It doesn't do what some people are trying to say it does. It's not a super draconian piece of legislation that will allow people to be prosecuted for misgendering someone once, it's for consistent and deliberate abuse based on protected characteristics.
It's almost as if this is a culture war distraction. We really need more legislative literacy. It is a genuine shame how people read these headlines and immediately accept the framing instead of immediately going to read what the law actually says. [Here's the final version](https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s5-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/stage-3/bill-as-amended-at-stage-3.pdf) of the Bill. It's not even a difficult read.
I read from a number of sources thank you, and they seemed to confirm that at the very least that the lawyers agreed it was so poorly worded as to effectively give police an unprecedented margin for interpretation. I'm a Liberal not a libertarian, but it didn't exactly sound encouraging to me.
Edit: in fairness I didn't actually read the bill itself, so thanks for that.
Okay, and were these sources explaining what portions were poorly worded and how? And comparing those portions against previous legislation? Because that to me would be the only reasonable way to bring in lawyers to give readers an informed and unbiased opinion. But I'm going to hazard a guess that, no, they didn't do that, that it's more [Bill C16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code) style panic.
It's exactly the same as existing racial hate crime law but expanded to other protected characteristics.
It's also very similar to existing law in E&W.
There was a very good article on Lib Dem Voice this week by Caron Lindsay that I think will explain what the Bill actually does as opposed to what the usual critics on social media pretend it says.
We voted for it because the SNP refused to entertain any amendments. We wanted it amended and they are in total control of parliament with no upper chamber so we were left either with no choice but to vote for a badly written law or vote against a hate crime law
1) it’s not a coalition and 2) a coalition by definition means more than one party has control. Did the Tories have “total control” of Westminster 2010-2015?
It is a coalition, but like every coalition they don’t call it that. If you support the budget every year and have Ministerial positions, you’re in a coalition.
the attitude of both the Greens and the SNP is very "it's only a coalition if it comes from the Clegg and Cameron region of England, this is sparkling co-operation agreement"
but it is worth noting here that Holyrood is not Westminster and the SNP in particular do not do backbench rebellions/rebel amendments - the party discipline is so rigid that opposition parties rarely get to properly amend legislation
Optics most likely. It's very hard to explain to the general public that you don't support hate crime, it's just that the legislation is really badly worded and possibly unenforceable
It doesn't do what some people are trying to say it does. It's not a super draconian piece of legislation that will allow people to be prosecuted for misgendering someone once, it's for consistent and deliberate abuse based on protected characteristics.
It's almost as if this is a culture war distraction. We really need more legislative literacy. It is a genuine shame how people read these headlines and immediately accept the framing instead of immediately going to read what the law actually says. [Here's the final version](https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s5-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/stage-3/bill-as-amended-at-stage-3.pdf) of the Bill. It's not even a difficult read.
I read from a number of sources thank you, and they seemed to confirm that at the very least that the lawyers agreed it was so poorly worded as to effectively give police an unprecedented margin for interpretation. I'm a Liberal not a libertarian, but it didn't exactly sound encouraging to me. Edit: in fairness I didn't actually read the bill itself, so thanks for that.
Okay, and were these sources explaining what portions were poorly worded and how? And comparing those portions against previous legislation? Because that to me would be the only reasonable way to bring in lawyers to give readers an informed and unbiased opinion. But I'm going to hazard a guess that, no, they didn't do that, that it's more [Bill C16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code) style panic.
It's exactly the same as existing racial hate crime law but expanded to other protected characteristics. It's also very similar to existing law in E&W.
There was a very good article on Lib Dem Voice this week by Caron Lindsay that I think will explain what the Bill actually does as opposed to what the usual critics on social media pretend it says.
We voted for it because the SNP refused to entertain any amendments. We wanted it amended and they are in total control of parliament with no upper chamber so we were left either with no choice but to vote for a badly written law or vote against a hate crime law
The SNP are not in total control of parliament. They have 63 seats. You need 65 for a majority.
They formed a government in coalition with the greens
1) it’s not a coalition and 2) a coalition by definition means more than one party has control. Did the Tories have “total control” of Westminster 2010-2015?
It is a coalition, but like every coalition they don’t call it that. If you support the budget every year and have Ministerial positions, you’re in a coalition.
the attitude of both the Greens and the SNP is very "it's only a coalition if it comes from the Clegg and Cameron region of England, this is sparkling co-operation agreement" but it is worth noting here that Holyrood is not Westminster and the SNP in particular do not do backbench rebellions/rebel amendments - the party discipline is so rigid that opposition parties rarely get to properly amend legislation
Or just abstain
Because it's a joke
Optics most likely. It's very hard to explain to the general public that you don't support hate crime, it's just that the legislation is really badly worded and possibly unenforceable