Scotlands new Hate speech/crime bill.

[blueinsa]

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

 

[blueinsa]

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.

Me neither and couldn't actually give a flying fig about it in reality as im certain it will not change my life one little bit.

That doesnt mean its not shit legislation though but time and cases brought will be the judge of that.

Lets have a nationalist sing song say I....

 

[Coatigan]

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.

Fair points there, agree with all that, if that is what the implications turn out to be. There have been a large number of things the Scottish government did i didn't agree with. And many i did. Will make up my mind with the specifics, but this thread up till now has very much been on face value principle. Broadly the PC gone mad vs overly woke-sensitive mentality clash.



And that in itself is probably a negative side effect of the bill if you ask me, because it brings out bottled up feelings to the surface that perhaps need left where they are.

 

[Ban-jani]

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.

Fair response.

Ive no doubt I’m not going to be arrested for carrying a Bible in Edinburgh if I visit and I’ve no doubt common sense will prevail but when you take a step in this direction, when we’ve already got laws in place to protect victims (they just need enforcing more), it opens it up to misuse by a future government.

It’s how individual situations are interpreted.

Let’s take the Scottish Nazi dog guy, which happened obviously even before this bill. Now it turns out he really was a dick head, appeared on stage at a UKIP event, after they turned for the worse after Farage left.

But the incident itself was clearly a joke, a bad one but a joke, he faced criminal charges for it.

Are stand up comedians at the Edinburgh Fringe going to be held to the same standards for their crass jokes?

It’s where you draw the line and when you put it into law it’s always based on interpretations and the hope a leader in the future doesn’t abuse the powers.

I’m against it, we’re ok punishing discriminatory harassment and abuse now.

 

[Ban-jani]

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.

The take is from the BBC and the main article on it to be fair but it is in the bill, the carrying of someone else’s publications will count under this new legislation.

It’s not hyperbole.

I highly doubt your last line, the religious institutions look after each other a lot these days. The Head Rabbi, Archbishop of Canterbury and leading UK Imam come to each other’s aid when needed, as they did on the Labour antisemitism case.

Individuals at ground level may not but generally speaking I don’t think Christians want to ban Islam.

 

[BobKowalski]

Fair points there, agree with all that, if that is what the implications turn out to be. There have been a large number of things the Scottish government did i didn't agree with. And many i did. Will make up my mind with the specifics, but this thread up till now has very much been on face value principle. Broadly the PC gone mad vs overly woke-sensitive mentality clash.



And that in itself is probably a negative side effect of the bill if you ask me, because it brings out bottled up feelings to the surface that perhaps need left where they are.

All this and more was said about the Sex Discrimination Act, Racial Discrimination Act, in fact any Act where legal protections are brought in for a group or class of people.

Increase Minimum Wage. Unemployment will rise.
Reduce hours in the working week. Increase costs on Business.
Paternity Leave for fathers. Ditto.
Legalising homosexuality. All our kids will be gay.
Gay Marriage. What next? The right to marry your dog?

Every time. Without fail.

 

[Ban-jani]

All this and more was said about the Sex Discrimination Act, Racial Discrimination Act, in fact any Act where legal protections are brought in for a group or class of people.

Increase Minimum Wage. Unemployment will rise.
Reduce hours in the working week. Increase costs on Business.
Paternity Leave for fathers. Ditto.
Legalising homosexuality. All our kids will be gay.
Gay Marriage. What next? The right to marry your dog?

Every time. Without fail.

You’re not wrong but eventually there will be legislation that will go too far and are you going to be willing to draw the line?

When even your own supporters are criticising the legislation, you know it’s bad.

 

[Coatigan]

Fair response.

Ive no doubt I’m not going to be arrested for carrying a Bible in Edinburgh if I visit and I’ve no doubt common sense will prevail but when you take a step in this direction, when we’ve already got laws in place to protect victims (they just need enforcing more), it opens it up to misuse by a future government.

It’s how individual situations are interpreted.

Let’s take the Scottish Nazi dog guy, which happened obviously even before this bill. Now it turns out he really was a dick head, appeared on stage at a UKIP event, after they turned for the worse after Farage left.

But the incident itself was clearly a joke, a bad one but a joke, he faced criminal charges for it.

Are stand up comedians at the Edinburgh Fringe going to be held to the same standards for their crass jokes?

It’s where you draw the line and when you put it into law it’s always based on interpretations and the hope a leader in the future doesn’t abuse the powers.

I’m against it, we’re ok punishing discriminatory harassment and abuse now.

Agree. I guess where we perhaps don't agree as much is the extremity you imagine. I can't see that at this point. But if it goes in that direction, will be right behind you.

Worth pointing out these laws in place today were once a step in a direction too, and met with the same types of response and extreme expectations.

 

[Coatigan]

All this and more was said about the Sex Discrimination Act, Racial Discrimination Act, in fact any Act where legal protections are brought in for a group or class of people.

Increase Minimum Wage. Unemployment will rise.
Reduce hours in the working week. Increase costs on Business.
Paternity Leave for fathers. Ditto.
Legalising homosexuality. All our kids will be gay.
Gay Marriage. What next? The right to marry your dog?

Every time. Without fail.

Just said as much, before reading this response. And that is something worth reminding ourselves of, to put 'the line' we draw in perspective.

 

[Ban-jani]

Agree. I guess where we perhaps don't agree as much is the extremity you imagine. I can't see that at this point. But if it goes in that direction, will be right behind you.

Worth pointing out these laws in place today were once a step in a direction too, and met with the same types of response and extreme expectations.

First paragraph that’s true, I just feel uneasy about putting in legislation that can be abused by an unreasonable leadership in future.

2nd paragraph that’s definitely true and there were criticisms at the time but there is a line out there somewhere and we need to make sure we don’t cross it.

If I racially abuse you and harass you, that’s a crime as it stands and should be, carrying a book of whatever sort, even Mein Kampf, shouldn’t be illegal, that’s over the line.