Scotland hate crime bill

[BovaryX]

There is an another article in the Spectator which discusses Scotland's hate crime legislation and its chilling impact upon freedom of speech. It says that the Justice secretary is in thrall to coercive progressivism and the potential implications of this bill are extremely alarming.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/scotland-s-hate-crime-bill-would-have-a-chilling-effect-on-free-speech

I got a reply from my MSP on this last week. Totally refused to concede that there were any issues with the bill whatsoever. I'm even more worried - so bloody deaf to constituents concerns, so arrogant and so dismissive of any views that don't align with theirs.

I'm more and more concerned about Scottish politics. All seems very murky - not sure how much of it is just naivety/ill thought through, and how much is done precisely to give the govt more and more control. It doesn't seem healthy, at all.

• meant to say, thanks for sharing, Bovary!

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-vows-reflect-controversial-22553676
Here he's saying he'll reflect on criticisms.
Today, Labour MSP Anas Sarwar, who has campaigned with Yousaf against hate crimes, added further pressure on the government to make changes.

"This risks fracturing the coalition we need to build across Scotland to defeat hate," Sarwar warned.

I hope he just has the grace to admit he's wrong and rewrites the whole thing from scratch. I'd be hard pushed to think of another bill which is such an illiberal dog's breakfast.
However I think he's just received bomb threats so there's every chance he'll dig his heels in, while continuing on the moral high ground to hell.

'we need to build across Scotland to defeat hate'

What do the SNP think they are, Marvel superheroes?

I very much hope he does listen to the criticism. I can't honestly see, given the list of people and organisations that have expressed such serious concerns, how this can be pushed through as is.

Arabella Imnobody

It will be very interesting to see if this bill is passed in its current form. If it is, its application will make explicit the existential threat to freedom of speech.

It is very frightening and I hope the bill is defeated and very publicly and definitively so. People skimming the surface will obviously feel, well of course we want to stop hate crime - but only a tiny bit of looking deeper reveals the horribly authoritarian implications. I will leave Scotland if this bill passes. I value my freedom and I'm not prepared to lose it.

It's unconstitutional, SP can't pass legislation that's incompatible with the HRA

the moral high ground to hell

This should be the epitaph for the Robespierre faction.

It seems to be a feature of all nationalist regimes to exert totalitarian central control over their population. The Nazis were the perfect example.
The SNP are no different - they have centralised the police force, for ease of control, and starved local councils of funding by freezing council tax for 10 years, limiting their ability to function. Their leader, Obersturmfuhrer Sturgeon, brooks no dissent and makes her MSPs sign an undertaking not to criticise the party. She and her husband, the party’s ceo, run the entire show.
She has the media beaten into submission- her party’s multiple failures on education, the economy, Covid deaths in care homes, are all given a free pass.
And the sickening propaganda campaign - culminating in the “Clap for NIcola” shit show was worthy of North Korea.
The silencing of free speech under the guise of progressive wokeism is the logical next step.
Scotland at the moment reminds me of 1930’s Germany. How long before the thugs with their anti English banners start attacking English shopkeepers and businesses? Kristallnacht, anyone?

There was a piece on R4 yesterday (Tolerance: the unfashionable virtue) about the bill and the illiberal liberalism trend. Worth a listen.

I've had fairly good responses so far but one Green has failed to respond Alison Johnston. Andy Wrightman has. Ben Macpherson MSP was very non committal . Tories seems against and Labour concerned.

If it all goes through and they realise they've made a big mistake, how will they ever overturn it, being as if they then question it, they will then presumably be guilty of it themselves

@motorcyclenumptiness

It's unconstitutional, SP can't pass legislation that's incompatible with the HRA

Sadly, it's not (incompatible) with the Human Rights Act (the UK doesn't have a constitution, as such). Article 10 (2) of the HRA 1998 makes quite broad allowances for restriction of speech.

Unfortunately, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is something of a historical and international oddity and there aren't many comparable rights elsewhere.

ArabellaScott
What do the SNP think they are, Marvel superheroes?
I think you’ve nailed it, vigilantes swooping in with no regard for due process...

If “only” 22% of Scots think women can have penises does that mean 78% of us are going to be risking prosecution

the UK doesn't have a constitution, as such
We do and the HRA is of huge constitutional significance
Article 10 (2) of the HRA 1998 makes quite broad allowances for restriction of speech
It really doesn't. If you read the echr preamble and understand its context, it takes a lot for a restriction on freedom of expression to be considered 'necessary in a democratic society'. The ecthr established early on that 'freedom of expression … is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population'. States where journalists, editors, writers, directors, actors, artists etc face criminal sanctions for their work tend not to be the democratic kind.

@motorcyclenumptiness

the UK doesn't have a constitution, as such We do and the HRA is of huge constitutional significance Article 10 (2) of the HRA 1998 makes quite broad allowances for restriction of speech It really doesn't. If you read the echr preamble and understand its context, it takes a lot for a restriction on freedom of expression to be considered 'necessary in a democratic society'. The ecthr established early on that 'freedom of expression … is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population'. States where journalists, editors, writers, directors, actors, artists etc face criminal sanctions for their work tend not to be the democratic kind.

thank you I'm learning loads...

We do and the HRA is of huge constitutional significance

Apologies, my (limited) understanding is that, since there is no core British constitution and Parliament holds sovereignty, it is effectively impossible for acts passed to be found unconstitutional. It seems as though the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament would carry the same weight, provided the legislation passed only applies to Scotland but I may also be misunderstanding their powers.

I agree that the ECHR provides more robust opposition to the curtailing of free speech. I thought you may have initially cited the HRA instead on the basis that we may not be subject to the ECHR in the near future.

The Scottish Parliament only has certain powers devolved to it. Where a power is retain by the UK government (such as the Equality Act) the Scottish Parliament does not have powers to redefine the terms of that act.

Defence is another power retained by the UK government. The Scottish Parliament has no power to make any changes regarding defence instead Scotland has about 40 MPs who sit in the UK Parliament.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/scots-poll-in-favour-of-free-expression

Today, Spectator again and another good article on the opinions of ordinary scots

highame

Those poll results show that this legislation has limited public support. 87 percent think that freedom of speech is an important right and 73 percent think disagreement does not equal 'hate.' There is a serious disconnection between the opinions of 'civilians ' and the opinions of politicos, many journalists and 'activists' on a range of contemporary issues. Freedom of speech is at the epicenter of this disconnect.

I am still amazed that they are planning to introduce legislation that they have acknowledged to be incomplete with (if they are to be believed) a plan to update it ‘at a later date’.
They know they haven’t included Sex on the list of protected entities, they acknowledge that it needs to be included and yet they haven’t. I can’t fathom the reasoning behind that. They either include it on the list or come out and state that it is not necessary (to protect women from hate crime).
Has there ever been a law that that introduced with the express intention of updating it at a later date? (Unless there was a time based reason like the recent Brexit/Covid related stuff)

I can’t fathom the reasoning behind that

A cynic would say that they have zero intention of including sex as a characteristic because misogyny is not the target of this law. But they are unwilling to explicitly admit this because it will highlight the partisan nature of this legislation. Hence they punt it down the road where they hope it will remain ignored and forgotten....

As Daisley notes, though, the gov just doesn't seem bothered about alienating the electorate. The SNP are acting as though they are untouchable.

@ArabellaScott

As Daisley notes, though, the gov just doesn't seem bothered about alienating the electorate. The SNP are acting as though they are untouchable.

Yes. It's a recurrent theme, politicos are not only completely dislocated from the opinions of voters, many seem to regard voters with utter contempt. The arrogance is breathtaking.