Andrew Doyle takes aim at SNP

[BovaryX]

Andrew Doyle writing in the Spectator takes aim at the new hate speech legislation in Scotland. He says the SNP regards the term 'nanny state' not as a criticism, but an aspiration. Apparently even actors performing plays will be in the crosshairs of these potentially paralysing laws, which are worded so vaguely and so open to subjective interpretation, anyone could fall foul of them. In Orwellian fashion, the Justice secretary claims they don't threaten freedom of speech, but protect it....

www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-possession-of-the-bible-become-an-offence-in-scotland

Both non-binary and cross dressing are included under transgender identity in the proposed Bill...so an essentially meaningless identity with no basis in science or law would be protected as would AGP fetishists - and anyone with anything "insulting" (a term strongly pushed to be included in the Bill by LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall etc) or "hateful" to say about that would be facing a possible 7 year jail term. Oh and there's no need to prove "intent".

SG are a fucking joke...all be it a very dangerous one...

The Faculty Of Advocates (trade body of Scotland’s most senior lawyers

Er, no. That is not what the Faculty of Advocates is.

"Advocate" is the Scottish word for barrister. Advocates are legally qualified people who chose to go to the Bar, meaning their work will be court based. Advocates used to have exclusive rights to appear in the 2 highest courts (The High Court for serious crimes and the Court of Session for major civil matters) Solicitors had and have equal rights of appearance in all other courts, including the Sheriff Courts. Solicitors can now apply to be Solicitor Advocates and appear in the higher courts.

The regulatory body for solicitors is The Law Society of Scotland. The The Faculty of Advocates is the bodywhich regulates advocates.

It is absolutely not the case that the Faculty of Advocates is "the trade body of Scotland's most senior lawyers". Like the Law Society its members will range from wet behind the ears newly qualified to practitioners of decades of experience.

That’s just bad law.

@SerenityNowwwww The SNP Government is behind this bill.

The SNP have illiberal, authoritarian instincts and for the life of me I cannot work out why more people have not clocked this to date.

As I understand it, it'll be fairly irrelevant what anyone says. It seems to me to completely open up the possibility of anything being taken as 'hate speech' because the definition rests on the perception of the person with a protected characteristic.

Not a lawyer, but it's this that really worries me.

As for background - I think it was decided after Lord Barcadale's investigation into hate laws that various laws needed updating (part of the new bill is to remove the existing law on blasphemy, which hasn't been used in about 150 years, afaik).

www.gov.scot/publications/independent-review-hate-crime-legislation-scotland-final-report/

• thanks for clarification, Dido, that's helpful. That list is copied from Wingsoverscotland. I wouldn't even have the first clue!

[quote howonearthdidwegethere]@SerenityNowwwww The SNP Government is behind this bill.

The SNP have illiberal, authoritarian instincts and for the life of me I cannot work out why more people have not clocked this to date.[/quote]
But who is pulling the strings? Where does the money trail run back to (because it’s always there isn’t it??).

From Wings over Scotland-

SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL AS DRAFTED

The Scottish Government

(We have been genuinely unable to find any public submissions in favour of the bill. Please let us know of any we’ve missed.)

[EDIT 9.20pm:an alert reader notifies us that Humza Yousaf hasdiscovered and is loudly hyping up a group that supports the bill. Impressively it’s an independent organisation that isn’t totally dependent on Scottish Government funding for its existence and oh wait no our mistake.]

Great post Scrimpshaw.

@ScrimpshawTheSecond

- thanks for clarification, Dido, that's helpful. That list is copied from Wingsoverscotland. I wouldn't even have the first clue!

Yes, sorry I saw it was his wording, not yours. His list of supporters provoked a wry smile.

This is truly dreadful. I find it almost unbelievable that creating laws ,which amongst other things, are invested in controlling what theatre and playwrights might say are a priority and a goal for a political party. It's very chilling.

It's not going to replace blasphemy though is it? It just re-frames and expands blasphemy as something in the eye of the beholder, and invents transblasphemy.

An entire section about ‘public performance of a play’.
That is chilling.
They must be so ignorant about the history of art to not see what this means.

Words of wisdom from General Secretary of the Police Federation.

If this goes through it will kill art in Scotland.

So David Tennant does bit of Shakespeare, says some canonical lines, a 'non-binary' blue-haired baby from Glasgow Uni gets upset about the perceived transblasphemy, and Tennant has to be investigated by the Police?

Or Olivia Coleman plays Portia in a RSC touring production in Edinburgh and a cross-dresser gets triggered and rings the polis ...

@OvaHere

This is truly dreadful. I find it almost unbelievable that creating laws ,which amongst other things, are invested in controlling what theatre and playwrights might say are a priority and a goal for a political party. It's very chilling.

I'm sure everyone in the SNP adores The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil

I'm also equally sure that it is well within the realms of possibility to perform that play slanted as a criticism, even an attack, on the large estate owners of today and fall foul of this Bill.

This is terrifying.

Police state indeed. Is it something in the water or just trying to keep everyone from seeing that the country is running to ruin?

Reminds for of the ‘moral crackdowns’ in Iran they being in when the government is doing particularly badly or the economy has taken another major dip. Look there - no THERE! Spend all your time worrying whether you have a lock of hair showing or look like you are enjoying yourself...

I think I'm getting a bit confused between existing hate 'incidents', like the one which has Sarah Philimore recorded 'hate incident accusations' against her name, indefinitely.

This is different, isn't it? Actually proposing to criminalise it. So not 'just' a note on your file - a potential criminal charge? For the 'perception' of somebody - not necessarily the 'victim'?

It's so mind-bendingly ridiculous that this law is being considered I think a large part of me fails to believe it's actually happening.

Scrimpshaw
The Orange Order and the Catholic Church both united in opposition to this, which made me smile....

Yes, totally, Bovary. It should be pretty clear that this is very much a cross party issue.

I've seen articles on it in the Times, now the Spectator, maybe the National?.

Nothing on the BBC at all, I don't think.

No, I've googled and I can find articles on it (critical) iin:

Telegraph
Herald
Christian Institute
Daily Mail
Daily Express
Courier
Conservative Home
Times
Press and Journal
Daily Record
Spiked

The Guardian and the BBC have apparently not even heard a whisper of this law. Funny, you'd think that media fairly invested in freedom of speech would know about it and at least report that it's happening, if not post a critical article.

because the definition rests on the perception of the person with a protected characteristic

I wonder what will happen if people are sentenced to seven years for staging a play or 'insulting' someone with a protected characteristic? Meanwhile, sadistic killers do a couple of months after claiming their victim consented to torture and she can't challenge that because she is dead. It's frickin outrageous.

The Guardian and the BBC have apparently not even heard a whisper of this law. Funny, you'd think that media fairly invested in freedom of speech would know about it and at least report that it's happening, if not post a critical article

Scrimpshaw
Well said. Contemptible both of them.

Wings Over Scotland missed out the one non SNP supporter. This odious little twerp resigned from the National Secular Society because NSS opposes the Bill along with religion organisations

mobile.twitter.com/patrickharvie/status/1289261590672322560