JKR vs Police Scotland?

[IcakethereforeIam]

Tras are trying to get JKR arrested.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/10/trans-activists-scottish-police-arrest-jk-rowling-crime/

https://archive.ph/5TEU4 highland fling yourself over the paywall, cos Scottish!

Thought to give IW a break.

The Hate Crime...crime(?) comes into force on 1st April, according to the article. The SNP has not engaged with any of the organisations who have expressed concerns and no-one knows what, if any, training the Police have been given.

Possibly Minishant.

[That was in fact a joke]

littlbrowndog · Today 09:28

But this would be part of the punishment for some hate crime a person perceived being arrested and taken to court would take years. Imagine that hanging over you

Yes, it's very worrisome.

Is that the Ministry of Shit, per chance?

ditalini · Today 09:29

There is no right to choose a jury trial in Scotland.

Is that so? Is it the case, as in England and Wales, that the seriousness and potential length of prison sentence determines a Crown Court venue?

Imagine a volunteer group being formed to investigate hate crimes

WTAF sort of people would be attracted to this ?

The whole thing is ludicrous. I’d love to jump forward 50 years and see how this period is perceived!

I wonder if Celtic or rangers fans will be investigated for mass hate crimes ?

Here's the relevant section copied directly from the BIll:

The characteristics are—
(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.

Ministry of the Fucking Unbelievable (MinFuckU)

Murray Blackburn have a letter
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/MBM_Letter_to_the_Criminal_Justice_Committee_10_March_2024_cc_DPLRC.pdf

So want this to get to court.

Section 9 of the Bill:

'Protection of freedom of expression

For the purposes of section 3(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be
threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes—
(a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to—
(i) age,15
(ii) disability,
(iii) sexual orientation,
(iv) transgender identity,
(v) variations in sex characteristics,

(b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards—
(i) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,
(ii) religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices
generally or a particular religious belief or practice,
(iii) the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs25
generally or a particular religious belief,
(c) proselytising, or
(d) urging of persons to cease practising their religions.'

Note that 'expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult' are only protected in relation to religion.

So 'expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult' towards the other protected characteristics can presumably be taken as 'abusive'?

As ever, I'd love to be told I'm wrong.

Every football crowd in the land would be in danger of being reported.

Perhaps this is the way to go - while they're prosecuting 50,000 Rangers fans the court will be too clogged to deal with anyone else.

Yes. I would imagine these cases would be heard in the Sherrif Court and if the potential sentence is no more than 12 months then my understanding is no jury.

www.copfs.gov.uk/the-justice-process/scotland-s-criminal-justice-system/#:~:text=In%20a%20solemn%20case%2C%20the,assaults

'A person is a member of a group defined by reference to transgender identity if the person is—
(a) a female-to-male transgender person,
(b) a male-to-female transgender person,
(c) a non-binary person,
(d) a person who cross-dresses
and references to transgender identity are to be construed accordingly'

Aggravated eye rolling will be a thing.

Meanwhile back in the real world.. police Scotland defending their trial policy of not investigating certain crimes...but have resources for this.

Will IW be arrested too?

Seems to be a lot of "People fear that X will happen" answered with "the bill does not intend that X will happen, but we actually aren't going to define X, or anything else actually, but we know that people are sensible and we can all trust the police, so X probably won't happen. Stop making a fuss."

Edited: Sorry - should have stated that this seems to be the legislators' attitude, not Murray Blackburn Mackenzie

So we can be as untoward as we like about catgender, er, beings?

Shouldn't really be flippant but the whole thing is so ridiculous I'm having trouble not.

Added

C and D aren't covered. Is this GRR V2.0? Another attempt to expand the law and to pick a fight with Westminster? What a colossal waste of public funds.

Hadn't noticed this bit - the Police may decide something's a Hate Crime even if the alleged victim doesn't:

'Perception based recording refers to the perception of the victim or any other person. The fact that any person can perceive an incident to be motivated by malice and ill-will is of particular note to police officers or staff, who in themselves can identify that an incident is a hate incident, despite the fact that the victim has not. Some people with a learning disability, dementia, or mental health illness may not realise that they have been the subject of a hate crime or hate incident. Therefore, police staff or officers can still record it as such, based upon their own or a third party’s perception'

From Police Scotland's National Guidance

https://www.scotland.police.uk/spa-media/5yagp2ye/hate-crime-national-guidance.doc

Well, this is the text of the Bill, which is now law. Direct from Scotgov's website.

TBH - I bet the police are hating this badly-drafted, ridiculous, impossible to police, shite just as much as we are.