Scottish Anti Speech Law

[Brickjectivity]

Humza Yousaf's 'chilling' hate crime to continue as MSPs vote against axing it

The Scottish Tories urged fellow MSPs to call for the hate crime act to be axed as it has transformed Scotland into 'a place of sinister police billboards instructing people to snitch on those who hurt their feelings, where contentious discussions and disagreements in your home can result in a...

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk

There is some new law in Scotland where if you report anyone saying something hurtful that the police have to investigate your accusation. In particular if you are rumored to say anything against a religion you don't like you can get arrested, or if you are rumored to criticize someone and say something about their race or religion or sexual relations or identity then you can just get tossed in a pickup van. Its happening, and now only after a month there the MP's are starting to rethink it.

 

[Secret Chief]

A bit more nuanced than the Daily Express:

- Scotland’s new hate crime law: what does it cover and why is it controversial?

 

[The Hammer]

A bit more nuanced than the Daily Express:

- Scotland’s new hate crime law: what does it cover and why is it controversial?

Idk. This doesn't sound terrible.

 

[Secret Chief]

Idk. This doesn't sound terrible.

Nor me. If the Express or Mail is frothing at the mouth over something I'm generally in favour of it.

 

[Altfish]

Nor me. If the Express or Mail is frothing at the mouth over something I'm generally in favour of it.

Yes, if those papers don't like it, I probably will.

 

[icehorse]

A bit more nuanced than the Daily Express:

- Scotland’s new hate crime law: what does it cover and why is it controversial?

@Altfish @The Hammer

Okay so you didn't like the link in the OP. But you also aren't worried by what the link @Secret Chief provided said?

You think citizens ought to be able to rat each other out for "stirring up hatred"? What would constitute "stirring up hatred"?

For example, I think Islam is a misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, theocratic, totalitarian ideology. Am I stirring up hatred? If I was in Scotland, should I be arrested for saying that?

 

[Altfish]

@Altfish @The Hammer

Okay so you didn't like the link in the OP. But you also aren't worried by what the link @Secret Chief provided said?

You think citizens ought to be able to rat each other out for "stirring up hatred"? What would constitute "stirring up hatred"?

For example, I think Islam is a misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, theocratic, totalitarian ideology. Am I stirring up hatred? If I was in Scotland, should I be arrested for saying that?

The main thrust of the legislation is ... "It is intended to consolidate existing hate crime laws, but also creates a new offence of “threatening or abusive behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred” on the grounds of age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics."
I'd say your comments were outside the remit of the legislation in most cases BUT I suppose if you ran into a mosque with a loudhailer and said it, then you would be in trouble.

I think the legislation is unnecessary but only time will tell how the courts and police approach it.
J K Rowling pushed the boundaries and she seems to have been ignored. It'll be interesting at a Celtic Rangers match.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks for the extra article. Very good.

A high threshold for prosecution doesn't solve it to me, because in the meantime anybody can be rounded up and questioned. The police, upon arresting a person, won't be able to make a charge at that time, either; which complicates it. They have to take the accused person in if they are accused of doing something which might (not did) but might stir up hatred. For example questioning the policies of the party in power might do that. While they're being questioned the police can find new charges to make. All it takes is an anonymous phone call to get someone arrested. There need be no evidence.

(I wasn't sure if EU Politics was the right section, but it seemed like it. Its that geopolitical area.)

 

[icehorse]

Thanks for the extra article. Very good.

A high threshold for prosecution doesn't solve it to me, because in the meantime anybody can be rounded up and questioned. The police, upon arresting a person, won't be able to make a charge at that time, either; which complicates it. They have to take the accused person in if they are accused of doing something which might (not did) but might stir up hatred. For example questioning the policies of the party in power might do that. While they're being questioned the police can find new charges to make. All it takes is an anonymous phone call to get someone arrested. There need be no evidence.

(I wasn't sure if EU Politics was the right section, but it seemed like it. Its that geopolitical area.)

The bolded sentence is one of several major concerns.

This law is soooooo subjective, that it could easily be used in partisan politics.

 

[icehorse]

I'd say your comments were outside the remit of the legislation in most cases BUT I suppose if you ran into a mosque with a loudhailer and said it, then you would be in trouble.

I think the legislation is unnecessary but only time will tell how the courts and police approach it.
J K Rowling pushed the boundaries and she seems to have been ignored. It'll be interesting at a Celtic Rangers match.

And that's a crucial problem. The fact that what I said MIGHT be okay or might not. That's waaaay too subjective.

 

[Altfish]

And that's a crucial problem. The fact that what I said MIGHT be okay or might not. That's waaaay too subjective.

But is it any different from much law, it is always open to interpretation.
A simple example ... when does driving with undue care and attention become dangerous driving?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The bolded sentence is one of several major concerns.

This law is soooooo subjective, that it could easily be used in partisan politics.

At least from this side of the Atlantic it sounds frightening. I don't understand why anyone would support such all powerful policing. We have our own police problems, and if something like this were made legal here some localities would be absolutely unlivable.

 

[icehorse]

But is it any different from much law, it is always open to interpretation.
A simple example ... when does driving with undue care and attention become dangerous driving?

IMO we must place free speech above all other rights and privileges. It is the last place to entertain political subjectivity.

Another aspect to consider is that laws like this (similar laws are being enacted in Canada and the UK), are designed to have a chilling affect on speech critical of whoever is in power. And even if someone gets arrested and is then cleared of charges, a common saying in situations like this is:

"The process is the punishment".

As you can imagine, just getting arrested, even if it leads to nothing, is an awful experience.

 

[Yerda]

It also includes a crime of stirring up hatred based on race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins. This was already illegal in Scotland, England and Wales under the Public Order Act 1986 but, in an attempt to streamline the criminal law in Scotland, is now part of the Hate Crime Act.

...

Supporters of the new law point out that it contains safeguards designed to protect freedom of speech.

For example, it states that it is a defence for a person charged with stirring up hatred to show that their actions were "reasonable".

It also references the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes protection for "ideas that offend, shock or disturb".

Finally, the law also contains a caveat that behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes discussion or criticism of matters relating to - age, disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity, variations in sex characteristics.

What is Scotland’s Hate Crime law and how does it work?

Scotland's new hate crime law came into force on 1 April.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Yerda]

I'm still not sure what to make of this. There seems to be modern hate speech legislation everywhere in the world so I think we should have modern law covering it. I'm a bit uneasy about the "intent" part. Not being a legal scholar and being very suspicious of culture war hysterics I'd like to see a bit more legal discourse for the common dummy before I get all hot and bothered.

 

[Twilight Hue]

At least from this side of the Atlantic it sounds frightening. I don't understand why anyone would support such all powerful policing. We have our own police problems, and if something like this were made legal here some localities would be absolutely unlivable.

Especially in a room full of drunken Scotts!

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm still not sure what to make of this. There seems to be modern hate speech legislation everywhere in the world so I think we should have modern law covering it. I'm a bit uneasy about the "intent" part. Not being a legal scholar and being very suspicious of culture war hysterics I'd like to see a bit more legal discourse for the common dummy before I get all hot and bothered.

The example I've seen which is worrisome is this 74 year woman whose neighbor reported her for allegedly some hate speech. She was picked up by police, and they apologized that they could neither tell her what the charge was nor could they question her in her home. They had to take her in. Let me see if I can find the article....

Fears the SNP's hate crime law is being exploited after pensioner arrested

Morag McDougall Brown was left traumatised after being taken to Kilmarnock police station for questioning after she was falsely accused of directing an ableist slur at a nightmare neighbour who was attacking her rose bush

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk

There.

 

[icehorse]

In the UK for the last several years (not sure how many), a thing called a "non-crime hate incident" has existed. A person can file one of these NCHIs against another person with no evidence at all required, and the person being accused has no idea that the NCHI has been filed against them, unless the police show up - which apparently is a subjective call by the police.

BUT - the NCHI goes on the person's permanent record regardless and perspective employers can find out.

I think that laws like this are intended to have a "chilling effect" on critical speech. To date, UK police have recorded more than 200,000 NCHIs - so this is not some rare event.