Gender again. Sorry!

[AndyRM]

Which you've already assumed is going to be a disaster and cripple Scottish politicians and the police.

A fairly typical, knee jerk reaction which you'll probably have forgotten about by tomorrow when something else comes along for you to be outraged about.

Sorry laugh about because it's all such a giggle.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Remember the poll tax

 

[Deleted member 159]

JK Rowling has challenged Scottish police to arrest her for comments made online under the hate crime act

 

[AndyRM]

I was 4, so no I don't, but I know about them and fail to see the relevance.

Nobody has complained about Rowling's posts as of yet. And I doubt that they will.

Only the clowns on the margins of this are the ones likely to abuse the "new" law.

 

[Deleted member 159]

I was 4, so no I don't, but I know about them and fail to see the relevance

It was one piece of legislation that suddenly created huge public rebellion.

It's not unreasonable to think it could easily happen again

 

[AndyRM]

It was one piece of legislation that suddenly created huge public rebellion.

It's not unreasonable to think it could easily happen again

If you think this is going to cause a "huge public rebellion" you're deluded.

You're the most vocally concerned about it on here and I doubt you'd be bothered to join the unemployed protestors in their uprising in any case.

 

[multitool]

It's not unreasonable to think it could easily happen again

It's not going to happen.

The law will face some tests in court and will be amended accordingly.

At the moment it's really just people who like saying hateful things about vulnerable minorities that seem troubled. I guess that's you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Only the clowns on the margins of this are the ones likely to abuse the "new" law.

You don't think people will take the opportunity to dob people in simply because they personally have taken offence? It's a dogs dinner of a law which has no definition of what constitutes a hate crime other than 'I don't like what they said'.

The law will face some tests in court and will be amended accordingly.

It's poor legislation if it requires people to be dragged through the courts to establish what it really means.

The accusers won't care what the outcome is because the process is the punishment and it's enough for them that someone gets a police visit, phones and laptops removed, mark against their name that might affect job applications, all to be told a year later that they won't be prosecuted.

At the moment it's really just people who like saying hateful things about vulnerable minorities that seem troubled. I guess that's you.

Even Peter Tatchell and others, including senior police officers, have spoken out against it, recognising it as muddy, overreaching legislation. Yes, eventually they will have to clarify what constitutes a hate crime but that should have been done before it came into law. As it is the police get to decide, based on their 2 hours of training....

 

[AndyRM]

You don't think people will take the opportunity to dob people in simply because they personally have taken offence? It's a dogs dinner of a law which has no definition of what constitutes a hate crime other than 'I don't like what they said'.

No, actually, I don't. Obviously people will try that, but I doubt they'll get far.

This legislation has been in development for 8 years or so which has included a lot of consultation. There's been plenty of opportunity for critics to voice their concerns, but because it's headline grabbing today as it comes into law (with overwhelming support from MSPs) here we are.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think you're being naive. There are apparently dozens of reports sent already about a speech the Scottish Labour leader gave that some have regarded as derogatory to white people.

The government have committed to every report being investigated by the police. They can be made anonymously online. It takes 5 minutes. By the end of today there will be thousands of anonymous reports.

By 'doubt they'll get far' what do you mean? Won't get to court? Probably not for most of them, but the process is the punishment; letters from police, interviewed at home or station, tech and phones removed - all of that needs to be done before a case is put together for a prosecutor to decide whether to proceed.

Why should someone have that hanging over them for a year until it's decided that what you said to your neighbour in your own home in Glasgow, which he repeated to his cousin in Edinburgh, who found it offensive and reported it, wasn't actually a hate crime after all?

It's an ill thought out, confused and vague piece of legislation. The police don't like it, Scottish lawyers don't seem to like it, and that alone suggests it should never have seen the light of day.

 

[AndyRM]

Ah, f*ck it. You're right. Let's just watch as the worst happens and Scotland implodes under the weight of this totally imagined duress on the system

Similar legislation is being considered around misogyny, and will quite possibly ended up being as similarly vaguely worded.

If that turns out to be the case, I wonder if people will think it should never have come into existence?

 

[multitool]

Don't forget that the people saying the Scottish legal system will be brought to a standstill by vexatious claims are the same people saying that the GRA would result in public toilets being swamped with burly bearded men in dresses.

 

[Ian H]

...burly bearded men in dresses.

We are talking about Scotland, remember.

 

[classic33]

You don't think people will take the opportunity to dob people in simply because they personally have taken offence? It's a dogs dinner of a law which has no definition of what constitutes a hate crime other than 'I don't like what they said'.



It's poor legislation if it requires people to be dragged through the courts to establish what it really means.

The accusers won't care what the outcome is because the process is the punishment and it's enough for them that someone gets a police visit, phones and laptops removed, mark against their name that might affect job applications, all to be told a year later that they won't be prosecuted.



Even Peter Tatchell and others, including senior police officers, have spoken out against it, recognising it as muddy, overreaching legislation. Yes, eventually they will have to clarify what constitutes a hate crime but that should have been done before it came into law. As it is the police get to decide, based on their 2 hours of training....

And you seriously don't think people are already doing that. Simply because they've a beef with the person they're "reporting"?

What's to stop anyone naming anyone for doing something they know they haven't done? Simply because they can, without having to give any information about themselves.
Said about Crimestoppers when it started.

As for what hate crime is, try..
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

Nothing new there, and it predates the new Scottish law.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Similar legislation is being considered around misogyny, and will quite possibly ended up being as similarly vaguely worded. If that turns out to be the case, I wonder if people will think it should never have come into existence?

I would, personally. Why? Because the concept if what constitutes a 'hate crime' is a very vague 'It hurt my feelings' with no clear definition of what hate is. It's not objective. There is no list for the police to compare the allegation to. It's dependent solely upon whether the reporter of it feels offended.

The England and Wales legislation works better, where 'hate crime' is added as an aggravator once an actual crime has been committed.

It won't help women because officers will be spending their time investigating hate crimes rather than improving the 48% conviction rate for rape.