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).

Well I'm glad there are some sensible sounding SAs behind the scenes. Anyone with half a brain can see that this is going to be an absolute nightmare to manage.

Think about all the vindictive people who will just start anonymously reporting folk they don't like for any reason! It's like the witch hunter reporters all over again. I was reading about all the witch hunting and burning in Scotland all those hundred of years ago and apparently a lot of people would just report their neighbours for vindictive reasons to steal their land/animals etc or because they'd had a falling out over petty things. This law really isn't that far removed.

https://twitter.com/theneonrequiem/status/1772679673333354728

A useful Twitter thread.

That thread kept me giggling for a while!

If anyone is feeling especially lovely, could they post a thread unroll of the Xitter thread? I'd love to see the filled in signs. Ta very much. :)

MBM note that Police Scotland have taken the definition of 'religion' from the Equality Act, not the Hate Crime Act.

https://twitter.com/mbmpolicy/status/1772611360876089412

'It has come to our attention that the protected characteristic of 'religion' under hate crime legislation is misrepresented on Police Scotland's website. https://scotland.police.uk/advice-and-information/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/'

['religion or belief']

'The protected characteristic is 'religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation'. https://legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/part/1'

'Police Scotland appeared to have muddled it with the protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/1'

( I've just posted this on another thread, but think it should go here too)

This bill reminds me of China's 'social credit' system ( there is a really good 'Storyville' episode on BBC I player about this).

You might not have broken the law, but you will have infringed some of the social 'rules'. In China there is a credit/debit system whereby you gain credits for 'good behaviour' and 'debits' for bad behaviour. Bad behaviour might include being caught, by facial recognition devices, eating or drinking on the metro ( which is discouraged); parking badly; taking part in a demonstration or rally, or simply making a complaint against officialidom of any sort.

There are thousands of ways to be debited, but only a few hundred ways to achieve credits. If you are in debit you might find it difficult to get a new job or find a new school for your child, for example, or you might be barred from using high speed rail services.

The social cedit/debit system is meant to act as a incentive to 'good' behaviour and a disincentive to 'bad behaviour'. Though knowing ( or becoming aware) that there is some official tracking system somewhere which records and monitors your behaviour is very dystopian.

I've realised the main threat with this Act is the removal of phones and computers. Most people need these for day to day life, work, commmunicating with school, banking, etc.

On one hand we are being pushed into accepting everything, from social life, to finances to all comms, being online, on a phone, and on the other, we've got a new law that will make it very easy to make false accusations with no requirement for evidence that can result in having all of those things removed in one swoop when they take your devices.

I can already imagine that some people will be protected from accusations, and some people will be more vulnerable to them (women, especially those who are vocal, will be a target).

Yes, it's a bit like the social credit system, only not quite as overt. And specifically weighted in favour of males to the detriment of women.

The Scotgov have basically created a law to serve narcissists and misogynists, to enable them to use the police as a weapon to abuse women.

We already have males on Twitter making it clear they are gearing up to report women next week. For the 'crime' of failing to accept males as women, for failing to use speech as compelled.

It certainly lays bare the dynamic at the heart of genderist ideology.

The Scotgov have basically created a law to serve narcissists and misogynists, to enable them to use the police as a weapon to abuse women.

I can’t believe it’s happening and there’s so little outcry

https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1772887780625957279

Michael Foran and Adam Tomkins on the news last night.

I recall on a thread some Labour supporter saying this kind of law won’t exist or something

Women can’t be criminalised for misgendering or stating biological reality.

It can exist and will soon

Where are the rational people speaking up for their dds and the next generation?

Where are the news items? It’s insanity

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/2866399/hate-crime-bill-amendment/

'“I am alarmed and distressed, and perhaps even, if I’m honest, a little afraid of the reaction or aspects of the reaction to it (the amendment).” Mr Tomkins told MSPs: “I think we have come to the point where if we are going to criminalise hate speech on grounds of transgender identity, we have got to define what we mean.'

Tomkins voted against the Bill.

To clarify, that article above is from 2021, when the Bill was going through the parliament.

Very clear summary - though hopefully this very fact will be the downfall of the bill.

The guidance seems to say:

• the hate is in the perception of the person reporting
• this perception should not be challenged by the police

So a charter for anyone to claim anything as hate...
It is easy to see how this will be weaponised by those with an agenda to attack women / GC people etc., but it has a huge flaw...

it can be used by anyone - so if a person is the victim of such a claim - they simply need to make their own claims against:

• the original claimant
• the police who arrest them
• any police at the police station
• the prosecution
• the judge
• etc.

under those same principles their claims will of course be valid - by the end of week 1 it should have the entire police force and judiciary locked up in jail for up to 7 years...

as with the comment from the police call handler above - the only thing that will kill this bill is for the volume of claims to be huge and disproportionate... and as it is all in the perception of the claimant, who can't be challenged, they will have no choice but to handle them all...

https://twitter.com/kathmurray1/status/1772765731920241006/photo/2

Concerns from the SPF (Scottish Police Federation) that police training has been inadequate.

'Are Police Scotland prepared for the commencement of the Hate Crime and Public Order Act next week? Training began in early February. The SPF have told the Criminal Justice Committee it’s possible that not all officers will be trained.'

'The training package is limited, there’s no proper opportunities for interaction or questions. There’s no information on the training for the 500 ‘hate crime champions’. The SPF hasn’t had sight of the new Standard Operating Procedure, or seen a EQIA. Apart from that…'

https://jameschalmers.substack.com/p/the-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland

'It's important to remember that “stirring up hatred” is a very high threshold. Lord Bracadale gave a series of examples of prosecutions for stirring up racial hatred in his report (para 5.12), noting that such offences “attack the group generally rather than individual members of the group”. His examples included people posting materials online calling for members of particular racial groups to be killed or injured. The offence does not cover people being rude – even vile – to other people on social media. (It does not, for example, make misgendering a crime.) And where conduct on social media goes beyond the pale, police and prosecutors already have long-standing tools at their disposal which are easier to use. There is, for example, a statutory offence of sending a “grossly obscene” or “indecent, obscene or menacing” message via a public electronic communications network,8 and a general offence of “threatening or abusive behaviour”.9 These already existing offences are significantly easier to prosecute than stirring up hatred.'

Two important controversies: sex and policing. The text above focuses on what the letter of the law does. In order to keep this a (relatively) concise explainer of those points, I haven’t discussed two other important issues. One of these is police practice in relation to the Act, where there has been a lot of news coverage about Police Scotland’s public statements and policy commitments. The second is the exclusion of sex as a protected characteristic. Here the Scottish Government has chosen to take a standalone approach, having commissioned a report on misogyny and criminal justice* *by Baroness Helena Kennedy KC, and has committed to bringing forward legislation later this year.10 There is a useful discussion of the difficulties of including sex as a protected characteristic in hate crime law in this 2021 report by the Law Commission (pages 13-16).11 The Commission recommended that sex not be added to the list of protected characteristics for the English equivalent of Scotland’s system of aggravations, but that there should be a stirring up offence in respect of sex. The 2021 Act includes (in section 12) a power for the Scottish Ministers to add sex as a protected characteristic in the Act (either for aggravations or stirring up or both), and it would be surprising if the Scottish Government did not return to this issue alongside its forthcoming legislation.

It is as badly drafted and without foresight as the Scottish GRA would have been if it had not been blocked by the government. Ill thought through bad law seems to be the order of the day in Scotland; which is what happens when ideological virtual signalling and imposition is your main objective.

https://jameschalmers.substack.com/p/the-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-d9e

'Will the 2021 Act see more complaints to the police, and more records of non-crime hate incidents? An overly legalistic answer to this question would be to point out that the 2021 Act does not change the law very much and that even where it does (e.g. by extending the stirring up offences) any conduct caught by the new offences would likely already be criminal in some form, under existing offences I mentioned in my earlier post.11 And given that non-crime hate incidents are, by definition, not crimes, the new law provides no greater scope for such reports and records - the report against Murdo Fraser, for example, pre-dates the 2021 Act coming into force. But that answer is overly legalistic, because what happens next depends on public perceptions of the law, not Substacks by law professors. If a public perception develops (or already exists) that the 2021 Act’s commencement on the 1st April does significantly expand the law and for example allows people to silence those on social media with whom they disagree, then it seems inevitable that there will be additional complaints, with the potential chilling effects that implies. For that reason, there is some value in being legalistic: it is important that what the Act does and does not do is clearly understood.'

James Chalmers is Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow.

(edited to bold for emphasis)

Absolutely no to non-criminal hate incidents.

https://capx.co/humza-yousaf-doesnt-understand-his-own-hate-crime-act/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13242823/Orwellian-Police-Scotland-blacklist-hate-incidents-threatens-peoples-job-prospects-information-handed-potential-employers.html

'A secret police catalogue of 'hate incidents' could destroy job prospects as the information can be disclosed to potential employers, it was warned yesterday.
People trying to get jobs working with children or vulnerable adults could find a non-crime hate incident (NCHI) being disclosed to a prospective employer without knowing it even exists.
Disclosure Scotland is responsible for sharing information about people's criminal records so employers can decide if the applicant is suitable for the job.'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/26/police-scotland-parody-jk-rowling-open-letter-harry-potter/

'Police officers who invented a trans-hating “parody” of JK Rowling must be stripped of any role in enforcing new hate crime laws, more than 200 women have said.
In an open letter, female signatories expressed “disgust” that a fictional character called “Jo”, alleged to be modelled on the <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/LhNrK/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/22/jk-rowling-police-scotland-gender-trans/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Harry Potter writer who called for trans people to be sent to gas chambers, had been created by serving Police Scotland officers.
They said the revelation had left their confidence in police to fairly enforce hate crime legislation at “rock bottom” and claimed the narrative created reinforced offensive “tropes” that gender critical women were comparable to Nazis.
At an official police “youth engagement” hate crime event last month, attendees were presented with a “scenario” in which Jo, an “online influencer” with a large social media following, is “passionate” about her beliefs such as there being only two genders.

The story escalates with “Jo” stating that trans people “all belong in the gas chambers”. Attendees were then asked to consider whether “Jo” had committed a hate crime.
The letter, signed by high-profile political figures, academics and gender-critical campaigners, said the story reinforced offensive claims about women who believe biological sex should take precedence over self-declared gender identity.
Such women are often compared by trans rights activists to racists while they also regularly face unfounded accusations of having links to the far-Right.
In a letter, the women said the “Jo” character had clearly been “a thinly veiled parody of the author <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/LhNrK/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/16/jk-rowling-nastiest-novelist-row-trans-activists/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">JK Rowling, who in recent years has championed the sex-based rights of women and girls”.
“We write to you to express our disgust that public servants, not least those charged with enforcing the new offences created by the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, were responsible for this material,” the women’s letter, to Jo Farrell, the chief constable, stated.

“It plays into long-standing, offensive tropes that women who are concerned about the erosion of their sex-based rights are akin to Nazis.”'

https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/03/27/a-new-hate-crime-law-in-scotland-causes-widespread-concern

'James Chalmers, a legal scholar at the University of Glasgow. “The new law does not change things as much as some people think. It provides a more accurate label for prosecuting serious cases of hatred.” But he concedes that “if people believe that the criminal law has been broadened, you may see more reports to the police.”

Much, then, may depend on how police deal with those reports. Despite the delay in implementing the law, officers in Scotland have received only a two-hour online training session ahead of its introduction. David Kennedy, the general secretary of the main police union, says the training is “not fit for purpose”, and believes the attempt to legislate hate crime is “a recipe for disaster”. “Police officers are saying to me, ‘We’ll just have to charge everyone’.”

Some critics flag the potentially malign influence of lobby groups. “All the groups who think that we are hateful have been deeply involved in training the police,” says Lucy Hunter Blackburn of mbm, a policy-analysis group that has questioned government policies on gender in particular.'

https://archive.is/ugWDM

''Humza Yousaf’s controversial hate crime law has been savaged by Scotland’s senior police officers.
In an extraordinary broadside days ahead of its introduction, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS) said activists could seek to ‘weaponise’ the legislation to advance their own agendas.
It fears officers will be swamped with ‘spurious’ complaints and drawn into ‘abusive spats’ online, taking them away from fighting more serious crime.''

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13246115/Police-chiefs-savage-hate-crime-flaws-officers-warn-new-law-risks-weaponised-damaging-trust-force-making-harder-tackle-crime.html

'In a bombshell letter to Holyrood’s criminal justice committee, Chief Superintendent Rob Hay, president of the ASPS, said: ‘There is certainly enough anger and hateful bile online to occupy every police officer in Scotland.
‘The extent to which society will tolerate or expect the police to be drawn into adjudicating ill-tempered, abusive spats online is a matter for wider debate.’
Mr Hay added: ‘We have a concern that individuals who could be described as the “activist fringe” of particular viewpoints… will seek to “weaponise” the new legislation and associated police investigation.’'