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

Gender fluid surely? Known as Jo (female) when she's writing kids books and known as Robert (male) when he's writing crime novels.

Pseudonym gender?

I don’t know how people are not up in arms over this

Because it doesn't affect them yet. Because they think they won't do anything that will warrent someone reporting them. Because they think its so unbelievable that it isn't a real law. But probably because its not been in the main newspapers or TV news stations. They don't know what they don't know.

I'm hoping that in one months time "they" will have reported so many, for such ridiculous things, that the system collapses. If one politician can be reported then they all can

Lots of people in Scotland don’t know about this yet even people I think are clued up on the news , some in my family

when I said you can report a hate crime to a fish farm they were 😳😳

Yes. No criteria, no definition. The crime depends on the perception of the person reporting.

I'm expecting people in hate monster costumes and the yellow-jacketed with the comforting slogan

Report hate now. Ask me how.

to be standing round Sauchiehall Street any night of the week plus any areas or transport surrounding an Old Firm match, ready to log these.

It's going to do marvels for Scotland's tourism industry. People will disdain a photo with the Buckingham Palace Guards in their rush to embrace a hate monster.

I suppose a test case could be is stating biological reality ok or not?

Or is it very unlikely to happen idk

So considering some of the issues that have come up at the Edinburgh Fringe in the last few years - this could present as a real issue for performers at the Fringe? Even be off-putting for some of the big names to want to attend.

Only problem with this is that sex is not protected under the hate crime bill.
However I've been wondering if the hate messages, death and rape threats that call us cis women would fall under the perceived transgender identity/status aa they are directing the hate towards us due to their assumption about our transgender identity

Here is the cut and pasted section of the Hate Crime Act, section 4, stirring up hatred:

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 ...

Accompanying Guidance:

'it is an offence for a person to behave in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, or to communicate to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, with the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to one of the listed characteristics. The phrase “a reasonable person would consider” in section 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) makes it clear that an objective standard is to be applied as to whether the behaviour or material referred to is threatening or abusive.

42.Section 4(7)(a) makes it clear that a person’s behaviour for the purpose of section 4(1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things said (therefore the spoken word, unrecorded speech) or otherwise communicated (e.g. displaying a poster, placard or banner; the printed media on the internet through websites, email, blogs, podcasts etc.), as well as things done by the person.

43.Section 4(7)(b) also provides that, for the purpose of that section, the person’s behaviour may consist of a single act or a course of conduct.

44.Section 4(8) defines the different ways in which a person may communicate material to another person for the purposes of an offence under section 4. The different ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by:

Displaying, publishing or distributing the material e.g. on a sign; on the internet through websites, blogs, podcasts, social media etc., either directly, or by forwarding or repeating material that originates from a third party; through printed media such as magazine publications or leaflets, etc.

Giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person e.g. through online streaming, by email, playing a video, through public performance of a play, etc.

Making the material available to another person in any way e.g. through the spoken word, the written word, electronic communications, etc. either directly (as the originator of the material), or by forwarding or repeating the material.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/notes/division/2/3/1/1

It won't have to make any sense. It doesn't have to be a crime. It doesn't even have to be factually correct. It's just the perception of the miffed person that it happened.

You won't know you've been informed on, unless you have a DBS check for a job and it comes up that you have a non-hate crime incident recorded against you.

As I said earlier: bear in mind the responses we've seen (often) on FWR... you could be reported for talking about lemon drizzle cakes in a manner that the person who read your comment perceived as miffing them.

So the new Act itself has the 'objective' standard to be applied.

Which would happen in court.

The police guidance as it stands:

https://www.scotland.police.uk/access-to-information/policies-and-procedures/guidance-documents/guidance-documents-g-i/

'Hate Crime - A hate crime is any crime 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.'

'3. 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-willUnderstanding 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).'

I suppose this guidance may change come next week?

@Hoardasurass
Yep you're right about sex not being protected ( which is nuts ).
But I'm sure in all the harassment there will be stuff that is protected e.g. if someone was to call JKR an old xxxxx, age is protected.
In the old days DMs may not have been covered because only JKR can see them ( not public ). But to be honest if JKR finds them offensive that seems to meet the bar of the new law. The law itself seems so vague that I'm sure a bunch of lawers could tie the police up in knots for months just from stuff posted publicly @ JKR.

Is it only what you say that counts?

For instance, tickets for Free Speech Nation's comedy gig in Edinburgh on the 1st go on sale tonight. If I bought tickets, went along, enjoyed myself and laughed at the comedians then is that a hateful action?

Can I be prosecuted for having a sense of humour?

Wouldn't it be great if "cis-" got classified as hateful under this new law......

So a man could hurl all kinds of hatred and ill will at a women and nothing

But if they are upset by what.. biological reality? It’s a crime

Yes they do, they also stay on your records for life and your not told that they are there unless you put in a subject access request.

Well, we're all going to have to do regular subject access requests aren't we? Like some people recommend doing regular credit checks. How often do you think?

Those guidance documents are scary.

How do we know what someone else's motives are? How do we know who is motivated by "malice"? And why are the police allowed to question the motives of the accused and not the accuser? Isn't it usually the other way round?

I suspect it will be misinterpreted only if someone with a more powerful protected characteristic perceives it as such. (Bitter experience of lesbians and black women for example is that it doesn't work for them.)

So if for example you were discussing lemon drizzle cake in a manner perceived to be containing malice and animosity on a thread on TQ+ political issues? Perceived being the only relevant bit, that you were being maliciously disrespectful towards TQ+ characteristics via cake?

It'll be down to are the police sufficiently barmy to engage with all this.

And more bitter experience says....? Oh yes. Enthusiastically.

I think we are going to have to reach peak insanity on many levels, for this madness to exhaust itself.

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.

https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/status/1772171471067939090

'As the author of the column which@murdo_fraser
retweeted and was reported for ‘hate crime’ I am understandably concerned that other work by me has been reported to@PoliceScotland
as a ‘hate crimes’. Completing a subject access request now, though can’t quite believe I am having to do this'

So, I don't need to be on stage, if someone thought it was hateful to go to the gig I could be complained about.

I assume the comedians know that but I don suppose the audience does. Because it's totally nuts.

A respected journalist,s piece now a hate crime. Murdo retweeted the piece

hate crime or incident whatever the fuck the Stasi in Scotland now call it

I retweeted Susan’s piece

I am a hate monster now

They might get a few reports about their chief constable, and deputies, assistants etc.
And the evidence will be easy to find.

I'm imagining
@ArabellaScott going into her local police station and saying "I want to report a hate crime"
Officer McPlod, or the mushroom farm owner getting the report form out "Who do you want to report?"
Arabella, snatching the form "You!"

if the terves of Scotland can report every officer, that would be brilliant.

Its a good point. Every single journalist writing about women's sports, women's rights, child safeguarding, any of this, will have a recorded NCHI. Every speaker on tv and radio who addresses this. Many are going to have a long list.

However if that's the case it's rapidly going to become about as significant as speeding points and parking tickets.

I don't want to drink my whisky like you do
I don't need to spend my money, but still do
Don't stop now, now come on
Another drop now, come on

I wanna hate now, now come on
That's why, that's why

I said mama we're all monsters now
I said mama we're all monsters now
I said mama we're all monsters now
^^
Woo!