards person a but not if directed to person b?

Exactly- the fat, unattractive, oddball with poor social skills can be bullied, harrassed and attacked for no reason other than they are fat, unattractive and people don't warm to them but that isn't "a hate crime".

"Why should something be considered a hate crime if directed towards person a but not if directed to person b?"

Well yes. A friend of mine was bullied relentlessly at school because she has red hair.

And what about adults or children on the autistic spectrum, with or without diagnoses, who can be viewed as a bit 'odd' etc. Definately more likely to be targetted for abuse at school or in the workplace

In my experience the people most discriminated against by the whole of society are those of low IQ but that isn't a protected characteristic here.
People with very low IQ fall under the Learning Disability Team umbrella but there are many just above that whose IQ isn't low enough for that and who don't have a syndrome but who struggle in our competitive world especially if they have physical illnesses that make getting manual work hard.
They aren't easily categorized though and saying "you mustn't hate those who aren't very clever" sounds patronising, although often it's not so much that they are hated as neglected.