An MSP (Murdo Fraser) threatening legal action against Police Scotland after his twitter/x post was logged as a hate incident

[StealthSpinach]

I couldn’t see another thread on this - just wondering if a male complaining about ‘hate incidents’ registered against him will produce a different result compared with all the female complaints that have been dismissed.

An MSP is threatening to take legal action against Police Scotland after a tweet he posted criticising the Scottish Government’s transgender policy was logged as a ‘hate incident’.
Veteran Conservative Murdo Fraser said the force had ‘behaved not just outrageously, but unlawfully’ after learning that his name appears in police files for expressing a political view.
A trans activist reported the post on X, formerly Twitter, to Police Scotland whose officers decided it did not amount to a crime but should be classed as a ‘hate incident’ which will remain on record – even though no law had been broken.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233691/Scots-Torys-police-row-hate-tweet-claim.html

Wasn’t there some clash with the other one which caused issues?

On this Scotland has devolved powers so if the electorate vote for politicians who want it you get it

SNP will keep getting voted in but if it doesn’t Scottish Labour voted it for it didn’t they?

Speculation:

WM can use this as an example of how the brave Tories are the only ones to stand against mad law. So they let it play out, while all Tories in Scotland (bar one) oppose it. Then they get to look like heroes, while seriously damaging SNP/Labour.

Then again, they may just not have thought it through.

What is WM's comment on this? What are Labour saying to it?

So if I say " in my opinion transwomen are men" would that be logged as a hate crime, or are opinions not allowed?

Doesn’t there need to be a reason in law to override it?

What would WM use?

It’s been voted in by the electorate representatives

I suppose it is possible that the Tories are planning to announce in their manifesto that they will commit to sorting this and the rest of the mess out, but frankly I'd have zero respect for the whole 'vote for us and we'll take our thumbs out of our bums and look into the possibility of dealing with the Scots totalitarianism stasi, women's rights and not sterilising children'. They can get stuffed with Jam Tomorrow I'm afraid, and I say that as someone who until this mess with the Liz Truss bill would have considered them as the least insane of a bunch of bad options.

Stating an opinion of factual reality? Well was someone offended by it?

Let's face it, there are those who would happily report offensive discussion of lemon drizzle cakes. And there doesn't have to be anything further than someone important feeling miffed, logic and sanity does not apply.

Section 35 the same as the GRR bill.

The MSP's letter above lists how it is not in keeping with British and international law.

S35 stops the bill getting royal assent, too late for that here

I don’t know who this Scottish MP is but that is a cracking letter (clearly written by lawyers).

This was a Bill approved by members of all political parties. Of course the SNP wrote the damn thing, but there has been fuck all opposition, apart from the Tories.

Have Labour said they stand by Labour in Scotland?

There’s not much on it but it feels like it will implode up there with the amount of reports

George Orwell will be spinning in his grave

Will biology GCSE and a level be banned?

I have older relatives who went to religious schools that didn't teach biology (involved reproduction) but did teach botany (that also taught reproduction but without the need to discuss it in animals or humans).

Maybe we'll be regressed to that. Although I wouldn't bank on botany being wholly acceptable unless the emphasis is on the reproduction of yeast with some fudging on the binary nature of plants in general but highlight the asexual reproduction of spider plants and such?

It will just be endless lessons about clownfish.

Really sinister

Ah clownfish, proof that humans can change sex and breathe underwater naturally

IADefinitelyNAL so please excuse me if this question sounds dim: can Police Scotland investigate perceived “hate crimes” that take place outside Scotland? Why would posters on MN need to worry - is the site registered in Scotland?

Guess what? People are actually defending the law.

Several are saying he's a Tory, so he deserves it. Some are talking about the EHCR, tangentially. And one is even saying he should have been prosecuted:

'Mr Fraser clearly expressed a desire to see the rights of others infringed, by claiming that the right to define oneself as non-binary is not possible. By such indication he showed that he was opposed to non-binary people being able to define themselves as non binary and as a legislator in a substantive position to do something about it. That he was let off by Police Scotland is a disappointment as he clearly sought to infringe the rights of others using his position. The equivalence he used was nasty and demeaning he made it and his intent to deprive rights to others in a very clear way and this was laden with hate. He wants to claim the human rights he would deny others and that is intolerable. Tories are by definition nasty but Fraser sinks to new depths.'

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24207820.tory-msp-threatens-legal-action-police-log-hate-incident/#comments-anchor

I am not in Scotland but can see that if its the case that something I type down here in England is opened and read up there that this could (if I say something objected to) be logged as an NCHI and I would never know.

Addressing @Tallisker 'But if you submit a SAR to find out if you've been targeted, doesn't that just mean you give the polis a heads-up that you might be a person of interest to them? If, for example, you are a member of SEEN, or support FWS, or the Women's Rights Network, or KPSS, or the LGB Alliance?' The only solution I can see is that everyone asks for an SAR and continues to do so on a regular basis such that its seen as normal - like an annual dental check up. I assume this is a request to the Scottish Police but could be police in other parts of the UK. However I do notice that some requests may be refused.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/getting-copies-of-your-information-subject-access-request/why-organisations-might-partially-or-fully-refuse-a-subject-access-request/

I am concerned that the use of community centres, sex shops and mushroom farms in Scotland to log hate crimes may lead to people with like-minded interests being supported and encouraging in making accusations. Perhaps using their exisiting customer base (putting notices in public view, adding newsletter items, etc) shops/centres can help people in their circle make complaints. This could lead to certain hot spots for complaints (perhaps the sex shop might help people report 'kink shaming' statements). So, perhaps we also need some FOI requests on regular basis asking what the distribution of reports is (where they originated geographically and what proportion came from the same individuals - frequency of complaint per individual). I would be very interested in that latter information as a gay guy locally pointed to the surge in reporting of hate crimes against trans people as being evidence of growth in hate. (I felt it was more likely an increase in reporting, but without knowing where reports are coming from I won't know whether I was correct - for now its only an assumption). Gosh what a mess.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/03/scotlands-hate-speech-act-and-abuse-of-process/

'It is a well-established principle in Scots law that anything published on the internet, which can be read in Scotland, is deemed to be published in Scotland. The act of publication is not deemed to be the person actually publishing the item, let us say in Tahiti. The act of publication is deemed to be the reader opening the item on their device in Scotland.
(To emphasise the total illogic of this approach, while it is the person opening it which constitutes the act of publication, it is not the person who opened it who is deemed to have published it but the original creator/publisher. To emphasise the state’s dishonest thinking still more: if however what is being opened is not, say, libel or hate speech but rather illegal pornography, then it is in that case the person who opened it who is deemed to have published it.)
So a person in Tahiti who publishes a tweet which is opened by and offends somebody in Scotland because it offends a protected characteristic, had committed a crime in Scotland, even though they never left their home in Tahiti and may never have been anywhere near Scotland.
I know this sounds completely crazy, but I do assure you it is absolutely true. As kindly confirmed here by the Dean of Faculty.'

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1768733847171010678

'Scottish law holds that anything on social media which can be read in Scotland is published in Scotland. Clive Thomson was jailed for contempt of court for material he published in France. I have been questioned by police over material I published in Iceland. Those were not for hate crime, but the Scottish Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021, which has severe implications for freedom of speech, will be enforced from 1 April. The principle that anything that can be read online in Scotland is published in Scotland - which I strongly oppose as ridiculous - is the same as that which fuels the London libel industry. It has nothing to do with residence, which is why you have had Russian oligarchs sue each other in London. I can see nothing in the Act which limits this principle. Therefore any alleged hate against a protected characteristic, published by anybody anywhere in the world, can be reported to Scottish police by someone who read it in Scotland, from 1 April.'

This is confirmed by Roddy Dunlop, Faculty of Dean of Advocates (Scottish legal bod, KC)

I am not in Scotland but can see that if its the case that something I type down here in England is opened and read up there that this could (if I say something objected to) be logged as an NCHI and I would never know.

MN being registered in England will make no difference.

The response quoted above defending this..... well nuff said. I cannot say what I think of such people, it's not illegal but I can be made to pay by those with major issues going on between their ears.

Sorry, cross post.

@ArabellaScott Thank you for this. Mind well and truly blown.

That's my understanding - at least on an extended DBS. Interesting that the police said hate incidents are not recorded against alleged perpetrator. Though the alleged perpetrator's name remains on file in relation to the NCHI. We could do with clarity on this, as the prospect of failing a DBS is a massive stifling factor for critics of GI and a major weapon for TRAs.

Does he have sufficient collateral to take it to court? Police costs will be well into 5 figures at least, and losing can never be ruled out.

According to his website, Murdo Fraser is himself a lawyer (solicitor). Interesting bloke.