4 ms·

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

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