7 ms·

Conversations at Home ‘Stirring Up Hatred’ Now a Criminal Offence in Scotland

117 points by MikeUt 5y ago

dvt 5y ago
A few points. First, here's the actual law: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/stage-3/bill-as-amended-at-stage-3.pdf https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/... Second, keep in mind that LotusEaters is ran by Carl Benjamin[1] -- and so it's most definitely not a balanced take. Third, the gripe here is mainly that there's no "private conversation" exception for this bill. I personally think it's problematic even without these exceptions. If you read through it, it's riddled with "reasonable," "reasonable person," and so on. Finally, important notice needs to be paid to section 4A, where it cites Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights of being the pallbearer for what's reasonable and what's not. Article 10 itself says: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Benjamin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Benjamin
- MikeUt 5y ago
  > LotusEaters is ran by Carl Benjamin[1] -- and so it's most definitely not a balanced take. Thank you for catching that. The law was also covered by the more trusted BBC [1]. A quick skim did not find any conflicting information between the two reports, but please correct me if I missed something. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364...
- bombcar 5y ago
  I’ve never really understood these “freedom to X shall not be limited save by this large list of limitations” style.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    It's worse than that. The limitations are subjective so anything can be included and Article 10 is meaningless. The UN declaration of human rights is the same. The final "right" is the right of governments to revoke all the other rights for pretty much whatever reason they feel like.
  - andrew_v4 5y ago
    This, i think, is where the US got it right, by making it clear that the people were granting rights to the government and not the other way around. My understanding is that the US government would have no standing to make laws limiting free speech (even if they wanted to try). There is an interesting discussion here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-x/interps/129#:~:text=Rights%20Reserved%20to%20States%20or,respectively%2C%20or%20to%20the%20people https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte....
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      The US for sure has limitations on speech, for example credible threats.
      - Pet_Ant 5y ago
        I’m pretty certain that “speech” means expression of ideas, not the audible act of speaking. So making a threat is not covered in the same way that perjury isn’t covered.
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        Isn't actual speech also an expression of an idea? But yes, another good example would be perjury.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  And let's not forget the fun part > The common law offence of blasphemy is abolished Yes, please clean out the dead (legal) code! Law debt is a scourge against democracy.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Except Islamic blasphemy which is a hate crime.
    - selimthegrim 5y ago
      I think that shopkeeper getting stabbed in Scotland forced a rethink.
      - exporectomy 5y ago
        Did it? That's interesting because plenty of other cases of Muslims killing people for blasphemy didn't seem to weaken the popular opinion that blasphemy against Islam is "hate". It could certainly be judged as "stirring up hatred". The victim of that killing might even have been guilty under this law for proselytizing a minority sect that tends to stir up hatred from the majority sect's members.
        selimthegrim 5y ago
        He was trying to start his own spinoff IIRC
  - sacul 5y ago
    Keep in mind that every culture has blasphemy laws. What you're seeing here is not the removal of blasphemy laws, but the culture's switch from one god to another.
    - TimTheTinker 5y ago
      ^ underrated comment The attempt to "cleanse the land" of what they have newly labeled as "bigotry", "racism", etc. does have what strongly resembles religious fervor, a clear definition of sin, and a clear promise of a better world and the conditions for getting there. And there are always those pesky skeptics who make it so difficult... if only everyone would just believe.
- mrkstu 5y ago
  China could use the exact same verbiage and justify all the restrictions on speech that currently occur there.
  - logicchains 5y ago
    This is indeed how the Chinese constitution is written.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    I don't think that's particularly useful as a metric. China could use the Bill of Rights similarly if they wanted to.
  - indemnity 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking_trouble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking...
throwawaysea 5y ago
I’m surprised to see this pass with such an overwhelming majority, although as an outsider I am not very plugged into Scottish politics. Didn’t Humza Yousaf come under a lot of fire for proposing this law some time ago? Apart from the fact that words like “hatred” and interpretations like “reasonable person” are vague and variable, I think it is really crossing a line to interfere in conversations people have privately, such as between parents and their children. This feels a lot like what we call indoctrination or thought control when countries like China do it. Scotland shouldn’t get a pass just because those seeking such restrictions are western leftist activists. Some examples: if I want to protect my kid from getting propagandized by trans ideology that is pushed heavily at public schools these days, will that be considered “stirring up hatred”, just because I don’t want to subject my child to life changing medical procedures? Will pushing back on critical race theory be considered hateful? What about teaching children values like hard work, which some consider “white supremacist”? These aren’t theoretical concerns. I’ve seen the mentality of banning “hate speech” taken to extremes in Canada already, where a father objecting to his child’s gender transition has no recourse, is not allowed to talk to press about the issue (to bring attention to this injustice), and is in jail for trying to get help and attention for his predicament (https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/26/canadian-father-jailed-for-talking-about-court-ordered-transgendering-of-his-teenage-daughter/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/26/canadian-father-jailed-...). It’s sad to see such illiberal laws corrupt otherwise free nations.
- niceairport 5y ago
  Unfortunately, I think this is where it's headed and it doesn't look like there's a whole lot we can do. People ignored it years ago when they thought it would only be localised to liberal university circles in the US. Now those people are out in the world and there's little we can do to stop the spread of this witch hunt.
  - lurquer 5y ago
    > Now those people are out in the world and there's little we can do to stop the spread of this witch hunt. I doubt it was intentional, but you should know how hurtful it is to use “witch” in this manner. It’s an offensive use of the term and denigrates those who are pagans, Wiccans, and followers of the Earth Goddess. Please avoid such charged language; it’s not what HN is all about. Thanks. /sarc...?
andyxor 5y ago
Define “hatred”. Looks like a vague law open for misinterpretation and abuse. hate your in-laws ? Call the police on their “hate speech” during family dinner. Better yet, provide Alexa recording. To enforce appropriate application of this law enable auto-detection and auto-reporting of hate speech to authorities by smart home devices. Fight racism and wrongthink with AI, call this progressive program “The Big Brother”.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wanderer2323 5y ago
""" The Bill subsequently gives police new powers of entry to a home where <...> there is “evidence” of an “offence under section 3” having been committed. This will allow police to enter a premises “by force if necessary”, “seiz[ing] and detain[ing] any materials” <...> """ I wonder if it opens up a whole new avenue of swatting tactics: report someone for hate speech so that the police would come and seize their Alexa. Seems far-fetched, but not entirely impossible?
Proven 5y ago
Just as one hopes that socialist hellhole can't sink any further...
cottsak 5y ago
How do you test "a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting"? It seems likely that the test for a "reasonable person" could be easily abused with a motivated majority. However that doesn't bother me as much as the virtually untestable "threatening, abusive or insulting" which is almost exclusively a personal interpretation. How is there any test or defence for this?
- kjgkjhfkjf 5y ago
  Using a jury, or previous decisions by superior courts.
- baggy_trough 5y ago
  If a person doesn't believe that a trans woman is literally a woman, and discusses that with their family, is that something that a reasonable person would consider insulting? I certainly wouldn't have said so five years ago, but given the madness sweeping across the land, now who knows?
  - sthnblllII 5y ago
    Then you weren't paying attention.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  The insult laws were already tried and the result was appearance of many insulted people which was enough to apply the law. Often they didn't know what was the insult.
zthrowaway 5y ago
This is terrifying. I’ve seen the past year the most mundane shit be deemed hate speech to shut down opposition. Why is the world so willing to become robots with zero free thought and unable to tolerate opinions? That’s what hate speech is becoming, just something that you don’t agree with. History repeats itself in the most bizarre ways.
- tasogare 5y ago
  Because the Left got the monopoly of public discourse. Now they can suppress any opposition, just like they did in communist countries, using the same exact justifications ("there are still inequalities, more progress is needed"). Not that the situation would be better if the public discourse was taken by the Right: the key is balance, which is sorely missing nowadays.
  - mclightning 5y ago
    Really? Are you sure? Brexit? Trump? Viktor Orban and the many others? Left got the monopoly though?
    - hackflip 5y ago
      Brexit referendum was in 2016. Trump was elected in 2016. In 2021 the world has mostly shifted left.
      - mclightning 5y ago
        Trump was in power some months ago. Brexit is in force. "World has mostly shifted left" is perception from listening to the loud minority of online woke cult. Nationalist legislations are being implemented all across Europe to appease the right-wing voters. Hell... They put Biden as democrat candidate to appease the right-wing voters :D
        curtisblaine 5y ago
        > from listening to the loud minority of online woke cult The problem is not that they're loud. The problem is that they're making laws pass, they write corporate training material and they try to make your boss fire you if you voice an opinion different from theirs. These are things that have consequences in real life.
captainredbeard 5y ago
How did the Scots go from warriors to this?

117 points by MikeUt 5y ago

dvt 5y ago

A few points. First, here's the actual law: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/stage-3/bill-as-amended-at-stage-3.pdf https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/... Second, keep in mind that LotusEaters is ran by Carl Benjamin[1] -- and so it's most definitely not a balanced take. Third, the gripe here is mainly that there's no "private conversation" exception for this bill. I personally think it's problematic even without these exceptions. If you read through it, it's riddled with "reasonable," "reasonable person," and so on. Finally, important notice needs to be paid to section 4A, where it cites Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights of being the pallbearer for what's reasonable and what's not. Article 10 itself says: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Benjamin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Benjamin

MikeUt 5y ago
> LotusEaters is ran by Carl Benjamin[1] -- and so it's most definitely not a balanced take. Thank you for catching that. The law was also covered by the more trusted BBC [1]. A quick skim did not find any conflicting information between the two reports, but please correct me if I missed something. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364...
bombcar 5y ago
I’ve never really understood these “freedom to X shall not be limited save by this large list of limitations” style.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  It's worse than that. The limitations are subjective so anything can be included and Article 10 is meaningless. The UN declaration of human rights is the same. The final "right" is the right of governments to revoke all the other rights for pretty much whatever reason they feel like.
- andrew_v4 5y ago
  This, i think, is where the US got it right, by making it clear that the people were granting rights to the government and not the other way around. My understanding is that the US government would have no standing to make laws limiting free speech (even if they wanted to try). There is an interesting discussion here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-x/interps/129#:~:text=Rights%20Reserved%20to%20States%20or,respectively%2C%20or%20to%20the%20people https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte....
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    The US for sure has limitations on speech, for example credible threats.
    - Pet_Ant 5y ago
      I’m pretty certain that “speech” means expression of ideas, not the audible act of speaking. So making a threat is not covered in the same way that perjury isn’t covered.
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        Isn't actual speech also an expression of an idea? But yes, another good example would be perjury.
Ericson2314 5y ago
And let's not forget the fun part > The common law offence of blasphemy is abolished Yes, please clean out the dead (legal) code! Law debt is a scourge against democracy.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Except Islamic blasphemy which is a hate crime.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    I think that shopkeeper getting stabbed in Scotland forced a rethink.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      Did it? That's interesting because plenty of other cases of Muslims killing people for blasphemy didn't seem to weaken the popular opinion that blasphemy against Islam is "hate". It could certainly be judged as "stirring up hatred". The victim of that killing might even have been guilty under this law for proselytizing a minority sect that tends to stir up hatred from the majority sect's members.
      - selimthegrim 5y ago
        He was trying to start his own spinoff IIRC
- sacul 5y ago
  Keep in mind that every culture has blasphemy laws. What you're seeing here is not the removal of blasphemy laws, but the culture's switch from one god to another.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    ^ underrated comment The attempt to "cleanse the land" of what they have newly labeled as "bigotry", "racism", etc. does have what strongly resembles religious fervor, a clear definition of sin, and a clear promise of a better world and the conditions for getting there. And there are always those pesky skeptics who make it so difficult... if only everyone would just believe.
mrkstu 5y ago
China could use the exact same verbiage and justify all the restrictions on speech that currently occur there.
- logicchains 5y ago
  This is indeed how the Chinese constitution is written.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  I don't think that's particularly useful as a metric. China could use the Bill of Rights similarly if they wanted to.
- indemnity 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking_trouble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking...

throwawaysea 5y ago

I’m surprised to see this pass with such an overwhelming majority, although as an outsider I am not very plugged into Scottish politics. Didn’t Humza Yousaf come under a lot of fire for proposing this law some time ago? Apart from the fact that words like “hatred” and interpretations like “reasonable person” are vague and variable, I think it is really crossing a line to interfere in conversations people have privately, such as between parents and their children. This feels a lot like what we call indoctrination or thought control when countries like China do it. Scotland shouldn’t get a pass just because those seeking such restrictions are western leftist activists. Some examples: if I want to protect my kid from getting propagandized by trans ideology that is pushed heavily at public schools these days, will that be considered “stirring up hatred”, just because I don’t want to subject my child to life changing medical procedures? Will pushing back on critical race theory be considered hateful? What about teaching children values like hard work, which some consider “white supremacist”? These aren’t theoretical concerns. I’ve seen the mentality of banning “hate speech” taken to extremes in Canada already, where a father objecting to his child’s gender transition has no recourse, is not allowed to talk to press about the issue (to bring attention to this injustice), and is in jail for trying to get help and attention for his predicament (https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/26/canadian-father-jailed-for-talking-about-court-ordered-transgendering-of-his-teenage-daughter/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/26/canadian-father-jailed-...). It’s sad to see such illiberal laws corrupt otherwise free nations.

niceairport 5y ago
Unfortunately, I think this is where it's headed and it doesn't look like there's a whole lot we can do. People ignored it years ago when they thought it would only be localised to liberal university circles in the US. Now those people are out in the world and there's little we can do to stop the spread of this witch hunt.
- lurquer 5y ago
  > Now those people are out in the world and there's little we can do to stop the spread of this witch hunt. I doubt it was intentional, but you should know how hurtful it is to use “witch” in this manner. It’s an offensive use of the term and denigrates those who are pagans, Wiccans, and followers of the Earth Goddess. Please avoid such charged language; it’s not what HN is all about. Thanks. /sarc...?

andyxor 5y ago

Define “hatred”. Looks like a vague law open for misinterpretation and abuse. hate your in-laws ? Call the police on their “hate speech” during family dinner. Better yet, provide Alexa recording. To enforce appropriate application of this law enable auto-detection and auto-reporting of hate speech to authorities by smart home devices. Fight racism and wrongthink with AI, call this progressive program “The Big Brother”.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wanderer2323 5y ago

""" The Bill subsequently gives police new powers of entry to a home where <...> there is “evidence” of an “offence under section 3” having been committed. This will allow police to enter a premises “by force if necessary”, “seiz[ing] and detain[ing] any materials” <...> """ I wonder if it opens up a whole new avenue of swatting tactics: report someone for hate speech so that the police would come and seize their Alexa. Seems far-fetched, but not entirely impossible?

Proven 5y ago

Just as one hopes that socialist hellhole can't sink any further...

cottsak 5y ago

How do you test "a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting"? It seems likely that the test for a "reasonable person" could be easily abused with a motivated majority. However that doesn't bother me as much as the virtually untestable "threatening, abusive or insulting" which is almost exclusively a personal interpretation. How is there any test or defence for this?

kjgkjhfkjf 5y ago
Using a jury, or previous decisions by superior courts.
baggy_trough 5y ago
If a person doesn't believe that a trans woman is literally a woman, and discusses that with their family, is that something that a reasonable person would consider insulting? I certainly wouldn't have said so five years ago, but given the madness sweeping across the land, now who knows?
- sthnblllII 5y ago
  Then you weren't paying attention.
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
The insult laws were already tried and the result was appearance of many insulted people which was enough to apply the law. Often they didn't know what was the insult.

zthrowaway 5y ago

This is terrifying. I’ve seen the past year the most mundane shit be deemed hate speech to shut down opposition. Why is the world so willing to become robots with zero free thought and unable to tolerate opinions? That’s what hate speech is becoming, just something that you don’t agree with. History repeats itself in the most bizarre ways.

tasogare 5y ago
Because the Left got the monopoly of public discourse. Now they can suppress any opposition, just like they did in communist countries, using the same exact justifications ("there are still inequalities, more progress is needed"). Not that the situation would be better if the public discourse was taken by the Right: the key is balance, which is sorely missing nowadays.
- mclightning 5y ago
  Really? Are you sure? Brexit? Trump? Viktor Orban and the many others? Left got the monopoly though?
  - hackflip 5y ago
    Brexit referendum was in 2016. Trump was elected in 2016. In 2021 the world has mostly shifted left.
    - mclightning 5y ago
      Trump was in power some months ago. Brexit is in force. "World has mostly shifted left" is perception from listening to the loud minority of online woke cult. Nationalist legislations are being implemented all across Europe to appease the right-wing voters. Hell... They put Biden as democrat candidate to appease the right-wing voters :D
      - curtisblaine 5y ago
        > from listening to the loud minority of online woke cult The problem is not that they're loud. The problem is that they're making laws pass, they write corporate training material and they try to make your boss fire you if you voice an opinion different from theirs. These are things that have consequences in real life.

captainredbeard 5y ago

How did the Scots go from warriors to this?