[ArabellaScott:]"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."
It seems that they will need to prove intent. I'm still not a fan of the legislation. It encourages the police to harass people for social media posts, and they may try their luck in courts and perhaps be successful.
But it's very difficult (in theory) to prove "intent to stir up hatred" if you are just saying things like, "men aren't women". You simply deny that this was intended to stir up hate for anyone, and say that it was rather criticism of an ideology, and we should have sympathy for people suffering from gender dysphoria, but that doesn't mean you have to accept everything they say about themselves.
The prosecution then has a burden of proof that they can't really meet as "intentions" are kind of an invisible quality to a degree.
Now I could be wrong, and maybe they convict a load of people. Society is certainly going in a dystopian direction when it comes to free speech.
Quoting something from back in September of last year:
www.heraldscotland.com/news/18742331.snp-announce-hate-crime-bill-climbdown-free-speech-row/
"He said ministers will amend the Hate Crime Bill to mean a conviction for new offences of "stirring up" hatred would only be possible where it was shown that someone intended to stir up hatred through their actions or behaviour.
The draft legislation currently has a lower threshold covering behaviour "likely to" stir up hatred, whether this was done intentionally or not."