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).

Humza, the Police, the people defending this Act all do so on the grounds that they are the gatekeepers. Perhaps so far as court cases go they are correct. But it's been worded so that anyone can make complaints based solely on their perception. The Police have said they'll investigate them all.

Humza may say that vexatious complaints will be dealt with robustly, but I don't see how that can work in practice when complaints can be made anonymously.

Perhaps this is one of oh so funny April Fool articles the papers publish? Fingers crossed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/01/jk-rowling-could-investigated-misgendering-snp-law-scotland/

https://archive.ph/cmKNq archive link to take you round the houses and past the paywall

One might almost think the SNP have no fucking idea what they've enabled.

The Police have, over the three years since this bill was introduced, had two hours of training!!....on line!! Well then.

Humza, the Police, the people defending this Act all do so on the grounds that they are the gatekeepers.

This means they're going to gatekeep whether someone is offended or not.

How are they going to do that?

"I don't believe you're really offended? Or You shouldn't really be upset?"

Calling trans people liars or that they're what? Too sensitive? Plain wrong?

The police will be constantly reported for not taking it seriously. And they've said they will investigate every complaint anyway.

It's an absolute mind fuck of nonsensical proportions.

I think the Police should channel all complaints in the first instance to the First Minister.

That'll learn him.

Pressed by BBC Radio 4’s Today programme whether misgendering was a crime, Ms Brown said no,

Also

Ms Brown said it would be “an operational decision” and “it would not be for me as a minister to dictate what the police” did.

And

Siobhian Brown, the SNP’s community safety minister, initially stated that misgendering – for example calling a trans woman “he” – would “not at all” fall foul of the legislation.

But then again.

“It could be reported and it could be investigated. Whether or not the police would think it was criminal is up to Police Scotland for that.”

Yeah, but no, but yeah. But no.

It's going to be that misgendering's not a crime as long as it's done politely, or in a self effacing way, or prefaced by something like "I fully support trans rights but...", or, er, doesn't generalise but also isn't specific.

But it will be a crime if it's piss taking, annoyed, frustrated or really, really funny.

Someone, surely, will leak that police training and I bet it's all about 'tone'.

Also the examples the police will have been given, will all be from a fictitious woman, betcha.

It’s interesting that misogyny, and sex as a characteristic, is repeatedly separated and treated differently from other protected characteristics. We see this in the Equality Act 2010, and in the Scottish Hate Crime Act / proposed misogyny bill. Why is this?

On the radio the other day, they said that women were going to be included in this bill, but it was so big an issue they had to address it separately. But they will. At some point. Honest.

Every single listener did a chinny reckon,

It sounds like this was the line from the SNP-bot here.

Sorry wrong thread, was talking about the Justin Webb show this morning.

Of course you can. This is not what this "law" is all about. Keep on writing.

I hope that she (or some other high profile person) does get arrested. Should peak many people.

Also, the police guidance is very clear that police should not challenge anyone making a report:

'Hate Incident - Any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group but which does not constitute a criminal offence (non-crime incident).

While it is accepted that not every hate report will amount to criminality, officers are required to take preventative and protective measures even when a non-criminal offence is apparent. Seemingly low level or minor events may in fact have a significant impact on the victim. Crime type alone does not necessarily dictate impact or consequences of the action. Repeated targeting of a person, whether by the same perpetrator or not, can lead to what is known as the ‘drip drip’ effect i.e. although seemingly minor incidents, the repeated nature could affect the person’s ability to cope. Each individual will be affected differently.

. Motivation

In Scotland, hate crime / incidents mean any crime or incident where the perpetrator’s actions are motivated wholly or partly, by malice and ill-will towards the individual, on the basis of their actual or presumed disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity.

If the perpetrators actions prior to, or immediately after the incident, demonstrates malice and ill-will towards the victim, on the basis of their actual or presumed disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity, then this provides evidence of motivation.

Victims of hate crimes / incidents do not have to be a member of any of the above social groups in order to be a victim. For example, an individual who is the victim of a transphobic incident does not have to be transgender, or disclose their transgender identity, for this to be perceived, recorded and investigated as a hate related incident.

Malice and ill-will

Understanding malice and ill-will is important to understanding the extent of the hate. The term hate implies a high degree of animosity, whereas the definition and the legislation require that the crime must be demonstrated or motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will.

(In the absence of a precise legal definition of malice and ill-will, consideration should be given to the ordinary dictionary definition, to wish someone harm).

Perception

For recording purposes, the perception of the victim or any other person is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident or in recognising the malice element of a crime. The perception of the victim should always be explored, however they do not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief and police officers or staff members should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of malice and ill-will is not required for a hate crime or hate incident to be recorded and thereafter investigated as a hate crime or hate incident by police.

The alleged actions of the perpetrator must amount to a crime under Scottish Crime Recording Standard (SCRS) rules. If this is the case, the perception of the victim, or any other person, will decide whether the crime is recorded as a hate crime. If the facts do not identify a recordable crime but the victim perceives it to be a hate crime, the circumstances will be recorded as a hate incident (non- crime incident).

Other Person Perception

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.

The other person could also include but is not limited to:
· Bystander/witness;
· Family member;
· Third Party Reporting Centre staff;
· A carer or other professional who supports the victim;
· Any other person.

Sadly, I expect it will be a very average, middle aged woman who will be arrested and used as an example. Someone who doesn't have the money or the profile to put up a good fight.

I agree.

I would hope, when it happens, that people support her.

Windy twittering about R4 being wall to wall with Terf hate phone calls.
Which is patently untrue, as Women wouldn't be allowed to do such a thing on air.
Obsessive and constant woman-hate from that person.

Women (and men) have raised £millions for women's rights cases. Do you think we're going to stop now? Do you think we'll ever stop? No.

JKR has made her position very clear on twitter:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1774747068944265615

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1774749954629652873

'In passing the Scottish Hate Crime Act, Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls.

The new legislation is wide open to abuse by activists who wish to silence those of us speaking out about the dangers of eliminating women's and girls’ single-sex spaces, the nonsense made of crime data if violent and sexual assaults committed by men are recorded as female crimes, the grotesque unfairness of allowing males to compete in female sports, the injustice of women’s jobs, honours and opportunities being taken by trans-identified men, and the reality and immutability of biological sex.

For several years now, Scottish women have been pressured by their government and members of the police force to deny the evidence of their eyes and ears, repudiate biological facts and embrace a neo-religious concept of gender that is unprovable and untestable. The re-definition of 'woman' to include every man who declares himself one has already had serious consequences for women's and girls’ rights and safety in Scotland, with the strongest impact felt, as ever, by the most vulnerable, including female prisoners and rape survivors.

It is impossible to accurately describe or tackle the reality of violence and sexual violence committed against women and girls, or address the current assault on women’s and girls’ rights, unless we are allowed to call a man a man. Freedom of speech and belief are at an end in Scotland if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal.

I'm currently out of the country, but if what I've written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment. If you agree with the views set out in this tweet, please retweet it.' #ArrestMe #AprilFools #HateCrimeActScotland

Maybe she deserves her own thread?

There's a new thread gone up on it.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5040649-jkr-exposing-scottish-hate-crime-laws-for-what-they-are

Oh dear!

So the Indian council are reporting Humza and the Scottish government for racism towards white men, on the grounds that it does not foster good relations between the two groups?

I have to say, I did not see that one coming. Brilliant stuff.