Humza Yousaf and Scottish Hate Crime Bill

[Pinkfreesias]

Humza Yousaf, the Scottish Justice Secretary, has just tweeted that the recent amendments tabled on the Freedom Of Expression (Hate Crime) Bill will not now be moved on. Hugely disappointing for women speaking out might still be labelled hate criminals here in Scotland. And I can't help wondering if it's somehow linked to Joanna Cherry's sacking.

mobile.twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1356299644553322497

'Yousaf says he rejects Rhoda Grant MSP’s amendment protecting those who ‘advocate for women’s rights’ claiming that it could allow expressions of transphobia, homophobia and islamophobia.'

Sorry, is that our Secretary for Justice saying that women's rights involve transphobia homophobia and islamophobia? Is he actually saying that women's rights is illegal in Scotland now, is that actually really truly what he is saying? I am struggling here.

Here's the Greens standing up for the rights of men again. Thank god for that.

www.scottishparliament.tv/channel/virtual-meeting-3

I read that they did agree to change the law to require actual proof of intent in stirring up hatred? If so, that could make it difficult to get convictions.

Also,.we need to see the general free speech clause they will have. Just because it presumably doesn't get into specific examples with the trans issue, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will not be a useful clause to defend yourself.

If it turns out that the police are harassing people (even more) for social media comments or whatever, there will be legal challenges I imagine, and there is still a reasonable chance that the courts come down on the side of free speech.

Please just vote for some other party rather than the SNP or Greens in the election in May and this stuff can be made to go away.

@dotoallasyouwouldbedoneby

Please just vote for some other party rather than the SNP or Greens in the election in May and this stuff can be made to go away.

I shall. Never thought I would say this in my life, but after this week's events, I will vote Tory as the best chance of getting the SNP out. Second vote the other new party ... whose name I forget.

I don't post here often but read a lot. You are an amazing bunch. So does this mean if we get rid of the SNP in May this bill would not go ahead?

@IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021

I don't post here often but read a lot. You are an amazing bunch. So does this mean if we get rid of the SNP in May this bill would not go ahead?

Well it can be repealed by whoever replaces them.

if we get rid of the SNP in May this bill would not go ahead?

Good question! I don't know. Plenty of other parties seem happy to continue throwing women under the bus, unfortunately.

'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'
The SNP on a low turnout has been in power too long now in Scotland....

There is exactly no conflict netween trans rights and the equal (and not "sex-based") rights of women.

That comment! Sums it all up, doesn't it?

Mish the scundering lays it all on the line!

There is exactly no conflict netween trans rights and the equal (and not "sex-based") rights of women.

And gravity does not exist, left is now right because we formed a committee who produced the paper we told them to, and gynephobia is now compulsory, with heresy and blasphemy punishable by law.

Light the bonfires and man the ducking stools. The new foundries for scolds' bridles are a wonderful new world of jobs for the steel industry and bridling scolds is the epitome of equality and respect for women. We formed a committee that said so.

@dotoallasyouwouldbedoneby

Please just vote for some other party rather than the SNP or Greens in the election in May and this stuff can be made to go away.

Yep- I'd avoid the greens as it's against party policy to think that "people can't change sex"

There is exactly no conflict netween trans rights and the equal (and not "sex-based") rights of women.

So we had a law to protect women and you now think Women no longer need this protection?
We can see the SNP are now coming for the protected rights of people with disabilities and Black and other ethnic minorities. Do you really think the uk people will agree with this fuckwitery?

Yousaf says he rejects Rhoda Grant MSP’s amendment protecting those who ‘advocate for women’s rights’ claiming that it could allow expressions of transphobia, homophobia and islamophobia.'

Why "Islamophobia?" We aren't allowed to call out some forms (obviously there are plenty of others) of cultural misogyny in any way? This is chilling. Is "advocating for women's rights" considered bigotry in and of itself now?

if we get rid of the SNP in May this bill would not go ahead?

SNP are planning to have this as law before Parliament dissolves at the end of March ahead of the Scottish elections.

How does the Holyrood election work? Is it one local msp then second choice from a list? I swear I will vote Tory if it kicks this misogynist wee shite in the goolies.

If they now have to prove intent to stir up hatred, then (it seems) it automatically becomes a defence to claim you were advocating for women's rights. (And so not acting with an intention to stir up hatred.)

As long as you haven't explicitly called for hating people, or made ultra-inflammatory statements way worse than "men aren't women", it should actually be very difficult to prove "intent" in this kind of case. It may be that they hardly get convictions.

I don't see how you prove intent here anyway. Not unless the police just happened to find evidence where you admitted you were trying to stir up hate.

This is chilling. Is "advocating for women's rights" considered bigotry in and of itself now?

It would seen so Eresh, but in all honesty it's been heading that way for a long time.

The the great and the good who govern us up here in Scotland, with some notable exceptions, are a bunch of third rate fuds, fannies, fuckwits, bawbags, bams, dobbers and wallopers.

Beyond disgusted with the whole lot of them.

@terryleather

I came to that opinion over the Named Person legislation
(good idea, appallingly executed)

This issue is similar, only it is a poor idea to start with.

The 'Great and Good' in Westminster are 3rd rate fuds too, of another kind.

I don't see how you prove intent here anyway. Not unless the police just happened to find evidence where you admitted you were trying to stir up hate.

Do they have to prove intent? I thought the 'hate incident' was entirely dependent on the perception of the person reporting it - no need to be sure that the person has any intent or even is one of the special protected characteristics.

But I might be confusing existing hate crime laws with the new SNP Defconfuckingmental hate crime laws.

Agreed, Named Persons was ridiculous too 52.

I've attached a section from Stephen Daisley's article yesterday that sums it up well I think, he calls it "coercive progressivism".

the great and the good who govern us up here in Scotland, with some notable exceptions, are a bunch of third rate fuds, fannies, fuckwits, bawbags, bams, dobbers and wallopers

Hear, fucking hear. I am about ready to email all the SNP MPs and MSPs to say precisely this. Absolutely scunnered with the lot of them.

I'm not sure what amendments have been made since the initial Bill was introduced Arabella, but yes there was no need to prove intent and anyone could report the incident, not just the "victim".

There is no "dwelling defence" either so things said in your own home could be reported.