On 1 April Scotland’s notorious Hate Crime Act comes into force. I have explained before why it is so noxious. It has been condemned by every civil liberties body you can think of. Police Scotland have made matters still worse by telling their officers that the measure of whether a Hate Crime has been committed should be whether the person reporting it feels offended or threatened, and that the officer should make no objective judgment as to whether that is reasonable from the facts of the case.
But I want to concentrate on one very specific aspect of this legislation. It will apply to social media, and indeed it is highly probable that a very significant proportion of the “Hate Speech” will be found on social media.
It is a well-established principle in Scots law that anything published on the internet, which can be read in Scotland, is deemed to be published in Scotland. The act of publication is not deemed to be the person actually publishing the item, let us say in Tahiti. The act of publication is deemed to be the reader opening the item on their device in Scotland.
(To emphasise the total illogic of this approach, while it is the person opening it which constitutes the act of publication, it is not the person who opened it who is deemed to have published it but the original creator/publisher. To emphasise the state’s dishonest thinking still more: if however what is being opened is not, say, libel or hate speech but rather illegal pornography, then it is in that case the person who opened it who is deemed to have published it.)
So a person in Tahiti who publishes a tweet which is opened by and offends somebody in Scotland because it offends a protected characteristic, had committed a crime in Scotland, even though they never left their home in Tahiti and may never have been anywhere near Scotland.
I know this sounds completely crazy, but I do assure you it is absolutely true. As kindly confirmed here by the Dean of Faculty.
Craig is absolutely correct here. If it’s published online and read in Scotland then – in law – it is published in Scotland.
— Roddy Dunlop KC (@RoddyQC) March 15, 2024
This means, beyond a doubt, that hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of new crimes will be committed in Scotland every year from 1 April. Committed in Scotland by people who were, at the time, all over the world.
If you think that is bad, let me tell you it gets infinitely worse. In addition to holding that Scots courts have jurisdiction over anything published on the internet anywhere in the world, because if it can be read here it is published in Scotland, Scottish judges have also invented the doctrine of “continuing publication”.
As it is the act by the reader of opening the matter online which constitutes publication, every time it is opened by someone in Scotland from the internet that constitutes a new publication. So any “hate speech” that has been online for ten years constitutes a new offence if you read it in Scotland now. “Hate speech” as defined in the Act, anywhere on the Internet, no matter when or where it was published, is going to be a new crime in Scotland if someone opens it or reads it after 1 April.
What I have said is simply true. It is irrefutable. There may sometimes be argument over who committed the crime – for example, it may sometimes be the author or sometimes the publisher who is guilty (though on social media they are in most instances deemed the same person). But that a crime has been committed in Scotland is not in doubt.
So how will Police Scotland and the Crown Office cope?
Through selective prosecution. With literally millions of available criminal offences being committed annually, the authorities have fantastic latitude to choose who and who not to pursue.
In theory of course all crime should be pursued equally. In practice that will be impossible. Scotland will have put itself into this impossible situation by the combination of two terrible bits of law. Scotland’s legal doctrine on internet publication is appalling and Scotland’s new Hate Crime and Public Order Act is appalling. The combination of the two is almost indescribably bad.
Scotland’s internet doctrine that the entire internet is published in Scotland if you read it here, is a claim of universal jurisdiction over the internet. It should be derided into vanishing.
But the internet posed a dilemma for the courts. Either they had to accept a massive increase in freedom of speech, or claim jurisdiction over the entire internet. How do you enforce an injunction if somebody can simply publish the information from their home in Tahiti and you cannot touch them? Needless to say, the stupid and arrogant judges of Scotland went for the universal jurisdiction path and not the freedom path (to be plain, so have the courts in England and Wales).
There is, however, a real problem here. Outside the UK, Scottish judges can only get their hands on our “criminal” from Tahiti if they happen to come here, or by extradition. But extradition depends on the principle of dual criminality – the act has to be a criminal offence in the country being extradited both to and from. As there are few countries in the world willing to jail you for telling a story that starts “An Englishman, Scotsman and Irishman went into a pub”, extradition will be difficult in most cases.
It will, incidentally, certainly be an imprisonable offence in Scotland from 1 April to tell a joke beginning “An Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman went into a pub”. The police just need someone to complain.
But this opens a very interesting question with England and Wales. Plainly there is an enormous amount of online social interaction between Scots and people in England and Wales. The Scottish courts do not need to extradite people from England and Wales, the police just truss them up and deliver them. But is England really going to accept that a woman sitting at home in Leicester, who made a bad taste joke online whilst in Leicester that is perfectly legal in England, can be sent to Scotland and imprisoned?
Did anybody actually think that through, in passing this Act through the Scottish Parliament?
The Hate Crime Act makes it a criminal offence to insult somebody. You can go to jail for seven years for insulting somebody. That does not have to be your own insult. It includes by “displaying, publishing, distributing” “giving, sending, showing, playing” or “making the material available”. It includes giving someone an album that contains offensive lyrics, or acting in a performance that contains offensive lines. It really does.
The most basic notion of liberty has been discarded.
To make plain the culture wars motivation, three of the six protected characteristics are sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics. I genuinely do not know what the last one means. It does not mean being male or female. Strangely enough it will still be perfectly legal to insult women or men.
Rather worryingly, much of the opposition to the bill comes from people who want to make more things illegal, rather than give the state less arbitrary power to bang up huge numbers of people.
The truth is that this appalling legislation was always a part of Nicola Sturgeon’s grand scheme to destroy the Scottish Independence movement from within through culture wars. Everybody sentient in Scotland knows that the entire intention is a massive abuse of process. Of the millions of people who could be prosecuted for online content read in Scotland, the intention is selectively to attack those who are gender critical.
Now I am in fact not gender critical myself. I still find the intolerance puzzling. But I absolutely defend the right of those who are convinced that trans people are a threat to women’s rights to state their position, free from the legal harassment that is about to be unleashed upon them.
What we are seeing is terrible repressive legislation, amplified by a terrible legal doctrine, leading to massive power by the state over individuals. We are going to see monumental abuse of process. The state will take completely arbitrary decisions on selective prosecution according to a state-political agenda, and will refuse to prosecute millions of other “crimes” under the same Act. This is fascism.
In the short term, I have no doubt that the Israeli lobby will be generating thousands of complaints of alleged anti-semitism aimed at those criticising Israel for its genocide. There is an extremely high correlation between Scottish unionism and Zionism which doubtless will be in play.
The situation contradicts, at the very least, articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A nightmare is coming.
————————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
“It is a well-established principle in Scots law that anything published on the internet, which can be read in Scotland, is deemed to be published in Scotland. The act of publication is not deemed to be the person actually publishing the item, let us say in Tahiti. The act of publication is deemed to be the reader opening the item on their device in Scotland.”
This is bullshit, both logically and legally.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230) states that:
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
It is therefore a non sequitur to claim that anything posted on the Internet is “published”, even if any/everyone can read/see it.
To be more specific, it is a non sequitur to claim that anything posted on the Internet that is not entirely original and makes no reference to any “external” sources is “published”. This leaves individuals (very carefully) “speaking their brains” in either online diaries or fiction, or as eye-witness reporters of an event, as “publishers”.
And for anyone tempted to exclaim “But that is US law”, a whole series of cases have upheld its global applicability, among them:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/18-397/18-397-2019-07-31.html
https://tlblog.org/doe-v-meta-and-the-future-of-the-communications-decency-act/
But those are *US* court judgements. The US courts may uphold the extraterritorial reach of US law as many times as they like, but that doesn’t mean that the executive or judiciary of any other jurisdiction have to apply them.
Understood, but since these precedents protect US companies providing Internet services against “lawfare” globally, they de jure also protect their users globally. So, if one posts on an Internet service whose owner is legally established in the US, no matter where one is living in the world, Section 230 is your “special friend”.
“since these precedents protect US companies providing Internet services against “lawfare” globally,”
They only protect them from being prosecuted or sued in the USA. Any of their foreign subsidiaries can still be prosecuted or sued in another jurisdiction, if that jurisdiction has laws stating that it can do so.
“they de jure also protect their users globally.”
No, they don’t.
“So, if one posts on an Internet service whose owner is legally established in the US, no matter where one is living in the world, Section 230 is your “special friend”.
Citing Section 230 in a Scottish court won’t help you one bit. They’ll just say, “Sorry, s.230 of which Scottish or UK statute?”
When I install, say, Windows on my computer outside the US, I enter into a contract with Microsoft (legally based in the US) to, among other things, not pirate their software. If I do pirate their software and get caught, it is Microsoft US using US law who will feel my arse, not the juridical system in Tahiti or wherever I am living. If Tahiti has a problem with the terms of Microsoft’s contract then, unless Microsoft is willing to ‘finesse’ the problem area, it will withdraw its products from use in that territory because it does not accept that Tahiti has the legal right to determine its functioning as a US-based company – Google changing its contracts to operate in China is a well-known, real-world example of a company ‘caving’ for the spondulix.
Similarly, with a US company providing Internet services globally but legally based in the US, one enters into a contract when using them outside the US based on US law. A country that allows that company’s activity in their territory has agreed with this situation – the banning of Fox News on UK satellite streaming services demonstrates what happens when a State does not agree with some aspect of a company’s contract/service. If the juridical system of that country then claims at some point in the future that, under a subsequently-passed ‘domestic’ law, an online post using the US company’s service is actionable, then they have passed legislation which contradicts that which they have accepted in initially licensing that company’s services. They can’t have it both ways – they either ban the service from their territory or STFU.
On the specific point of the universality of Section 230 protection:
* a US-based Internet service provider operating outside the US does so in accordance with US, not foreign, law (including the Communications Decency Act of 1996) – it could not otherwise legally operate in the US, let alone provide global services;
* it operates under these conditions in a foreign country so long as that country accepts those conditions;
* during that time, users of the service in signing a contract with them are necessarily agreeing to be subject to all relevant US communications law, specifically Section 230, since those are the “conditions of existence” of the US company;
* the fact that Section 230 does not exist in any foreign legislation is therefore irrelevant – it exists in the US legislation that allows that US company to offer global Internet services in those foreign countries in the first place, which countries have accepted its right to operate under those terms in their territories.
Is there a persona defence? That, say you called Tony Blair ‘a poodle’ and he claimed to be affronted by this, could you argue you were insulting the public persona of PM Blair and not the person themselves? I suppose it becomes complicated when what you took to a stage performance, like Jeremy Clarkson’s public persona, turns out to be closer to the real person than one had imagined. Or to put it another way, are politicians actors (in law)?
A thought occurs.
Under Section 2 (Committing an Offence), presumably any Scottish person who finds the Garrick Club’s refusal to admit women offensive can report the Garrick Club, particulalrly any Scottish members of it?
As we all know most laws are never implemented
The few that are implemented are done so in a very selective way
The legal speed limit on motorways is 70mph but every day many thousands of people break this law.
But some are fined for doing what every one else is doing.
The press will print scary stories about joe blogs getting caught breaking some law and being fined some huge amount or jailed so you will be scared.
But the main idea of laws is to make you scared about breaking them is so you police yourself
You self censor and let them control you by fear.
The new Hate Crime laws are crazy and contradictory.
I was watching and old episode of Columbo; in it he tells a Jewish joke.
So if I complain are they going to arrest the TV station. I forgot the mainstream have exemptions.
”To emphasise the state’s dishonest thinking still more: if however what is being opened is not, say, libel or hate speech but rather illegal pornography, then it is in that case the person who opened it who is deemed to have published it.”
So the answer is simple anytime you post anything online include some illegal pornography,
Then you are safe.
Eventually the snake eats its own tail and captures those that it should not.
Rather like the de-banking that was being applied to lots of people, like if you had Russian connections, but then they applied it to Nigel Farage and a big stink is made of it.
The legislation itself is hate speech. You are dead right about the snake eating its tail. This whole business is a prelude to `thoughtcrime`. The fact that Craig was imprisoned(!) for actually repeating what was already in the public domain, gives the game away. Big noise to distract from the fact that most Scots want to leave the mortal clutch of Westminster. It has been admitted that the referendum was a dry run for brexit, by those who perpetrated it. The SNP are trying to conflate their assumed moral authority over a relatively trivial area, in terms of national politics, of liberal thought, with their real policy that Scotland is right in submitting itself to being a province of England.
I`ve longed for years for my Scottish passport, to which I would be well entitled, now I think I don`t want it.
Peter Falk, the actor who played Columbo, was a Jew (a Bronx Jew, at that). So, I would guess, were the writers for “Columbo” (Jews, I mean. I have no idea whether they were from the Bronx.)
If the law is targeting those who are gender critical, I don’t see how they can avoid J.K Rowlings? Will they arrest her? Now that would be interesting, to say the least.
Rowlings just retweeted a link to this article:
https://thecritic.co.uk/how-trans-activists-captured-the-hate-crime-agenda/
The freedom of expression on trans-issues is, even presently, narrow.
I recently wrote on a social web-site something like “I think the trans community has lost sympathy in the general public because of its support for transwomen in women’s sport.”
The site banned me, for “Hate speech”. 🙁
Perhaps they should arrest your new (old) old (new) king Charles (and some people say he could have chosen his name Arthur for coronation and this become King Arthur)
People say that, in accordance with etiquette, when greeting women they should kiss their hand. And thay should shake men’s hand.
Your king (who missed the chance to become another king Arthur) didn’t kiss Mrs Macron’s hand, but chose to shake it.
I’m Russian and I’m of creative people community, so I hope you excuse the idea that came to my mind – perhaps your king thought it would be a ‘zashkvar’*
—
* Zashkvar – a word comes from prisoners slang, means something that puts a person lower in the hierarchy. Often it’s connected with having contacts with gay people, who are considered lower strata in prison community.
It did occur to me that some people might be (or say they are) offended if you don’t use their preferred titles. So just plain Keir Starmer or Charles Windsor or whatever (my habit is not to use such titles as Sir or King for such people). So maybe people will be punished for the modern equivalent of lèse-majesté. Just after Scotland got rid of that ancient evil.
🙂 single, childless, ugly women with small tits are offended by the mere sight of married women with children and big tits. I assure you, these glances completely constitute a hate crime, without even any words spoken out loud. You may have crowds of criminals roaming the streets! What will you do with that, Scotland?
Silly me, I carelessly published such a wonderful business idea. Just think about it! If someone invested in lobbying for such a law that prohibits small-tittied women from casting envious glances at large-tittied women, then I could make good money! For example, selling Special Masks for the Street with a pleasant, friendly expression painted on them.
@Tatyana, your business idea reminded me of the science fiction short story by Jack Vance, set on a planet where everyone wears masks, The Moon Moth.
Good memory to recall, I like Vance but have not read that one. I’ll read it later tonight – thanks
Mask wearing has become a popular option in certain situations and environments in the modern world – who would of thought it!?
The other day someone pointed out to me the similarity between looking at screens, tablets, phones etc and looking at the human face from the standpoint of evolutionary neuroscience – I was taken aback initially and my mind has been animated by this thought for several days. Wearing a mask changes the calculus yet again so a discussion by a decent SF author like Vance would have been just what I was looking for, if I had known about this story , which I now do – serendipitous conjunctions, coincidence or chaos? lol
I can’t speak for Russia, Tatyana, but unless they’ve got a bit of a thing for teenage boys, I don’t think there are many small-tittied Western women above the age of 20 casting envious glances at large-tittied ones – but, if there are, implants are available in our dog-eat-dog rabid capitalist societies. Enjoy the weekend.
[ Mod: Dodds ]
—
No women in the UK speak in such denigrating terms about other women’s anatomy, body shape or parental status. You speak like a man with all the prejudice and spite of misogyny.
It is equal to the fact that no women have penis envy either that is a male projection.
Whilst people are nudged by the media controlled by men to compare themselves with others for X,Y, Z reasons.. most women would not use misogynistic slang vocabulary. (Neither would all men in public)
People slag each other off in other ways no doubt. But women insulting each other as you imagine for lack of children has no culturally equivalent here.
(You pride yourself in being clever and opaque unsuccessfully as your vocabulary gives you away.
Nobody in the UK or to my knowledge any European language uses the word “hayseed” either to imply a simpleton.)
People who are wealthy may often be competitive for the perfect home and family as part of the overall status symbol trap of, especially in the last thirty years of overt symbols of wealth.
But many women who are not wealthy who are single parents for whatever reason, and plenty parents struggle in poverty even if they have a good job, it is hard to work full time and be able to spend enough time with a child even in a two parent household. Those who struggle in poverty without children are more likely to be relieved that they don’t have to put children through the same life, some people make a decision not to have children because they can see no way to support a child. In your scenario do overweight women mock infertile women of whatever body shape they possess? What about women who have a survivable cancer before they can conceive and therefore had chemo resulting in early menopause in order to live? If people envy other’s body shapes or denigrate them in a spiteful way they obviously are from a small minded ignorant poisoned little perspective COMRADE. Nobody was naturally fat in our history it is either a sign of imbalanced diet, lack of a physically active life or an illness. Only societies with huge disparities of wealth celebrated fat as a symbol of wealth.
Also nobody in the UK uses the childish two fingers V as a peace sign.
It was not always so. The Quaker William Penn, meeting King Charles II, kept his hat on and greeted the king as “Friend Charles”. The king did not take offence, but conformed politely to the Quaker custom.
” Among the religious sects which came to England about the time of the settlement of America were the Quakers, or, as they called themselves, “The Society of Friends.” They believed that no special honor should be paid to anyone, and that all men should be addressed as “Friend.” They even spoke of the King as “Friend James” or “Friend Charles.” They would not take off their hats in the presence of anyone, not even the King himself. They always used the words “thee” and “thou,” instead of the word “you” in speaking to a person.
“Soon after Charles II was crowned King of England, William Penn, who had become a Quaker, was given an audience. When Penn entered the royal room, he found the King standing with his hat on, as was the custom; and all the courtiers were around him uncovered and vying in their efforts to flatter him and do him the most honor.
“Penn came up with his hat on. The King at once removed his hat and bowed very low to the approaching Quaker. “Why dost thou remove thy hat, Friend Charles?” asked Penn. “Because it is the custom of this Court for only one man to remain covered,” explained the King, to the amazement of the courtiers”.
https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=evans&book=america&story=penn
🙂 Oh! This Quaker custom is very much like the Soviet idea – no one has preferences, everyone addresses each other as ‘Comrade’, the word means exactly ‘Friend’.
Soviet era satirical film Kin-dza-dza ridiculed the hierarchical social order. In that fantasy society, ranks were indicated by the color of their pants, and the Soviet man asks a local man a question:
– Are Patsaks and Chatlans a nationality?
– No.
– Biological factor?
– No.
– Persons from other planets?
– No.
– What then is their difference from each other?
– Are you colorblind, Violinist? Can’t you tell the difference between green and orange?
Another words from locals 🙂
– A planet where they don’t know who should curtsy to whom? Nonsense!
– When a society does not have a color differentiation for pants, it has no purpose.
Rowling has already been publicly reassured by Yousaf that nothing she has published would constitute an offence. Nothing that any (any that I know of) public figure who is ‘gender critical’ has published would see them fall foul of the new law.
I think it’s being over egged..
But at least if Scotland has a division between the law-makers and the police. Yousaf won’t decide: the police (and judges) will.
And Ms Rowling has recently called a trans-women for “a man”; you bet the trans-women called that “hate-speech”. Will Rowling be able to say the same, after Apr.1?
And if she walks free: if another person did the same, would they will walk free?
I wouldn’t bet on it, if I was in Scotland.
JK Rowling never complains about transmen. It’s one-way only sexism.
I saw a revealing clip of her talking to Vovan and Lexus – I think she thought she was talking to Zelensky. I could not watch it all it was too revealing, too painful, I felt like I was being crucified lol – I think the fake Zel kept sniffing as if he had just had a massive line of coke which she completely ignored and his voice much was deeper and more gravely than Zel’s, a Slavic generic “Voice of God” as mandated in Hollywood – surreal doesn’t cut it – a view into a wacky alternative reality where the words parody, satire and subtext were simply unknown
Do you mean that prank where she was asked about the geopolitical meaning of the Z-shaped scar on Harry Potter’s forehead (the letter Z is one of the symbols of the Russian SMO in Ukraine) and also she was asked if she could change this sign for a Ukrainian trident?
Ah, not to forget her thoughts on cancel culture, and her promise to talk to some certain people who could possibly do something with the Russian actor in the film, perhaps something *of the kind that happened to Johnny Depp 🙂
(*people who spend little time on the Internet may be unaware of Johnny Depp story. He was falsely accused by his partner Amber Heard. Absolutely fascinating story, the girl played victim, sobbing in the courtroom and behaved much of that sort. Until Johnny Depp finally put aside the misplaced decorum and began to defend himself, revealing who really was the abuser in that relationship. Including – you won’t believe me – evidence was published that Amber actually literally shit on his sheets, as revenge for breakup. Amazing story, indeed.)
Yea thanks, Tatyana, that is the one. My memory of it is slightly fragmented due to the brain damage acquired by spending ten minutes watching the clip, lol.
I must have missed the Depp story: this Heard woman does unheard-of things – to what purpose? I thought Depp was in debt heavily, and yet she was trying to get money out of him? It all seems very sordid – weaponising shit!? It is just like a nature program!
will moon
If I were not one of Pikabu community I may have missed the development of Mr Depp’s story. Here is the video, Mr Depp’s security confirms in the court that Ms Heard defecated into his boss’ bed
https://pikabu.ru/story/yember_kherd_deystvitelno_nasrala_v_krovat_9075861
One of the comments sums it up:
“they divorced in 2016 and agreed not to disclose details in the press, but Amber, being an ambassador for a certain organization against domestic violence, published an article about alleged domestic violence, implying Depp as an abuser, drug addict and “wife beater”, which created a huge scandal in the press and Johnny lost a bunch of roles (including Jack Sparrow and Grindelwald), and it seemed like his kids were bullied for it or something like that.”
so in the end Johnny opened a libel case and these shitty details were revealed
Oh well, as long as she has the ruler’s personal word…
Why do I have the feeling that we are living in ancient Egypt, Persia, Turkey… India?
“The truth is that this appalling legislation was always a part of Nicola Sturgeon’s grand scheme to destroy the Scottish Independence movement from within through culture wars.”
You nailed it on the above Craig, and the likes of you, Stu Campbell, Iain Lawson, Peter A. Bell, and others who post articles on independence, or sanity on gender issues will be the first to be frog-marched into court.
You especially, Craig, will be in their crosshairs as you post a plethora of very good articles on many subjects, sometimes with no holds barred.
They want to shut up dissenters of any kind with this utterly authoritarian law.
I’m hoping that many folk sue the Scottish government over this including J.K.Rowling the Hate Crime Laws MUST be repealed, Police Scotland will focus on locking up those that their peers want shut up.
Sturgeon has done a tremendous amount of damage to Scotland.
We need huge demos to get rid of this Down the Rabbit Hole legislation.
Rowling would find that difficult. She has been publicly reassured (by Yousaf I believe) that nothing she has put in the public arena constitutes, or would constitute, an offence. This is not going to stifle her speech or publications on the matter of ‘gender’
The talk on the news was whether she could be ‘reported’ and of course she COULD be reported. But then you and I could report each other with zero evidence. The police would look into it, discover the lack of evidence of a crime and take no action.
There COULD be public figures reported in bad faith and there COULD be public figures reported wrongly but in good faith by those who don’t understand the law. As any new law comes in this is always a risk..
i think you have an unwarranted belief in the integrity of the police, and their bosses.
It’s another joke law – too many of them – but surely the Police have to put themselves into the position of “a reasonable person” before they decide whether an allegation is worthy of investigation.
– or does the Chief Constable feel that is too difficult to manage?
On Israel, did Professor David Miller’s case seta precedent?
“he took the university to the employment tribunal on the grounds of direct belief discrimination”
Also couldn’t we switch out Israel/Israeli with Zionist/Zionism for now.
“United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on 10 November 1975, “Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” with 72 votes in favour, 35 votes against, and 32 abstentions. It was revoked by Resolution 46/86, adopted on 16 December 1991 with 111 votes in favour, 25 votes against, and 13 abstentions”
I really DO see your point here. To sum up I think you are saying that they law has too low a bar for an offence to start with and then too low a bar for who could be deemed to have committed the offence. I think the first part is a matter of opinion and you are entitled to yours. But for the second part I don’t agree. I disagree because were it a letter sent with a threat from Tahiti then it would, of course, be an offence here. Then second part really then depends on whether you think the law itself is wrong, or more accurately, has too low a bar for an offence to be committed.
I am always reminded that some objections to new laws are essentially, ‘well, if we make that an offence the jails will be full in no time’ This argument is always spurious as laws aim to change behaviour, not to continuously see the same level of the target behaviour and prosecute it. In this respect we could think of laws like those against littering (for changing behaviour) For the most part, most people uphold the law most of the time. We saw this in recent years (at least I did) when the Scottish Government brought in the mask laws. In the period when the government ‘recommended’ mask wearing I estimate that about 10% of people actually did (on my shopping trips to TESCO) but after it was LAW the percentage was about 90%. Of course that’s just my personal anecdotal experience but I think it’s fair.
People like JK Rowling have commented on this and have been publicly reassured that they won’t be prosecuted for their previously expressed views nor if they continue to express them. I think the fear is greater than the facts of the matter. It’s already hard enough to get the police to take an interest in existing hate laws, this expansion won’t mean thousands of extra court cases.
I think those most critical of this are those who disagree that trans should be protected yet they aren’t at risk (see my above comment) unless they cross a line that most ‘gender critical’ people in the public eye have not gone near.
Ultimately I feel that were we to look back on the idea of this law in 50 or so years time that most who only experienced life WITH the law will wonder why we never had it before now. Perhaps similar to why wasn’t homosexuality legalised fully in Scotland until 1980? Why was Section 28 not repealed in Scotland until 2003? They will probably find it hard to believe that Section 28 could even EXIST in a western country in the 21st century..
Section 28 was repealed in Scotland in 2000, ED, but not until in 2003 in England & Wales, due to things getting held up by the House of Lords. Homosexual acts were only legal after 1980 in Scotland for men aged 21 and over, and the age of consent for them was only equalised to that for heterosexual acts in 2001. However, they only became fully equivalent for Scots – in that group sex involving male homosexual acts was legalised, putting it on a par with heterosexual & lesbian group sex – as recently as 2013.
I’d imagine that in 50 years’ time, Western Europe will be quite different to what it is now, even assuming that Putin or his successors don’t nuke us. These last 30 or 40 years have seen a sexual revolution in the West (particularly in the UK*), but there’s no reason why things can’t go back more or less to the way they were before. Look at what’s happening in America with Roe vs Wade etc – although in our case it won’t be fundamentalist Christians that are the drivers of change.
* Believe it or not, although it had been legal for gay men aged 21 and over since 1967 in England & Wales, anal sex was technically illegal between heterosexual couples of all ages throughout the UK until 1995. Fast forward just 15, 20 years and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of young teenage girls who may not have particularly close relationships with their mothers, think that’s what you have to do to get a boyfriend – whereas millions of teenage boys believe they can’t ever measure up to what they think a woman wants anyway. There’s a reason why, after slowly rising for decades, the number of teenage pregnancies in Britain has fallen by over 70% since 2007.
It is happening in an awful lot of countries at the same time. Replace or disturb national culture and national law with wokery in order to undermine nations. Only the global/western elite have the right to make decisions, the punters must be sidelined bypassed, quietened by hate crime legislation. Bewildering how the political class and its hingers on have been captured by this shite. Elitist scumbags all. NS was some Scottish nationalist, was she not?
It will be used selectively.
It is totalitarian and chilling. Any critical opinion could be interpreted as criminal. Therefore the majority of citizens are put on notice as unconvicted criminals pending investigation. If everyone’s opinions can be criminalised then everyone can be convicted. The arbitrary nature of enforcement can mean that either there will be a premium on influencing the decision makers, which will make things ripe for corruption, or alternatively people will corrupt themselves by silencing their own thoughts to comply with the dominant or orthodox view.
Although it is being attacked I do wish we had the guarantees and protections US citizens do in their constitution. Craig has previously argued cogently about the Executive powers seeking to remove trail by jury. Replacing the notion that citizens are innocent, and as such, they are there to defend and uphold democratic norms and freedoms is being eroded. A state whose notion of citizenship is that they are all unconvicted criminals awaiting conviction/sentencing is at the least Ill-omened.
Haiku
It’s Gaza today
The world tomorrow – Songbird
Where will you nest
Who could have guessed that Sturgeon would have turned into Venus in Furs?
She’s not Nico. Nor Maureen Tucker.
What about the following lines for the credulous and spiteful former First Minister? How history will judge her pivots on the advent of Independence. She comes over as a minor ethnic official in the now defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire – the character mentioned upthread by Rolf from the “The Good Soldier Svejk” policing those who allow flies to shit on “portraits of the emperor”
“She carries her face to the marketplace
and bets it on the opening race”
and
“She’s been told that all the gold
Is worth so much it can’t be sold”
(taken from Townes van Zandt’s “Ms Carousel”)
Sturgeon may have had ulterior motives and a desire to sabotage independence by dividing the SNP’s membership using culture wars. But that doesn’t explain why the SNP continued with this clearly unpopular, unwanted piece of illiberal vote losing legislation? Legislation that’ll likely just throw up controversial cases, cases that media opponents & other parties will gleefully grab, then use as a *stick with which to beat the SNP?
It’s doubly strange, given the SNP rightfully protest and resist draconian legislation emerging from Westminster, with restrictions on the right to protest and new overbroad Govian definitions of extremism.
* Note the stick is metaphorical, not a literal one, lol. Increasingly we’ll probably all have to clarify meaning, lest we fall foul of some stupid legislation searching for a crime, among what was previously called free speech.
So it is against the law to hate something, or say you hate something or someone? … NO!
It is against the law to say why you hate something or someone if how you describe them insults them or makes them feel frightened … YES!
Remember how harassment policies were used to end the equality of opportunity policy? Goodbye the presumption of innocence, due process and the accuser having to prove their allegation. Volksgericht a-go-go.
Wow. I got chills … they’re multiplying!
Ok let’s get the gallows humour out of the way first. It’s an April Fool joke, right? April 1st it comes into effect?
It’s actually quite weird how many laws have come into effect on that day in history.
Second. It is genuinely scary, I feel it, reading CM’s great analysis.
Does it mean: if anybody reads a comment I or anybody made at anytime previous on any site, could suddenly become criminal? Could I be dragged into the Scottish courts? Charged and punished? It feels like it.
Does that mean all historic comments need to be deleted, just in case?
Brrr … CHILLS.
Third: you idiot Scots who believed (and still do) that Sturgeon was not a Crown double agent sent to derail Independence, are going to suffer first. Your only hope is to declare independence and stop being Crash Test Dummies or Lab Monkeys for the Fascist Collective Waste’s collapsing Empire.
Escape while you can!
The rest of us in England won’t be far behind, dragged going down the Big Brother hole without a fight. It is prosecution of Thought Crime made manifest.
Fourth: To further that paranoia, I’ll say Scotland has historically been perceived, by me at least, as a Test Bed for legislation before rolling out across the whole of the U.K. – am I wrong?
We are forced into a fight to the death against fascism, it seems.
Finally, I’ll leave it with these stolen/borrowed aphorism:
Just because you are paranoid, it does not mean THEY aren’t REALLY out to get YOU.
& so may whatever god you believe in go with you.
What if Yousuf authorises Extraordinary Rendition for felons so tantalisingly close across the border? Or even worse “Snatch and Snuff” teams operating with a broad “terminate with extreme prejudice” remit?
If I commit a hate crime in Scotland whilst all the while being in England and then am brought to Scotland handcuffed to face justice, against my will, will I be tortured? Asking for a friend.
We could call it the Grease effect, lol.
The post is very interesting and very well documented, as usual, but, on just a specific point: the “intolerance” with regard to the whole “transgender” thing is, as far as I’m concerned, because this whole “movement” is not about the rights of anybody to choose their self-image, their sex life, or whatever, and it is not a “movement”, but because, as it exists today, it is a totally artificial construct invented for the purpose of messing up, or destroying, society. That’s why, as a leftist who does believe in the right of people to live privately as they wish, I am totally opposed to this whole transgender thing. When you see people like von der Leyen defending this stuff, you know, if you didn’t know it before, that there’s something very wrong about the whole thing.
Isn’t there a law in Canada now that makes it mandatory to install tampon vending machines in gents’ toilets? What has this to do with anybody’s individual rights?
Christophe, re “a totally artificial construct invented for the purpose of messing up, or destroying, society”
I think it is not about destroying society, but about making private things non-private, state-controlled.
That is, if previously someone contacted the administrator of the building with a complaint about the lack of lady’s hygiene products in the men’s restrooms, then the administrator most likely (we are now talking about a polite administrator who will not say “fuck you”) would say “issues of hygiene products for men are private and are not within our area of responsibility.”
Now that the state has legislation in this area, this issue has ceased to be private.
I believe that this is a movement towards total state control over all aspects of a person, like the functioning of bodies, emotions, expression of thoughts, and especially the behavior patterns.
This is state control, this is training with the classic “carrot and stick” method.
I.e. nobody cares if you like it or not, you are obligated to give the desired reaction, under threat of punishment (cancel culture enters the room). Conversely, if you demonstrate an approved pattern, you receive encouragement (promotion and preferences).
This is what’s happening.
Nutty stuff. Have put it on tvhobo’s front page, with the most shocking extract.
NB here’s another lateral thought on the matter I’m sure you may appreciate once told: as Chomsky has proved, and my site tvhobo has a fair amount of precise analysis covering this matter, our language and morality and so on is all innate, in the womb. It is a fallacious notion to suppose that what people say and tell us is what makes our minds into what they are.
In the end it is internal language which determines everything about ourselves, even after we receive information through external language.
Thus censorship is based on pseudo-science. The belief that people are groomed into being civilised or intelligent or ‘human’ not ape – is why people imagine censorship has a practical use. Since humans are NOT made intelligent that way and it’s an internal process, censorship is yet another daft human tradition with nothing but emotions underlying it.
“Thus censorship is based on pseudo-science. ”
The point of censorship is not to convince anybody of any idea but to tell them what they are allowed to say.
The offence does require either subjective or objective intent. That being said, in practice isn’t it the case that really intense dislike is intentionally stirred up on a regular basis by states and MSM?
Agreed.
Even in OSM actually.
As you say this law will be used to selectively target people. It’s like the jigsaw identification that seemed invented to target you. However, the people pushing this will regret it when the table is turned the other way. An example is Democrat Harry Reid, in the Obama era, in the US senate baulking at the 60% majority needed to get Federal and Supreme Court judges accepted used the simple majority needed to abolish that requirement. The bite back was big when Trump became President. Society has people with a wide range of views. Having expression is better than cancelling.
This is appalling legislation and, intentionally or not, one of its main effects will be to allow people who have created cults of pseudo-martyrdom around themselves to indulge in an even more blatant exploitation of their shtick, either as victims of hate speech or victims of the new law. Indeed there are an assortment of pro-Israel and anti-trans attention seekers prominent on X who will almost certainly try to use it as much as they can in both capacities.
Interesting times…. :O.
The question now is how did such a daft law come to be passed? Several factors obviously but interesting how group pressure and thinking may have come into play, rather like many of the factors in the Covid event, which demonstrated that more of us suffered from germophobia than we had previously realised.
Have you eliminated stupidity?
No Tom, not yet, though I have been a proud member of the fundamentalist wing of the “Stamp Out Stupidity” movement for at least 50 years – we are a global collective of admittedly limited influence and sparse numbers – I suppose the curfews and the ankle-bracelets don’t help but the big killer for us was the imposition of draconian legislation to end our right to converse with members of general society or even members of own accursed kind face to face, though virtual communication is allowed and rather sinisterly, encouraged.
Nowadays things are pretty quiet for me but I am determined to hold to my convictions until the end – whenever and wherever that may be. George Orwell would have it one sits in a cafe all day and drinks synthi-gin watching the world go by. In the word of Monty Python – luxury!
Anyway if you like the sound of what you heard here is how to join us. I am delighted to say that membership is free and anyone can join – even those who dwell in mental gulags and other punishment spaces such as solitary confinement. The thing is Tom, for us, it is all about self-respect, from that one variable all the others … well you know – our nebulous and undemanding program can be discerned from this single point and I am suprised our doctrines are not more widely shared, the repression can’t explain the deficit alone methinks but then again how would I know if they were?
More strength to your arm, Will! (Or maybe “arms” if that doesn’t sound too subversive).
It sounds eminently subversive to me Tom but I live alone in an economically constructed purdah, so I would say that wouldn’t I
wm: […] and I am surprised our doctrines are not more widely shared, the repression can’t explain the deficit alone methinks but then again how would I know if they were?
The primary effect (and intent) of propaganda is to amplify the apparent popularity of a belief.
Whether it also influences the viewer to adopt that same belief is just a side effect.
It means merely to change our minds about the minds of others.
Maybe there should be a Fear Act to prosecute those who stir up intense fear.
Would that apply to Police Scotland?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2024/03/22/TELEMMGLPICT000371451894_17111312536230_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq-IWLY18X4-CzgyIcjLEAj0k9u7HhRJvuo-ZLenGRumA.jpeg?imwidth=680
Trans-hating ‘parody of JK Rowling’ was created by Police Scotland officers
Doubts raised over force’s ability to enforce the law after staff invent veiled version of gender-critical author for inclusivity exercise.
A fictional trans-hating character called “Jo”, who women’s groups claim is an offensive parody of JK Rowling, was invented by Police Scotland officers, it has emerged.
The national force faced scrutiny this week over a “scenario” presented at an official hate crime event in which “Jo”, a gender-critical campaigner who, like Rowling, has a large social media following, states that “trans people should be sent to gas chambers.”
We have seen this all before with a new fad for a bad ideas becoming law
I am reminded of Munchausen syndrome by proxy that was popular for a while with the so-called experts saying how prevalent it was. Mothers who complained about the lack of or bad medical treatment for their children were accused of deliberately harming their children to gain attention. So the social services swooped in to abduct their children for their own protection. The mothers were either prosecuted or assigned to mental institutions. It was all pseudo-science and eventually exposed as such, but much real harm and hatred was done by the state.
Then there was Scotland’s Named Person scheme, designed to put the children in control of the state.
With Parents having to follow all sorts of stupid rules with the risk of their children being removed if they upset the wrong official. Narrowly overturned, but so nearly a nightmare.
Now you have all these politicians and others being banned for so called anti-Semitism or racism or some other reason. With Cancel Culture in full swing.
But like a bad fever it will pass.
Thomas Aikenhead springs to mind here – the last man to be hanged for blasphemy in Scotland. He tore into organised religion as “a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras”. Admittedly he was in his cups at the time – unusual, I know, for a Scotsman – but this was apparently no defence.
I look forward to hearing of similar cases brought forward by the Scottish Police Farce after reported conversations from any public house in Glasgow after 10 p.m.
Can we start making complaints against SNP members, members of the “trans community”, homosexuals, et al? I mean, if, for example, a gay activist were to complain about the Catholic Church’s stance (admittedly wobbling) on homosexuality, could I get him nicked for hurting my feelings? Or does this only work one way?
Only a fool could believe the Murrells care passionately about trans people’s feelings. The motivation for this legislation was obviously something else.
Let’s not forget that Regan opposed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill.
Things are not as simple as they seem
It’s not fascism, it’s communism.
Quit buying the nonsense historical narrative.
I think most people are cunts. Does that mean I can’t go to Scotland anymore?
I shouldn’t think so, Bloke. Half the people are – by definition – and many of the other half fancy they are. Who are we to argue?
Once upon a time I was irrationally proud of being Scots. I still am, but I labour under an oppressive fear that I may be the only one left. Or one of a diminishing few.
Here’s tae us! Wha’s like us? Damn few – an’ they’re a’ deed.
On the contrary. Just change your gender.
Typical Bloke – only if you publicise your mental exertions by publishing it on virtual media which might be read in Scotland, then they will come for you you won’t need to go to them.
Another data point which reinforces your gloomy prognosis Typical (I can call you Typical can’t I Typical?) Well Typical if that is the bunker in which you wish to dwell, so be it. But mark this well – bunkers are built to be busted, you may have even heard of bunker busting bombs – think about it Typical, no bunkers no bunker busting bombs – not only is this what we might typically expect Typical but it is backed by irrefutable, cast iron logic. I would ask, if you are able, to think again, your experience or your experiences, however unfortunate must not be allowed to dictate future outcomes.
It is not easy Typical, when one has come to a crossroads and one knows not what to turn as you so obviously have and I mean no disrespect here Typical as I always loved the common people, indeed Typical, I have always loved common people like you.