6 ms·

Scotland's Hate crime bill: Hate talk in homes ‘must be prosecuted’ (2020)

53 points by jevoten 5y ago

Xeoncross 5y ago
Are their any guides to what the (I'm sure) broad wording of hate crimes in Scotland is? This feels like a law that will be misused.
- rhapsodic 5y ago
- mirntyfirty 5y ago
  Other question would be whether enforcement could be automated, perhaps via alexa attached to an aws service which could predict whether one would speak in such a manner, allowing for the prosecution of thought crimes
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    Brilliant idea. Let us start with microphones everywhere, then AI to predict wrongthink. We might as well put e-collars on people so that they can be punished instantly -- it's more economical that way. And/or you can freeze people's bank accounts for wrongthink. Ah, we're at the dawn of a new age in freedom. Freedom from bad thoughts. There will only be good thoughts. And the primary good thought will about our leader's greatness.
    - jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
      Why go with a collar when you can go with a direct brain implant? We shant need to punish someone for thinking incorrectly, we can prevent the thought from ever occurring in the first place. And bank accounts? Where we are going, we won't even get to choose what to eat for dinner (for climate and equality reasons), let alone have private resources.
      - cryptonector 5y ago
        Wow, thank you for showing me the error of my ways. Where do I line up for this brain implant??
        jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
        Coming soon to a supermarket pharmacy near you. Free small french fry while supplies last!
- jevoten 5y ago
  https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/there-is-no-liberal-west https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/there-is-no-liberal-west describes it thusly: The act criminalizes utterances deemed to be “aggravated by prejudice” against any protected identity group (including race, religion, or transgender status) with up to seven years in prison. How exactly any of this is defined is not clear. Private speech, even within privates home, is not protected. Indeed, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has argued that it absolutely “must be prosecuted.” A child’s report to a teacher of what a parent said at home will be sufficient. The Act specifies that it is immaterial “whether or not there is a specific victim of the offence,” and that “evidence from a single source is sufficient to prove that an offence is aggravated by prejudice.” In fact, “stirring up hatred” is now a criminal offense in Scotland – exactly the same all-purpose legal term so often put to use to punish dissent in the People’s Republic of China, including as the offense under which many of those pesky Hong Kong pro-democracy protestors were convicted. I should emphasize I don't know how reliable this source is, or if the bill was substantially altered before it became law. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364... states some changes have been made, but is very vague in describing them. The criminalization of speech within private homes remained: Yet even with that scrutiny, concerns remain. Offences can now be committed even in private, an abandonment of an earlier "dwelling defence" in race hate law.
  - retrac 5y ago
    > I should emphasize I don't know how reliable this source is, or if the bill was substantially altered before it became law. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364... states some changes No offence to you or anyone else in this thread but why not just look up the law? Scotland is an English-speaking country and their laws are public. I saw a similar thing with the protests in Canada here on HN. Multiple people speculating as to the contents of the Emergencies Act there, often incorrectly. Is it difficult to find without specialist knowledge? I took some law in university and maybe that's why? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents/enacted
    - 5y ago
LAC-Tech 5y ago
"Who denounced you?" said Winston. "It was my little daughter," said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride. "She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh? I don't bear her any grudge for it. In fact I'm proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- giordano-bruno 5y ago
csense 5y ago
Title says it's from 2020 and it's a bill. Anyone know if it's since been passed, amended, or killed?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ojbyrne 5y ago
  Bill became law in April 2021: https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-...
  - RappingBoomer 5y ago
    doubleplusungood
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- j16sdiz 5y ago
  passed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_Crime_and_Public_Order_(Scotland)_Act_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_Crime_and_Public_Order_(S...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Amended a fair amount and passed parliament last spring, here's the bill text: 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/... It's more focused on aggravating offenses if they were motivated by hatred of what they define as protected classes (age / disability / race / religion / sexual orientation / trans identity). It removes the 'blasphemy' laws from the books and adds a "stirring up hatred" component. The 'stirring up hatred' section requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and enshrines a few fairly broad free speech categories that wouldn't be included as 'illegal'; > For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom 25 of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. and > For the purposes of section 3(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes— (a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to- (i) age, (ii) disability, (iii) sexual orientation, (iv) transgender identity, (v) variations in sex characteristics, (b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards— (i) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion, (ii) religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice, (iii) the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief, (c) proselytising, or (d) urging of persons to cease practising their religions.
duxup 5y ago
Do they imagine family members informing on / testifying against their family?
- cryptonector 5y ago
  Who else would be there to witness the speechcrime though?
  - mbg721 5y ago
    Alexa?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - adastra22 5y ago
    Their phones.
- jquery 5y ago
  Like a child tattling on daddy for beating her? There was a time when stuff like that was “in the family” and not society’s business.
  - befeltingu 5y ago
    So the natural progression is for any “hateful” thing said by daddy to be society’s business?
    - JamisonM 5y ago
      No the natural progression is that if Daddy attacks a disabled person in the street and the kids affirm that daddy was always on about how disabled people should be culled from society that daddy gets a much longer sentence for the crime.
allisdust 5y ago
How did they end up here. How did they justify punishing people for 7 years without any actual victims. And finally, if there are countries already prosecuting private speech, what is next. Where do we go from here.
- mc32 5y ago
bally0241 5y ago
Heh...the wiki article says this bill abolishes the offense of blasphemy, while also simultaneously instituting a secular version of the exact same crime. Quite the feat if you think about it.
causality0 5y ago
I find it rather astonishing works like the Bible and Quran are allowed to exist in places with such stringent hate speech laws.
- sinyug 5y ago
  > I find it rather astonishing works like the Bible and Quran are allowed to exist in places with such stringent hate speech laws. You jest, perhaps, but there was an interesting case in India about this very thing four decades back.[1] But governments and the legal system are often terrified of resulting violence. So they tend to actively prevent real debate on these issues. > Chandmal Chopra tried to obtain an order banning the Quran, by filing a Writ Petition at the Calcutta High Court on 29 March 1985. The petition claimed that Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code were often used by Muslims to ban or proscribe publications critical of Islam, and stated that "so far it had been the privilege of the Peoples of the Book to ban and burn the sacred literature of the Pagans." Chandmal Chopra thought that the Quran "on grounds of religion promotes disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and incite people to commit violence and disturb public tranquility..." > Chandmal Chopra also included a list of several dozens of Quran verses that "promote disharmony" in his petition. The book claims that these Quran verses embody one of the main themes of the book: "Nor have these passages been culled at random from different chapters of the Quran with a view to making the book sound sinister. On the contrary, they provide an almost exhaustive list of Allah’s sayings on a subject of great significance, namely, what the believers should believe about and do to the unbelievers..." And violence did erupt in parts of India and Bangladesh. > The Statesman reported that "at least 12 people were killed and 100 wounded all are poor Hindus" in a border town of Bangladesh during a demonstration of 1000 people. In Dhaka, at least 20,000 people demonstrated against the petition. The demonstrators were trying to storm the office of India's High Commission. Other riots followed in Kashmir and Bihar. [1] The Calcutta Quran Petition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calcutta_Quran_Petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calcutta_Quran_Petition)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ExtraE 5y ago
https://archive.is/KQAkq https://archive.is/KQAkq
JamisonM 5y ago
This headline is a ridiculous caricature of the content of the bill as I understand it. The bill as I understand it is largely about adding a modifier to a sentence for an actual crime committed that might be motivated by hate. So the folks quoting 1984 need to maybe reconsider.. The specific "hate talk in homes" talking point seems to just be related to an amendment that wanted to make a exception so you could incite violence against particular groups in your own home without concern of prosecution. I feel like inciting violence is bad, even at home?
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Of course it's bad. The question is what's worse: that, or an overbearing government that's in the business of thought control, telling people what they are and aren't allowed to say and think in their own homes. I have my opinions on the matter, and it's clear that Scotland has other opinions: it neither has freedom of speech and of conscience, nor wants it, and neither, it seems, do you. And if you are upset at this "caricature" of the law and its intent, maybe you should tell Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf, who proposed it, that he ought have shut up about its explicit intent. He has been abundantly clear that it must be enforced against all utterances in the home, not just a few extreme cases where some deranged madman happens to be inciting violence from his home. The Justice Secretary specifically identified that a child’s report to a teacher of what a parent said at home should be sufficient to prosecute.
- jevoten 5y ago
  The bill doesn't use the phrase "inciting violence" - it opts for "stirring up hatred". If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Now with the force of law.
  - JamisonM 5y ago
    Words have typical meanings and then they have legal meanings, you can look at the details of the first conviction under the law and draw conclusions about the threshold for "stirring up hatred": https://www.report-it.org.uk/three_men_convicted_in_first_prosecution_for_st https://www.report-it.org.uk/three_men_convicted_in_first_pr... It is very clear to me that the Scottish courts regard stirring up hatred to mean a specific threat of violence but YMMV.
carrolldunham 5y ago
It seems stupidly arbitrary to include (in the group characteristics that, if you offend against someone and are partly motivated by ill-will against that characteristic, you get extra time for) 'age' (so "ok, boomer" is extra jail time) but not say marital status or lack thereof, height, attractiveness. All of those things have been shown to be biased against to make you less likely to get hired etc. It also doesn't include economic status. "Hang the rich"? ... that's fine
motohagiography 5y ago
Anglosphere countries didn't have this problem even just 6 years ago, and the last time it had something like it was the 1950s American McCarthyism. This Scottish law is the same project using the same tactics as they did in the 50s and 60s. Sometimes I think the people who make these laws and policies just hate themselves and the world, and they need for someone else to destroy them - so they do things like this that push and push and inevitably end in suffering and/or bloody revolt. One cannot pass legislation like that without an underlying desire for that outcome. Scotland isn't the only one, but it's all running the same game.
fargle 5y ago
what's going on with this recycled article? It's showing in archive.is multiple versions going back 2+ years. I think I see that it's recently been made law (?) Good lord, some day come and crack a beer on my porch and ask me something controversial. Guess I'm public enemy #1, lol. I wonder sometimes of the length and girth of the stick that's up some peoples' butts.

53 points by jevoten 5y ago

Are their any guides to what the (I'm sure) broad wording of hate crimes in Scotland is? This feels like a law that will be misused.

rhapsodic 5y ago
mirntyfirty 5y ago
Other question would be whether enforcement could be automated, perhaps via alexa attached to an aws service which could predict whether one would speak in such a manner, allowing for the prosecution of thought crimes
- cryptonector 5y ago
  Brilliant idea. Let us start with microphones everywhere, then AI to predict wrongthink. We might as well put e-collars on people so that they can be punished instantly -- it's more economical that way. And/or you can freeze people's bank accounts for wrongthink. Ah, we're at the dawn of a new age in freedom. Freedom from bad thoughts. There will only be good thoughts. And the primary good thought will about our leader's greatness.
  - jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
    Why go with a collar when you can go with a direct brain implant? We shant need to punish someone for thinking incorrectly, we can prevent the thought from ever occurring in the first place. And bank accounts? Where we are going, we won't even get to choose what to eat for dinner (for climate and equality reasons), let alone have private resources.
    - cryptonector 5y ago
      Wow, thank you for showing me the error of my ways. Where do I line up for this brain implant??
      - jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
        Coming soon to a supermarket pharmacy near you. Free small french fry while supplies last!
jevoten 5y ago
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/there-is-no-liberal-west https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/there-is-no-liberal-west describes it thusly: The act criminalizes utterances deemed to be “aggravated by prejudice” against any protected identity group (including race, religion, or transgender status) with up to seven years in prison. How exactly any of this is defined is not clear. Private speech, even within privates home, is not protected. Indeed, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has argued that it absolutely “must be prosecuted.” A child’s report to a teacher of what a parent said at home will be sufficient. The Act specifies that it is immaterial “whether or not there is a specific victim of the offence,” and that “evidence from a single source is sufficient to prove that an offence is aggravated by prejudice.” In fact, “stirring up hatred” is now a criminal offense in Scotland – exactly the same all-purpose legal term so often put to use to punish dissent in the People’s Republic of China, including as the offense under which many of those pesky Hong Kong pro-democracy protestors were convicted. I should emphasize I don't know how reliable this source is, or if the bill was substantially altered before it became law. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364... states some changes have been made, but is very vague in describing them. The criminalization of speech within private homes remained: Yet even with that scrutiny, concerns remain. Offences can now be committed even in private, an abandonment of an earlier "dwelling defence" in race hate law.
- retrac 5y ago
  > I should emphasize I don't know how reliable this source is, or if the bill was substantially altered before it became law. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364... states some changes No offence to you or anyone else in this thread but why not just look up the law? Scotland is an English-speaking country and their laws are public. I saw a similar thing with the protests in Canada here on HN. Multiple people speculating as to the contents of the Emergencies Act there, often incorrectly. Is it difficult to find without specialist knowledge? I took some law in university and maybe that's why? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents/enacted
  - 5y ago

LAC-Tech 5y ago

"Who denounced you?" said Winston. "It was my little daughter," said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride. "She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh? I don't bear her any grudge for it. In fact I'm proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway."

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
giordano-bruno 5y ago

csense 5y ago

Title says it's from 2020 and it's a bill. Anyone know if it's since been passed, amended, or killed?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ojbyrne 5y ago
Bill became law in April 2021: https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-...
- RappingBoomer 5y ago
  doubleplusungood
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
j16sdiz 5y ago
passed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_Crime_and_Public_Order_(Scotland)_Act_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_Crime_and_Public_Order_(S...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mikeyouse 5y ago
Amended a fair amount and passed parliament last spring, here's the bill text: 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/... It's more focused on aggravating offenses if they were motivated by hatred of what they define as protected classes (age / disability / race / religion / sexual orientation / trans identity). It removes the 'blasphemy' laws from the books and adds a "stirring up hatred" component. The 'stirring up hatred' section requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and enshrines a few fairly broad free speech categories that wouldn't be included as 'illegal'; > For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom 25 of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. and > For the purposes of section 3(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes— (a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to- (i) age, (ii) disability, (iii) sexual orientation, (iv) transgender identity, (v) variations in sex characteristics, (b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards— (i) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion, (ii) religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice, (iii) the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief, (c) proselytising, or (d) urging of persons to cease practising their religions.

duxup 5y ago

Do they imagine family members informing on / testifying against their family?

cryptonector 5y ago
Who else would be there to witness the speechcrime though?
- mbg721 5y ago
  Alexa?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- adastra22 5y ago
  Their phones.
jquery 5y ago
Like a child tattling on daddy for beating her? There was a time when stuff like that was “in the family” and not society’s business.
- befeltingu 5y ago
  So the natural progression is for any “hateful” thing said by daddy to be society’s business?
  - JamisonM 5y ago
    No the natural progression is that if Daddy attacks a disabled person in the street and the kids affirm that daddy was always on about how disabled people should be culled from society that daddy gets a much longer sentence for the crime.

allisdust 5y ago

How did they end up here. How did they justify punishing people for 7 years without any actual victims. And finally, if there are countries already prosecuting private speech, what is next. Where do we go from here.

mc32 5y ago

bally0241 5y ago

Heh...the wiki article says this bill abolishes the offense of blasphemy, while also simultaneously instituting a secular version of the exact same crime. Quite the feat if you think about it.

causality0 5y ago

I find it rather astonishing works like the Bible and Quran are allowed to exist in places with such stringent hate speech laws.

sinyug 5y ago
> I find it rather astonishing works like the Bible and Quran are allowed to exist in places with such stringent hate speech laws. You jest, perhaps, but there was an interesting case in India about this very thing four decades back.[1] But governments and the legal system are often terrified of resulting violence. So they tend to actively prevent real debate on these issues. > Chandmal Chopra tried to obtain an order banning the Quran, by filing a Writ Petition at the Calcutta High Court on 29 March 1985. The petition claimed that Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code were often used by Muslims to ban or proscribe publications critical of Islam, and stated that "so far it had been the privilege of the Peoples of the Book to ban and burn the sacred literature of the Pagans." Chandmal Chopra thought that the Quran "on grounds of religion promotes disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and incite people to commit violence and disturb public tranquility..." > Chandmal Chopra also included a list of several dozens of Quran verses that "promote disharmony" in his petition. The book claims that these Quran verses embody one of the main themes of the book: "Nor have these passages been culled at random from different chapters of the Quran with a view to making the book sound sinister. On the contrary, they provide an almost exhaustive list of Allah’s sayings on a subject of great significance, namely, what the believers should believe about and do to the unbelievers..." And violence did erupt in parts of India and Bangladesh. > The Statesman reported that "at least 12 people were killed and 100 wounded all are poor Hindus" in a border town of Bangladesh during a demonstration of 1000 people. In Dhaka, at least 20,000 people demonstrated against the petition. The demonstrators were trying to storm the office of India's High Commission. Other riots followed in Kashmir and Bihar. [1] The Calcutta Quran Petition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calcutta_Quran_Petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calcutta_Quran_Petition)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ExtraE 5y ago

https://archive.is/KQAkq https://archive.is/KQAkq

JamisonM 5y ago

This headline is a ridiculous caricature of the content of the bill as I understand it. The bill as I understand it is largely about adding a modifier to a sentence for an actual crime committed that might be motivated by hate. So the folks quoting 1984 need to maybe reconsider.. The specific "hate talk in homes" talking point seems to just be related to an amendment that wanted to make a exception so you could incite violence against particular groups in your own home without concern of prosecution. I feel like inciting violence is bad, even at home?

fennecfoxen 5y ago
Of course it's bad. The question is what's worse: that, or an overbearing government that's in the business of thought control, telling people what they are and aren't allowed to say and think in their own homes. I have my opinions on the matter, and it's clear that Scotland has other opinions: it neither has freedom of speech and of conscience, nor wants it, and neither, it seems, do you. And if you are upset at this "caricature" of the law and its intent, maybe you should tell Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf, who proposed it, that he ought have shut up about its explicit intent. He has been abundantly clear that it must be enforced against all utterances in the home, not just a few extreme cases where some deranged madman happens to be inciting violence from his home. The Justice Secretary specifically identified that a child’s report to a teacher of what a parent said at home should be sufficient to prosecute.
jevoten 5y ago
The bill doesn't use the phrase "inciting violence" - it opts for "stirring up hatred". If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Now with the force of law.
- JamisonM 5y ago
  Words have typical meanings and then they have legal meanings, you can look at the details of the first conviction under the law and draw conclusions about the threshold for "stirring up hatred": https://www.report-it.org.uk/three_men_convicted_in_first_prosecution_for_st https://www.report-it.org.uk/three_men_convicted_in_first_pr... It is very clear to me that the Scottish courts regard stirring up hatred to mean a specific threat of violence but YMMV.

carrolldunham 5y ago

It seems stupidly arbitrary to include (in the group characteristics that, if you offend against someone and are partly motivated by ill-will against that characteristic, you get extra time for) 'age' (so "ok, boomer" is extra jail time) but not say marital status or lack thereof, height, attractiveness. All of those things have been shown to be biased against to make you less likely to get hired etc. It also doesn't include economic status. "Hang the rich"? ... that's fine

motohagiography 5y ago

Anglosphere countries didn't have this problem even just 6 years ago, and the last time it had something like it was the 1950s American McCarthyism. This Scottish law is the same project using the same tactics as they did in the 50s and 60s. Sometimes I think the people who make these laws and policies just hate themselves and the world, and they need for someone else to destroy them - so they do things like this that push and push and inevitably end in suffering and/or bloody revolt. One cannot pass legislation like that without an underlying desire for that outcome. Scotland isn't the only one, but it's all running the same game.

fargle 5y ago

what's going on with this recycled article? It's showing in archive.is multiple versions going back 2+ years. I think I see that it's recently been made law (?) Good lord, some day come and crack a beer on my porch and ask me something controversial. Guess I'm public enemy #1, lol. I wonder sometimes of the length and girth of the stick that's up some peoples' butts.