Scotland's new hate crime law comes into force

[Phoenix Fields 2,714]

Scotland's new hate crime law has come into force, with JK Rowling and Elon Musk among its critics.

The Harry Potter author and the owner of social media platform X both claim the legislation could harm free speech.

Senior police officers say they expect a flood of complaints about online posts.

But the Scottish government insists the law provides protection from hate and prejudice without stifling individual expression.

"I think there has been a lot of misinformation," about the legislation, said the Victims and Community Safety Minister Siobhian Brown, before going on to claim, inaccurately, that it was "passed unanimously" by MSPs in 2021.

In fact the law was approved by 82 votes to 32 with four abstentions after heated debate about its contents.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

The maximum penalty is a prison sentence of seven years.

Source

 

I live in Scotland and JK Rowling has dared the police to arrest her lmao

 

[LaLa 19,898]

11 minutes ago, Westerosi said:

I live in Scotland and JK Rowling has dared the police to arrest her lmao

ACAB... unless...  

[weed 78,933]

JK created the evil version of this

[Dennis 8,391]

7 years of prison? I really don't support this. Sounds excessive and easily abusable. 

Also what does "stir up hate against religion" mean? If I criticize a religion there I risk 7 years of prison?

Being gay, or of a certain ethnicity is not a choice. But choosing to follow religion IS a choice. I don't believe religious beliefs deserve protection.

I feel like if this gets abused by the wrong government, even Gaga and Madonna could be imprisoned for Judas, Like a Prayer etc.. Or Charlie Hebdo (in the case of Islam). 

[faysalaaa 5,336]

So its illegal to draw Prophet Muhammad in Scotland?

[faysalaaa 5,336]

Making it illegal for humans to hate is weird

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,855]

32 minutes ago, Dennis said:

7 years of prison? I really don't support this. Sounds excessive and easily abusable. 

Also what does "stir up hate against religion" mean? If I criticize a religion there I risk 7 years of prison?

Being gay, or of a certain ethnicity is not a choice. But choosing to follow religion IS a choice. I don't believe religious beliefs deserve protection.

I feel like if this gets abused by the wrong government, even Gaga and Madonna could be imprisoned for Judas, Like a Prayer etc.. Or Charlie Hebdo (in the case of Islam). 

So Section 4, which outlines what constitutes “stirring up hatred,” does have elements that I would definitely deem as overly broad (includes “insulting” as a potential red flag for this kind of offense), though the emphasis on distribution does seem to me like the legislation is meant more to target what public figures disseminate on large platforms, rather than focusing on interpersonal transgressions.

 That being said, what’s interesting about the question as to whether or not certain artists could be potentially incriminated by this law (Gaga, Madonna etc.), is that Section 4 does also include this, “in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.” That caveat strikes me as something that would likely categorically exclude art from scrutiny, but again, I suppose it depends on whether or not that art could be “reasonably believed” to be violent or intimidating propaganda. 

So I think the effect of this legislation is ultimately intended to narrow the focus of prosecution to, “Is this messaging intended to organize a targeted hate movement that would seek to violently intimidate or potentially attack a marginalized group?” as opposed to, “Did this person say something that could potentially offend a protected group?” That being said, I definitely get the concern about this being abused as it could be deemed categorically broad, but I also think that the focus on “reasonable belief” is meant to encourage scrutiny, dissuade against haphazard application of the law, and also imposes a standard of outlining intent, not merely rhetoric. 

 

 

[PartySick 172,531]

Strongly disagree with religion being protected under this law.

[StrawberryBlond 15,564]

I think I speak for many Scots when I say that we are concerned about how this law will be perceived and applied. It has always been the law that you can report threats and hate crimes, so why is this news? It must be because it's going to be applied in a much broader and more extreme way. The idea you could get reported by another member of your household is frightening. One argument with a roommate or a kid gets mad at their parents grounding them and the next minute, the police are at your door for a crime you didn't commit. It harkens back to wartime when people were encouraged to tell on their neighbours and parents. With deepfake technology, we could even get footage of someone saying something they didn't and how are they going to prove it? And abuse/threats are different from criticism but not everyone can make the distinction. Most confusingly, hate crimes on the basis of sex are not covered, that will be covered in a separate misogyny bill. So, why are women getting their own separate law? And men can be victims of sexism too, so why is it a separate 'misogyny' bill? 

I'm sure the police are going to be inundated with time wasters and hoaxers. All while crime is on the rise in Scotland and there are cuts in the police force. It might even mean those suffering with a genuine hate crime will be treated less seriously because the police will be fed up dealing with all the irrelevant reports that they end up feeling resentful towards anyone reporting, no matter how genuine they are. Jails are overcrowded enough as it is, they should be reserved for people who are physical dangers to society as opposed to someone who's just a bit of a mouth. 

[bionic 50,111]

14 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

So Section 4, which outlines what constitutes “stirring up hatred,” does have elements that I would definitely deem as overly broad (includes “insulting” as a potential red flag for this kind of offense), though the emphasis on distribution does seem to me like the legislation is meant more to target what public figures disseminate on large platforms, rather than focusing on interpersonal transgressions.

 That being said, what’s interesting about the question as to whether or not certain artists could be potentially incriminated by this law (Gaga, Madonna etc.), is that Section 4 does also include this, “in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.” That caveat strikes me as something that would likely categorically exclude art from scrutiny, but again, I suppose it depends on whether or not that art could be “reasonably believed” to be violent or intimidating propaganda. 

So I think the effect of this legislation is ultimately intended to narrow the focus of prosecution to, “Is this messaging intended to organize a targeted hate movement that would seek to violently intimidate or potentially attack a marginalized group?” as opposed to, “Did this person say something that could potentially offend a protected group?” That being said, I definitely get the concern about this being abused as it could be deemed categorically broad, but I also think that the focus on “reasonable belief” is meant to encourage scrutiny, dissuade against haphazard application of the law, and also imposes a standard of outlining intent, not merely rhetoric. 

 

 

So basically what ur saying is its left broad so they can prosecute basically whoever they want but have exceptions where they dont want to prosecute

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,855]

9 minutes ago, bionic said:

So basically what ur saying is its left broad so they can prosecute basically whoever they want but have exceptions where they dont want to prosecute

I do think the language should be more specific in certain places, but, as I said, scope and intent appear to be key here and I don’t think those are particularly arbitrary. Either way, most law is fleshed out through adjudication, so I think it’s interesting to see how it would be applied and interpreted and all I’m saying is that there certainly are caveats that should prevent abuse and overly broad applications. 

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

6 hours ago, bionic said:

So basically what ur saying is its left broad so they can prosecute basically whoever they want but have exceptions where they dont want to prosecute

yes, this is like a Russian law...

This law is made with the purpose to intimidate people from speaking their mind

 

Glasgow November 2024:

18-year old boy on X: "Trump/Biden is too old to rule America"

*a Grandpa reads this and calls police, he happens to be friends with the police*

Scottish police: *arrests this boy for 3 years because of stirring up hate against old people* (age is a hate crime, now, too in Scotland)

This is how it's gonna be like

 

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,855]

5 minutes ago, Okinawa said:

yes, this is like a Russian law...

This law is made with the purpose to intimidate people from speaking their mind

 

Glasgow November 2024:

18-year old boy on X: "Trump/Biden is too old to rule America"

*a Grandpa reads this and calls police, he happens to be friends with the police*

Scottish police: *arrests this boy for 3 years because of stirring up hate against old people* (age is a hate crime, now, too in Scotland)

This is how it's gonna be like

 

Y’all really love to fear monger about bills w/o reading them, huh? Lmao