Scottish Government's Hate Crime bill

[Dances]

stephendaisley.com/2020/04/27/law-is-a-blunt-tool-for-fighting-hatred/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Chilling and totalitarian. You would have thought they had learned something with the Named Persons bill and the Football bill

Is Scottish Gov pushing this through during COVID crisis? Anyone know of the timetable for this?

Not directly related to the Scottish Bill, but I came across this five part series called The Future of Free Speech.
I haven't listened to them all yet, but decided to post about them here as they sounded interesting and might help in discussions. (Plus I can find them easily again!)
I'm about to start with the blasphemy one first....

1. Courts and the right to free speech - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0748

1. Freedom of speech in universities: Who draws the line? - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0749

1. Blasphemy or free speech? - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct074b

1. Journalists: Free speech v personal safety - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct074c

1. Tech companies and free speech - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct074d

Good article in Spiked

www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/30/the-snps-war-on-free-speech/

For one thing, the whole idea that hostility should aggravate an offence in relation to certain characteristics but not others needs reining in, not extending. To say that assaulting someone because he is old (and within the charmed circle of victim categories) deserves a heavier sentence than assaulting a teenager because he is the teacher’s pet (and therefore outside it) is discriminatory, grotesque and insulting. It is the hostility that matters, not whether the target falls within a group which has managed to persuade a government that it deserves victimhood status

That's so true. The examples I fall back on to show how lacking in logic "hate crime" is are attacking Goths - just because Goth (sadly numerous really life examples) or attacking a school boy just because he's wearing a uniform for a private school- just because posh boy (a specific real life example). These aren't covered and still wouldn't be covered. Nor would attacking anyone who just looks a bit odd or weird be covered.

It's been quoted before but here's the Gene Hunt quote.
Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime
Gene Hunt: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?

I'm understanding more and more over time why my dad dislikes Sturgeon so much.

It is not possible to have a society where people aren't allowed to offend each other without getting into dystopia territory, and that's before you even get into the issue of asking why it's fine to offend some people but not others.

This will ‘allow the law to serve an important symbolic and educative function, sending a clear message that this type of behaviour attracts particular condemnation by society and will not be tolerated’

Again with the desire to "educate" people. When the Chinese government does this we call it propaganda.

Hopefuly this will go the same way as the utterly misguided named person bill, which was never enacted, and the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 which got as far as an Act but was repealed.

I have no time for Sturgeon. At the moment all she is doing is looking for pointless and irrelevant distinctions so that she can contradict anything coming out of Westminster.

I had a listen to the one on universities.

Freedom of speech in universities: Who draws the line? - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0749

Prof. Selina Todd makes an appearance about 16 minutes into the programme. I had to facepalm though when the host described the debate around transgenderism as having to do with people's sexual identity being assigned at birth and wanting to change it later!! 🙄🤯
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people fail to grasp the basic terms around the transgenderism debate. I'd imagine it's very convoluted and confusing for anyone new to the discussions, but I don't know if sexual identity makes things any clearer for listeners or what it's meant to be defined as, compared to gender identity. I think he might have conflated sexual orientation with gender identity.

Anyway it was an interesting bit and to his credit, he does say at the end that while he recognises the right of minority groups to be respected, ultimately universities should be places that examine challenging ideas and uncomfortable truths. I thought it was a very interesting phrase - uncomfortable truths.

It's extra fun when people who've yet to grasp the basic terminology tell you to educate yourself! And yeah, a lot of people seem to think "trans" just means "super mega gay".

the law to serve an important symbolic and educative function

IANAL, but is this really what the law is for? Symbolism and Making An Example of people?

Sturgeon's brand is well constructed and she's doing very well at reinforcing it right now.

• and thanks for the links, Nonny and Dido.

Received an email regarding hate crime bill asking if I want to make a written submission, further details on Scottish Parliament website. Also they have posted eight topical notes covering the main provisions on the SG's hate crime website. Queries to [email protected] titled 'Hate Crime Bill'. I participated in the consultation but I would assume anyone's views will be welcome.

Links here:

www.gov.scot/policies/crime-prevention-and-reduction/hate-crime/

There is an Equality Impact assessment that may be of interest with regards to women's rights.

www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crime-public-order-scotland-bill-equality-impact-assessment/

Extract from the latter:

'What might prevent the desired outcomes being achieved?

Although there was broad support for hate crime laws and for consolidation and modernisation among organisations, the majority of individuals were not supportive of hate crime laws suggesting that they restrict freedom of expression and create a hierarchy of victims.'

Gosh, better get EDUCATING the general populace, eh, ScotGov? Can't have the majority of people ignorantly objecting to you extending the reach and remit of the law, surely?

To be perfectly honest I am slightly wary about filling in this consultation, as I have the vague feeling anything I do say may be taken and used against me.

I would HUGELY welcome some more qualified peoples' responses, advice and guidance on how to go about filling this consulatation in - as we know the ScotGov sees 'consultations' as veiled opportunities to educate, scold and persuade, rather than the more commonly used meaning of the word as 'a means to solicit opinion and engage with the public'.

There's some important research on this going on, if anyone wants to know more and get involved please DM me.

We wrote about the draft bill in Holyrood magazine last week:

www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comment-the-hate-crime-bill-must-be-properly-scrutinised_15519.htm

We intend to scrutinise the bill and submit evidence to the parliamentary committee. There is growing concern from a wide range of commentators about these proposals, and their potential impact on freedom of speech, e.g. National Secular Society, legal academics and others. We've tweeted some of the articles over the past week.

Thanks for all your hard work!!

In case anyone is interested, some digging is required for the upcoming work that MurrayBlackburnMackenzie will be doing on the Hate Crime Bill. More info on their Twitter account @mbmpolicy

Thank you @MurrayBlackburnMackenzie

Thank you MBM

Thank you Nonny I shall go dig

For Women Scotland on the Call for Views by the Justice Committee.

Full newsletter (with links) - mailchi.mp/1c0d4ab1e1dd/onwards-from-the-grr-bill

Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill

Following a public consultation, the Justice Committee has put out a Call for Views on this Bill. We are currently speaking with women and other groups to finalise our response before the closing date for submissions on 24th July 2020. Part 2 of the Bill has attracted much criticism and since it potentially criminalises much of the work we do at FWS, we will be calling for its removal.

The separate working group to look at a standalone offence of misogyny is unlikely to achieve any legislative results prior to the Scottish elections so we consider it far more effective to call for the inclusion of "sex" in Part 1 of the Bill. The Government has long promised women protection in hate crime laws and this Bill should not leave us behind. It cannot be right that a man who says he is a woman is protected by this Bill, but not a woman.

If you have any strong views on the Bill please do submit a response, or contact us - all views will feed into our response.

Article in the Times today about the proposed bill:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/810c0eb0-b666-11ea-b6a1-482b5c73d91f?shareToken=326969b217d94938e9d41960739cdcd5

Another article in the Times and discussion of it here -
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3954993-article-on-jkr-and-hate-speech-in-scotland

For Women Scotland have provided some useful information to help you write up your submission to the Justice Committee.

forwomen.scot/19/07/2020/hate-crime-bill-call-for-views/

The National Secular Society has some excellent guidance on how to submit a response on the Hate Crime Bill. They have concentrated on concerns regarding free speech with respect to religion or belief – but of course, the proposed law also seriously endangers our ability to speak up about women’s rights, oppose reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, and question the concept of gender identity.

The Hate Crime Bill and Public Order (Scotland) Bill can be found here, and information on how to submit your views to the Justice Committee is here.

Our full submission is here.

We have called for the characteristic “sex” to be added to Part 1 (aggravated offences) of the Bill and outlined how Part 2 (stirring up hatred) would seriously compromise the work of our group and everyone’s freedom to speak about women’s rights. Amendments such as removing the term “abusive” or adding freedom of expression protections for transgender identity will not fully diminish the risks, so we are calling for Part 2 to be removed from the Bill.

Please email your views to [email protected] by the 24th July 2020.

Thank you Nonny

This is a link to a discussion on TalkRadio regarding the proposed Bill

Dr Stuart Waiton from the Free to Disagree Campaign has strongly criticised a new Scottish Bill designed to combat hate crimes.

Stuart Waiton was one of the speakers at the Glasgow "We Need To Talk.." meeting in 2018 and was also a critic of the proposed Named Persons Bill.

Also a couple of good articles in the P&J today:

www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2341931/national-secular-society-chief-warns-new-abuse-laws-seriously-risk-chilling-free-speech/

www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2338172/jk-rowling-could-end-up-in-the-dock-if-new-hate-crime-laws-are-passed-critics-warn/

This proposed law is terrifying.

Intention doesn't matter. If a judge decides your comment is likely to 'stir up hatred', or your tweets were 'insulting behaviour', you could spend 7 years in jail.

It's Orwellian.

I don't know how anyone could vote for the SNP now. Unless they want to live in the People's Republic of Scotland, complete with show trials, struggle sessions, denunciations and 7 years in the gulag for voicing an opinion.

The bit that jumped out at me in the piece by MurrayBlackburnMackenzie was the reference to the range of organisations the Scottish government usually engages with. Surely it should be engaging with everyone.

Not read through the rest of the links here but I wonder what the implications are for teaching history. Plenty of history would offend different groups. However, very few historians seek to offend or stir up hatred.

Also what is the logic for women’s groups wanting a separate offence of misogynistic harassment?