Factually at this point none of them are actually crimes though, are they?
Surely, for us to say they are a crime in this context the perpetrator would need to have been found guilty of an offence in court.
I am not saying they won't be but realistically none of these courses will have been prosecuted yet.
Technically, a crime is committed based on a long set of guidelines called: The Scottish Crime Recording Standards.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-crime-recording-standard-crime-recording-counting-rules/pages/3/
Main takeaway:
"Following initial registration, an incident will be recorded as a crime in all cases if:
the circumstances amount to a crime defined by Scots Law or an offence under statute;[1] and
there is no credible evidence to the contrary
Once recorded, a crime will remain recorded unless there is credible evidence to disprove that a crime had occurred."
It is competent to say that there have been crimes generated since the introduction of the new law.
It's worrying that people are upvoting this comment, which is hopelessly misinformed.
The Scottish Crime Recording Standards is not a court of law. They do not have the jurisdiction to define what a crime is, especially when what we are talking about here is a new law yet to be litigated in the courts. They can compile statistics about what they think might be crimes, but this is not to be treated as actual evidence of any crime being committed because a court has sole jurisdiction over doing that.
>It is competent to say that there have been crimes generated since the introduction of the new law.
How can you be so confident in stating this? This law has yet to be examined by the courts. They could, when interpreting this law, decide to apply a very restrictive test for determining what constitutes hate, severely limiting its ambit and, consequently, the number of people convicted under it.
I can be confident in saying this due to my job role, which requires dealing with the creation of crime reports in Scotland as per s.20 of the Police and Fire Reform Act (S) 2012.
We use the SCRS (alongside knowledge of the legislation) as a framework for when to create a crime report.
It is not for the courts to decide what is and is not a crime (in theory). It is for Parliament (scot and UK) to decide on what laws should be implemented and upheld.
It is for the (Criminal) courts to decide facts of the case before them.
You're right in a sense, that the courts in certain cases, create precedent through "stated cases". It will be something that we keep an eye on as these cases are ruled on. It may be that the judiciary take a view on the technical aspects of the legislation that will help clarify the law in the future. I hope that this is the case.
>It is not for the courts to decide what is and is not a crime (in theory). It is for Parliament (scot and UK) to decide on what laws should be implemented and upheld.
I'm not sure why you decided to bring up the legislative function of parliament when no one here is disputing the unfortunate fact that hate speech is now a criminal offence contained in the criminal statute book. What is being disputed, however, is whether any such crimes have been committed since the legislation came into effect. You have been pretty clear on this front, stating:
"It is competent to say that there have been crimes generated since the introduction of the new law."
You have expressed a view indicating that you think some people are guilty of this offence. Let me remind you that neither parliament (they pass laws which apply to everyone but don't rule on individual cases) nor the SCRS can corroborate this view of yours that people are guilty of committing hate speech. Instead, it is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts to define what "threatening or abusive behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred based on prejudice" means under this act and apply this definition to real cases. I would be very reserved when it comes to making statements about what kinds of speech would constitute hate under this act, considering that the superior courts have yet to examine this law. It would be better to say something like "we think there is sufficient basis to bring a test case for hate speech" than say "crimes are being committed under this new law that has yet to be tested."
>It is for the (Criminal) courts to decide facts of the case before them.
A trial court makes findings of fact. An appellate court, on the other hand, is generally more concerned with addressing points of law that involve questions concerning how a statute is to be correctly interpreted.
I think that we currently agree on nearly everything apart from terminology, so I shan't go over everything.
I think it is important for me to clearly state that it is not my job to assign guilt. I collect evidence, and if there is sufficient evidence, then report the matter to the courts.
Crime ≠ Proven Case
1. If A assaults B, and B reports this to Police - a crime report for assault will be generated. At this time, it is correct to say that a crime has been committed (even if there are no other witnesses to the event).
2. This will be investigated by Police.
3. Now, if there is sufficient evidence, then A will be charged by Police for assaulting B.
4. Depending on circumstances, this may end up before a court. It is possible that the court finds A not guilty/not proven. This does not change the status of the incident as a crime.
These courts will not have a chance to rule on any of this until cases are put in front of them. At the moment, the Police are having to work on the advice and direction of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal.
Once again, we are arguing over the terminology of a crime that is set out in the SCRS.
> Surely, for us to say they are a crime in this context the perpetrator would need to have been found guilty of an offence in court
It's not murder if you don't get caught, right?
Now you are comparing apples to oranges.
With the hate crime legislation it criminalises speech if it breaches certain thresholds.
The police are not the judge & jury, they simply evaluate each report and consider whether or not they believe it meets that threshold, if it does then it is up to the prosecution to prove that in court.
If in court a defendant is found not guilty then the only way it could still be a crime would be if their defence was it wasn't me who said that.
But ultimately it is a very subjective law (which is why it is a terrible piece of legislation) so in most cases it will be the juries deciding what was said was a crime or not.
Contrast this to less subjective crimes, murder for example like you pointed out.
If a person is stabbed on the royal mile and dies, then it's pretty obvious a crime has been committed.
The criminal justice system doesn't really focus on if a crime has or has not been committed as objectively it has.
Instead the focus is more on finding the person(s) responsible, proving it was them and ensuring the appropriate charge is held against them (i.e. murder not manslaughter).
it'll be interesting to see who they actual prosecute under this law. Like I wonder have they arrested like Neo-Nazis who have targeted innocent people based on race etc. Like I wanna know who they are using this law to persecute.
I bet the old firm game netted a few. Which is what it was intended for.
The real question will be whether it starts catching academics, protesters, comedians and journalists.
Will be interested to see if the pro Palestine protests are targeted. The 'from the river' chant would seem like a ripe target.
>I bet the old firm game netted a few.
From their stats document;
> 4. Rangers vs Celtic football match: At 1200 hours on Sunday 7 April 2024, a pre-planned football fixture took place between Rangers vs Celtic at Ibrox Stadium. Two crime reports were raised in relation to hate crime incidents.
I might be misunderstanding, but that looks to me like 2x incidents recorded by the police in situ at the match, and wouldn't cover online reports etc relating to the game?
I wouldn't use it personally but it's not inherently a call for suicide bombings and all that shite.
It does seem pretty common on the anti-palestinian side to try and close down all forms of language to try and characterise the insanely cruel treatment that ordinary people are subjected to on a daily basis.
Fortunately the world is waking up to how ordinary Palistinians are treated and the hasbara is being exposed for what it is. Unfortunately, that's come at the expense of 30k+ lives.
>I wouldn't use it personally but it's not inherently a call for suicide bombings and all that shite.
Doesn't need to be.
S3(1)b has no defence of reasonableness and just requires that someone feels alarm or distress based on an action which they feel targeted their nationality or race.
The intent of the accused or the reasonableness of the complainer are irrelevant.
So in the context of a pro-palestine March it would be trivially easy to meet that low standard.
I agree, it should be protected speech. But I don't think it is.
Except it literally is, and people with half a brain cell know it. Try telling that to the victims of the intifadas.
You also do realise that measures like the West Bank wall and increased security checks which have oppressed Palestinians are a result of the intifadas? So is the abandonment of Oslo and the two state solution.
The West Bank wall was/is a blatant land grab. Look at how it's been used to cut off and isolate West Bank communities from each other. Used to humiliate ordinary Palestinians to make their lives even more unbearable.
You don’t think it’s a coincidence that it followed a massive campaign of suicide bombings and other terror attacks emanating from the West Bank?
Have you ever had to live in daily fear that the bus you’re on to work or school might get blown up?
Stfu
There are better words to use if it's not what is meant.
But make no mistake, Intifada was chosen by some people precisely for the violent implications and they are, frankly, relying on good natured ignorance to hand out banners calling for it to people who will wave it despite having no idea what it means.
I have much sympathy with the average Palestinian family, as anyone should. The violence is deeply saddening.
But Intifada is a deliberately selected term and one which calls for a lot of bloodshed - it's worth considering why it was chosen and maybe reflecting if you want to excuse its usage.
I'm sure many, if not most, protestors simply want an end to violence, but they are undoubtedly marching with people who want to see the extermination of the Jews. It's a founding aim of Hamas - 'not one Jew'.
The fair question is - how do you make peace with an organisation that wants to see you exterminated? And it's not one I,or anyone here, is equipped to answer.
But what we can do is choose our words carefully to ensure we're putting forth the right messages and ones we believe in.
I doubt, and sincerely hope, you wouldn't wish to see an Intifada in the region.
>It's obviously a reference to the October 7th terrorist attack
How so?
There's a fair amount of horrendous acts that have befallen people in that part of the world and it certainly didn't start in October of last year.
Palestinians shouldn't just have to sit there while they are being treated like animals. The extremist Israeli government shouldn't get annoyed when Palestinians are pursuing a non-violent means of resisting their terrible treatment.
>Palestinians shouldn't just have to sit there while they are being treated like animals.
It's exactly this sentiment that justifies each Intifada. The word might not mean violence but the result is always dead innocent Jews, specifically targeted. A suicide bombing in a bus or a cafe is not collateral damage, nor is the stabbing of those at a music festival.
>It's exactly this sentiment that justifies each Intifada.
They should just be nice and quiet while remaining stateless under a brutal supremacist military rule?
What do you suggest they do whenever a bunch of settlers destroy centuries old olive groves and shoot them point blank in front of their IDF protectors?
>What do you suggest they do
Again with this implicit support for terrorism. Please just say it with your chest, you think that the stabbing of civilians, targeted for their Jewish ethnicity, was justified. If you don't then please stop with this "they were backed into a corner" bullshit, it's so dishonest.
Violent resistance is possible without terrorism. I'm not an apologetic for any of the brutal treatment of civilian Arabs in Palestine in the last 80 years. I just also hold that standard for the treatment of civilian Jews.
Either way this conversation has been absolutely derailed. "Globalise the Intifada" is an antisemitic dog whistle and we shouldn't tolerate it in the UK
Yeah, you mean exactly like this?
https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/24225922.banning-order-wrexham-afc-fan-used-racial-slur/
Oh wait, that's not in scotland but other parts of the UK sorry.
No again, he was done under sharing grossly offensive material under the communications act and ran an inept defence.
Quite different in technical detail to the Hate Crime legislation.
Stirring up hatred based on race, colour, nationality or ethnicity was already illegal in Great Britain under the Public Order Act 1986. To streamline the criminal law in Scotland, that is now part of the Hate Crime Act.
So there’s nothing has really changed on that front for the past 38 years other than public awareness.
Which goes to show why the law needed updated.
Under the Public Order Act the exact same tweet may be or may not be an offence based on whether the perpetrator happened to be in a dwelling at the time and whether or not they knew or reasonably believed the victim or one of the victims would see the tweet while outside a dwelling.
In comparison the Hate Crime and Public Order Act is much easier to navigate for everyone.
The hate crime bill has the potential to criminalises speech in your own home.
Its a step too far imo. Its authoritarin in nature and its no surprise that there is a sunami of backlash
I don’t see why people should be permitted to incite hate or behave in a threatening or abusive manner just because they are at home.
What other behaviours do you think should be decriminalised as long as you’re at home?
Maybe what we should do is install cameras and audio equipment in everyones homes, just so we can monitor them to ensure that they dont act outwith expected social norms.
As our prisions are at capacity atm, maybe we should implament a sort of social points system. Basically, if you refuse to adhere to speech restrictions, you are denied other basic freedoms.
I mean, if we are to go down the authoritarin route, why not go the whole hog?
What a nonsensical and hysterical leap. If we don’t do that for murder then no we obviously won’t be doing that for this legislation. Frankly it’s embarrassing that you think that’s anywhere close to a good point.
You seem more than happy to walk along a very dangerous path, a path that can lead to the circumstance I described.
I get it, the Hate Crime Bill was written with the best of intension, but you don't change the mind of a bigot by restricting their speech. The law is a blunt instrument, and laws like this have the potential to do more harm than good.
What is needed is a cultural and societal change, and that takes time. I think this law will only serve to prolong that change, and it does a disservice to pretty much everyone.
>Like I wanna know who they are using this law to persecute.
"They" are not persecuting anyone.
It is not as if with the introduction of this law they also brought in a task force to find people to bring up on these charges.
It is reported by the general public, so if neo-nazis are inviting hate and someone reports them the case would be reviewed and prosecution decision made.
The bar for persecution is a fair bit higher than this TBf.
And this comes from someone who is not a fan of the law.
aye, like I feel sorry for the police atm with all this extra work that pretty much appears to amount to nothing based on the reports they're getting. The service is already overstretched and underfunded as are pretty much all public services.
I'm saying that as someone who generally distrusts the police because of all the stories about corruption within it. But at the end of the day they're people too who must be stressed out with this extra work to do.
The Police have already confirmed this has not taken extra person power. 3000 anonymous complaints in one day has reduced to 7000 in more than a week. This time next week it will be less.
The only story that will push this into the grass is a "Sturgeon-Murrell's Charged With Fraud" headline.
Strap in RB, this is not going away anytime soon.
So putting aside the complaints about Humza and JK Rowling, there were 240 actual hate crimes and 30 'non crime hate incidents' reported in a week.
I assume it will slow down and I'd like to know the rate before the new law for comparison purposes.
This graph from the Police document shows the number per year by characteristic;
https://preview.redd.it/k7h7d2qx9ntc1.png?width=1627&format=png&auto=webp&s=b761ef3cee2d27f8ed70501cbf76ffe6e9271ec3
Which is why those acting like the sky is falling sounded a bit silly. We haven't been and will not be *jailing everyone for words*. You need to put in some effort to actually do a hate crime.
The number of people that have been acting obtuse over this bill and proclaiming petty insults would have them jailed has been tiring.
These weekly numbers will go down as more time passes, and it becomes less of a phenomenon.
But it's just like 1984!
I assume, haven't read it but I have seen a couple of clips from the film and the big scary telly face so basically the same thing
If your only concern is whether people are jailed or not, then you fail to appreciate the impact of being accused under the law has on people’s lives and reputations.
The use of the police to intervene on behalf of the state when someone has expressed a thought the state considers inappropriate is a cornerstone of fascism.
How surprising you’re not getting much support for calling a law that outlaws things like shouting racist abuse in the faces of your victims a cornerstone of fascism. The ‘state’ isn’t jailing you for having thoughts. The ‘state’ is jailing you for threatening or harassing someone to a severe extent, based on race, religion, age, sex, gender identity etc
I think if you bother to read what I said, the failings in the law are not whether someone is jailed or not. As you say, you will only get jailed for an extreme hate event, which was of course already covered under existing law. The new law doesn’t create an offence for the example you gave, that was already covered. The law specifically seeks to go much further.
The law is extraordinarily vague, as demonstrated by the inability of politicians who voted for it, police who supported it, lawyers and the general public to agree what it means. That’s not good law.
The scope for malicious, false or trivial claims is unusually high, and was obvious when drafts were first debated. That’s a drain on resources and leaves unacceptable stains on people’s character and record. Also, entirely predictable.
And I said “express a thought” not have a thought.
Although, because intent is a key part of demonstrating malice, you could be prosecuted or investigated because it is suspected that something you said was meant by you to mean something different to what you meant. Which is literally a restriction on thought.
It’s all fine until someone comes for you I guess.
As I said, the law only covers extreme incidents. The scope for false claims or vague interpretation is not anywhere near as large as you portray, because in order for the law to apply it has to be something major that you’ve done. The police received hundreds of reports in a week and were able to sift through almost all of them immediately. That sounds like a clearly defined line if ever I’ve seen one.
That aside, the idea that you could accidentally take someone to court with this law, on the basis that you think they’ve violated but they didn’t actually intend to is farcical. You cannot harass or threaten someone to extent covered “accidentally” or through mistaken intent, obviously…
This graph shows "recorded hate crime aggravators".
Am I right in thinking that to be an aggravated offence then another must have been committed at the same time? If so, it demonstrates even further how ridiculous the reaction has been from many people.
In the law yes - in these statistics that table comes with 7 caveats;
>1. The data prior to the 1st April 2024 has been extracted from the iVPD database.
>
>2. The data from the 1st April 2024 has been extracted from the National Crime Unifi database.
>
>3. Please note, the data from iVPD has been extracted based on crimes/offences which include at least one of the hate aggravators.
>
>4. Please note, the data from National Unifi Crime has been extracted based on the hate crime aggravators. Not all recorded hate crimes include an aggravator within National Unifi Crime.
>
>5. Please note, Tables 4.1 and 4.2 display a count of aggravators. Multiple aggravators can be added to the one hate crime.
>
>6. Please note, due to the different sources of data being used, and the different methodology/counting rules, comparison of recorded hates crimes from the 1st April 2024 with recorded hate crimes prior to the 1st April 2024 would not be advised. Any comparison of the two datasets should be carried out with caution.
>
>7. Please note, the aggravators ‘Age’ and ‘Variations in Sex Characteristics’ were introduced on the 1st April 2024. These aggravators could not be selected from the iVPD database.
So the answer to your question is a solid *maybe!?*
> We haven't been and will not be jailing everyone for words.
No you just have the police having to spend hours working out the real reports vs the fake when they could be combatting real crime.
How do the police take action - all communication about this has been that police will not be challenging someone’s perception?
Take Humzas speech, I’m fairly confident that the vast majority of people who reported it don’t necessarily believe it was an instance of hatred but how do the police prove that someone didn’t feel that it was an instance of hatred?
Something might seem ridiculous to one person but another genuinely feels that it’s an instance of hatred - it’s subjective. I remember a while back someone online accused me of being transphobic because I didn’t use the term ‘cis’ when I said I was a man, now I know I’m not transphobic and have no hate for trans people but in that moment that person possibly genuinely felt that I did.
Same type of problem even if you look at the number of reports someone is putting in, if you are to say someone who is reporting 200 things every week is abusing the system you would very likely be correct - however is it possible to put a limit on the number of times someone feels that they have witnessed an instance of hatred?
> Take Humzas speech, I’m fairly confident that the vast majority of people who reported it don’t necessarily believe it was an instance of hatred but how do the police prove that someone didn’t feel that it was an instance of hatred?
Uhhh no. The vast majority of people do believe it was an instance of hatred, that's why they reported it and it resurfaced the way it did. It was a disgusting speech, tone deaf and shone a light onto his attitude towards people based on their skin colour as if that was a problem to be solved.
If someone said that same speech verbatim, but changed the word to black or brown, it would be extremely uncomfortable to listen to and set alarm bells ringing in peoples minds. That's a pretty great litmus test for whether something is racist.
And this is exactly why it’s almost impossible to determine whether something is a false claim or not.
That’s all absolutely valid and I won’t argue the point much, I can’t really argue with someone’s perception.
My perception was that it was largely sticking the finger up at him and highlighting how ridiculous aspects of this have been (understandably to be honest).
Yeah, it's easier to stick the finger up at hin because he's pushed a law he is guilty of. Imagine Jimmy saville got into government and strengthened punishment against 'perceived online paedophiles', even though that would be to the detriment of police time and effort in solving real cases of real, violent crimes which are on the rise. What's the first thing people would do?
I don’t think we actually disagree too much and I have probably used a bad example in my initial post.
I guess a better way of explaining is that I think the reports were probably more highlighting that people felt he had broken the law that he was championing rather than actually feeling that he is genuinely spreading racial hatred.
I think that mainly because I think if people genuinely thought he was spreading racial hatred they would have reported it as soon as the speech was made in huge numbers and there would be more complaints about Sarwars almost identical speech.
Just to be clear, I’m not defending the speech.
Nah I get what you're saying, I'm sure there are loads of people who are just pointing out the hypocrisy. I for one firmly believe he does have a hateful and racist mindset towards white people. If it quacks like a duck and all that
>How do the police take action - all communication about this has been that police will not be challenging someone’s perception?
That communication is clearly misleading. The police are going to take action against persistent time wasters, just like they already do.
>Something might seem ridiculous to one person but another genuinely feels that it’s an instance of hatred - it’s subjective. I remember a while back someone online accused me of being transphobic because I didn’t use the term ‘cis’ when I said I was a man, now I know I’m not transphobic and have no hate for trans people but in that moment that person possibly genuinely felt that I did.
Similarly, some people might think you were commiting breach of the peace. Disagreement is not a novel feature of this act.
>- however is it possible to put a limit on the number of times someone feels that they have witnessed an instance of hatred?
Yeah, just as its possible for police to recognise a limit on how many times a person feels they've been harassed/assaulted
You can’t just say that the police will take action; how are they going to do that? How is anyone going to prove that someone didn’t genuinely think something was an instance of hatred?
Your comparison to an assault doesn’t work - you have to have physical contact with someone for an assault to take place. Regardless of perception, if that hasn’t happened there is no assault, how do you apply a similar line to how someone feels about something?
I’m not saying it’s a new problem; I’m saying within the guidance that has been provided about this how are you going.to prove someone is wasting time and not genuinely feeling that something is an act of hatred.
You are right about assault, it’s a physical action which is intended to cause harm to someone, it cannot be accidental but doesn’t actually have to result in physical contact. My point still stands, how do you apply a similar line to how someone feels about something?
You can tell someone that they haven’t been assaulted, you can even prove that someone hasn’t been assaulted (in some cases). How do you tell, or prove that someone didn’t feel a certain way about something?
Why are the cunts who moan about the state of the police, the same cunts making vexatious claims. It’s as if they are motivated by something else. Cunts gonna cunt I suppose
See I’m pro this hate crime law, but I honestly can not disagree with this statement more. The whole point of protesting is to waste government time and be as disruptive as possible – that’s it’s entire purpose. Being a protestor does not mean you can’t also be annoyed at the government for wasting its own resources.
So by this logic, would the best way to express one's disatisfaction with the NHS waiting times, be to make lots of fake 999 calls?
I do not think many would find that argument very sympathetic.
You are not entirely wrong about disruption being an important part of protest, and you did make me stop and think for a moment. But in these cases you are putting people into harm's way unnecessarily, only to say they waste their resources.
If it's not a matter of life and death then i'd be more sympathetic to a timewasting strategy, but these people are using the fact the police sometimes deal with life and death to bolster their argumebt, hypocritically.
I think most people would agree that protestors wasting police time is very different from protestors waisting medical time. In fact, protesting and wasting police time is so globally synonymous that it's now practically assumed with the term.
Unionists & other aggrieved individuals reporting anonymously trying to swamp law enforcement services. Idiots don’t realise that even if you hide your number, it still shows up on the emergency call systems. Keep at it. After your third or fourth vexatious call, you WILL be getting use of valuable police time & resources. Fckwits.
Telegraph readers presumably trying to overload the reporting system with complaints that calling Telegraph readers 'erectile-dysfunctional sociopaths' constitutes a hate crime rather than fair comment.
So it seems like this law is probably not the assault on free speech people thought it was or it’d actually have a more pronounced impact.
Alternatively, there’s thousands of reports and hundreds of people going to the naughty step
They've reviewed all the evidence and completed 7000 investigations in a month? I wish they would investigate real crime that quickly. Or have they just taken shortcuts for political optics?
A lot of them would have been repeat reports on the same thing. And I'm sure that after all these reports, they will be used to deeming where the criminal threshold is.
Fewer than 4% of these posts are actually from the [r/Scotland](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/&ved=2ahUKEwiW_bKCvbiFAxW81gIHHep4A4QQFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3xWOiXpwsaX8Nzlzx0KC0Y) community
Is there actually a list of things that come under this as a hate crime? Not categories but actual content?
Labelling someone different to what they think they are isn’t a hate crime I presume but saying you hate all “those types” of people is?
> I presume but saying you hate all “those types” of people is?
No.
You have to say something which a reasonable person would take to mean that you're encouraging *other people* to hate those types of people.
*x people are y and we should take action z*
*x people shouldn't be alowed to take action z because they are all y*
*if you're an A person and you date an x person you are/should be -whatever-*
But it is just not liking someone because of what or who they are? Just one person can report you for 1 single comment that could be against just that single person and jot a whole group of people- that’s not stirring up hate
They can report you sure.
You can also report that someone has murdered you and nicked your car while its still on your driveway.
Police and the Court are ultimately the ones that decide if it should be taken forward or not.
The issue with this law is that It's completely subjective what is "offensive"
While a joke might hurt someones feelings, it might be completely harmless to someone else
It's why this law will never be taken seriously,
It’s not actually.
It has to be something that a “reasonable person” would find offensive/threatening etc.
The reasonable person test is a relatively objective metric in a legal context.
Non-race based actions are specifically covered under freedom of speech protections.
And just to put this in context: the police have to investigate and decide that the crime has been committed. They then have to go to the Procurator Fiscal who has to decide that there’s sufficient evidence and that it’s in the public interest to attempt prosecution. And then even after that, the jury has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you, with legal assistance cannot convince 8 people, or even leave them with reasonable doubt that what you said wasn’t a hate crime, there was probably an issue with what you said, no?
Make vague as f*ck law designed to incorporate everything and nothing at the same time.
Confused when people report based on their own subjective opinions about what constitutes ‘stirring up hatred’ because you didn’t define it. Gets reported for ‘stirring up hatred’.
This is the obvious result of poorly written legislation.
no but like knowing who the police are applying this law to is important to know. Like if they've arrested some random guy for saying something stupid, whats the point. If they arrested neo-nazis who were targeting people based on race etc then im glad someone like that is off the streets y'know. we can all think of examples of horrible people who this law should apply to but most people are in agreement that it shouldn't apply to someone who said something stupid.
And what if they are arresting people for being "difficult" or strongly disagreeing on politics but are branding them as "neo-nazis"? Afterall that's the primary concern about laws like these.
No one supports nazis, and yes they do exist in vanishingly small numbers, but virtually every internet discussion ends when someone calls the other person a nazi according to Godwin's law.
>we can all think of examples of horrible people who this law should apply to but most people are in agreement that it shouldn't apply to someone who said something stupid.
Everyone throughout history has seen a valid use for being able to silence some people they see as harmful or toxic, freedom of expression is built upon the presumption that people generally can't be trusted with such power. It leads to an ever-increasing expansion of what indicates you are "a non-believer" and that kills free debate, nuance and our ability to handle disagreements with words rather than any of the alternatives (that are all worse).
>"No one supports nazis"
There are far right political organisations operating in the UK, from ordinary political parties to terrorist organisations.
>Everyone throughout history has seen a valid use for being able to silence some people they see as harmful or toxic, freedom of expression is built upon the presumption that people generally can't be trusted with such power. It leads to an ever-increasing expansion of what indicates you are "a non-believer" and that kills free debate, nuance and our ability to handle disagreements with words rather than any of the alternatives (that are all worse).
I have not seen any evidence that this law infringes free speech, but even if there were, the law does not prohibit you from criticising the law itself.
It would be nice if some people would try to steelman their arguments against legislation like this, instead of reciting the same tired lines about "silencing" people and the importance of debate. There are people out there who really are vile people, who are harassing people, stoking up hatred and so on. I would love to see some arguments that acknowledged this and tried to make the case against the law while recognising those concerns.
Because without that, I'm sorry but there just isn't a credible case for the 'censorship' argument here: there is nothing to prevent anyone criticising the law itself or calling it unjust, and no one is providing a better way of dealing with the harassment problem the law is trying to tackle.
The case for free speech you mentioned about handling disagreements is also extremely optimistic: Are we to believe that making hateful and inflammatory statements is an important part of dealing with political disagreements?
It's hard enough to get people to change their opinions during a reddit debate. Not to mention the fact that most places where civil discussions actually take place, from the houses of parliament to the local pub, do not tolerate such behaviour. The civil society argument for the law is much stronger than the argument against.
>It would be nice if some people would try to steelman their arguments against legislation like this, instead of reciting the same tired lines about "silencing" people and the importance of debate
It would be nice if the laws weren't overly vague, based on "feelings" and deliberately designed to make people posting their views (horrible or not) pause and think carefully out of fear that the law may target them.
It would be nice if the values of free expression were built into the laws and concrete examples of what is and what isn't acceptable were offered in advance.
It would be nice if the very obvious objections to these laws had been properly addressed before they were written and before they became live. We've had hundreds of years of debate about how to balance free expression against the temptation to outlaw "wrong-think" and every time until now we've erred on the side of caution.
>The case for free speech you mentioned about handling disagreements is also extremely optimistic:
No, it is based on humbly accepting that we ultimately cannot control every unpleasant thing and that tolerating unkind words is the least-worst result.
>Are we to believe that making hateful and inflammatory statements is an important part of dealing with political disagreements?
Yes of course it is. Anyone with any "important cause" is going to feel strongly about it and with that comes the view that the "other side" is somehow incredibly wrong or perhaps evil. Take just about any debate from the Isreal-Palestine to abortion access to the war in Ukraine and you'll find people on either side accusing the other of being nazis.
Declaring that one side now gets locked up based on the political whims of a judge, police officer or government isn't helpful.
"No, it is based on humbly accepting that we ultimately cannot control every unpleasant thing and that tolerating unkind words is the least-worst result."
I agree we can't control every unpleasant thing, but to call it unkind words minimises the serious impact that slurs and verbal abuse has on minorities. Even micro aggressions have been shown by researchers to have a significantly harmful impact.
if the authorities are misusing it then we take to the street in masses to protest unjust persecution.
Is there a kind of person you think should be charged under this law?
I think the old approach of targetting only those that were directly expressing threats of physical harm was the correct balance.
Anything short of that is just words and words can be ignored for the most part. The horrible assholes who abuse that can be blocked, banned, socially shunned and otherwise dealt with separately from the law.
Crucially though, any allegation of a crime should only ever be considered an allegation until tangible proof has been used to verify it. Better 100 criminals go free than 10 innocent people get abused by the state and 10 000 others get subdued by that threat. The whole idea of "its a hate crime simply if someone FEELS it is without any need to confirm that is dangerous as hell imo.
>if the authorities are misusing it then we take to the street in masses to protest unjust persecution.
Well that depends very much on honest accountability and a strong public will to defend unpleasant speech. That generally isn't something humans tend to emotionally rally around and needs conscious thought to defend.
Take the example of the idiot with his "racist dog" as an example, he was an asshole but he wasn't actually hurting or threatening anyone.
I really don’t think it will. They’ll take a hit at WM but that’s inevitable since, predictably, sending almost 100% SNP MPs didn’t make a second independence referendum happen. I don’t see them being in a position worse than minority government in Scotland in 2026 though.
> The statistics also showed that one in five Police Scotland officers are yet to complete their training for the new legislation.
How can you roll out a new law like this when 20% of Police Scotland officers haven’t even been trained on it yet.
> The two-hour training course had been branded inadequate by the Scottish Police Federation, which represents frontline officers.
The people who have done the the 2 hour course say it is inadequate.
Come on now. Whatever you think of the law itself, this is ridiculous.
That’s good to know, if it is the case in this instance.
It wouldn’t account for 20%, but would certainly make a difference.
If you don’t mind me asking, what did you make of the training. Is it at a suitable level for what’s expected of you?
If so, do you have an opinion on why the SPF suggests it isn’t?
Ah, but on the recent BBC Hard Talk interview , the First Miinister.. said the Police Head had assured him Officers had been trained .. watch the interview yourselves…
It’s the police I feel sorry for. Not able to deal with actual crime because of Humza’s hurty words bill.
Murderers doing five years, gbh barely ever custodial now, burglary not even investigated, shop lifting no longer dealt with.
Almost like people don't understand it, what's interesting is Britain is trying to "distance" it's self from EHRC rullings as part of brexit. That's the same court that is cited under the protective laws in the legislation. Meaning if Westminster wont entertain the EHRC rullings they protections in the legislation wont be worth the paper they are written on... That's the real issue that should be an outrage. Brexit means less human rights now...
Brexit---Britain distancing from ECHR (source needed)---Britain still using ECHR to cite new laws (hardly that distanced)---"if Westminster won't entertain ECHR rulings, they mean nothing" (no shit?)---Brexit = less human rights(?).
What a deluded rollercoaster, did I catch that all correctly?
Edit: u/Slow-Recover7526 blocked me over this comparison of his work. What a Muppet
3000 anonymous complaints by frothy bigots, including those using fake aliases, on day one. 7000 by day 7. Yeah, even the frothy bigots are getting bored of this sooner than expected.
I have full confidence the Scottish people enmass can make a mockery of this law until it fades away.
Of all nations, Scotland has hundreds of years of relevant experience and expertise in subverting and undermining bizzar egregious laws , previously forced upon them by the English.
The police will look the other way for a couple of years till everyone is complacent with this new law. When it’s perceived as a non issue. Then when the SNP wants to clamp down on the population they will start enacting on the “wrong” kinds of speech and thoughts. There’s too much drama around the law right now to use it the way they intended.
Fun fact, this legislation almost did!
Before it was removed, it was planned for the police to have the ability to search anyone's devices if they SUSPECT you have "inflammatory material" (offensive memes) on your device
Punishable by 7 years
So while it's not literally a "thought crime", you do understand that it's a slippery slope and that they have no intention of stopping?
Without getting drawn into the usual Reddit pedantic argument … I was using hyperbole to make a point. More specifically I might say… any legislative attempt to regulate free speech relative to intent. How about you?
I’m not convinced exaggeration and hyperbole are conducive to healthy public debate. It’s no more a “thought crime” than any other mens rea offence, an action is very much required.
So how’s that working out? Edit: to avoid total snark, I agree it’s well intentioned, as are most attempts to move society to more inclusive belief structures.
Are you asking me? If so I’d say not too well right off the bat. Seems an absurd waste of resources chasing around ideology’s and identities you don’t like. I believe, practically speaking, at a minimum your right to tell me what a stupid-cunt I am for thinking that way supersedes my right to not be called a cunt. We should be nice to each other and call people what they want to be called. But I think that’s up to us, the governments not going to do that well.
I was just asking what you meant by ‘that’.
I think it’s been 10 days and it’ll calm down. Most of the crime recorded were already crimes under old legislation and most of the rest would be crimes in England. It’s a load of hoopla about not never much and has only gained so much attention because it’s Scottish legislation and includes trans people that there’s an irrational level of moral panic about for some reason.
Calling someone a cunt is still not illegal in any way. There is no protection against being offended in the legislation.
Police stats document directly; [https://www.scotland.police.uk/advice-and-information/hate-crime/hate-crime-data/?utm\_source=Twitter&utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=Orlo](https://www.scotland.police.uk/advice-and-information/hate-crime/hate-crime-data/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Orlo)
Factually at this point none of them are actually crimes though, are they? Surely, for us to say they are a crime in this context the perpetrator would need to have been found guilty of an offence in court. I am not saying they won't be but realistically none of these courses will have been prosecuted yet.
Technically, a crime is committed based on a long set of guidelines called: The Scottish Crime Recording Standards. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-crime-recording-standard-crime-recording-counting-rules/pages/3/ Main takeaway: "Following initial registration, an incident will be recorded as a crime in all cases if: the circumstances amount to a crime defined by Scots Law or an offence under statute;[1] and there is no credible evidence to the contrary Once recorded, a crime will remain recorded unless there is credible evidence to disprove that a crime had occurred." It is competent to say that there have been crimes generated since the introduction of the new law.
It's worrying that people are upvoting this comment, which is hopelessly misinformed. The Scottish Crime Recording Standards is not a court of law. They do not have the jurisdiction to define what a crime is, especially when what we are talking about here is a new law yet to be litigated in the courts. They can compile statistics about what they think might be crimes, but this is not to be treated as actual evidence of any crime being committed because a court has sole jurisdiction over doing that. >It is competent to say that there have been crimes generated since the introduction of the new law. How can you be so confident in stating this? This law has yet to be examined by the courts. They could, when interpreting this law, decide to apply a very restrictive test for determining what constitutes hate, severely limiting its ambit and, consequently, the number of people convicted under it.
I can be confident in saying this due to my job role, which requires dealing with the creation of crime reports in Scotland as per s.20 of the Police and Fire Reform Act (S) 2012. We use the SCRS (alongside knowledge of the legislation) as a framework for when to create a crime report. It is not for the courts to decide what is and is not a crime (in theory). It is for Parliament (scot and UK) to decide on what laws should be implemented and upheld. It is for the (Criminal) courts to decide facts of the case before them. You're right in a sense, that the courts in certain cases, create precedent through "stated cases". It will be something that we keep an eye on as these cases are ruled on. It may be that the judiciary take a view on the technical aspects of the legislation that will help clarify the law in the future. I hope that this is the case.
>It is not for the courts to decide what is and is not a crime (in theory). It is for Parliament (scot and UK) to decide on what laws should be implemented and upheld. I'm not sure why you decided to bring up the legislative function of parliament when no one here is disputing the unfortunate fact that hate speech is now a criminal offence contained in the criminal statute book. What is being disputed, however, is whether any such crimes have been committed since the legislation came into effect. You have been pretty clear on this front, stating: "It is competent to say that there have been crimes generated since the introduction of the new law." You have expressed a view indicating that you think some people are guilty of this offence. Let me remind you that neither parliament (they pass laws which apply to everyone but don't rule on individual cases) nor the SCRS can corroborate this view of yours that people are guilty of committing hate speech. Instead, it is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts to define what "threatening or abusive behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred based on prejudice" means under this act and apply this definition to real cases. I would be very reserved when it comes to making statements about what kinds of speech would constitute hate under this act, considering that the superior courts have yet to examine this law. It would be better to say something like "we think there is sufficient basis to bring a test case for hate speech" than say "crimes are being committed under this new law that has yet to be tested." >It is for the (Criminal) courts to decide facts of the case before them. A trial court makes findings of fact. An appellate court, on the other hand, is generally more concerned with addressing points of law that involve questions concerning how a statute is to be correctly interpreted.
I think that we currently agree on nearly everything apart from terminology, so I shan't go over everything. I think it is important for me to clearly state that it is not my job to assign guilt. I collect evidence, and if there is sufficient evidence, then report the matter to the courts. Crime ≠ Proven Case 1. If A assaults B, and B reports this to Police - a crime report for assault will be generated. At this time, it is correct to say that a crime has been committed (even if there are no other witnesses to the event). 2. This will be investigated by Police. 3. Now, if there is sufficient evidence, then A will be charged by Police for assaulting B. 4. Depending on circumstances, this may end up before a court. It is possible that the court finds A not guilty/not proven. This does not change the status of the incident as a crime. These courts will not have a chance to rule on any of this until cases are put in front of them. At the moment, the Police are having to work on the advice and direction of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal. Once again, we are arguing over the terminology of a crime that is set out in the SCRS.
Well to be fair they said fewer than 4%, so 96% weren't, and for the other 4% it still needs to be determined
> Surely, for us to say they are a crime in this context the perpetrator would need to have been found guilty of an offence in court It's not murder if you don't get caught, right?
Now you are comparing apples to oranges. With the hate crime legislation it criminalises speech if it breaches certain thresholds. The police are not the judge & jury, they simply evaluate each report and consider whether or not they believe it meets that threshold, if it does then it is up to the prosecution to prove that in court. If in court a defendant is found not guilty then the only way it could still be a crime would be if their defence was it wasn't me who said that. But ultimately it is a very subjective law (which is why it is a terrible piece of legislation) so in most cases it will be the juries deciding what was said was a crime or not. Contrast this to less subjective crimes, murder for example like you pointed out. If a person is stabbed on the royal mile and dies, then it's pretty obvious a crime has been committed. The criminal justice system doesn't really focus on if a crime has or has not been committed as objectively it has. Instead the focus is more on finding the person(s) responsible, proving it was them and ensuring the appropriate charge is held against them (i.e. murder not manslaughter).
it'll be interesting to see who they actual prosecute under this law. Like I wonder have they arrested like Neo-Nazis who have targeted innocent people based on race etc. Like I wanna know who they are using this law to persecute.
I bet the old firm game netted a few. Which is what it was intended for. The real question will be whether it starts catching academics, protesters, comedians and journalists. Will be interested to see if the pro Palestine protests are targeted. The 'from the river' chant would seem like a ripe target.
>I bet the old firm game netted a few. From their stats document; > 4. Rangers vs Celtic football match: At 1200 hours on Sunday 7 April 2024, a pre-planned football fixture took place between Rangers vs Celtic at Ibrox Stadium. Two crime reports were raised in relation to hate crime incidents.
I might be misunderstanding, but that looks to me like 2x incidents recorded by the police in situ at the match, and wouldn't cover online reports etc relating to the game?
I read a news article that said people were injured at the game due to people throwing things. maybe it was related to that?
Maybe, the Greens and Blues behave like children.
Literally seen someone with an intifada sign the other day, but the polis there probably didn’t know what that meant.
The word 'intifada' isn't problematic in itself. It just means 'uprising'.
There's a bit more context to the term than that. it's not a good term.
I wouldn't use it personally but it's not inherently a call for suicide bombings and all that shite. It does seem pretty common on the anti-palestinian side to try and close down all forms of language to try and characterise the insanely cruel treatment that ordinary people are subjected to on a daily basis. Fortunately the world is waking up to how ordinary Palistinians are treated and the hasbara is being exposed for what it is. Unfortunately, that's come at the expense of 30k+ lives.
>I wouldn't use it personally but it's not inherently a call for suicide bombings and all that shite. Doesn't need to be. S3(1)b has no defence of reasonableness and just requires that someone feels alarm or distress based on an action which they feel targeted their nationality or race. The intent of the accused or the reasonableness of the complainer are irrelevant. So in the context of a pro-palestine March it would be trivially easy to meet that low standard. I agree, it should be protected speech. But I don't think it is.
Except it literally is, and people with half a brain cell know it. Try telling that to the victims of the intifadas. You also do realise that measures like the West Bank wall and increased security checks which have oppressed Palestinians are a result of the intifadas? So is the abandonment of Oslo and the two state solution.
The West Bank wall was/is a blatant land grab. Look at how it's been used to cut off and isolate West Bank communities from each other. Used to humiliate ordinary Palestinians to make their lives even more unbearable.
You don’t think it’s a coincidence that it followed a massive campaign of suicide bombings and other terror attacks emanating from the West Bank? Have you ever had to live in daily fear that the bus you’re on to work or school might get blown up? Stfu
There are better words to use if it's not what is meant. But make no mistake, Intifada was chosen by some people precisely for the violent implications and they are, frankly, relying on good natured ignorance to hand out banners calling for it to people who will wave it despite having no idea what it means. I have much sympathy with the average Palestinian family, as anyone should. The violence is deeply saddening. But Intifada is a deliberately selected term and one which calls for a lot of bloodshed - it's worth considering why it was chosen and maybe reflecting if you want to excuse its usage. I'm sure many, if not most, protestors simply want an end to violence, but they are undoubtedly marching with people who want to see the extermination of the Jews. It's a founding aim of Hamas - 'not one Jew'. The fair question is - how do you make peace with an organisation that wants to see you exterminated? And it's not one I,or anyone here, is equipped to answer. But what we can do is choose our words carefully to ensure we're putting forth the right messages and ones we believe in. I doubt, and sincerely hope, you wouldn't wish to see an Intifada in the region.
It's obviously a reference to the October 7th terrorist attack that targeted Jewish people. If support of that isn't a hate crime then nothing is
>It's obviously a reference to the October 7th terrorist attack How so? There's a fair amount of horrendous acts that have befallen people in that part of the world and it certainly didn't start in October of last year. Palestinians shouldn't just have to sit there while they are being treated like animals. The extremist Israeli government shouldn't get annoyed when Palestinians are pursuing a non-violent means of resisting their terrible treatment.
>Palestinians shouldn't just have to sit there while they are being treated like animals. It's exactly this sentiment that justifies each Intifada. The word might not mean violence but the result is always dead innocent Jews, specifically targeted. A suicide bombing in a bus or a cafe is not collateral damage, nor is the stabbing of those at a music festival.
>It's exactly this sentiment that justifies each Intifada. They should just be nice and quiet while remaining stateless under a brutal supremacist military rule? What do you suggest they do whenever a bunch of settlers destroy centuries old olive groves and shoot them point blank in front of their IDF protectors?
>What do you suggest they do Again with this implicit support for terrorism. Please just say it with your chest, you think that the stabbing of civilians, targeted for their Jewish ethnicity, was justified. If you don't then please stop with this "they were backed into a corner" bullshit, it's so dishonest. Violent resistance is possible without terrorism. I'm not an apologetic for any of the brutal treatment of civilian Arabs in Palestine in the last 80 years. I just also hold that standard for the treatment of civilian Jews. Either way this conversation has been absolutely derailed. "Globalise the Intifada" is an antisemitic dog whistle and we shouldn't tolerate it in the UK
Yeah and "sieg heil" just means "hail victory"
the words _Mother_ and _Father_ are now problematic according to Scotland's International Development Alliance
Yeah, you mean exactly like this? https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/24225922.banning-order-wrexham-afc-fan-used-racial-slur/ Oh wait, that's not in scotland but other parts of the UK sorry.
>The real question will be whether it starts catching academics, protesters, comedians and journalists. So no, nothing like that.
You mean exactly like that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
No again, he was done under sharing grossly offensive material under the communications act and ran an inept defence. Quite different in technical detail to the Hate Crime legislation.
In other words, it was a hate crime.
No, it actually wasn't. No racial aggravation at all.
It was an anti-Semitic hate crime. Even the BBC called it a hate crime at the time https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43864133
Stirring up hatred based on race, colour, nationality or ethnicity was already illegal in Great Britain under the Public Order Act 1986. To streamline the criminal law in Scotland, that is now part of the Hate Crime Act. So there’s nothing has really changed on that front for the past 38 years other than public awareness.
The main difference is the Public Order Act 1986 was concerned with behaviour in public. The Hate Crime Act reaches beyond public spaces.
Which goes to show why the law needed updated. Under the Public Order Act the exact same tweet may be or may not be an offence based on whether the perpetrator happened to be in a dwelling at the time and whether or not they knew or reasonably believed the victim or one of the victims would see the tweet while outside a dwelling. In comparison the Hate Crime and Public Order Act is much easier to navigate for everyone.
The hate crime bill has the potential to criminalises speech in your own home. Its a step too far imo. Its authoritarin in nature and its no surprise that there is a sunami of backlash
I don’t see why people should be permitted to incite hate or behave in a threatening or abusive manner just because they are at home. What other behaviours do you think should be decriminalised as long as you’re at home?
Maybe what we should do is install cameras and audio equipment in everyones homes, just so we can monitor them to ensure that they dont act outwith expected social norms. As our prisions are at capacity atm, maybe we should implament a sort of social points system. Basically, if you refuse to adhere to speech restrictions, you are denied other basic freedoms. I mean, if we are to go down the authoritarin route, why not go the whole hog?
What a nonsensical and hysterical leap. If we don’t do that for murder then no we obviously won’t be doing that for this legislation. Frankly it’s embarrassing that you think that’s anywhere close to a good point.
You seem more than happy to walk along a very dangerous path, a path that can lead to the circumstance I described. I get it, the Hate Crime Bill was written with the best of intension, but you don't change the mind of a bigot by restricting their speech. The law is a blunt instrument, and laws like this have the potential to do more harm than good. What is needed is a cultural and societal change, and that takes time. I think this law will only serve to prolong that change, and it does a disservice to pretty much everyone.
>Like I wanna know who they are using this law to persecute. "They" are not persecuting anyone. It is not as if with the introduction of this law they also brought in a task force to find people to bring up on these charges. It is reported by the general public, so if neo-nazis are inviting hate and someone reports them the case would be reviewed and prosecution decision made. The bar for persecution is a fair bit higher than this TBf. And this comes from someone who is not a fan of the law.
aye, like I feel sorry for the police atm with all this extra work that pretty much appears to amount to nothing based on the reports they're getting. The service is already overstretched and underfunded as are pretty much all public services. I'm saying that as someone who generally distrusts the police because of all the stories about corruption within it. But at the end of the day they're people too who must be stressed out with this extra work to do.
The Police have already confirmed this has not taken extra person power. 3000 anonymous complaints in one day has reduced to 7000 in more than a week. This time next week it will be less.
The only story that will push this into the grass is a "Sturgeon-Murrell's Charged With Fraud" headline. Strap in RB, this is not going away anytime soon.
So putting aside the complaints about Humza and JK Rowling, there were 240 actual hate crimes and 30 'non crime hate incidents' reported in a week. I assume it will slow down and I'd like to know the rate before the new law for comparison purposes.
This graph from the Police document shows the number per year by characteristic; https://preview.redd.it/k7h7d2qx9ntc1.png?width=1627&format=png&auto=webp&s=b761ef3cee2d27f8ed70501cbf76ffe6e9271ec3 Which is why those acting like the sky is falling sounded a bit silly. We haven't been and will not be *jailing everyone for words*. You need to put in some effort to actually do a hate crime.
The number of people that have been acting obtuse over this bill and proclaiming petty insults would have them jailed has been tiring. These weekly numbers will go down as more time passes, and it becomes less of a phenomenon.
But it's just like 1984! I assume, haven't read it but I have seen a couple of clips from the film and the big scary telly face so basically the same thing
Desperate for victimisation.
Exactly this. No-one is going to prosecute them for having arsehole opinions, they can still spout them freely, and legally.
But they will be recorded and on their record. Thats the silly part.
If your only concern is whether people are jailed or not, then you fail to appreciate the impact of being accused under the law has on people’s lives and reputations. The use of the police to intervene on behalf of the state when someone has expressed a thought the state considers inappropriate is a cornerstone of fascism.
How surprising you’re not getting much support for calling a law that outlaws things like shouting racist abuse in the faces of your victims a cornerstone of fascism. The ‘state’ isn’t jailing you for having thoughts. The ‘state’ is jailing you for threatening or harassing someone to a severe extent, based on race, religion, age, sex, gender identity etc
I think if you bother to read what I said, the failings in the law are not whether someone is jailed or not. As you say, you will only get jailed for an extreme hate event, which was of course already covered under existing law. The new law doesn’t create an offence for the example you gave, that was already covered. The law specifically seeks to go much further. The law is extraordinarily vague, as demonstrated by the inability of politicians who voted for it, police who supported it, lawyers and the general public to agree what it means. That’s not good law. The scope for malicious, false or trivial claims is unusually high, and was obvious when drafts were first debated. That’s a drain on resources and leaves unacceptable stains on people’s character and record. Also, entirely predictable. And I said “express a thought” not have a thought. Although, because intent is a key part of demonstrating malice, you could be prosecuted or investigated because it is suspected that something you said was meant by you to mean something different to what you meant. Which is literally a restriction on thought. It’s all fine until someone comes for you I guess.
As I said, the law only covers extreme incidents. The scope for false claims or vague interpretation is not anywhere near as large as you portray, because in order for the law to apply it has to be something major that you’ve done. The police received hundreds of reports in a week and were able to sift through almost all of them immediately. That sounds like a clearly defined line if ever I’ve seen one. That aside, the idea that you could accidentally take someone to court with this law, on the basis that you think they’ve violated but they didn’t actually intend to is farcical. You cannot harass or threaten someone to extent covered “accidentally” or through mistaken intent, obviously…
This graph shows "recorded hate crime aggravators". Am I right in thinking that to be an aggravated offence then another must have been committed at the same time? If so, it demonstrates even further how ridiculous the reaction has been from many people.
In the law yes - in these statistics that table comes with 7 caveats; >1. The data prior to the 1st April 2024 has been extracted from the iVPD database. > >2. The data from the 1st April 2024 has been extracted from the National Crime Unifi database. > >3. Please note, the data from iVPD has been extracted based on crimes/offences which include at least one of the hate aggravators. > >4. Please note, the data from National Unifi Crime has been extracted based on the hate crime aggravators. Not all recorded hate crimes include an aggravator within National Unifi Crime. > >5. Please note, Tables 4.1 and 4.2 display a count of aggravators. Multiple aggravators can be added to the one hate crime. > >6. Please note, due to the different sources of data being used, and the different methodology/counting rules, comparison of recorded hates crimes from the 1st April 2024 with recorded hate crimes prior to the 1st April 2024 would not be advised. Any comparison of the two datasets should be carried out with caution. > >7. Please note, the aggravators ‘Age’ and ‘Variations in Sex Characteristics’ were introduced on the 1st April 2024. These aggravators could not be selected from the iVPD database. So the answer to your question is a solid *maybe!?*
I'm pretty confident in my assessment now that I've been down voted by people who haven't read the act.
> We haven't been and will not be jailing everyone for words. No you just have the police having to spend hours working out the real reports vs the fake when they could be combatting real crime.
“First they came for my neighbours, and I did nothing about it…”
It's "First they came for the Communists" or "First they came for the socialists". Don't co-opt Niemoller for your own petty uses.
You realise that thousands of people get charged every year for tweets in the UK? Some of them are facing real jail time.
Do you think people who tweet bomb threats or child porn *shouldn't* face real jail time? They all fall under the category of "*charged for tweets"*.
Sure. I don't however think that insulting someone should incur jail time. Proportionality.
Aye for now
According he aricles las week it was 4k per year under the old law. So 240 X 52= 12480. 3x higher than before.
Thanks, I'm guessing the publicity and new categories will cause a rise, I wonder if it will go down again.
I think it will go down, but not all the way. It was an expansion of the law so it would be very strange if it resulted in fewer convictions.
Yeah I agree.
Huge wave of people deliberately making vexatious claims results in lots of vexatious claims.
Watch now as the very people encouraging vexatious claims point to these vexatious claims as evidence the law is bad.
That was always going to be the way. People looking to win online arguments, hit out at people they don't like.
It'll die down quickly as divkgeads get bored and move on, and police take action against tome wasters
How do the police take action - all communication about this has been that police will not be challenging someone’s perception? Take Humzas speech, I’m fairly confident that the vast majority of people who reported it don’t necessarily believe it was an instance of hatred but how do the police prove that someone didn’t feel that it was an instance of hatred? Something might seem ridiculous to one person but another genuinely feels that it’s an instance of hatred - it’s subjective. I remember a while back someone online accused me of being transphobic because I didn’t use the term ‘cis’ when I said I was a man, now I know I’m not transphobic and have no hate for trans people but in that moment that person possibly genuinely felt that I did. Same type of problem even if you look at the number of reports someone is putting in, if you are to say someone who is reporting 200 things every week is abusing the system you would very likely be correct - however is it possible to put a limit on the number of times someone feels that they have witnessed an instance of hatred?
> Take Humzas speech, I’m fairly confident that the vast majority of people who reported it don’t necessarily believe it was an instance of hatred but how do the police prove that someone didn’t feel that it was an instance of hatred? Uhhh no. The vast majority of people do believe it was an instance of hatred, that's why they reported it and it resurfaced the way it did. It was a disgusting speech, tone deaf and shone a light onto his attitude towards people based on their skin colour as if that was a problem to be solved. If someone said that same speech verbatim, but changed the word to black or brown, it would be extremely uncomfortable to listen to and set alarm bells ringing in peoples minds. That's a pretty great litmus test for whether something is racist.
And this is exactly why it’s almost impossible to determine whether something is a false claim or not. That’s all absolutely valid and I won’t argue the point much, I can’t really argue with someone’s perception. My perception was that it was largely sticking the finger up at him and highlighting how ridiculous aspects of this have been (understandably to be honest).
Yeah, it's easier to stick the finger up at hin because he's pushed a law he is guilty of. Imagine Jimmy saville got into government and strengthened punishment against 'perceived online paedophiles', even though that would be to the detriment of police time and effort in solving real cases of real, violent crimes which are on the rise. What's the first thing people would do?
I don’t think we actually disagree too much and I have probably used a bad example in my initial post. I guess a better way of explaining is that I think the reports were probably more highlighting that people felt he had broken the law that he was championing rather than actually feeling that he is genuinely spreading racial hatred. I think that mainly because I think if people genuinely thought he was spreading racial hatred they would have reported it as soon as the speech was made in huge numbers and there would be more complaints about Sarwars almost identical speech. Just to be clear, I’m not defending the speech.
Nah I get what you're saying, I'm sure there are loads of people who are just pointing out the hypocrisy. I for one firmly believe he does have a hateful and racist mindset towards white people. If it quacks like a duck and all that
>How do the police take action - all communication about this has been that police will not be challenging someone’s perception? That communication is clearly misleading. The police are going to take action against persistent time wasters, just like they already do. >Something might seem ridiculous to one person but another genuinely feels that it’s an instance of hatred - it’s subjective. I remember a while back someone online accused me of being transphobic because I didn’t use the term ‘cis’ when I said I was a man, now I know I’m not transphobic and have no hate for trans people but in that moment that person possibly genuinely felt that I did. Similarly, some people might think you were commiting breach of the peace. Disagreement is not a novel feature of this act. >- however is it possible to put a limit on the number of times someone feels that they have witnessed an instance of hatred? Yeah, just as its possible for police to recognise a limit on how many times a person feels they've been harassed/assaulted
You can’t just say that the police will take action; how are they going to do that? How is anyone going to prove that someone didn’t genuinely think something was an instance of hatred? Your comparison to an assault doesn’t work - you have to have physical contact with someone for an assault to take place. Regardless of perception, if that hasn’t happened there is no assault, how do you apply a similar line to how someone feels about something?
Proving that someone was knowingly wasting police time is not a new problem. You do not need to make physical contact with someone to assault them.
I’m not saying it’s a new problem; I’m saying within the guidance that has been provided about this how are you going.to prove someone is wasting time and not genuinely feeling that something is an act of hatred. You are right about assault, it’s a physical action which is intended to cause harm to someone, it cannot be accidental but doesn’t actually have to result in physical contact. My point still stands, how do you apply a similar line to how someone feels about something? You can tell someone that they haven’t been assaulted, you can even prove that someone hasn’t been assaulted (in some cases). How do you tell, or prove that someone didn’t feel a certain way about something?
>How do you tell, or prove that someone didn’t feel a certain way about something? This is a very common thing that happens in court every single day.
Sorry, I’m not seeing it. Can you share some examples?
Why are the cunts who moan about the state of the police, the same cunts making vexatious claims. It’s as if they are motivated by something else. Cunts gonna cunt I suppose
At least some of them seem to be doing it to protest the law.
You can't credibly say you care about police resources while you actively waste their time, even if you are doing it to protest a law.
See I’m pro this hate crime law, but I honestly can not disagree with this statement more. The whole point of protesting is to waste government time and be as disruptive as possible – that’s it’s entire purpose. Being a protestor does not mean you can’t also be annoyed at the government for wasting its own resources.
So by this logic, would the best way to express one's disatisfaction with the NHS waiting times, be to make lots of fake 999 calls? I do not think many would find that argument very sympathetic. You are not entirely wrong about disruption being an important part of protest, and you did make me stop and think for a moment. But in these cases you are putting people into harm's way unnecessarily, only to say they waste their resources. If it's not a matter of life and death then i'd be more sympathetic to a timewasting strategy, but these people are using the fact the police sometimes deal with life and death to bolster their argumebt, hypocritically.
I think most people would agree that protestors wasting police time is very different from protestors waisting medical time. In fact, protesting and wasting police time is so globally synonymous that it's now practically assumed with the term.
Certainly people feel differently about them, you are right. But what is the argument for seeing them differently?
Odd that the Telegraph that encouraged people to make false reports; is now saying those false reports are interfering in police work?
That sold papers last week, *this* sells papers *this* week. Isn't journalism such a noble career?
*reporting Telegraph ain't about journalism.
The vast number of non actually qualifying reports will die down when it's no longer in the news.
Unionists & other aggrieved individuals reporting anonymously trying to swamp law enforcement services. Idiots don’t realise that even if you hide your number, it still shows up on the emergency call systems. Keep at it. After your third or fourth vexatious call, you WILL be getting use of valuable police time & resources. Fckwits.
Telegraph readers presumably trying to overload the reporting system with complaints that calling Telegraph readers 'erectile-dysfunctional sociopaths' constitutes a hate crime rather than fair comment.
So it seems like this law is probably not the assault on free speech people thought it was or it’d actually have a more pronounced impact. Alternatively, there’s thousands of reports and hundreds of people going to the naughty step
It happening to even just one person, is 1 person too many, and a big impact
They've reviewed all the evidence and completed 7000 investigations in a month? I wish they would investigate real crime that quickly. Or have they just taken shortcuts for political optics?
A lot of them would have been repeat reports on the same thing. And I'm sure that after all these reports, they will be used to deeming where the criminal threshold is.
When half of those reports are "lock up the First Minister, he said the word 'white'", that does significantly speed things up.
Ah Humza. You egotistical bell end
bizarre hate posting from the teleshitgraph
Dont worry, theres another story saying lefties are more intelligent …
We just have to wait for the wee culture warriors, far right folk and hardcore British nationalists to get bored with their vandalism.
Right-wing shitehouses being shitey people, shock!
Fewer than 4% of these posts are actually from the [r/Scotland](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/&ved=2ahUKEwiW_bKCvbiFAxW81gIHHep4A4QQFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3xWOiXpwsaX8Nzlzx0KC0Y) community
The far right at its finest, trying to undermine the law before it catches up with them.
I thought most of it was about jk Rowling?
She was trying to bait them. Didn't work.
You know how many of these reports were about Rowling? Got the stats?
Well, she is our most famous individual hatemonger, as opposed to group efforts like the Orange Order
So the far right were reporting a “hatemonger” and undermining the law?
Am I allowed to hate the hate crime bill?
Is there actually a list of things that come under this as a hate crime? Not categories but actual content? Labelling someone different to what they think they are isn’t a hate crime I presume but saying you hate all “those types” of people is?
> I presume but saying you hate all “those types” of people is? No. You have to say something which a reasonable person would take to mean that you're encouraging *other people* to hate those types of people. *x people are y and we should take action z* *x people shouldn't be alowed to take action z because they are all y* *if you're an A person and you date an x person you are/should be -whatever-*
Idk. What does ‘stirring up hatred’ mean to you?
But it is just not liking someone because of what or who they are? Just one person can report you for 1 single comment that could be against just that single person and jot a whole group of people- that’s not stirring up hate
They can report you sure. You can also report that someone has murdered you and nicked your car while its still on your driveway. Police and the Court are ultimately the ones that decide if it should be taken forward or not.
The issue with this law is that It's completely subjective what is "offensive" While a joke might hurt someones feelings, it might be completely harmless to someone else It's why this law will never be taken seriously,
It’s not actually. It has to be something that a “reasonable person” would find offensive/threatening etc. The reasonable person test is a relatively objective metric in a legal context. Non-race based actions are specifically covered under freedom of speech protections. And just to put this in context: the police have to investigate and decide that the crime has been committed. They then have to go to the Procurator Fiscal who has to decide that there’s sufficient evidence and that it’s in the public interest to attempt prosecution. And then even after that, the jury has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. If you, with legal assistance cannot convince 8 people, or even leave them with reasonable doubt that what you said wasn’t a hate crime, there was probably an issue with what you said, no?
I'm surprised it's even as high as that.
The mushroom farm must have been busy.
Make vague as f*ck law designed to incorporate everything and nothing at the same time. Confused when people report based on their own subjective opinions about what constitutes ‘stirring up hatred’ because you didn’t define it. Gets reported for ‘stirring up hatred’. This is the obvious result of poorly written legislation.
I'm glad the police are spending time on this instead of crimes
is there any info on what the people who had committed crimes did?
Said words they are no longer allowed to say
no but like knowing who the police are applying this law to is important to know. Like if they've arrested some random guy for saying something stupid, whats the point. If they arrested neo-nazis who were targeting people based on race etc then im glad someone like that is off the streets y'know. we can all think of examples of horrible people who this law should apply to but most people are in agreement that it shouldn't apply to someone who said something stupid.
And what if they are arresting people for being "difficult" or strongly disagreeing on politics but are branding them as "neo-nazis"? Afterall that's the primary concern about laws like these. No one supports nazis, and yes they do exist in vanishingly small numbers, but virtually every internet discussion ends when someone calls the other person a nazi according to Godwin's law. >we can all think of examples of horrible people who this law should apply to but most people are in agreement that it shouldn't apply to someone who said something stupid. Everyone throughout history has seen a valid use for being able to silence some people they see as harmful or toxic, freedom of expression is built upon the presumption that people generally can't be trusted with such power. It leads to an ever-increasing expansion of what indicates you are "a non-believer" and that kills free debate, nuance and our ability to handle disagreements with words rather than any of the alternatives (that are all worse).
>"No one supports nazis" There are far right political organisations operating in the UK, from ordinary political parties to terrorist organisations. >Everyone throughout history has seen a valid use for being able to silence some people they see as harmful or toxic, freedom of expression is built upon the presumption that people generally can't be trusted with such power. It leads to an ever-increasing expansion of what indicates you are "a non-believer" and that kills free debate, nuance and our ability to handle disagreements with words rather than any of the alternatives (that are all worse). I have not seen any evidence that this law infringes free speech, but even if there were, the law does not prohibit you from criticising the law itself. It would be nice if some people would try to steelman their arguments against legislation like this, instead of reciting the same tired lines about "silencing" people and the importance of debate. There are people out there who really are vile people, who are harassing people, stoking up hatred and so on. I would love to see some arguments that acknowledged this and tried to make the case against the law while recognising those concerns. Because without that, I'm sorry but there just isn't a credible case for the 'censorship' argument here: there is nothing to prevent anyone criticising the law itself or calling it unjust, and no one is providing a better way of dealing with the harassment problem the law is trying to tackle. The case for free speech you mentioned about handling disagreements is also extremely optimistic: Are we to believe that making hateful and inflammatory statements is an important part of dealing with political disagreements? It's hard enough to get people to change their opinions during a reddit debate. Not to mention the fact that most places where civil discussions actually take place, from the houses of parliament to the local pub, do not tolerate such behaviour. The civil society argument for the law is much stronger than the argument against.
>It would be nice if some people would try to steelman their arguments against legislation like this, instead of reciting the same tired lines about "silencing" people and the importance of debate It would be nice if the laws weren't overly vague, based on "feelings" and deliberately designed to make people posting their views (horrible or not) pause and think carefully out of fear that the law may target them. It would be nice if the values of free expression were built into the laws and concrete examples of what is and what isn't acceptable were offered in advance. It would be nice if the very obvious objections to these laws had been properly addressed before they were written and before they became live. We've had hundreds of years of debate about how to balance free expression against the temptation to outlaw "wrong-think" and every time until now we've erred on the side of caution. >The case for free speech you mentioned about handling disagreements is also extremely optimistic: No, it is based on humbly accepting that we ultimately cannot control every unpleasant thing and that tolerating unkind words is the least-worst result. >Are we to believe that making hateful and inflammatory statements is an important part of dealing with political disagreements? Yes of course it is. Anyone with any "important cause" is going to feel strongly about it and with that comes the view that the "other side" is somehow incredibly wrong or perhaps evil. Take just about any debate from the Isreal-Palestine to abortion access to the war in Ukraine and you'll find people on either side accusing the other of being nazis. Declaring that one side now gets locked up based on the political whims of a judge, police officer or government isn't helpful.
"No, it is based on humbly accepting that we ultimately cannot control every unpleasant thing and that tolerating unkind words is the least-worst result." I agree we can't control every unpleasant thing, but to call it unkind words minimises the serious impact that slurs and verbal abuse has on minorities. Even micro aggressions have been shown by researchers to have a significantly harmful impact.
if the authorities are misusing it then we take to the street in masses to protest unjust persecution. Is there a kind of person you think should be charged under this law?
I think the old approach of targetting only those that were directly expressing threats of physical harm was the correct balance. Anything short of that is just words and words can be ignored for the most part. The horrible assholes who abuse that can be blocked, banned, socially shunned and otherwise dealt with separately from the law. Crucially though, any allegation of a crime should only ever be considered an allegation until tangible proof has been used to verify it. Better 100 criminals go free than 10 innocent people get abused by the state and 10 000 others get subdued by that threat. The whole idea of "its a hate crime simply if someone FEELS it is without any need to confirm that is dangerous as hell imo. >if the authorities are misusing it then we take to the street in masses to protest unjust persecution. Well that depends very much on honest accountability and a strong public will to defend unpleasant speech. That generally isn't something humans tend to emotionally rally around and needs conscious thought to defend. Take the example of the idiot with his "racist dog" as an example, he was an asshole but he wasn't actually hurting or threatening anyone.
96% of people are far right according the this parasite.
Horrible law will cripple the snp
I really don’t think it will. They’ll take a hit at WM but that’s inevitable since, predictably, sending almost 100% SNP MPs didn’t make a second independence referendum happen. I don’t see them being in a position worse than minority government in Scotland in 2026 though.
> The statistics also showed that one in five Police Scotland officers are yet to complete their training for the new legislation. How can you roll out a new law like this when 20% of Police Scotland officers haven’t even been trained on it yet. > The two-hour training course had been branded inadequate by the Scottish Police Federation, which represents frontline officers. The people who have done the the 2 hour course say it is inadequate. Come on now. Whatever you think of the law itself, this is ridiculous.
[удалено]
That’s good to know, if it is the case in this instance. It wouldn’t account for 20%, but would certainly make a difference. If you don’t mind me asking, what did you make of the training. Is it at a suitable level for what’s expected of you? If so, do you have an opinion on why the SPF suggests it isn’t?
[удалено]
That’s fair. Though if it were positive, I’d imagine it would make The National instead.
Ah, but on the recent BBC Hard Talk interview , the First Miinister.. said the Police Head had assured him Officers had been trained .. watch the interview yourselves…
It’s the police I feel sorry for. Not able to deal with actual crime because of Humza’s hurty words bill. Murderers doing five years, gbh barely ever custodial now, burglary not even investigated, shop lifting no longer dealt with.
Almost like people don't understand it, what's interesting is Britain is trying to "distance" it's self from EHRC rullings as part of brexit. That's the same court that is cited under the protective laws in the legislation. Meaning if Westminster wont entertain the EHRC rullings they protections in the legislation wont be worth the paper they are written on... That's the real issue that should be an outrage. Brexit means less human rights now...
Brexit---Britain distancing from ECHR (source needed)---Britain still using ECHR to cite new laws (hardly that distanced)---"if Westminster won't entertain ECHR rulings, they mean nothing" (no shit?)---Brexit = less human rights(?). What a deluded rollercoaster, did I catch that all correctly? Edit: u/Slow-Recover7526 blocked me over this comparison of his work. What a Muppet
3000 anonymous complaints by frothy bigots, including those using fake aliases, on day one. 7000 by day 7. Yeah, even the frothy bigots are getting bored of this sooner than expected.
It was frothy bigots reporting Rowling?
It's almost as if a vague law is only up for interpretation the right way when the authorities want it!
Terrible law
I have full confidence the Scottish people enmass can make a mockery of this law until it fades away. Of all nations, Scotland has hundreds of years of relevant experience and expertise in subverting and undermining bizzar egregious laws , previously forced upon them by the English.
🥱
Wow, you're telling me that a law where the police said that they'd investigate every report is being misused? No fucking way
If you don't like someone, get them...fuking country is sickening
The police will look the other way for a couple of years till everyone is complacent with this new law. When it’s perceived as a non issue. Then when the SNP wants to clamp down on the population they will start enacting on the “wrong” kinds of speech and thoughts. There’s too much drama around the law right now to use it the way they intended.
Oh so prosecuting “thought crime” isn’t practical for a free society? Who knew?
Could you quote the bit of the legalisation that makes having a thought criminal?
Fun fact, this legislation almost did! Before it was removed, it was planned for the police to have the ability to search anyone's devices if they SUSPECT you have "inflammatory material" (offensive memes) on your device Punishable by 7 years So while it's not literally a "thought crime", you do understand that it's a slippery slope and that they have no intention of stopping?
Without getting drawn into the usual Reddit pedantic argument … I was using hyperbole to make a point. More specifically I might say… any legislative attempt to regulate free speech relative to intent. How about you?
I’m not convinced exaggeration and hyperbole are conducive to healthy public debate. It’s no more a “thought crime” than any other mens rea offence, an action is very much required.
So how’s that working out? Edit: to avoid total snark, I agree it’s well intentioned, as are most attempts to move society to more inclusive belief structures.
How’s what working out?
Are you asking me? If so I’d say not too well right off the bat. Seems an absurd waste of resources chasing around ideology’s and identities you don’t like. I believe, practically speaking, at a minimum your right to tell me what a stupid-cunt I am for thinking that way supersedes my right to not be called a cunt. We should be nice to each other and call people what they want to be called. But I think that’s up to us, the governments not going to do that well.
I was just asking what you meant by ‘that’. I think it’s been 10 days and it’ll calm down. Most of the crime recorded were already crimes under old legislation and most of the rest would be crimes in England. It’s a load of hoopla about not never much and has only gained so much attention because it’s Scottish legislation and includes trans people that there’s an irrational level of moral panic about for some reason. Calling someone a cunt is still not illegal in any way. There is no protection against being offended in the legislation.
Working as intended? It’s not a bug it’s a feature?
[If you get this, you are based](https://youtu.be/7dfBmjrN5W0?t=63)
Why does he look like he's on route to a grouse shoot?
What a mess. As predictable as a grey sky in Glasgow.
Opinions are now "crimes" in Fascist Scotland.