Article on JKR and Hate Speech in Scotland

[Cismyfatarse1]

I thought people might find this interesting. The Hate Crime Bill is likely to cause GC women huge issues. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bill-will-criminalise-those-who-challenge-the-church-of-woke-w5zm3rw7l?shareToken=2cb1136a6cbb4866b75998226ce09aeb

It will get to a point where we’re all wearing body cameras to prove what’s actually happened as the risk of being arrested or sued for free speech will be so dangerous.

I'm assuming Biology teachers will be the first to be jailed for hate speech during lessons?

innocent smile

And why the efferty jeff is misogyny never a hate crime

I was reading the assessment of the replies to the original consultation and from what I could see the bill would be structured to allow for misogyny to be added as a category at a later date?

I'd urge those who haven't already to reply to the calls for views on this put out by the justice dept - links by Nonny on the other thread - to express their concerns.

I'm formulating my reply atm but it's doubly hard as I don't really agree with the concept of hate crime, I think any crime committed that has "hate" as an element should have that taken into account at the sentencing.

Also having the "hate" be entirely based on feelings or perception rather than what a "reasonable person" might think is hugely problematic and open to abuse by bad actors especially when the bar is set at "behaving in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner".

SG are so high on their own farts I can't even with it.

Not just bad actors, there's also the issue of people whose interpretation of events isn't realistic due to personality disorders, etc.

I do have some concerns about it being a crime based purely on the perception of the victim. I thought that that a crime requires actus reus (the act) and mens rea (the intention). Mens rea could be unintentional to an extent, but still required the perpetrator to be reckless as to the outcome.

To state something that is a biological fact, that happens to upset someone who has a particular ideology, and for that to be a crime based on the feelings of the recipient, appears to completely negate the mens rea. Unless I'm wrong on the content of the bill.

Absolutely Kittens and as we know there are certainly plenty of those in the ranks of The Church Of The GHP who want to see the non-believers burn...

The list of protected characteristics I posted above relates to "Aggravation of offences by prejudice". "Offences of stirring up hatred" has a shorter list:
(a) age,
(b) disability,
(c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,
(d) sexual orientation,
(e) transgender identity,
(f) variations in sex characteristics.

It doesn't include "race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins".

Wait, if this is to be a thing why isn't race on there? I mean, I know why sex isn't on there (the misogynistic gits), but omitting race isn't very woke of them.

It is worth reading the bill.

(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person—
...
(ii) communicates threatening or abusive material to another person, and
...
(b) either—
...
(ii) as a result, it is likely that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.

beta.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced-hate-crime-and-public-order-bill.pdf

In one strand of the offence, it is necessary that the offender intended to stir up hatred but in the other strand shown above in (2)(b)(ii), no such intention is required. Note the use of the passive voice.

What is required is that the material has to be "abusive". However, as we've seen in the debate over gender identity ideology, any statement other than saying "I agree with everything you say" is "literal violence".

It might be that in practice the Police and the public prosecution service in Scotland will be sensible. However, if past events are any guide it's best not to assume that. Also, how will the debate go if one side has the Police and the legal system standing next to them ready to leap in and hit the other side with a big stick?

@nauticant

The list of protected characteristics I posted above relates to "Aggravation of offences by prejudice". "Offences of stirring up hatred" has a shorter list: (a) age, (b) disability, (c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (d) sexual orientation, (e) transgender identity, (f) variations in sex characteristics.

It doesn't include "race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins".

Sorry nauticant, this is inaccurate.

Part 2 Offences relating to stirring up hatred

3 Offences of stirring up hatred

(1)(b)(i) covers race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins

(2)(b)(i) covers all the other characteristics and these are listed in (3).

I don't know why it was split into two separate sections like that.
Interestingly the stirring up of hatred against race, colour etc covers a person who "behaves in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner", while for the other characteristics covers a person who "behaves in a threatening or abusive manner".

I don't know how one can determine whether something is insulting because it is highly subjective and open to all sorts of interpretations.

Yes, you're right NonnyMouse1337, race is there but is handled separately and the split seems to allow the offence of stirring up hatred when based on race to include that the person "behaves in a[n] ... insulting manner".

Maybe they realised that having a criminal offence for non-race insults on the Internet would be a step too far.

It might be that in practice the Police and the public prosecution service in Scotland will be sensible. However, if past events are any guide it's best not to assume that. Also, how will the debate go if one side has the Police and the legal system standing next to them ready to leap in and hit the other side with a big stick?

Scotland and it's institutions, public bodies, government etc etc have all been well and truly captured - I have absolutely no faith in them being "sensible".

I am really scared simply by the fact that such a bill could even be proposed. It goes to the calibre of our politicians. This is not the ravings of a minority of nutters but government ministers. Do they have no understanding of history, no grasp of the danger of unintended consequences? I feel we're in the twilight zone of the Weimar republic waiting for the future to be born, and it's all going to be alright nothing really bad will happen. Mhairi Black is a case in point, a prize idiot.

I hope Joanna Cherry gets Edinburgh South and brings some sense and adult thought to Holyrood. I know there are some good 'uns in there but they are having to pick their battles. I also know there are machinations behind the scenes to thwart Joanna's move.

So if a Catholic priest were to state in a sermon ‘Transwomen are not women’ any number of people could complain to the police that it is abusive on the basis of transgender identity and therefore a hate crime. The police could then attempt to arrest the police who could in turn accuse his accusers of stirring up hatred towards Catholics on the basis of religion?

Indeed the Act itself is a hate crime...

Maybe they realised that having a criminal offence for non-race insults on the Internet would be a step too far.

Yes.... It would certainly increase their workload exponentially.

This section from the Civitas report posted on another thread seems relevant here. As terry says, the subjectivity of this is a serious problem. It's all very worrying.

Describing how the expansion of transgender rights has gone “hand in hand” with an expansion of institutional regulation of speech and behaviour, the report accuses activists of hypocrisy in calling for freedom and equality for transgender people, while accusing those who question their approach of "transphobia" or "misgendering".“Dictating the language use of others not only restricts their free speech but, more significantly, in compelling speech it imposes a demand upon them that calls into question their freedom of conscience,” Dr Williams adds

I wonder what happens when someone in Glasgow sees something on the Internet that they feel has led to some people feeling hate and it turns out to have been posted by someone in England.