Scotlands new Hate speech/crime bill.

[joe123]

I literally did on page one Bob, either I’m now on mute or you’re purposefully ignorant.

In fairness all I can see there is a quote of someone's reservations about it. I haven't myself seen or read much about it tbh - not been much of a story down here that I can discern. A quick scan then and the Spectator were suggesting carrying a bible is now a criminal offence, so based on that, am guessing its a bit of a storm in a teacup?

 

[Ban-jani]

I don't get the outrage.

As I have no intention of committing crime based on prejudice (or any for that matter, but for the sake of the context of this thread), I don't have a problem with it. Nor do I feel it in any way impacts freedom of speech.

It deals with behaviour that is BOTH criminal and prejudicial. And from what i can see what is already covered in the equality act.

Admittedly haven't read all the detail, and i could yet change my mind once clearer on the specifics. But i doubt the knee jerk hysteria lot have read any more, if any, of it.

It has been in the pipeline for years, so i find it laughable that it would have anything to do with salmond.



As an aside, (i really wanted to avoid linking the two, but it is relevant) with us leaving the EU and with that all the rights protected by default, with the absence of a constitution in the UK, and the Tories pledge to abolish the human rights bill, I can only take it as a positive layer, if not as extensive.

The bit I object to the most is the carrying of a document that contains hate speech now makes you guilty.

This could include a novel, which is utterly ridiculous and is a major encroachment on personal freedom.

Racist abuse and discriminatory harassment is already a crime in the UK, why is this needed?

I disagree with the “I have no intention of committing the crime...” argument, you should give free speech to your most hated enemy if you support it.

 

[Ban-jani]

It' the usual hateful few "outraged" at this bill. Britain's version of the US gun lobby nutters.

Shock horror some of the left have no issue handing over personal liberty in favour of not being offended.

 

[Ban-jani]

In fairness all I can see there is a quote of someone's reservations about it. I haven't myself seen or read much about it tbh - not been much of a story down here that I can discern. A quick scan then and the Spectator were suggesting carrying a bible is now a criminal offence, so based on that, am guessing its a bit of a storm in a teacup?

In possession of documents is included in the bill, which can be a book.

Every right minded individual should oppose this.

 

[BobKowalski]

Will the singing of Flower of Scotland now be banned as hate speech?

Personally i hope not as it would be frankly a fucking ridiculous thing to do even with its clear anti English sentiment but if not, why not and it begs the question who will decide what falls under this legislation and will it be biased in its application?

We have laws in this country that means hate speech and racism are already tackled and i can see this being a huge can or worms that is binned off as fast as it was brought in because it will be unmanageable and it will be seen as an attack on the freedom of speech.

I doubt it. But then I didn’t know the Bill existed until I saw this thread and I have no idea what the Bill says, it‘s remit, or application, so until I do I’ll refrain from comment.

 

[Fame Monster]

I don't get the outrage.

As I have no intention of committing crime based on prejudice (or any for that matter, but for the sake of the context of this thread), I don't have a problem with it. Nor do I feel it in any way impacts freedom of speech.

It deals with behaviour that is BOTH criminal and prejudicial. And from what i can see what is already covered in the equality act.

Admittedly haven't read all the detail, and i could yet change my mind once clearer on the specifics. But i doubt the knee jerk hysteria lot have read any more, if any, of it.

It has been in the pipeline for years, so i find it laughable that it would have anything to do with salmond.



As an aside, (i really wanted to avoid linking the two, but it is relevant) with us leaving the EU and with that all the rights protected by default, with the absence of a constitution in the UK, and the Tories pledge to abolish the human rights bill, I can only take it as a positive layer, if not as extensive.

Whether you intend to 'stir up hatred' or not is irrelevant to most of the provisions.

The test now is whether by sending abusive material, you are likely to stir up hatred against anybody because of their race, religion, sex, and even age.

So when Bernardo posted that supposed lookalike of Mendy, we had plenty of people agreeing and disagreeing that it was racially insulting but pretty much everyone agreed that he didn't mean it to be given that he's best mates with Mendy. In Scotland, that won't be relevant. He'll be looking at a maximum of 7 years in prison for a speech crime.

What's more outrageous is that even the possession of that material will now be deemed a crime.

This is what our brave new world looks like and the fact that you have dyed-in-the-wool SNP supporters criticising St Nicola should tell you this is a pretty nasty piece of legislation.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

We can’t call @Magicpole a jock ****?

I understand that anything uttered with a marginally 'English' accent carries a mandatory jail sentence. So those Cockerney w***ers with 'Orwhite mite' will have a few days at Wee Jimmy's pleasure! Is Barlinnie still in use! Or did they close after Big Dunc did his time?

 

[joe123]

In possession of documents is included in the bill, which can be a book.

Every right minded individual should oppose this.

I'll need to read up on it, but I suppose it will be a case of how the law is applied. You'd assume common sense would be applied, but i guess even that's subjective.

 

[BobKowalski]

I literally did on page one Bob, either I’m now on mute or you’re purposefully ignorant.

You are not on mute, I only have one person on mute for posting endless and annoying gifs.

Quoting four lines of someone else’s take on this Bill doesn’t an analysis make. Especially when they use the words ‘could’ make rather than ‘it does’ make.

Hyperbole aside, I figured I would find out something about the Bill first before weighing in. It is also likely the Bill will be amended to take into account any legitimate concerns, thus allowing people carrying a bible to remain free. That said if the Bill made carrying the Quran an offence or a hate crime then the bible carriers would be surprisingly quiet.

 

[Coatigan]

The bit I object to the most is the carrying of a document that contains hate speech now makes you guilty.

This could include a novel, which is utterly ridiculous and is a major encroachment on personal freedom.

Racist abuse and discriminatory harassment is already a crime in the UK, why is this needed?

I disagree with the “I have no intention of committing the crime...” argument, you should give free speech to your most hated enemy if you support it.

I don't think you and I will disagree on free speech, or crime, I fully agree with you, free speech good, crime bad.

I also do agree, there are laws already, and i personally did not really see a need to go further. But there are plenty that did and do.

Perhaps there IS an element od posturing with it by the scottish government (bear in mind it isn't just the snp that passed it, as they have bo majority), of making a point of going an extra step, that perhaps isn't as meaningful as what is already in place.

Can hardly argue with the message however. At a time when hate crime is on a rise across the UK, and we are fed the narrative it is ok to pass judgement on anyone, i think it is a well intended move, and have no issue with the principle at all.


Now, whether the detail is consistent with that, or ill-judged and daft, will come out in the wash. I am yet to see what is so unreaonable in it, but as i say, will happily criticize it when i do. Maybe, it Does get abandoned or paired down or u-turned, wouldn't be the first time with this government.

But to brand it an attack of freedom of speech based on nothing really, too soon for me.

Regarding the specific interpretation you mention, i don't see it as that, it is primarily to stop sharing material that can incite hate, I hink there will be a degree of sense and reasoning in that. I can't see the situations people imagine of someone being busted on a buss for reading harry potter or listening to dr.dre.

It may well raise questions, like flower of scotland, or god save the queen in full, i do see that. Again, havnt seen enough to argue that one way or the other, i'd hope there is enough sense and clarity to be able to determine rights and wrongs without falling between the cracks. Again, issue with implementation rather than the principle.

As for criticism, it is specifically excluded from the bill from what i've seen, so we can all pile on and rant at whatever we want to, myself included.

Time will tell, and more detail as it becomes more widely digested.