Does anyone else not care if a 'hate incident' is recorded against them?

[WallaceinAnderland]

For some people it will mean absolutely nothing. Especially older people with no intention of applying for a job.

What does is really matter? They don't tell you so it's not going to worry you. There's no crime so you haven't broken the law. There's no fine, prosecution or imprisonment.

It's a non crime.

Personally I don't mind if it's recorded somewhere that I did not commit a crime.

Obviously people in work who need a clear DBS will be frightened into submission by this law but there must also be lots of us who aren't?

Nobody knows. I have posted some info on this on the other thread - Hate Crime info and resources. A police service advisor said they had no idea.

Reads like something straight out of a Discworld novel, doesn't it?

Since the "victim's" perception is all-important, surely the relevant date is that on which the "victim" sees the message and feels that it constitutes hate.

Presuming that the message is still visible on that date. Including on publicly visible archive sites. If it's there for the "victim", and anyone else, to see on or after April 1st, and that's when the hate is perceived, then that's when the incident occurs.

That would be my argument.

Craig Murray explains this here, see the 'continuous publication' bit:

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

That is a good piece and Craig so nearly gets it. He's always worth a read but he isn't quite as clear of thought as I think he would like to believe IYSWIM. He gets the madness of the hate crime bill but he doesn't get other forms of coercion.

x.com/craigmurrayorg/status/1773354297633198308?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Murray is frequently hampered by his total failure to perceive misogyny, I suspect due to deep seated sexism. But he does have insight of relevant legal issues.

I agree with this.

I have a lot of respect for Craig Murray, but "I understand better now the real risk of sexual offenders posing as trans women." is bizarre. Surely it was obvious from the beginning to anyone who is not hard-of-thinking?

I seem to recall Murray met/knew a transwoman whole he was in prison and had immense sympathy for said person.

Curiously didn't seem capable of finding empathy for female prisoners.

That's interesting Arabella. It's certainly a real weak spot for him for some reason. But his analysis of the legal points is useful regardless.

I honestly think some men think that if another man calls himself a woman he is 'less of a man' and 'weaker than a man' ergo 'less of a threat to women'.

I think they look down on these men the same way they look down on women and that's how they make the link.

Crazy.

That was pretty much David Aaronovitch's perspective and why he was on the fence until he read Helen Joyce, iirc.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4298023-David-Aaronovitch-Review-of-Helen-Joyces-Book

Murray is a misogynist arse, however he is right about some things, sometimes.

Perhaps he is in the camp which thinks, "I know a transwoman and she's lovely, so I'm sure they're all lovely and I don't see any problem."

I suspect it’s more a case of males sticking up for other males, even if those males are dressed in clothing that’s traditionally more often worn by women. The patriarchy looks after itself.

Isn't he a pal of Chelsea Manning?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning

Can things be reported if said/posted before 1st April? I need a DBS for my job and have probably posted things on X before that would be considered hate speech under this bonkers new 1984 ruling

Apparently so - it’s when they are read that counts, so if they are reported and the Police then read them after 1st April that’s when they count as being published.

Police Scotland are going to be incredibly busy in the coming months so anyone on the receiving end of actual crimes is going to find the police take even longer than normal to respond. Scary stuff.

The doubling down and cries of "it'll all be fiiiiiine" in this story convince me that some people are in fact starting to get a teensy bit worried.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd18ey5ze3yo

Don't worry. Thousands of women (and men) have said things on Twitter...and will continue to do so on that subject. Just wait till tomorrow morning. I imagine Twitter is going to be on fire with "hate speech". Tis going to be fun.

Scotland should block access to Twitter/X so that people of a certain disposition wouldn’t be able to read things that might send their fragile mental health into further decline.

I think that’s a very good idea. In fact, perhaps the SG should block access to all SM up here so we can go back to the good old days of shouting ‘burn the witch’ at women who step out of line.

If things go as badly as it’s thought they might then the already reduced trust in the police will reduce even further. Various police forces have already been overzealous in investigating people for free speech-related ‘offence'. This legislation could aggravate this very polarising level of tension exceedingly.

People having the ability to use the power of the State to harass or punish their fellow citizens will bring out the worst in a lot of people. Police forces always make use of increased powers in ways not originally considered or intended by legislators.

I'll be reporting this transphobic tweet tomorrow.

Thanks. I have another one from IW that I plan to report - I imagine his offensive tweets will be keeping the police quite busy.