Scottish Hate Crime Bill - information and resources.

[ArabellaScott]

Well. Here we go.

Disclaimer: I don't have any special expertise or knowledge. Check everything for yourself.

The Bill:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents/enacted

PART 1 Aggravation of offences by prejudice

PART 2 Offence of racially aggravated harassment

PART 3 Offences relating to stirring up hatred

It's part three that is most relevant to women and feminists.

I'll just paste the whole of Part 3:

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person—

(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or

(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and

(b)either—

(i)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or

(ii)a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person—

(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, or

(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and

(b)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3).

(3)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.

(4)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

(5)For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.

(6)For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if—

(a)evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and

(b)the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case.

(7)For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person’s behaviour—

(a)includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does,

(b)may consist of—

(i)a single act, or

(ii)a course of conduct.

(8)For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by—

(a)displaying, publishing or distributing the material,

(b)giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person,

(c)making the material available to another person in any other way.

(9)A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).

Former SNP Deputy leader Jim Sillars:

https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/28/jim-sillars-on-hate-crime/

Edited for wrong link

Ffs I'm not doing well pasting in that link. Trying again:

https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/04/01/jim-sillars-resist-the-hate-crime-act-and-campaign-for-its-repeal/

I miss my gif :(

Here you go 😊

"Self-censorship is born of the fear of government and police. Self-censorship is cowardice, and no people with any pride in their heritage and democratic values should engage in it. The answer to this Act is to resist, by refusing to change the way we think, speak, and write; and if any one person is signalled out for prosecution, let us all repeat what is said and thus by mass action render this piece of pernicious legislation null and void."

If the government refuse to realise they've fucked up and just kill it dead, this is probably how people will kill it. If you arrest one person and prosecute them for saying XYZ what do you do about the 20000 people who then publicly also state XYZ?

If they won't see sense then the police will end up drowning trying to deal with hate crime reports.

I really would like to know how many reports they got yesterday.

Hahahaha 🤣 And we already know JKR collects receipts!!!

Oh the police will be loving this FULL INVESTIGATION that's been demanded.

Did the lawyer pop up on twitter before or after the last IW meltdown? Does this lawyer give unsolicited advice to MNers to post up too?

I think it was at the time of the last one. No one had heard of him.

A JKR show trial would be utterly hilarious.

JKR knows this.

She knows it has poll tax like potential.

My. How.... Odd...

What "lawyer" is being talked about above? Is it the bobble hat model, or the kimono fox batterer model? Or another one?

Looking at the press reporting JKR, and UK politicians like Sunak among other chiming in with their views. The SNP really have built their own nemesis haven't they? A beloved childern's author who wrote an all time best selling wizard's universe that's comparable in cultural reach to Star Wars, and who has personally suffered male abuse. Above all that an intelligent and empathic woman of moral fortitude who is prepared to use her considerable resources to help others. And that's who they want to suppress to cater to the needs of convicted rapists.
Do they never pause to think and reflect?
This is Darwinism applied to mental ability in action, the SNP is bleeding out even as we speak. You won't be missed SNP.

It's a new lawyer, who has taken it upon himself to menace JKR with threats of terrible things happening if she doesn't obey his diktats.

Keep note of this pattern in view of comments overnight about how the law was never intended to stop women talking.

A HUGE amount of the current problem is about vexatious ligation, misrepresentation of the law leading to discrimination against women (most of whom never get a day in court because of the stress or cost) and intimidation using the threat of law rather than what the contents of the law actually are.

We need widespread public awareness of this and to break the culture of fear where so many people feel they can't express the reasonable point that sex change is impossible and there are issues that remain if you have a bunch of men (most of whom are still running around with dicks) who expect access to women and to have rights in law as women.

It is not ok for anyone to be treated appallingly through harassment and abuse - transphobia is not ok - however attempts to remove dignity and privacy of women (which DO exist in law under human rights and equality law) are also totally unacceptable as are any attempts to intimidate women into giving up their legal rights by coercion.

The social consensus issues here are actually really important. This is why I stress the point about pronouns use NOT being about respect and politeness - it about control and coercion.

Minister for Community Safety has misrepresented the law:

'Victims minister Siobhian Brown has been asked to stop misrepresenting the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, which came into force this week.
For Women Scotland and Murray Blackburn Mackenzie have called on Ms Brown to get the law right and to stop making incorrect statements about non-existent safeguards in the legislation.
Section 4(2) of the Act, which extends “stirring up” offences beyond race to other characteristics, requires the behaviour involved to be “threatening or abusive”.
That the behaviour may solely be “abusive” is central to concerns about the lack of clarity and the potential for chilling effects in the legislation.'

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/victims-minister-siobhian-brown-repeatedly-gets-new-hate-crime-law-wrong

Not the HCA, but perhaps tangentially related as part of the Scottish legal system:

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/tony-lenehan-kc-scotland-bound-for-weakest-presumption-of-innocence-in-the-world

'With the publication of the Justice Committee’s report on Good Friday, we can look forward to a world in which our criminal justice system’s contempt for the presumption of innocence far outstrips any other common law system on the globe.
Our simple majority 8/7 jury system was hitherto tolerable because we had the unique protection of the ‘not proven’ safety valve. This was acknowledged by everyone bar the special interest groups. Subsequently (or consequently), political ire was turned towards that verdict and its days were numbered, but Holyrood appeared to acknowledge the value of that verdict as a safeguard, and proposed balancing its removal with a move to an 8/4 majority in the Victims etc Bill.
Even the 8/4 majority would have ranked us dead last in the world rankings, but perhaps our politicians worried that North Korea or maybe Vladimir Putin would see that the title remained in reach (10/2 is the lowest anywhere else).
Holyrood already seemed content with valuing the presumption of Scottish innocence less than any other jury system.
But then the special interest groups spoke out, and the lord advocate, and now we are being marched towards a regime in which 8/7 with no additional safeguards whatsoever will apply to every accused person, whether standing trial for the politically feverish sex crimes or indeed anything and everything else.
For the mathematicians amongst us, 10/2 yielded an 83.3 per cent tipping point in a jury, a safety margin of a third at 33.3 per cent. This was the option the academics cautioned the committee towards, rather than the paltry 8/4 (66.7 per cent, or a safety margin of a sixth)
But the eight from 15 is 53.3 per cent, a safety margin of 3.3 per cent. A thirthieth. That is tenfold less than anywhere else in the common law world. Is this really to be allowed?
Good Friday seems well chosen for the publication of such a report.'

Who are the 'special interest groups'?

I was not a fan of not proven but I don't live in Scotland so was willing to own my ignorance and believe it was there for a good reason. I had no idea that a simple majority could hand down a guilty verdict!! The not proven makes much more sense now.

I'm not sure, cake, possibly the 54 organisations who responded to the consultation?

But that doesn't sound like it usually works - it's usually hand selected govt funded quangos who produce the evidence the govt wants to hear that will support its bill.

I've made a new thread for that post, which really was a bit more tangential than I thought to the HCA!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5042340-scotland-jury-less-rape-trials

The fabulous MBM policy have just released a guide for women to the new Hate Crime Act:

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2024/04/07/a-womans-guide-to-the-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-act-2021/

'We want women to feel confident in continuing to speak when and how they want to. We decided the most immediate practical help we can give is to reduce the fear of the unknown, by providing information on what rights we all have, and what we can do to protect those, if ever the police get in contact. This is why we have produced The Women’s Guide to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021.
The guide has been read for legal accuracy by a lawyer, but we are not lawyers, and this guide cannot and should not be used as a source of legal advice about handling particular cases. Only a lawyer can give that. The guide also provides links to other sources of similar advice, from the Scottish Government, Citizens’ Advice and others, but unlike those, it also provides quick access to what the Act says, and other relevant legal references. It explains when you are entitled to free legal advice, and suggests ways to find that, should you ever need it. It provides some information also on “non-crime hate incident” reports, although the situation there is currently not very clear and may change further.
We hope that women will not need to put this guide to practical use, but that if they know their rights, they will feel more confident about being able to speak their minds in the way they want.'

Women of Scotland owe MBM policy a great deal.

Sarah Pedersen in the P&J says the HCA is already having a chilling effect on women.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/6425330/hate-crime-pedersen/

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hate-crime-act-causes-havoc-32528889

Reports made under the HCA expected to top 10,000 by tomorrow.

'Former first minister Jack McConnell branded the law, which is just six days old, “unworkable”.He said: “The early years of the Scottish Parliament showed how to use the powers of home rule to legislate well and lead change but this Hate Crime Act looks like the opposite.”'