Scotland's controversial new hate crime laws come into force

[Social Media]

 

Scotland's new Hate Crime and Public Order Act, which aims to address the harm caused by hatred and prejudice, has officially taken effect, sparking debate and concerns over its potential impact on free speech. The legislation, passed by a majority of MSPs in 2021, consolidates existing laws and introduces new offenses targeting behavior intended to stir up hatred based on various characteristics such as age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.

 

However, the implementation of these laws has faced criticism from opponents who argue that they could restrict freedom of expression and be misused to settle personal scores. One contentious issue raised is whether misgendering someone online could constitute a hate crime under the new law. While a Holyrood minister stated that such incidents could be investigated by police, the threshold for criminality remains high, with actions needing to be deemed threatening and abusive.

 

Supporters of the legislation, including First Minister Humza Yousaf, emphasize the importance of combating hatred in society and express confidence in police investigations to appropriately address instances of hate crime. The laws were developed following an independent review by Lord Bracadale, which recommended specific offenses related to stirring up hatred.

 

Despite assurances of safeguards for free speech, concerns persist among critics, including prominent figures like JK Rowling and Elon Musk, who argue that the legislation could stifle open discourse. Some groups fear that the vague nature of the laws and the potential for malicious reporting could lead to an abuse of the system and the targeting of individuals for political purposes.

 

Police Scotland has pledged to investigate every hate complaint it receives, but there are calls for greater clarity and transparency surrounding the enforcement of the new laws. The Scottish Conservatives have advocated for the repeal of the act, suggesting that resources would be better directed toward frontline policing efforts.

 

Amidst the controversy, proponents of the legislation stress the importance of creating safer communities free from hatred and prejudice. They assert that protections for freedom of expression are embedded in the legislation and that the new offenses have a higher threshold for criminality compared to existing laws targeting racial hatred.

 

As Scotland grapples with the implementation of these new hate crime laws, the balance between protecting vulnerable groups and upholding principles of free speech remains a subject of intense scrutiny and debate.

 

 

02.04.24

Source

 

[retarius]

More lunacy. Making an insult into a crime. Progressive policies in action. 

[JonnyF]

Scotland rapidly becoming the most censorious, authoritarian country in the West. At least they picked the right date to implement the new laws.

 

I wonder if Humza Yousaf will be called up on this for his hateful speech about having too many white people in Scotland? Can you imagine standing up in Thailand's parliament and complaining about all the SE Asians in Thailand? 😄

 

 

Don't feed the hate monster Humza.  😄

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

What is contentious about this?

[Wobblybob]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

What is contentious about this?

Do you think that Humza Yousafs "white" speech was racist in any way? 

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Do you think that Humza Yousafs "white" speech was racist in any way? 

 

If taken in isolation rather than in the context of the full speech then you could be forgiven for making such an incorrect assumption.

 

If cheap, tawdry point scoring is your intention, however, I don't think you should be forgiven for selective quoting.

 

Humza Yousaf's speech in context after Elon Musk 'racist' allegations

[JonnyF]

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

What is contentious about this?

 

 

There are many problems with it. The 2 main ones I see are...

 

1.  Will it be applied equally? We've seen recently protesters in London chanting for Jihad and the elimination of Israel. Apparently that isn't hateful, but a joke using the LGBT flag on Twitter is. So who decides what is hateful and what is not? It's too broad a term. Will calling a biological male wearing a dress a man be hate speech? 

 

2.   This can easily be used to silence critics. Legitimate criticism is not hate, but this bill will easily allow critics to be silenced by throwing the "hate" label at them, when they might be voicing a genuine concern about something which is backed by facts. 

 

Based on the criteria, Yousaf himself should be prosecuted following his speech about white people that I posted above. But he won't be, because his "hate" was towards white people. Say something similar about black people and you'll be in the dock.  

 

It is deeply authoritarian and infringes on free speech. Disliking something should not be an offense. This will be used as a political tool to silence critics.

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/22/scotlands-hate-crime-act-is-an-authoritarian-monstrosity/

[JonnyF]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

If taken in isolation rather than in the context of the full speech then you could be forgiven for making such an incorrect assumption.

 

If cheap, tawdry point scoring is your intention, however, I don't think you should be forgiven for selective quoting.

 

Humza Yousaf's speech in context after Elon Musk 'racist' allegations

 

If a white man made a similar speech about black people you wouldn't be talking about context. You'd call it out for what it is. 

 

Which kind of proves the point that the law will be applied selectively to silence whoever "needs to be" silenced.  

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

If a white man made a similar speech about black people you wouldn't be talking about context. You'd call it out for what it is. 

 

Which kind of proves the point that the law will be applied selectively to silence whoever "needs to be" silenced.  

 

So which is it - you took the quote out of context to score cheap, tawdry points, or you simply didn't bother to to understand the context of his speech? 

[Wobblybob]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If taken in isolation rather than in the context of the full speech then you could be forgiven for making such an incorrect assumption.

 

If cheap, tawdry point scoring is your intention, however, I don't think you should be forgiven for selective quoting.

 

Humza Yousaf's speech in context after Elon Musk 'racist' allegations

I don't do cheap tawdry point scoring nor am I oblivious to racist comments made by Scotlands FM. We at the moment live in a predominantly white country and Yousaf seems that there are still white positions being held by white citizens and he's not happy with that. 

But luckily the SNP will soon be a spent force and so is Yousaf, no place in politics for racist ministers!

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, Wobblybob said:

I don't do cheap tawdry point scoring nor am I oblivious to racist comments made by Scotlands FM. We at the moment live in a predominantly white country and Yousaf seems that there are still white positions being held by white citizens and he's not happy with that. 

But luckily the SNP will soon be a spent force and so is Yousaf, no place in politics for racist ministers!

 

You state that you don't do cheap point scoring yet you refuse to put his words in the context of which they were said, and you insist that your interpretation is the correct one? Ok...

[Wobblybob]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

You state that you don't do cheap point scoring yet you refuse to put his words in the context of which they were said, and you insist that your interpretation is the correct one? Ok...

Is it the same context as carrying a Swastika used by the Met Police is not offensive, would you like to explain perhaps your context of how calling white people out for being in a white!

[RuamRudy]

Just now, Wobblybob said:

Is it the same context as carrying a Swastika used by the Met Police is not offensive, would you like to explain perhaps your context of how calling white people out for being in a white!

No, it's not. Did you read the article to which I linked? Make you should start there.

[Wobblybob]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

No, it's not. Did you read the article to which I linked? Make you should start there.

We'll take that as a I cannot answer it, you made the statement that Yousaf speech wasn't racist, it seems you are outnumbered here with your cheap tawdry point scoring. 

[johnnybangkok]

17 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

We'll take that as a I cannot answer it, you made the statement that Yousaf speech wasn't racist, it seems you are outnumbered here with your cheap tawdry point scoring. 

He's not outnumbered as I also agree that context is important and 45 seconds of a speach shouldn't determine the whole speach. Humza Yousaf was pointing out the extraodinary amount of white people holding very senior roles in Scotland BUT Scotland IS 95% white (as opposed to 80% in England) so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that the vast majority of senior jobs would be filled by white people BUT to have quite so many as he pointed out could also be construed as instutional racism. It's hard to say as you would also need to know how many non-whites applied for these jobs and whether ethnicity played a part in the decision making process. I agree with RuamRudy though that those with an agenda (like JonnyF and perhaps yourself) are trying to spin that as racist against whites when the simple answer is Yousaf was just stating facts in an effort to highlight possible racism issues that were happening during the time of George Floyd. As he said 'it is not enough to not be racist....... people, must be anti-racist".     

 

As for the new law, I think it's ill-thought out and open to misinterpretation. It was made with good intentions (who doesn't want less hate speach), but the devil is in the detail and the detail is far too ambiguous and too easily open for abuse. Let's see how it unfolds though.  

[JonnyF]

58 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So which is it - you took the quote out of context to score cheap, tawdry points, or you simply didn't bother to to understand the context of his speech? 

 

Context?

 

He is living in a country that is 95.4% white but doesn't like the fact that the majority of people in power are white. There's some context for you. 

 

It's like a white man living in Nigeria and complaining there are too many black people in power. Or too many Japanese people in power in Japan. 

[Wobblybob]

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

He's not outnumbered as I also agree that context is important and 45 seconds of a speach shouldn't determine the whole speach. Humza Yousaf was pointing out the extraodinary amount of white people holding very senior roles in Scotland BUT Scotland IS 95% white (as opposed to 80% in England) so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that the vast majority of senior jobs would be filled by white people BUT to have quite so many as he pointed out could also be construed as instutional racism. It's hard to say as you would also need to know how many non-whites applied for these jobs and whether ethnicity played a part in the decision making process. I agree with RuamRudy though that those with an agenda (like JonnyF and perhaps yourself) are trying to spin that as racist against whites when the simple answer is Yousaf was just stating facts in an effort to highlight possible racism issues that were happening during the time of George Floyd. As he said 'it is not enough to not be racist....... people, must be anti-racist".     

 

As for the new law, I think it's ill-thought out and open to misinterpretation. It was made with good intentions (who doesn't want less hate speach), but the devil is in the detail and the detail is far too ambiguous and too easily open for abuse. Let's see how it unfolds though.  

Humza stating facts about white people holding white peoples jobs in a white country while he himself is privileged muslim holds the top job in Scotland is very bizarre and uncalled for at the very least. But I suspect Yousaf will not hold his position for much longer, he is not up to the job and even the Scots are getting sick of him (last time I looked the SNP were down in the polls). But heyho he could be remembered as the man that finally destroyed the SNP, so he's not all bad then.

 

[transam]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Scotland rapidly becoming the most censorious, authoritarian country in the West. At least they picked the right date to implement the new laws.

 

I wonder if Humza Yousaf will be called up on this for his hateful speech about having too many white people in Scotland? Can you imagine standing up in Thailand's parliament and complaining about all the SE Asians in Thailand? 😄

 

 

Don't feed the hate monster Humza.  😄

 

 

 

Humza should have been prosecuted for that, a 100% racist rant..........🤨

 

I wonder what the Scottish SNP voters & RR thought of it..........?   🤨

[farangkinok]

 

[JonnyF]

29 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

Now in Scotland you can't say take that tea towel off your head your not Palestinian anymore, even after injecting your heroin 🤔

 

Careful now. 

 

Don't think that humour will make you exempt from this law. Jokes are no longer allowed in Yousef's brave new world. Jokes are zee vork of zee "hate monster" and zey vill no longer be tolerated.

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Wobblybob said:

We'll take that as a I cannot answer it, you made the statement that Yousaf speech wasn't racist, it seems you are outnumbered here with your cheap tawdry point scoring. 

 

What complete and utter guff you have written here. I gave a link which clearly puts his comments in context but you either fail to understand the subtlety or it doesn't fit your agenda. Are you that which you accuse others of?

 

If you want to highlight blatant racism, look to the leader of the Tory party's Scottish branch. 

[Drumbuie]

Call me naive but even I was surprised by the level of anti-Scots prejudice on here.

Can I just quote Mike Small in "Bella Caledonia" today - "Embarrassingly for the narrative that’s been built-up, age, disability and transgender identity have been added along with religious grounds and sexual orientation, bringing Scotland into line with *checks notes* England which have had religion and sexual orientation as crimes down south since 2006 and 2008 respectively".

So wheesht, you lot. Just wheesht.

 

[Purdey]

I read the article and it seems reasoned and factual. I think racism has been getting a free ride for too long. I don't know what the percentage of black people is in Scotland but having a voice in parliament would have been helpful to race relations. As for the law, it was passed legally by a majority of MSPs and is going to be no better or worse than the people who uphold it. I agree with many here that the definition of hate needs to be precise for the law to make sense. 

[RuamRudy]

If there is any doubt about what a racist political leader in Scotland looks like, here is one for you all to be outraged about.

 

 

[Wobblybob]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

What complete and utter guff you have written here. I gave a link which clearly puts his comments in context but you either fail to understand the subtlety or it doesn't fit your agenda. Are you that which you accuse others of?

 

If you want to highlight blatant racism, look to the leader of the Tory party's Scottish branch. 

Maybe Scotland should start voting for white leaders that will represent white Scots, yer ken.

[Drumbuie]

There is an absolute tsunami of misinformation at the moment in the UK media, especially in the mainstream which is, of course, majority extreme right wing, and it's important to remember that when this is aimed at Scotland, it's because according to some recent polls, there is actually a danger that the SNP could equal or even outnumber the Tories in Westminster after the next election.

So the misinformation machine in Tufton Street has gone into overdrive and all its apparatchiks like Andrew Neil are
frothing away at maximum speed.

Always ask yourself, cui bono? Who benefits? And you can rest assured, it's not the ordinary people (who in Scotland have done increasingly better than their English counterparts since the SNP took over in 2007).
 

[JackGats]

Antifeminism, anti-immigration, anti-childtranny ... = hate crime.

[Drumbuie]

And another Bella Caledonia quote.

"As former *Conservative* MSP Adam Tomkins, writes in the Herald: “Under the Hate Crime Act, the threshold of criminal liability is not that a victim feels offended (a subjective test), but that a reasonable person would consider the perpetrator’s action or speech to be threatening or abusive (an objective test).”

He continues: “Asserting that sex is a biological fact or that it is not changed just by virtue of the gender by which someone chooses to identify is not and never can be a hate crime under this legislation.”

* My emphasis. For the hard of reading.

[transam]

7 minutes ago, Drumbuie said:

There is an absolute tsunami of misinformation at the moment in the UK media, especially in the mainstream which is, of course, majority extreme right wing, and it's important to remember that when this is aimed at Scotland, it's because according to some recent polls, there is actually a danger that the SNP could equal or even outnumber the Tories in Westminster after the next election.

So the misinformation machine in Tufton Street has gone into overdrive and all its apparatchiks like Andrew Neil are
frothing away at maximum speed.

Always ask yourself, cui bono? Who benefits? And you can rest assured, it's not the ordinary people (who in Scotland have done increasingly better than their English counterparts since the SNP took over in 2007).
 

Yeeeh, riiiiiiiiiiight....Strange the EU doesn't want to know about the dodgy SNP and it's leader, that wants all brownish skinned people in control.............😂

[NoDisplayName]

6 hours ago, retarius said:

More lunacy. Making an insult into a crime. Progressive policies in action. 

 

Not exactly.  Where's the insult?

 

Calling a man a man is simply stating a fact.