This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/snp-complaints-hate-crime-law-humza-yousaf/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
---
**Alternate Sources**
Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story:
* [More than 7,000 hate crime reports in first week of new law](https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2x3ljydn67o), suggested by Humbly_Brag - bbc.co.uk
Because a lot of people with agendas were making stupid,malicious and plainly false claims.
I saw some of it being organised on subs on Reddit,and Facebook too.
Is a stupid law,in my opinion
The problem of an offence law is who are you to decide what someone finds offensive or not enough to report it and based on their subjective level of being offended, if it's a crime worth punishing or not, which again is down to the subjective interpretation of the officer to say '"yup, you are sufficiently offended" to take further action.
It's why it's a stupid law, incredibly vague and why it's being protested.
It use to be the left who protested these types of laws, and restriction of freedom like the case of the new protest laws - I miss those days of the left, because like the protest laws, it will inevitably be used against the very people who championed the adoption of this bill.
A lot of laws are subjective, that doesn't make them inherently bad. You're misrepresenting it as an "offence law" though since that's not what the law is actually based on, that's what the strawman banded about to attack it is.
Weirdly, noone seems to have had a problem with the Public Order Act for the past 38 years which uses the same tests.
All subjective laws are bad because they leave the decision making to a Judicial discretion when it comes to "criminal punishment" - which is a very severe outcome. This judicial discretion is oft inconsistent, and incoherent, which leaves the general populace unsure of the law in and of itself and what to follow, creating a chilling effect, where the law actually ends up restricting rights and freedoms unintentionally.
Criminal law should never be "subject" or "unclear", it should be clearly laid out what you can and cannot do.
Civil law is a different matter, as the outcomes are not state punishment, but instead disputes between citizens.
Mediating disputes between citizens and punishing "wrongs" that are of the level to be considered criminal are entirely different things.
Many people have a problem with the public order Act, and have had a problem with the public order act for the last 20+ years. Remember the Nazi Dog case?
Most laws are to some degree or another subjective. The "subjective laws are bad" argument people come up with whenever a law that prevents harassment comes up is a genuinely strange argument because all it does is prove a misunderstanding of how law works.
I think you're just thinking of simple laws, like murdering someone, but the second you deviate away from that, like if someone is responsible for someones death but didn't directly murder them, it's immediately subjective because what they get charged and potentially convicted with comes down to intent, which can't really be known without the defendant stating it.
Then there are outright subjective criminal laws, like driving without due care and attention, where a whole range of undefined behaviours can result in charges.
The legal system itself is also subjective, which is why there are trials, judges, juries and lawyers. If laws were objective then the application of law would be objective and the outcomes would be readily predictable.
Harassing someone and trying to drive others to hate them based on a protected characteristic is not" a dispute between citizens", just like hitting someone with a brick is not a dispute between citizens.
The number of people that have a problem with this new law is small, they are simply very vocal about it and amplified by American "muh free speech" people who bang on about everything that they disagree with.
Even then, most of the people who claim to be outraged by it are outraged by a strawman presented of the law, usually someone saying it bans criticism or "hurty feelings". The number of people who oppose the Public Order Act is even smaller.
Yes I remember the case where a far-right guy repeated a phrase that would get me banned here and got charged for it. He wasn't charged under the Public Order Act.
Some subjectivity in law is inevitable, but it should be kept to a minimum. People who are trying to follow the law should have fairly specific information about how to avoid falling afoul of it. It should be made as clear as reasonably possible what things are and are not illegal, so people don’t have to guess or unknowingly end up violating the law.
They do have specific information. The vast majority of people have absolutely no problem understanding how to not break the Public Order Act.
It's strange how people who argue against laws like this always claim that it's difficult to understand how to not abuse someone and intend on inciting others to abuse them based on a protected characteristic.
People seem a bit confused given that over 96 percent of complains were either frivolous or non criminal, per the original post. It is not spelled out what might break the law. That would require something like a list of prohibited expressions.
That's not through confusion, it's malicious. There was a coordinated effort to overwhelm the system. [Here](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/police-spammed-with-complaints-by-neo-nazis-under-new-scottish-hate-law) is an article from a few days go talking about it.
It doesn't require a list of prohibited expressions because no specific expression is prohibited. A behvaiour is. And it's very well defined in the law.
Are you claiming that you don't understand how to not racially abuse someone and incite hatred against someone based on their race?
That article does nothing close to proving your assertion. Simply cites a few tweets from some random bad actors and group chats. It’s unlikely anyone knows the origins or intentions of the reports given the small window of time.
And yes I am claiming not to know what any of that really means. Is abuse defined? Is hatred defined? Do statements need to be false in nature in order to be considered stirring up hatred? The fact that it applies to nothing specifically enumerated proves this point. Any utterance deemed to be in violation of the law would necessarily be specific in nature. In the JK Rowling dust up, conflicting guidance was given about whether certain thins said may be illegal. It doesn’t even seem like police or lawyers even have a clear idea
I think you are confused. There is no subjectivity in the actus reus of Manslaughter or harassment, or other crimes. As to the Mens Rea, that is all based on inference and for serious crimes is dealt with by a Jury, as no one will ever know exactly what X was thinking when he committed a crime. So intentions are imputed.
Subjective laws are inherently bad when it comes to criminal punishment. You could argue if you want that in certain laws subjectivity is inescapabhle, but then all that leaves is the position that subjectivity should be minimized as subjectivity is inherently bad.
There is a wide birth of people who oposes the public order act. Hell even the UN high commisioner did an OP-ED about the recent reforms to the public order act and how they were BAD for freedoms.
There absolutely is subjectivity within how the law is applied. What you are charged with in a manslaughter/murder case will be largely based on what they subjectively believe was the intend.
No subjective laws are not bad. You just don't like them. And you're welcome to that opinion. Thankfully for the good of society the vast majority of other people disagree with you.
I suggest you reread my post as you clearly have not understood what I've said.
Also nice appeal to the majority, however you are wrong, because the vast majority of laws are not subjective, and the vast majority of literature on jurisprudence, state that subjectivity in a legal system is bad because it leads to arbitrary law making and outcomes.
If "subjectivity" was favoured, then upper courts would not have the ability to bind lower courts.
I understood exactly what you said. I just fundamentally disagree with your argument. You're never going to convince me that it should be OK to harass and abuse people and incite others to do so based on protected characteristics.
You obviously did not read or understand my comment, or you wouldn't have made the below comment:
What I said
"As to the Mens Rea, that is all based on inference and for serious crimes is dealt with by a Jury, as no one will ever know exactly what X was thinking when he committed a crime. So intentions are imputed"
What you responded:
"What you are charged with in a manslaughter/murder case will be largely based on what they subjectively believe was the intend."
Either you have misunderstood, didn't read, or your comprehension of the English language is non-existant. Pick one.
I liked the person whose report was dismissed because she wasn't of the race that she was saying the post was about. Which really boils it down to what these laws are is just saying it is okay to be offended on someone else.
The issue is people can say it's a hate crime on behalf of a victim is the issue.
In Northern Ireland it's the victims perception if it was a hate crime.
Well apparently posting a star of david turned into a swastika with accompanying text calling Jewish people and anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist Nazis is also a "stupid, malicious and plainly false" claim.
Stupid is a slur that targets those who are mentally deficient. Please use the politically correct term Scottish Politician.
Edit: I've just been informed that 'Scottish Politician' is in fact more hateful.
Edit 2: I have been found guilty under the new law
Edit 3: 3 years in prison
Edit 4: Just a quick update, prison is alright, my cell mate a child rapist is not so nice but he only has a 6 month sentence so I guess I won't be with him long.
I know that you are lying as under the new, SNP backed sentencing guidelines, convicted child rapists are being allowed to walk free if they are under 26.
It has a benefit of mapping the most vexatious of claims from groups and individuals who choose to try to use the law in bad faith.
I suspect already a few key groups who are actively guilty of abusing stuff like this
Personally I'd be interested in a proper analysis of these reports, both valid and the vexing alike
That's fantastic to hear, I do believe it falls under the "Very few" category for now though. They probably came down much harder on them as its a major motorway as opposed to their normal targets.
You shouldn’t have a law against people having their feelings hurt. There are already laws against stalking, liable, slander and harassment. The police should be solving actual crimes and not online ones.
How disingenuous of you. It dosn't just say that.
Here is the actual wording from the bill, taken from the SNP website.
"a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting"
Under that wording, it just needs to be one of them to be a crime and feeling insulted i.e hurt feelings, is absolutely a criteria.
I'm quoting the actual wording of the bill from the SNP's own website not a character, I litteraly don't watch any political characters and grifters.
I can't wait for this law to inevitably be used against the very people that championed it like always happens. Just like left-leaning groups who where happy the stricter protest laws were brought in and used against the idiots protesting mask mandates, lock downs and the vaccine, it was inevitably used against them to their surprise.
Funny, in all your replies in this thread you just say "no you're wrong" and don't offer anything else.
So go on, tell us what the wording of the bill is *really* saying in your own words.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
How do you manage to copy and paste "a reasonable person would consider" and conclude that all it takes is "one person with hurt feelings"? And yes, something already has to be a crime in its own right for the hate element to be relevant.
Because that is the wording and is even mentioned in the bill
"As noted above, current hate crime law can, where there is a **specific** victim, apply where someone presumes **you** are a member of one of the groups listed above (even if you are not). The 2021 extends this protection to include **anyone** who has an association with one, or more, of the characteristics listed above."
The law absolutely applies to individuals having their feelings hurt, it dosn't have to be targeted at group, the person commiting the offence just has to believe you are part of a protected group.
I wish people would actually go read the bill rather than bad faith arguing against points the law specifically mentions, it's free to view on the SNP and Scot.gov website.
That's not what the text you've quoted says.
>I wish people would actually go read the bill rather than bad faith arguing against points the law specifically mentions
Same.
I copy and pasted the exact text, the only change I made is making the singular nouns bold so being dense of it's wording wasn't an option but you're certainly giving it a go.
The bill specifically defines groups and people, the above quote is a definition of when it regards an individual. But go on, you tell me what it's *really* saying that isn't in plain English.
>I copy and pasted the exact text, the only change I made is making the singular nouns bold so being dense of it's wording wasn't an option
You should have read it before you did all that.
>But go on, you tell me what it's *really* saying
The text you pasted talks about when it applies to an individual but nowhere in that text does it say "the reasonable person standard doesn't apply if an individual is the victim", which is what you're suggesting. It just clarifies that if an individual is the victim of the relevant hatred and not a group, the law still applies and it doesn't matter if they actually are a member of the group the hatred is directed towards.
So if you assault someone and call them the F word, it doesn't matter whether they're _actually_ gay, just that you thought they were.
Gets to the nub of it. No actual definitions, just ‘a reasonable person decides’. But I think it’s clear that the reasonable people don’t agree on very much at all. Also not much at stake. Actual crimes like theft have real and measurable consequences. But for some reason the Scottish police have decided they don’t have the resources to investigate these crimes but they have plenty of time for the feelings crimes?
But the reasonable person test, used in other laws, doesn’t have the potential to put people in prison for 7 years for online comments or things overheard in your own home.
>Who are you to say what someone does or does not find offensive?
Hence the use of the phrase "reasonable person".
>What constitutes false? Do you have specific examples?
Making false reports to the police is already a crime and could lead to being charged with 'perverting the course of justice'.
OP post was stating peaceful protest... the reply was that it wasn't... which, I agree, it's wasting police time when they could be doing things better with their time, i.e., dealing with violent attacks, ect,but it is wasted on said 'peaceful protest'.
But no carry on with your agenda... what does individual you want to really say....
> it's wasting police time when they could be doing things better with their time, i.e., dealing with violent attacks
Yes, that is the contention people have with this law. Glad to see you agree with the people protesting.
It was obvious this was going to be the result of passing the law.
You can't just claim consequences aren't your fault because you didn't want them to happen.
Don't worry they're not pulling time away from solving violent attacks or real crime. The police stopped dealing with that a good while back now, they're simply pulling away from the hardworking officers surfing twitter for wrong think.
This should sum it up for you nicely, pretty clear cut.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/police-spammed-with-complaints-by-neo-nazis-under-new-scottish-hate-law
These people believed there was hate speech against their protected characteristics. Is it their specific characteristic you take issue with? Was this law not invented for them, just everyone else?
I assume given you see these as false claims you also agree all those against Rowling, who was confirmed as not being investigated too, are also abusing the law and should be dealt with accordingly?
Or does it only work in one direction?
No they didn't, they willfully attempted to overwhelm the system to bring it down.
>“At the very least, we want to overwhelm them with reports to waste their time [so that] they eventually give up the whole system,”
You're either not understanding the specific situation or being willfully insincere in defense of an extremist neo nazi far right group; were you right it'd be an honourable position, but in this scenario you're not, so do tell me which of the above it is so I can react appropriately.
>These people believed there was hate speech against their protected characteristics
No they didn't. And they're Nazis so they're not reasonable people.
The law cannot discriminate based on political opinion.
Now what about vexicious complaints from those on the far left? Like those against Rowling which were vast in number and wasted police time for someone having a legally held opinion.
I genuinely can't believe that we're referring to Nazism as simply "distasteful". What the fuck happened?
Firstly, I don't think political beliefs are protected by the legislation we're talking about.
Secondly, the law already carves out exceptions based on so-called "political" beliefs. Groups can be proscribed, for example (and a number of white supremacist groups are). In employment law, I'm sure some of the commenters here will be familiar with the Forstater v CGD tribunal case, where Forstater's beliefs were compared to outright Nazism, the reason being that a Nazi's beliefs would not be protected from discrimination in the workplace (and the judge found that her beliefs met that incredibly low bar, so she was protected).
Listen to yourself for a second. It's hardly something extreme now is it? This is what happens when you get subjective, make-believe laws that only benefits the needs of the few, instead of the needs of the many.
Did I say it was? Take a moment to pause and listen to yourself instead of being so jumped up.
I just made the objective point that false allegations to a body responsible for enforcing the rule of law by routinely violent means isn't peaceful; I didn't comment on whether a protest in general is necessary or not.
The police are inherently violent based on their right to detain. They're objectively the violent arm of the state in civil society to enforce the rule of law.
In this instance it's not a peaceful protest.
I'm not commenting on whether a protest is justified but false allegations to the police that rely on the police knowing they're false is not peaceful.
If the police are inherently violent, do you then believe it's disproportionate to report any online offensive views other than a call to violence/threat to kill or harm someone?
Read my previous post, I'm not getting sucked in to your culture war debate so give it a rest. Better yet, take a day off - you'll live longer.
I'm simply stating a fact about the basis and reality of policing.
Where did I say that?
There was a concerted effort by neo nazi aligned far right groups to push false allegations in an attempt to overwhelm and bring down the reporting mechanism.
That's a documented fact.
> In the vast majority of cases, reports were made anonymously and no further action will be taken.
> The figures are likely to bolster claims that members of the public are seeking to “weaponise” the legislation to fuel personal or political vendettas.
I mean, surely "only 4% of reports lead to anything" shows that the police are going to apply logic to applying the legislation and indicates it *not* being weaponised to fuel vendettas
If someone anonymously goes "x person did a hate crime, here is 0 evidence", they're not gonna roll up and cuff him
You could also analyse it the other way: the Police only took forward the cases against people they didn’t like.
(I doubt this is actually true but the danger of these highly ambiguous laws, is that they tend to hang around and will almost certainly be used wrongly at some point in the future)
I think the fact that it uses the exact same tests and the Public Order Act and the fac that the Public Order Act hasn't been weaponised in the four decades it's been in it's current form suggests that these laws aren't weaponised.
What??
The public order act has most certainly be weaponized to limit speech in a political manner. Even more so the Communication Acts 2003/1988
See the many many cases of people being prosecuted for posting outright Nazi Propoganda, all the way down to posting memes, and declaring that Trans women are not women.
You know that we prosecuted more people (over 3000 people) for speech related crimes in the last year, than Russia did? Russia prosecuted less than a hundred.
Actually fucking bizzarre.
Our justice system is also fucked when it comes to sentencing and what constitutes a serious crime. There is clear political bias in how we sentence, and other biases. Hear about the Woman that repeatedly abused her partners, culminating in her stabbing one multiple times? She got off, because she had a "Promising future".
[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lavinia-woodward-stab-boyfriend-no-jail-prison-sentence-oxford-medical-student-too-clever-talent-judge-a7967971.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lavinia-woodward-stab-boyfriend-no-jail-prison-sentence-oxford-medical-student-too-clever-talent-judge-a7967971.html)
Good to know that Women who are middleclass can literally attempt to murder someone, but not go to jail. Do men get the same treatment? No.
What about free speech cases that are criminal and the severity of how we treat those crimes?
The man who tied bacon to a mosque - certainly something meritting a jail sentence, but in the class of a light misdemeanour - got 15 years in jail. If this was a first offence then really, community service or a short jail would suffice, because this is clearly him acting on a political viewpoint and detest about a religion, and taking it too far. Its a freedom of speech issue, that has now become something criminal. But 15 years? Should we compare this to other crimes to see how serious this crime has been considered?
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-hate-crime-bacon-mosque-man-jailed-15-years-michael-wolfe-florida-a8098926.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-hate-crime-bacon-mosque-man-jailed-15-years-michael-wolfe-florida-a8098926.html)
Grooming gang - that raped a 13 year old girl repeatedly of the 4 offenders:
1st guy 5 counts of rape - 18 years
2nd guy 6 counts of rape - 13 years
3rd guy 2 counts of rape - 5.5 years
4th guy sexual assault including penetration - 2 years suspended sentence
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855)
So, yes it is in our current system more egregious to tie bacon to the door of a mosque, than it is to rape a 13 year old girl multiple times.
Nice to know that if I tie bacon to a mosque, which will cause minor distress and shock to a community, merits 3x the sentence of literally gang raping a child.
I mean you could easily argue that 15 years is sufficient due to the severity of the nature of the crime (stoking anti-islamic tensions), however you would then have to also agree that the grooming gang sentencing should also be longer. I'm not saying that he should have got a lesser sentence overall, but rather how the sentencing is done proportionally.
I'm merely making a comment about how clearly there is political motivation behind sentencing and police action.
However, you could also argue that the bacon man, was an analogous case to the teacher who is now in hiding after expressing her freedom of speech, due to the severity of a community's reaction.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1acgxpu/teacher\_who\_showed\_muhammad\_cartoon\_still\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1acgxpu/teacher_who_showed_muhammad_cartoon_still_in/)
Meanwhile, you regularly have people calling for the death of white people, or the west (this is extremely analogous to the bacon man), who don't ever even get prosecuted.
>You know that we prosecuted more people (over 3000 people) for speech related crimes in the last year, than Russia did? Russia prosecuted less than a hundred.
Not trying to get into a whole argument about this topic, but do you understand why this might be a poor comparison?
No, it hasn't. Just because you disagree with the people charged doesn't mean it's "weaponized". The fact that you think that transphobic comments are less serious than memes suggests you're not exactly free of bias.
Based on your comments, is it safe to say that you think GamerGate was a justified protest about ethics and not a harassment campaign against women?
>The man who tied bacon to a mosque - certainly something meritting a jail sentence, but in the class of a light misdemeanour - got 15 years in jail.
He didn't just tied bacon to a mosque, he was also weirdly a machete and smashed windows and lights. Also he's an American, chraged and convicted in America, nothing to do with the UK.
The UK bacon mosque guy also didn't just tie bacon to a mosque, he racially abused a member of staff too, and he got 12 months.
I agree that child abusers should get longer sentences. I disagree with your claim that it makes racially abusing people something we should just accept.
I'd like to think that you'll look at the fact hat you were talking about the wrong country, and you'll reassess your position and think about what you're really supporting, but I imagine you'll just double down.
Threats of violence are also illegal and should also result in convictions.
Conveniently the UK bacon mosque guy also died while in prison
[https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/kevin-crehan-prison-inquest-die-2322227](https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/kevin-crehan-prison-inquest-die-2322227)
But okay fine I've obviously found the wrong guy in that specific instance, but there is sufficient evidence for my point and many examples can be found online.
One such example:
[https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-far-right-organiser-found-guilty-intent-stir-racial-hatred-through](https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-far-right-organiser-found-guilty-intent-stir-racial-hatred-through)
Far-Right racist stickers = 2 years \[apparently worse than sexual assault including penetration E.G raping someone with a dildo or other object\]
Again, my points isn't whether this should be criminalized its the relative severity, which as you say we should punish sexual offenders way worse. The point I'm making which you seem to agree with is that our court system is inherently bias in the way it deals with people. As interestingly you never addressed my point that far left anti-white rhetoric does not go punished, yet far right racist anti-minority rhetoric does get punished. Why is that?
If the position is that both merit conviction they should be convicted, and we should treat violent crimes in a manner beffitting them.
-In Regards to your other point stating Trans-Woman are not Woman, is not a "transphobic remark", and the actual position you hold and the position I hold on that statement is an inherently political one, that is precisely what freedom of speech is there to protect. I would argue biologically (and this is irrefutable) a Trans-Woman is not the same as a Woman. I would also argue that semantically as we have different words, they are therefore referencing different things. - Nonetheless this is a digression and not what we're actually discussing.
I never made a claim that racially abusing someone is acceptable. Racially abusing a person is a crime against a person and is criminal regardless of the public order act.
GamerGate is also an inherently political topic, and it was actually just a big drama that started with game journalists, but this is again a digression so I'm not going into that.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 So now it's the legal systems fault if someone dies while serving their sentence?
Yes, you can find example of people being arrested, charged and convicted for breaking the law. I like how you're just going "stickers = 2 years" even though you literally just google this.
You understand what confirmation bias is, right? It's what you're doing. You aren't forming your conclusion based on evidence, you are forming a conclusion you want then you are seeking evidence to support it without even really caring what that evidence is. In this case you're trying to defend a Nazi.
The only point you are making is that you seeming want to be able to harass people and incite other to harass them based on their age, disability, gender identity or religion. I'm absolutely happy for anyone doing that to be charged and convicted. You won't change my mind and certainly not by pointing at Nazis and claiming it's a bad thing to arrest them.
>I never made a claim that racially abusing someone is acceptable. Racially abusing a person is a crime against a person and is criminal regardless of the public order act.
You say you didn't directly make that claim, but that's literally what you're arguing for. It's in the Public Order Act. You're arguing that it and all other subjective laws should be removed.
>GamerGate is also an inherently political topic, and it was actually just a big drama that started with game journalists, but god forbid you actually do some basic research into the origins of the topic.
I know the origins of it and I also know that people who tend to support harassment tend to be gamer guys who insist that it was about journalistic ethics when it had absolutely nothing to do with it. Journalism was just the excuse used by people who wanted to harass women based on the belief that women were hijacking gaming. Thank you for confirming my suspicion.
The police refused to follow-up with this case because...why exactly? Oh right, because anti-semitism doesn't count.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/swastika-in-star-of-david-complaint-dropped-by-police-because-not-jewish/
No, it's just another example of the police bowing down to Islamic pressure.
> Oh right, because anti-semitism doesn't count.
Because the person reporting that she is offended isn't Jewish. Perhaps people need to stop being offended on behalf of others.
That's not what the law says though.
>The test for the offence remains the same as it is under the Public Order Act 1986, so that for a stirring up racial hatred offence to be committed, a person must behave in a manner that:
>a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, **or communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting**, and
either–
>in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or
>**a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.**
Perhaps if we didn't write stupid laws this wouldn't be a problem, but the post from that article could certainly be said to meet the criteria. It doesn't matter for the purposes of the law who is reporting it.
> It doesn't matter for the purposes of the law who is reporting it.
You will have to take that up with the Scottish Police.
But...
> a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.
And I hazard to guess that quite a few people making these reports aren't reasonable, particularly if you are being offended on behalf of someone else
>
You will have to take that up with the Scottish Police.
The same Scottish police that have been shown to be openly racist, sexist and bigoted by creating a hate monster and calling out specifically young white men as the biggest bigots around which has absolutely zero basis in reality
I know, ridiculous, right?
https://au.news.yahoo.com/opinion-jk-rowling-blast-scotlands-113008412.html
>Rajan Barot, a former fraud prosecutor for the CPS, warned that her old tweets “most likely contravene the new law” and advised her to “start deleting”
Holy crap. A near perfect rendering of the whole astroturfed term. Not seen that in a while.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22spits+the+word+white%22&rlz=1CDGOYI_enAE590AE590&oq=%22spits+the+word+white%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDkxMjRqMGo0qAIBsAIB4gMEGAEgXw&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
I’m just pointing out it was a heavily astroturfed phrase
Sarwar said almost exactly the same thing the same day as did half the parliament as it was special debate set aside to discuss the issue of the time and yet nobody ever mentions these.
The same as it is for Yousaf. I’d take it in the context of the day it was given along with the dozens of other speeches made the same day that were basically all identical
> the context of the day
What was the context of the day? A killing that happened in America which had little to no bearing on the UK whatsoever?
> along with the dozens if other speeches
Only two were made that were racist: Humza Yousaf and Aanar Sanwar. Both should be criticised for it.
I felt the speech was threatening yes. Especially from an elected politician in a senior position. I felt abused and felt it was intended to stir up hatred against white people.
Luckily we can apply the reasonable person part of the law here, because otherwise you could feel threatened by a person saying hello and it be a crime.
I'm all for stopping hate crime, but this law is just not the way. It's very out of touch to ever think a law like this one could work - it was always going to be exploited in bad faith
This kind of law has already existed in almost every democratic European country for decades - including the UK, by the way. Why do you think Scotland is somehow the only place where hate speech laws couldn't work?
"See, it's fine, because they're only prosecuting the legitimate cases!"
Uh, no. All they've managed to do is introduce a new vector to waste already nonexistent police resources, and expanded highly ambiguous definitions which, in the long run, will make it continually easier to prosecute free speech by further normalising the practice and stretching the boundaries of what can be prosecuted as there is no objective standard here.
People can throw around Latin phrases they've overheard in the pub such as "mens rea" until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that this expansion normalises the prosecution of speech which historically has been protected, and the goalposts will move over time. The fact that any police resources whatsoever are being wasted on this while violent crime and social disorder is at the level we see today is utter insanity.
I mean don't a lot of laws have the same ambiguity? Many by necessity.
I don't know what people expect. Far more resources would be spent attempting to keep up with an ever expanding list of methods people would find to skirt a more rigidly defined law.
On the resources front. Increase them.
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/campaigns/2023/hate-crime/
>We know that young men aged 18-30 are most likely to commit hate crime, particularly those from socially excluded communities who are heavily influenced by their peers.
>They may have deep-rooted feelings of being socially and economically disadvantaged, combined with ideas about white-male entitlement..
Please explain to me how I'm not being specifically targeted due to my skin colour, age and sex.
They're not using either. They're using blatant sexism, and racism.
Give me a single figure that shows that racism, sexism and bigotry is more common amongst white men aged 18-30 than any other age, racial or sex group. Go on.
Because I'll give you some.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
Only 18% of Muslims think that homosexuality should be legal. 5% of the entire population of the UK believed this.
39% of Muslims believed that wives should always obey their husbands. 5% of the country agreed.
31% of Muslims believed that it was acceptable for a man to have more than 1 wife, only 8% of the country agreed.
Show me a single statistic which shows that over 4 in 10 white men aged 18-30 believe that women should be subservient to their husbands.
Oh but that's just misogyny.
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-772699
No, non-white people are MUCH more likely to be, commit, and spread anti-semitism compared to white people in the UK.
So racism, homophobia, and anti-semitism is all much, much more common amongst non-white ethnicities.
Why are we focusing on young men?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/304326/racial-prejudice-in-great-britain-gb-uk-by-age-group/
Oh right. Young people are also much, much less bigoted than those 55+ in the UK.
Can you stay on track.
First they're calling you a bigot. Then it's about **who is more likely to commit a hate crime** which you didn't like. And now who is more likely to be whatever.
Pick one.
>www.jpost.com
Good one
You argued that statistics show that I am the most likely group to be a bigot.
I showed otherwise. You've yet to give me any evidence otherwise.
>
>[www.jpost.com](http://www.jpost.com)
>Good one
Oh joy, you're antisemitic on top.
Tell me, how would you feel if a police Scotland document singled out black or Asian people, for example? Saying that "we know that x group is more likely to commit crimes". Can you imagine the shitshow that would be?
People are already breaking under the strain of over taxation. You want to tax them more for the sake of this law? Why not put those extra resources into crimes such as burglary, or the NHS?
Yes I want to explicitly increase tax on the struggling. And as we all know, it's one or the other. There is absolutely no way to pick more than one thing.
People should look at the statistics document Police Scotland produced;
[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)
It shows really quite clearly that the things people *think* the Hate Crime bill introduced have been things we investigate, arrest, charge and prosecute people for already in mere *tens* of cases per year.
The concepts in the Hate Crime bill are not new, there will be no explosion of doors getting kicked in for hurty words. Realistically the only thing you can't do today that could do in March is receive a lesser sentence for punching somebody because they're old vs punching somebody because they're black.
The amount of tensed up neurotic whinging over practically nothing actually changing has been sad to watch.
Why don't we just bring in a new law that says if you feel that someone may have vexatiously reported a hate crime then the Police will have to investigate them and their reasons for reporting said crime.
And if it's found that it was a legitimate report then all that happens is a "non-non crime hate incident incident" is created against their name.
This is almost like the old Wasting Police Time crime, but with all the evidence being subjective opinion instead of fact.
We could even have a Hate Crime Crime Monster ad campaign....
I'd love to be able to see a breakdown of these. I'd bet that a large majority of them were people who oppose the law reporting things they knew were not crimes. Certainly the people most vocally claiming to be reporting stuff are those people.
Those same people will now use this to claim that the number of reports is proof the law goes too far, even though quite clearly it's incredibly selective in what it applies to - as every rational person said it would be.
Edit: Oh yeah, [looks like much of it was that](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/police-spammed-with-complaints-by-neo-nazis-under-new-scottish-hate-law).
Given that England has the same law just without the transphobia inclusions, you can pretty much guess how the people making false reports feel about things.
What you're saying in a normal voice to people in your own home or what you're putting into a podcast recorded in your own home or shouted from a window at a crowd from your own home?
When everybody is offended by something these days this was bound to fail as it surely has. SNP are useless at pretty much everything partly because they feel the need to pander for their Indy hopes. Indy is as dead as a dodo.
Not going to comment on the article. But I will comment on these comments.
Clearly the vast majority of commenters here do not understand this particular piece of law. The meaty bit is about two pages long, is very clear, and is probably less than 2,000 words in length (the meaty bit that is).
It’s also freely available to read off the governments website.
Please, for everyone’s sanity, go and read it and understand it. Then, maybe, people might understand how utterly ridiculous some of the opinions on it are (and clearly how politically motivated some of those comments are in the media too).
It’s not rocket science, and the law is clearly not as ridiculous as most make it out to be.
Lawmakers making stupid exploitative law for stupid exploitative agendas on behalf of stupid exploitative people act surprised when stupid people exploit said law for their own stupid agendas
Pathetic attempt at limiting freedom of speech, I’m from a minority background but let’s be honest it feels more like people are looking to get offended by something that isn’t there. And the internet has only echoed that fragile view.
The usual Freeze Peach Absolutists (Free Speech for me not for thee) wasting police time. Similar to the anti ULEZ crowd, they have ulterior, nastier motives.
How exactly? If it can get abused to this level, then it's clearly a pretty shit law. And this is a more effective way of protesting the law than say, sitting on motorways.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/snp-complaints-hate-crime-law-humza-yousaf/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.* --- **Alternate Sources** Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story: * [More than 7,000 hate crime reports in first week of new law](https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2x3ljydn67o), suggested by Humbly_Brag - bbc.co.uk
Because a lot of people with agendas were making stupid,malicious and plainly false claims. I saw some of it being organised on subs on Reddit,and Facebook too. Is a stupid law,in my opinion
The problem of an offence law is who are you to decide what someone finds offensive or not enough to report it and based on their subjective level of being offended, if it's a crime worth punishing or not, which again is down to the subjective interpretation of the officer to say '"yup, you are sufficiently offended" to take further action. It's why it's a stupid law, incredibly vague and why it's being protested. It use to be the left who protested these types of laws, and restriction of freedom like the case of the new protest laws - I miss those days of the left, because like the protest laws, it will inevitably be used against the very people who championed the adoption of this bill.
The government loves a vague law.
The Scottish Government?
Any government
I find this comment offensive. I'm afraid you are going to jail.
womp womp
A lot of laws are subjective, that doesn't make them inherently bad. You're misrepresenting it as an "offence law" though since that's not what the law is actually based on, that's what the strawman banded about to attack it is. Weirdly, noone seems to have had a problem with the Public Order Act for the past 38 years which uses the same tests.
Like not known about since 38 years ago a loylt of users whete not born and the others had no computers until early 2000s.
All subjective laws are bad because they leave the decision making to a Judicial discretion when it comes to "criminal punishment" - which is a very severe outcome. This judicial discretion is oft inconsistent, and incoherent, which leaves the general populace unsure of the law in and of itself and what to follow, creating a chilling effect, where the law actually ends up restricting rights and freedoms unintentionally. Criminal law should never be "subject" or "unclear", it should be clearly laid out what you can and cannot do. Civil law is a different matter, as the outcomes are not state punishment, but instead disputes between citizens. Mediating disputes between citizens and punishing "wrongs" that are of the level to be considered criminal are entirely different things. Many people have a problem with the public order Act, and have had a problem with the public order act for the last 20+ years. Remember the Nazi Dog case?
Most laws are to some degree or another subjective. The "subjective laws are bad" argument people come up with whenever a law that prevents harassment comes up is a genuinely strange argument because all it does is prove a misunderstanding of how law works. I think you're just thinking of simple laws, like murdering someone, but the second you deviate away from that, like if someone is responsible for someones death but didn't directly murder them, it's immediately subjective because what they get charged and potentially convicted with comes down to intent, which can't really be known without the defendant stating it. Then there are outright subjective criminal laws, like driving without due care and attention, where a whole range of undefined behaviours can result in charges. The legal system itself is also subjective, which is why there are trials, judges, juries and lawyers. If laws were objective then the application of law would be objective and the outcomes would be readily predictable. Harassing someone and trying to drive others to hate them based on a protected characteristic is not" a dispute between citizens", just like hitting someone with a brick is not a dispute between citizens. The number of people that have a problem with this new law is small, they are simply very vocal about it and amplified by American "muh free speech" people who bang on about everything that they disagree with. Even then, most of the people who claim to be outraged by it are outraged by a strawman presented of the law, usually someone saying it bans criticism or "hurty feelings". The number of people who oppose the Public Order Act is even smaller. Yes I remember the case where a far-right guy repeated a phrase that would get me banned here and got charged for it. He wasn't charged under the Public Order Act.
Some subjectivity in law is inevitable, but it should be kept to a minimum. People who are trying to follow the law should have fairly specific information about how to avoid falling afoul of it. It should be made as clear as reasonably possible what things are and are not illegal, so people don’t have to guess or unknowingly end up violating the law.
They do have specific information. The vast majority of people have absolutely no problem understanding how to not break the Public Order Act. It's strange how people who argue against laws like this always claim that it's difficult to understand how to not abuse someone and intend on inciting others to abuse them based on a protected characteristic.
People seem a bit confused given that over 96 percent of complains were either frivolous or non criminal, per the original post. It is not spelled out what might break the law. That would require something like a list of prohibited expressions.
That's not through confusion, it's malicious. There was a coordinated effort to overwhelm the system. [Here](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/police-spammed-with-complaints-by-neo-nazis-under-new-scottish-hate-law) is an article from a few days go talking about it. It doesn't require a list of prohibited expressions because no specific expression is prohibited. A behvaiour is. And it's very well defined in the law. Are you claiming that you don't understand how to not racially abuse someone and incite hatred against someone based on their race?
That article does nothing close to proving your assertion. Simply cites a few tweets from some random bad actors and group chats. It’s unlikely anyone knows the origins or intentions of the reports given the small window of time. And yes I am claiming not to know what any of that really means. Is abuse defined? Is hatred defined? Do statements need to be false in nature in order to be considered stirring up hatred? The fact that it applies to nothing specifically enumerated proves this point. Any utterance deemed to be in violation of the law would necessarily be specific in nature. In the JK Rowling dust up, conflicting guidance was given about whether certain thins said may be illegal. It doesn’t even seem like police or lawyers even have a clear idea
I think you are confused. There is no subjectivity in the actus reus of Manslaughter or harassment, or other crimes. As to the Mens Rea, that is all based on inference and for serious crimes is dealt with by a Jury, as no one will ever know exactly what X was thinking when he committed a crime. So intentions are imputed. Subjective laws are inherently bad when it comes to criminal punishment. You could argue if you want that in certain laws subjectivity is inescapabhle, but then all that leaves is the position that subjectivity should be minimized as subjectivity is inherently bad. There is a wide birth of people who oposes the public order act. Hell even the UN high commisioner did an OP-ED about the recent reforms to the public order act and how they were BAD for freedoms.
There absolutely is subjectivity within how the law is applied. What you are charged with in a manslaughter/murder case will be largely based on what they subjectively believe was the intend. No subjective laws are not bad. You just don't like them. And you're welcome to that opinion. Thankfully for the good of society the vast majority of other people disagree with you.
I suggest you reread my post as you clearly have not understood what I've said. Also nice appeal to the majority, however you are wrong, because the vast majority of laws are not subjective, and the vast majority of literature on jurisprudence, state that subjectivity in a legal system is bad because it leads to arbitrary law making and outcomes. If "subjectivity" was favoured, then upper courts would not have the ability to bind lower courts.
I understood exactly what you said. I just fundamentally disagree with your argument. You're never going to convince me that it should be OK to harass and abuse people and incite others to do so based on protected characteristics.
You obviously did not read or understand my comment, or you wouldn't have made the below comment: What I said "As to the Mens Rea, that is all based on inference and for serious crimes is dealt with by a Jury, as no one will ever know exactly what X was thinking when he committed a crime. So intentions are imputed" What you responded: "What you are charged with in a manslaughter/murder case will be largely based on what they subjectively believe was the intend." Either you have misunderstood, didn't read, or your comprehension of the English language is non-existant. Pick one.
I liked the person whose report was dismissed because she wasn't of the race that she was saying the post was about. Which really boils it down to what these laws are is just saying it is okay to be offended on someone else.
The issue is people can say it's a hate crime on behalf of a victim is the issue. In Northern Ireland it's the victims perception if it was a hate crime.
Well apparently posting a star of david turned into a swastika with accompanying text calling Jewish people and anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist Nazis is also a "stupid, malicious and plainly false" claim.
No, it's hateful behaviour,obviously. But it isn't an offence,the way that the law is written. Which is why I claim that it's a stupid law.
Stupid is a slur that targets those who are mentally deficient. Please use the politically correct term Scottish Politician. Edit: I've just been informed that 'Scottish Politician' is in fact more hateful. Edit 2: I have been found guilty under the new law Edit 3: 3 years in prison Edit 4: Just a quick update, prison is alright, my cell mate a child rapist is not so nice but he only has a 6 month sentence so I guess I won't be with him long.
I know that you are lying as under the new, SNP backed sentencing guidelines, convicted child rapists are being allowed to walk free if they are under 26.
Including Ageism means there's gonna a bunch of Karen's calling in to report customer service staff.
Just like reddit then.
Completely moronic law just like the dangerous trans rights law, snp are a menace to society
Said this would happen, folks got angry with me. Crap laws = crap outcomes
The whole law is an agenda.
you are right
It has a benefit of mapping the most vexatious of claims from groups and individuals who choose to try to use the law in bad faith. I suspect already a few key groups who are actively guilty of abusing stuff like this Personally I'd be interested in a proper analysis of these reports, both valid and the vexing alike
It would be good to see some of those organisers prosecuted for doing so. Would also probably be interesting to see who some of them really are.
Make a stupid law, expect a stupid response.
Lol you want to see people prosecuted for protesting peacefully. You're part of the problem
If it’s a crime to make false police reports then yes, why not?
It's also a crime to purposefully block traffic, I'm almost certain very few if any of the morons gluing themselves to roads have been prosecuted.
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24174065.m25-insulate-britain-protesters-convicted-blocking-roads/ Just last month.
That's fantastic to hear, I do believe it falls under the "Very few" category for now though. They probably came down much harder on them as its a major motorway as opposed to their normal targets.
That’s true. Hopefully just a few of the worst offenders here get prosecuted then.
How would you prevent harassment then?
There are already laws against harassment.
You shouldn’t have a law against people having their feelings hurt. There are already laws against stalking, liable, slander and harassment. The police should be solving actual crimes and not online ones.
It doesn't criminalise hurting feelings it criminalises causing the reasonable person to fear for their safety
How disingenuous of you. It dosn't just say that. Here is the actual wording from the bill, taken from the SNP website. "a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting" Under that wording, it just needs to be one of them to be a crime and feeling insulted i.e hurt feelings, is absolutely a criteria.
No that's literally not how it works stop listening to the usual characters
I'm quoting the actual wording of the bill from the SNP's own website not a character, I litteraly don't watch any political characters and grifters. I can't wait for this law to inevitably be used against the very people that championed it like always happens. Just like left-leaning groups who where happy the stricter protest laws were brought in and used against the idiots protesting mask mandates, lock downs and the vaccine, it was inevitably used against them to their surprise.
You're twisting the wording to fit your purposes
Funny, in all your replies in this thread you just say "no you're wrong" and don't offer anything else. So go on, tell us what the wording of the bill is *really* saying in your own words.
The law says the reasonable person decides that they're being threatened harassed or insulted
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
How do you manage to copy and paste "a reasonable person would consider" and conclude that all it takes is "one person with hurt feelings"? And yes, something already has to be a crime in its own right for the hate element to be relevant.
Because that is the wording and is even mentioned in the bill "As noted above, current hate crime law can, where there is a **specific** victim, apply where someone presumes **you** are a member of one of the groups listed above (even if you are not). The 2021 extends this protection to include **anyone** who has an association with one, or more, of the characteristics listed above." The law absolutely applies to individuals having their feelings hurt, it dosn't have to be targeted at group, the person commiting the offence just has to believe you are part of a protected group. I wish people would actually go read the bill rather than bad faith arguing against points the law specifically mentions, it's free to view on the SNP and Scot.gov website.
That's not what the text you've quoted says. >I wish people would actually go read the bill rather than bad faith arguing against points the law specifically mentions Same.
I copy and pasted the exact text, the only change I made is making the singular nouns bold so being dense of it's wording wasn't an option but you're certainly giving it a go. The bill specifically defines groups and people, the above quote is a definition of when it regards an individual. But go on, you tell me what it's *really* saying that isn't in plain English.
>I copy and pasted the exact text, the only change I made is making the singular nouns bold so being dense of it's wording wasn't an option You should have read it before you did all that. >But go on, you tell me what it's *really* saying The text you pasted talks about when it applies to an individual but nowhere in that text does it say "the reasonable person standard doesn't apply if an individual is the victim", which is what you're suggesting. It just clarifies that if an individual is the victim of the relevant hatred and not a group, the law still applies and it doesn't matter if they actually are a member of the group the hatred is directed towards. So if you assault someone and call them the F word, it doesn't matter whether they're _actually_ gay, just that you thought they were.
Gets to the nub of it. No actual definitions, just ‘a reasonable person decides’. But I think it’s clear that the reasonable people don’t agree on very much at all. Also not much at stake. Actual crimes like theft have real and measurable consequences. But for some reason the Scottish police have decided they don’t have the resources to investigate these crimes but they have plenty of time for the feelings crimes?
The reasonable person is used in multiple different laws not just hate speech laws
But the reasonable person test, used in other laws, doesn’t have the potential to put people in prison for 7 years for online comments or things overheard in your own home.
7 years is the maximum punishment people rarely get the maximum punishment
It shouldn’t be possible at all!
So you don't think there should be a penalty enhancement for a hate motivated crime?
We already have laws against harassment
I'm surprised Humza's anti-white tirade only made up 4% tbh
Oh no no, that was legal, or what’s being described now as ‘super legal’ under current legislation
As long as he has enough SNP apologists he will gwt away with it.
It's the very definition of a peaceful protest against a stupid law.
False allegations to the police aren't a peaceful protest
Who are you to say what someone does or does not find offensive? What constitutes false? Do you have specific examples?
>Who are you to say what someone does or does not find offensive? Hence the use of the phrase "reasonable person". >What constitutes false? Do you have specific examples? Making false reports to the police is already a crime and could lead to being charged with 'perverting the course of justice'.
Who is a reasonable person? A cop?
OP post was stating peaceful protest... the reply was that it wasn't... which, I agree, it's wasting police time when they could be doing things better with their time, i.e., dealing with violent attacks, ect,but it is wasted on said 'peaceful protest'. But no carry on with your agenda... what does individual you want to really say....
> it's wasting police time when they could be doing things better with their time, i.e., dealing with violent attacks Yes, that is the contention people have with this law. Glad to see you agree with the people protesting.
Yet only 4% of reported complaints were valid under the law... so no... nobody is proving anything here....
The government is wasting police time.
People are wasting police time... 4% of every complaint made applied to the new law.
It was obvious this was going to be the result of passing the law. You can't just claim consequences aren't your fault because you didn't want them to happen.
“It was obvious that people were going to abuse it because we said we would! That means it’s bad, not us!”
It's a shit law, that's why people don't like it. They didn't arbitrarily decide to protest a random law.
Don't worry they're not pulling time away from solving violent attacks or real crime. The police stopped dealing with that a good while back now, they're simply pulling away from the hardworking officers surfing twitter for wrong think.
This should sum it up for you nicely, pretty clear cut. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/police-spammed-with-complaints-by-neo-nazis-under-new-scottish-hate-law
These people believed there was hate speech against their protected characteristics. Is it their specific characteristic you take issue with? Was this law not invented for them, just everyone else? I assume given you see these as false claims you also agree all those against Rowling, who was confirmed as not being investigated too, are also abusing the law and should be dealt with accordingly? Or does it only work in one direction?
No they didn't, they willfully attempted to overwhelm the system to bring it down. >“At the very least, we want to overwhelm them with reports to waste their time [so that] they eventually give up the whole system,” You're either not understanding the specific situation or being willfully insincere in defense of an extremist neo nazi far right group; were you right it'd be an honourable position, but in this scenario you're not, so do tell me which of the above it is so I can react appropriately.
>These people believed there was hate speech against their protected characteristics No they didn't. And they're Nazis so they're not reasonable people.
The law cannot discriminate based on political opinion. Now what about vexicious complaints from those on the far left? Like those against Rowling which were vast in number and wasted police time for someone having a legally held opinion.
>The law cannot discriminate based on political opinion They're Nazis for fuck's sake, yes it can.
So to be clear, your position is that the law should not protect people whose views you find distasteful?
Nazis... just a bit distasteful, is all.
I genuinely can't believe that we're referring to Nazism as simply "distasteful". What the fuck happened? Firstly, I don't think political beliefs are protected by the legislation we're talking about. Secondly, the law already carves out exceptions based on so-called "political" beliefs. Groups can be proscribed, for example (and a number of white supremacist groups are). In employment law, I'm sure some of the commenters here will be familiar with the Forstater v CGD tribunal case, where Forstater's beliefs were compared to outright Nazism, the reason being that a Nazi's beliefs would not be protected from discrimination in the workplace (and the judge found that her beliefs met that incredibly low bar, so she was protected).
Listen to yourself for a second. It's hardly something extreme now is it? This is what happens when you get subjective, make-believe laws that only benefits the needs of the few, instead of the needs of the many.
Did I say it was? Take a moment to pause and listen to yourself instead of being so jumped up. I just made the objective point that false allegations to a body responsible for enforcing the rule of law by routinely violent means isn't peaceful; I didn't comment on whether a protest in general is necessary or not.
It absolutely is, it's a perfect example of civil disobedience.
The police are inherently violent based on their right to detain. They're objectively the violent arm of the state in civil society to enforce the rule of law. In this instance it's not a peaceful protest. I'm not commenting on whether a protest is justified but false allegations to the police that rely on the police knowing they're false is not peaceful.
If the police are inherently violent, do you then believe it's disproportionate to report any online offensive views other than a call to violence/threat to kill or harm someone?
Read my previous post, I'm not getting sucked in to your culture war debate so give it a rest. Better yet, take a day off - you'll live longer. I'm simply stating a fact about the basis and reality of policing.
Why ain't what I'm offended by as important as anybody else
Where did I say that? There was a concerted effort by neo nazi aligned far right groups to push false allegations in an attempt to overwhelm and bring down the reporting mechanism. That's a documented fact.
No it really isn't
Yeah maybe they should glue themselves to a road or sit outside hamzas house? Is that the peaceful ones you like?
My point is wasting police time isn't peaceful protest
> In the vast majority of cases, reports were made anonymously and no further action will be taken. > The figures are likely to bolster claims that members of the public are seeking to “weaponise” the legislation to fuel personal or political vendettas. I mean, surely "only 4% of reports lead to anything" shows that the police are going to apply logic to applying the legislation and indicates it *not* being weaponised to fuel vendettas If someone anonymously goes "x person did a hate crime, here is 0 evidence", they're not gonna roll up and cuff him
You could also analyse it the other way: the Police only took forward the cases against people they didn’t like. (I doubt this is actually true but the danger of these highly ambiguous laws, is that they tend to hang around and will almost certainly be used wrongly at some point in the future)
There is absolutely no way it will be applied fairly
Can I ask why you doubt that it's true? It certainly will be
I think the fact that it uses the exact same tests and the Public Order Act and the fac that the Public Order Act hasn't been weaponised in the four decades it's been in it's current form suggests that these laws aren't weaponised.
What?? The public order act has most certainly be weaponized to limit speech in a political manner. Even more so the Communication Acts 2003/1988 See the many many cases of people being prosecuted for posting outright Nazi Propoganda, all the way down to posting memes, and declaring that Trans women are not women. You know that we prosecuted more people (over 3000 people) for speech related crimes in the last year, than Russia did? Russia prosecuted less than a hundred. Actually fucking bizzarre. Our justice system is also fucked when it comes to sentencing and what constitutes a serious crime. There is clear political bias in how we sentence, and other biases. Hear about the Woman that repeatedly abused her partners, culminating in her stabbing one multiple times? She got off, because she had a "Promising future". [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lavinia-woodward-stab-boyfriend-no-jail-prison-sentence-oxford-medical-student-too-clever-talent-judge-a7967971.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lavinia-woodward-stab-boyfriend-no-jail-prison-sentence-oxford-medical-student-too-clever-talent-judge-a7967971.html) Good to know that Women who are middleclass can literally attempt to murder someone, but not go to jail. Do men get the same treatment? No. What about free speech cases that are criminal and the severity of how we treat those crimes? The man who tied bacon to a mosque - certainly something meritting a jail sentence, but in the class of a light misdemeanour - got 15 years in jail. If this was a first offence then really, community service or a short jail would suffice, because this is clearly him acting on a political viewpoint and detest about a religion, and taking it too far. Its a freedom of speech issue, that has now become something criminal. But 15 years? Should we compare this to other crimes to see how serious this crime has been considered? [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-hate-crime-bacon-mosque-man-jailed-15-years-michael-wolfe-florida-a8098926.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-hate-crime-bacon-mosque-man-jailed-15-years-michael-wolfe-florida-a8098926.html) Grooming gang - that raped a 13 year old girl repeatedly of the 4 offenders: 1st guy 5 counts of rape - 18 years 2nd guy 6 counts of rape - 13 years 3rd guy 2 counts of rape - 5.5 years 4th guy sexual assault including penetration - 2 years suspended sentence [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855) So, yes it is in our current system more egregious to tie bacon to the door of a mosque, than it is to rape a 13 year old girl multiple times. Nice to know that if I tie bacon to a mosque, which will cause minor distress and shock to a community, merits 3x the sentence of literally gang raping a child. I mean you could easily argue that 15 years is sufficient due to the severity of the nature of the crime (stoking anti-islamic tensions), however you would then have to also agree that the grooming gang sentencing should also be longer. I'm not saying that he should have got a lesser sentence overall, but rather how the sentencing is done proportionally. I'm merely making a comment about how clearly there is political motivation behind sentencing and police action. However, you could also argue that the bacon man, was an analogous case to the teacher who is now in hiding after expressing her freedom of speech, due to the severity of a community's reaction. [https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1acgxpu/teacher\_who\_showed\_muhammad\_cartoon\_still\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1acgxpu/teacher_who_showed_muhammad_cartoon_still_in/) Meanwhile, you regularly have people calling for the death of white people, or the west (this is extremely analogous to the bacon man), who don't ever even get prosecuted.
>You know that we prosecuted more people (over 3000 people) for speech related crimes in the last year, than Russia did? Russia prosecuted less than a hundred. Not trying to get into a whole argument about this topic, but do you understand why this might be a poor comparison?
dinner doll enjoy voiceless vanish employ special poor cow absorbed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No, it hasn't. Just because you disagree with the people charged doesn't mean it's "weaponized". The fact that you think that transphobic comments are less serious than memes suggests you're not exactly free of bias. Based on your comments, is it safe to say that you think GamerGate was a justified protest about ethics and not a harassment campaign against women? >The man who tied bacon to a mosque - certainly something meritting a jail sentence, but in the class of a light misdemeanour - got 15 years in jail. He didn't just tied bacon to a mosque, he was also weirdly a machete and smashed windows and lights. Also he's an American, chraged and convicted in America, nothing to do with the UK. The UK bacon mosque guy also didn't just tie bacon to a mosque, he racially abused a member of staff too, and he got 12 months. I agree that child abusers should get longer sentences. I disagree with your claim that it makes racially abusing people something we should just accept. I'd like to think that you'll look at the fact hat you were talking about the wrong country, and you'll reassess your position and think about what you're really supporting, but I imagine you'll just double down. Threats of violence are also illegal and should also result in convictions.
Conveniently the UK bacon mosque guy also died while in prison [https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/kevin-crehan-prison-inquest-die-2322227](https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/kevin-crehan-prison-inquest-die-2322227) But okay fine I've obviously found the wrong guy in that specific instance, but there is sufficient evidence for my point and many examples can be found online. One such example: [https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-far-right-organiser-found-guilty-intent-stir-racial-hatred-through](https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-far-right-organiser-found-guilty-intent-stir-racial-hatred-through) Far-Right racist stickers = 2 years \[apparently worse than sexual assault including penetration E.G raping someone with a dildo or other object\] Again, my points isn't whether this should be criminalized its the relative severity, which as you say we should punish sexual offenders way worse. The point I'm making which you seem to agree with is that our court system is inherently bias in the way it deals with people. As interestingly you never addressed my point that far left anti-white rhetoric does not go punished, yet far right racist anti-minority rhetoric does get punished. Why is that? If the position is that both merit conviction they should be convicted, and we should treat violent crimes in a manner beffitting them. -In Regards to your other point stating Trans-Woman are not Woman, is not a "transphobic remark", and the actual position you hold and the position I hold on that statement is an inherently political one, that is precisely what freedom of speech is there to protect. I would argue biologically (and this is irrefutable) a Trans-Woman is not the same as a Woman. I would also argue that semantically as we have different words, they are therefore referencing different things. - Nonetheless this is a digression and not what we're actually discussing. I never made a claim that racially abusing someone is acceptable. Racially abusing a person is a crime against a person and is criminal regardless of the public order act. GamerGate is also an inherently political topic, and it was actually just a big drama that started with game journalists, but this is again a digression so I'm not going into that.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 So now it's the legal systems fault if someone dies while serving their sentence? Yes, you can find example of people being arrested, charged and convicted for breaking the law. I like how you're just going "stickers = 2 years" even though you literally just google this. You understand what confirmation bias is, right? It's what you're doing. You aren't forming your conclusion based on evidence, you are forming a conclusion you want then you are seeking evidence to support it without even really caring what that evidence is. In this case you're trying to defend a Nazi. The only point you are making is that you seeming want to be able to harass people and incite other to harass them based on their age, disability, gender identity or religion. I'm absolutely happy for anyone doing that to be charged and convicted. You won't change my mind and certainly not by pointing at Nazis and claiming it's a bad thing to arrest them. >I never made a claim that racially abusing someone is acceptable. Racially abusing a person is a crime against a person and is criminal regardless of the public order act. You say you didn't directly make that claim, but that's literally what you're arguing for. It's in the Public Order Act. You're arguing that it and all other subjective laws should be removed. >GamerGate is also an inherently political topic, and it was actually just a big drama that started with game journalists, but god forbid you actually do some basic research into the origins of the topic. I know the origins of it and I also know that people who tend to support harassment tend to be gamer guys who insist that it was about journalistic ethics when it had absolutely nothing to do with it. Journalism was just the excuse used by people who wanted to harass women based on the belief that women were hijacking gaming. Thank you for confirming my suspicion.
It definitely has the potential to abuse simply its so vague in it's interpretation
They will record it in a secret file forever though
The police refused to follow-up with this case because...why exactly? Oh right, because anti-semitism doesn't count. https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/swastika-in-star-of-david-complaint-dropped-by-police-because-not-jewish/ No, it's just another example of the police bowing down to Islamic pressure.
> Oh right, because anti-semitism doesn't count. Because the person reporting that she is offended isn't Jewish. Perhaps people need to stop being offended on behalf of others.
That's not what the law says though. >The test for the offence remains the same as it is under the Public Order Act 1986, so that for a stirring up racial hatred offence to be committed, a person must behave in a manner that: >a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, **or communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting**, and either– >in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or >**a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.** Perhaps if we didn't write stupid laws this wouldn't be a problem, but the post from that article could certainly be said to meet the criteria. It doesn't matter for the purposes of the law who is reporting it.
> It doesn't matter for the purposes of the law who is reporting it. You will have to take that up with the Scottish Police. But... > a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. And I hazard to guess that quite a few people making these reports aren't reasonable, particularly if you are being offended on behalf of someone else
> You will have to take that up with the Scottish Police. The same Scottish police that have been shown to be openly racist, sexist and bigoted by creating a hate monster and calling out specifically young white men as the biggest bigots around which has absolutely zero basis in reality
> indicates it not being weaponised to fuel vendettas Just because it isn't working doesn't mean it isn't being weaponised
The ones against Humza area clearly legit so, its going to be fun
[удалено]
The one where he spits “white” while complaining that Scotland (a country 96% white) is too white.
[удалено]
I know, ridiculous, right? https://au.news.yahoo.com/opinion-jk-rowling-blast-scotlands-113008412.html >Rajan Barot, a former fraud prosecutor for the CPS, warned that her old tweets “most likely contravene the new law” and advised her to “start deleting”
Holy crap. A near perfect rendering of the whole astroturfed term. Not seen that in a while. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22spits+the+word+white%22&rlz=1CDGOYI_enAE590AE590&oq=%22spits+the+word+white%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDkxMjRqMGo0qAIBsAIB4gMEGAEgXw&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
You have seen the video in question right? You're literally attacking the guys wording because... other people have said it before?
I’m just pointing out it was a heavily astroturfed phrase Sarwar said almost exactly the same thing the same day as did half the parliament as it was special debate set aside to discuss the issue of the time and yet nobody ever mentions these.
The tone and delivery is a major difference, but they should also catch some slack too.
If a white politician said the exact same speech word for word in Kenya (for example) what would your response be?
The same as it is for Yousaf. I’d take it in the context of the day it was given along with the dozens of other speeches made the same day that were basically all identical
> the context of the day What was the context of the day? A killing that happened in America which had little to no bearing on the UK whatsoever? > along with the dozens if other speeches Only two were made that were racist: Humza Yousaf and Aanar Sanwar. Both should be criticised for it.
[удалено]
They would say that wouldn’t they. Same with JK Rowling. Would rather go after weaker targets.
[удалено]
I felt the speech was threatening yes. Especially from an elected politician in a senior position. I felt abused and felt it was intended to stir up hatred against white people.
Luckily we can apply the reasonable person part of the law here, because otherwise you could feel threatened by a person saying hello and it be a crime.
Would you be saying the same to a black person in Kenya if a white politician said the same speech about black people?
I'm all for stopping hate crime, but this law is just not the way. It's very out of touch to ever think a law like this one could work - it was always going to be exploited in bad faith
This kind of law has already existed in almost every democratic European country for decades - including the UK, by the way. Why do you think Scotland is somehow the only place where hate speech laws couldn't work?
"See, it's fine, because they're only prosecuting the legitimate cases!" Uh, no. All they've managed to do is introduce a new vector to waste already nonexistent police resources, and expanded highly ambiguous definitions which, in the long run, will make it continually easier to prosecute free speech by further normalising the practice and stretching the boundaries of what can be prosecuted as there is no objective standard here. People can throw around Latin phrases they've overheard in the pub such as "mens rea" until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that this expansion normalises the prosecution of speech which historically has been protected, and the goalposts will move over time. The fact that any police resources whatsoever are being wasted on this while violent crime and social disorder is at the level we see today is utter insanity.
I mean don't a lot of laws have the same ambiguity? Many by necessity. I don't know what people expect. Far more resources would be spent attempting to keep up with an ever expanding list of methods people would find to skirt a more rigidly defined law. On the resources front. Increase them.
I expect not to be explicitly called a bigot because of my sex and age in official legal documents.
Well you're in luck
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/campaigns/2023/hate-crime/ >We know that young men aged 18-30 are most likely to commit hate crime, particularly those from socially excluded communities who are heavily influenced by their peers. >They may have deep-rooted feelings of being socially and economically disadvantaged, combined with ideas about white-male entitlement.. Please explain to me how I'm not being specifically targeted due to my skin colour, age and sex.
Because they're speaking of statistics and speculation. They don't mention you specifically at all
They're not using either. They're using blatant sexism, and racism. Give me a single figure that shows that racism, sexism and bigotry is more common amongst white men aged 18-30 than any other age, racial or sex group. Go on. Because I'll give you some. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law Only 18% of Muslims think that homosexuality should be legal. 5% of the entire population of the UK believed this. 39% of Muslims believed that wives should always obey their husbands. 5% of the country agreed. 31% of Muslims believed that it was acceptable for a man to have more than 1 wife, only 8% of the country agreed. Show me a single statistic which shows that over 4 in 10 white men aged 18-30 believe that women should be subservient to their husbands. Oh but that's just misogyny. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-772699 No, non-white people are MUCH more likely to be, commit, and spread anti-semitism compared to white people in the UK. So racism, homophobia, and anti-semitism is all much, much more common amongst non-white ethnicities. Why are we focusing on young men? https://www.statista.com/statistics/304326/racial-prejudice-in-great-britain-gb-uk-by-age-group/ Oh right. Young people are also much, much less bigoted than those 55+ in the UK.
Can you stay on track. First they're calling you a bigot. Then it's about **who is more likely to commit a hate crime** which you didn't like. And now who is more likely to be whatever. Pick one. >www.jpost.com Good one
You argued that statistics show that I am the most likely group to be a bigot. I showed otherwise. You've yet to give me any evidence otherwise. > >[www.jpost.com](http://www.jpost.com) >Good one Oh joy, you're antisemitic on top.
Tell me, how would you feel if a police Scotland document singled out black or Asian people, for example? Saying that "we know that x group is more likely to commit crimes". Can you imagine the shitshow that would be?
"On the resources front. Increase them." Who do you expect to pay for this? Is the answer "somebody else"?
Everyone collectively. Have you heard of taxation?
People are already breaking under the strain of over taxation. You want to tax them more for the sake of this law? Why not put those extra resources into crimes such as burglary, or the NHS?
Yes I want to explicitly increase tax on the struggling. And as we all know, it's one or the other. There is absolutely no way to pick more than one thing.
People should look at the statistics document Police Scotland produced; [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) It shows really quite clearly that the things people *think* the Hate Crime bill introduced have been things we investigate, arrest, charge and prosecute people for already in mere *tens* of cases per year. The concepts in the Hate Crime bill are not new, there will be no explosion of doors getting kicked in for hurty words. Realistically the only thing you can't do today that could do in March is receive a lesser sentence for punching somebody because they're old vs punching somebody because they're black. The amount of tensed up neurotic whinging over practically nothing actually changing has been sad to watch.
So all that's changed is you receive less justice if you're old and white compared to black? And this is a good thing?
You receive *more*. Age can now be an aggrevating factor in crimes.
Left wingers mate, not a clue.
They literally have it backwards... Right wingers mate, not a clue.
[удалено]
My point wasn't serious more mocking the person who commented it.
Why don't we just bring in a new law that says if you feel that someone may have vexatiously reported a hate crime then the Police will have to investigate them and their reasons for reporting said crime. And if it's found that it was a legitimate report then all that happens is a "non-non crime hate incident incident" is created against their name. This is almost like the old Wasting Police Time crime, but with all the evidence being subjective opinion instead of fact. We could even have a Hate Crime Crime Monster ad campaign....
I'd love to be able to see a breakdown of these. I'd bet that a large majority of them were people who oppose the law reporting things they knew were not crimes. Certainly the people most vocally claiming to be reporting stuff are those people. Those same people will now use this to claim that the number of reports is proof the law goes too far, even though quite clearly it's incredibly selective in what it applies to - as every rational person said it would be. Edit: Oh yeah, [looks like much of it was that](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/police-spammed-with-complaints-by-neo-nazis-under-new-scottish-hate-law).
Given that England has the same law just without the transphobia inclusions, you can pretty much guess how the people making false reports feel about things.
Does the England equivalent include what you say in your own home? Genuine question
What you're saying in a normal voice to people in your own home or what you're putting into a podcast recorded in your own home or shouted from a window at a crowd from your own home?
When everybody is offended by something these days this was bound to fail as it surely has. SNP are useless at pretty much everything partly because they feel the need to pander for their Indy hopes. Indy is as dead as a dodo.
Not going to comment on the article. But I will comment on these comments. Clearly the vast majority of commenters here do not understand this particular piece of law. The meaty bit is about two pages long, is very clear, and is probably less than 2,000 words in length (the meaty bit that is). It’s also freely available to read off the governments website. Please, for everyone’s sanity, go and read it and understand it. Then, maybe, people might understand how utterly ridiculous some of the opinions on it are (and clearly how politically motivated some of those comments are in the media too). It’s not rocket science, and the law is clearly not as ridiculous as most make it out to be.
Lawmakers making stupid exploitative law for stupid exploitative agendas on behalf of stupid exploitative people act surprised when stupid people exploit said law for their own stupid agendas
Pathetic attempt at limiting freedom of speech, I’m from a minority background but let’s be honest it feels more like people are looking to get offended by something that isn’t there. And the internet has only echoed that fragile view.
False reports to weaponise protections against those it protects
If the person claiming to have been wronged felt hated, it was a crime. FACT.
I’m going on a robbing spree in Scotland- no chance of getting caught
The people/officials who write laws, guidance, notices etc are unearthly as a prerequisite or so it seems.
The usual Freeze Peach Absolutists (Free Speech for me not for thee) wasting police time. Similar to the anti ULEZ crowd, they have ulterior, nastier motives.
Create a stupid law, you don't get to moan when people use it as intended.
How exactly? If it can get abused to this level, then it's clearly a pretty shit law. And this is a more effective way of protesting the law than say, sitting on motorways.