HCA

[Gundermann]

Deserves a thread on its own due to the cross-party support for it.

 

In short, haters will hate. It's like Fred West objecting to Planning Permission for Patios.

 

Adam Tomkins, Tory:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/24198760.hate-crime-act-might-yet-success-focus-means/

This is really important. Offensive speech is not criminalised by this legislation: the only speech relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability outlawed here is speech which (1) a reasonable person (2) would consider to be threatening or abusive and which (3) was intended to stir up hatred and (4) was not reasonable in the circumstances. Just because you feel offended by what someone has said does not make it a hate crime - at least, not if the subject of what you feel offended by relates to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability.

Under the Hate Crime Act the threshold of criminal liability is not that a victim feels offended (a subjective test), but that a reasonable person would consider the perpetrator’s action or speech to be threatening or abusive (an objective test). Moreover, the Act specifies that “discussion or criticism” of matters relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability, is not to be taken as threatening or abusive. For example, asserting that sex is a biological fact or that it is not changed just by virtue of the gender by which someone chooses to identify is not and never can be a hate crime under this legislation. As such, the new law is going to disappoint those transgender activists who think all acts of misgendering are instances of hateful transphobia, just as it is going to disappoint those culture warriors whose nightmarish vision is that the new law poses the greatest threat to free speech since the abolition of the Licensing Act.

It is different again for religion. It isn’t just “discussion or criticism” of religion which is permitted under the Act: it is also “expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult”. It is an offence intentionally to stir up hatred on religious grounds, but the threats or abuse you would need to indulge in would have to be truly outrageous before the criminal law was interested. If all you were doing was ridiculing or even insulting someone’s religion, that might be unwelcome, but it would not be criminal, not under the Hate Crime Act at any rate.

If we focus on what the Act actually means, rather than on what intemperate voices on both the left and the right are falsely claiming it means, we might yet make a success of it.

 

Andrew Tickell, lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University:

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24190310.ignore-falsehoods-hate-crime-act-plenty-safeguards/

MSPs deserve credit on a cross-party basis for their work on fixing up the bill. Having contributed in a small way to securing these meaningful improvements, I’m not prepared to pretend they haven’t happened or to indulge folk who’d rather object to what they imagine the legislation says rather than its actual content.

Let’s come down to brass tacks. The first part of the legislation codifies how crimes can be aggravated by prejudice, the second consolidates new offences of “stirring up hatred” against minority groups.

 

Take aggravators first. We’ve had ­aggravators on the law books for decades. Before, they were scattered all over the Scottish statute book piecemeal – which is why Lord Bracadale recommended codification was needed.

 

Aggravators don’t create any new ­offences or make any conduct which is currently legal illegal. As the name ­suggests, they’re attached to existing crimes like assault, vandalism or breach of the peace – are recorded, and reflected in sentencing.

Contrary to what’s been asserted last week, the Act does not say that offences are aggravated by hatred just because the victim feels that way.

For an aggravation to be charged, Scottish prosecutors will have to demonstrate that “at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates malice and ill-will towards the victim” based on their age, disability, race, sexual orientation or transgender identity. Under the old and new law, this will almost always be based on what the perpetrator said.

I don’t know about you, but if a knuckle-dragging bigot spits on a priest while ­gobbing up anti-Irish and anti-Catholic slurs, I have no problem with ­classifying that as a hate crime. If you daub a ­synagogue in antisemitic graffiti, most folk wouldn’t see it as state overreach to ­classify that offence as aggravated by ­prejudice.

 

And if white ­nationalists descend on ­communities distributing ­leaflets for ­“punish a Muslim day”, I’ve no issue with the ­police investigating and ­executing ­warrants against them for it. Describing ­provisions like this as “­madness” is just lazy sloganising.

[Gundermann]

As to Labour, they're planning a HCA for 'non hate crimes' in England.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/12/labour-police-anti-semitic-islamophobic-non-hate-crime/

 

And, wouldn't repeal the bill in Scotland if it gains power but would add misogyny. Fair point there.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/misogyny-should-included-new-hate-32486632

[manaliveits105]

[doctor jambo]

Depends who you regard as a reasonable person within the scope of the act.

I regard anyone who thinks a woman can have a penis, or a man can breast feed is not a reasonable person.

ie what they believe defies reason.

[Jim_Duncan]

Given all the hoo-ha, I’d like to know why misogyny (and misandry) isn’t in the act currently?

 

Also, your post is unclear. We’re you involved in this or were you quoting Andrew Tickell? I clicked the link but don’t have a subscription to the SNP fanzine. 

[doctor jambo]

And women excluded from the act, in order that 

1 - you don’t need to define what one is

2- the act can go after them and they have no protection 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Don’t encourage him folks 

[Gundermann]

7 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Given all the hoo-ha, I’d like to know why misogyny (and misandry) isn’t in the act currently?

 

Also, your post is unclear. We’re you involved in this or were you quoting Andrew Tickell? I clicked the link but don’t have a subscription to the SNP fanzine. 

 

I quoted Tomkins and Tickell who are both law academics.

 

No, not involved. Though, where I work, we have been duty bound to record any hate-incidents amongst young people for as long as I can remember - chiefly racist or homophobic "incidents", even if just a stupid joke from a bairn.

 

I rarely contend with folk on the trans issue - it's a complex debate and I don't know enough about it. Suffice to say, I don't think on the scale of world problems just now that trans people are at the top.

 

I'm also more than happy for those trans-obsessives like Oor Judy and JK Rowling to spout as much shit as they want. I don't want them gagged. Far from it.

[Boris]

11 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

And women excluded from the act, in order that 

1 - you don’t need to define what one is

2- the act can go after them and they have no protection 

I'm sure I read that a separate misogyny bill is to be brought forward, however when that happens is anyone's guess.

[doctor jambo]

Just now, Gundermann said:

 

I quoted Tomkins and Tickell who are both law academics.

 

No, not involved. Though, where I work, we have been duty bound to record any hate-incidents amongst young people for as long as I can remember - chiefly racist or homophobic "incidents", even if just a stupid joke from a bairn.

 

I rarely contend with folk on the trans issue - it's a complex debate and I don't know enough about it. Suffice to say, I don't think on the scale of world problems just now that trans people are at the top.

 

I'm also more than happy for those trans-obsessives like Oor Judy and JK Rowling to spout as much shit as they want. I don't want them gagged. Far from it.

Jk is not trans obsessive.

She is a feminist campaigner and women’s rights activist, who supports rape crisis centres and victims of domestic violence.

 

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

I'm sure I read that a separate misogyny bill is to be brought forward, however when that happens is anyone's guess.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/31/scotlands-new-hate-act-what-does-it-cover-and-why-is-it-controversial

[doctor jambo]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

I'm sure I read that a separate misogyny bill is to be brought forward, however when that happens is anyone's guess.

Nothing happens by accident.

It’s a deliberate exclusion.

it means nobody has to actually work out what a woman is.

 

[Gundermann]

16 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

And women excluded from the act, in order that 

1 - you don’t need to define what one is

2- the act can go after them and they have no protection 

 

Like I said, it's a fair point from Sarwar that misogyny should be included.

 

If the misogyny act transpires soon, then good. Point being though that Labour won't repleal that act but would actually widen its scopte.

[Cade]

It's just consolidating and clarifying already existing laws.

That's it.

But all the usual suspects are crying about it.

Poor wee snowflakes.

 

[doctor jambo]

9 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Like I said, it's a fair point from Sarwar that misogyny should be included.

 

If the misogyny act transpires soon, then good. Point being though that Labour won't repleal that act but would actually widen its scopte.

It should be there from the start.

everyone should be afforded the same protections .

the exclusion of one group tells its own story.

Exclusion of women is an act of misogyny in and of itself .

the act is therefore misogynistic 

[Ulysses]

18 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

Deserves a thread on its own due to the cross-party support for it.

 

In short, haters will hate. It's like Fred West objecting to Planning Permission for Patios.

 

Adam Tomkins, Tory:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/24198760.hate-crime-act-might-yet-success-focus-means/

This is really important. Offensive speech is not criminalised by this legislation: the only speech relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability outlawed here is speech which (1) a reasonable person (2) would consider to be threatening or abusive and which (3) was intended to stir up hatred and (4) was not reasonable in the circumstances. Just because you feel offended by what someone has said does not make it a hate crime - at least, not if the subject of what you feel offended by relates to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability.

Under the Hate Crime Act the threshold of criminal liability is not that a victim feels offended (a subjective test), but that a reasonable person would consider the perpetrator’s action or speech to be threatening or abusive (an objective test). Moreover, the Act specifies that “discussion or criticism” of matters relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability, is not to be taken as threatening or abusive. For example, asserting that sex is a biological fact or that it is not changed just by virtue of the gender by which someone chooses to identify is not and never can be a hate crime under this legislation. As such, the new law is going to disappoint those transgender activists who think all acts of misgendering are instances of hateful transphobia, just as it is going to disappoint those culture warriors whose nightmarish vision is that the new law poses the greatest threat to free speech since the abolition of the Licensing Act.

It is different again for religion. It isn’t just “discussion or criticism” of religion which is permitted under the Act: it is also “expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult”. It is an offence intentionally to stir up hatred on religious grounds, but the threats or abuse you would need to indulge in would have to be truly outrageous before the criminal law was interested. If all you were doing was ridiculing or even insulting someone’s religion, that might be unwelcome, but it would not be criminal, not under the Hate Crime Act at any rate.

If we focus on what the Act actually means, rather than on what intemperate voices on both the left and the right are falsely claiming it means, we might yet make a success of it.

 

Andrew Tickell, lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University:

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24190310.ignore-falsehoods-hate-crime-act-plenty-safeguards/

MSPs deserve credit on a cross-party basis for their work on fixing up the bill. Having contributed in a small way to securing these meaningful improvements, I’m not prepared to pretend they haven’t happened or to indulge folk who’d rather object to what they imagine the legislation says rather than its actual content.

Let’s come down to brass tacks. The first part of the legislation codifies how crimes can be aggravated by prejudice, the second consolidates new offences of “stirring up hatred” against minority groups.

 

Take aggravators first. We’ve had ­aggravators on the law books for decades. Before, they were scattered all over the Scottish statute book piecemeal – which is why Lord Bracadale recommended codification was needed.

 

Aggravators don’t create any new ­offences or make any conduct which is currently legal illegal. As the name ­suggests, they’re attached to existing crimes like assault, vandalism or breach of the peace – are recorded, and reflected in sentencing.

Contrary to what’s been asserted last week, the Act does not say that offences are aggravated by hatred just because the victim feels that way.

For an aggravation to be charged, Scottish prosecutors will have to demonstrate that “at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates malice and ill-will towards the victim” based on their age, disability, race, sexual orientation or transgender identity. Under the old and new law, this will almost always be based on what the perpetrator said.

I don’t know about you, but if a knuckle-dragging bigot spits on a priest while ­gobbing up anti-Irish and anti-Catholic slurs, I have no problem with ­classifying that as a hate crime. If you daub a ­synagogue in antisemitic graffiti, most folk wouldn’t see it as state overreach to ­classify that offence as aggravated by ­prejudice.

 

And if white ­nationalists descend on ­communities distributing ­leaflets for ­“punish a Muslim day”, I’ve no issue with the ­police investigating and ­executing ­warrants against them for it. Describing ­provisions like this as “­madness” is just lazy sloganising.

 

13 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

As to Labour, they're planning a HCA for 'non hate crimes' in England.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/12/labour-police-anti-semitic-islamophobic-non-hate-crime/

 

And, wouldn't repeal the bill in Scotland if it gains power but would add misogyny. Fair point there.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/misogyny-should-included-new-hate-32486632

 

Thanks for posting.  The legislation probably merits its own thread on here, because people seem to feel strongly about it and it isn't just relevant to threads about particular political parties.

 

I must admit it's a topic I usually avoid.  I find that expressing any view online about any aspect of this issue is an open invitation to someone to screech at you.

 

But a couple of questions crossed my mind when reading your posts, so I'll ask them.  By the way, I'm not necessarily asking them as some kind of challenge to anyone's opinion; they're just thoughts and questions that have occurred to me.

 

As far as I can see, most opposition came from the Conservatives (and Reform).  Does that mean they'd seek to repeal the legislation or some of its provisions if they were in office?  Would any other parties in Scotland seek to change the law?

 

I read somewhere that this Act was passed two years ago, in April 2021, but I don't recall the same amount of noise and heat about it at the time.  Did I miss something?

 

Will adding misogyny (or passing similar legislation in respect of misogyny) improve the legislation or make it worse?

 

If the Labour Party goes down the HCA route in England, will they get support from the likes of the Greens and the Liberal Democrats?  Would the Conservatives and Reform see things the same way as their Scottish counterparts?

 

Is anything like this on the political agenda in Wales? 

 

I've read a few people complaining about what they describe as "the police putting a hate crime report on someone's record, whether there's a conviction or not" (I'm paraphrasing there).  How does that work?  Bear in mind that I haven't read the Act, so I've no idea.  I'm not asking what people think about it; I'm asking what the legal provision is and how it is carried out in practice.

 

Some elements of the legislation depend on the term "reasonable person".  Is that term defined in the legislation, or will it rely on the "reasonable person standard" normally used in English and Scottish courts?  I'm assuming it's the latter, but not having read the Act I don't know.

[Jim_Duncan]

7 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

It should be there from the start.

everyone should be afforded the same protections .

the exclusion of one group tells its own story.

Exclusion of women is an act of misogyny in and of itself .

the act is therefore misogynistic 

It is interesting that they pushed this through without there being an amendment including misogyny.

[doctor jambo]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

It's just consolidating and clarifying already existing laws.

That's it.

But all the usual suspects are crying about it.

Poor wee snowflakes.

 

It’s not though , it’s an expansion.

crime could always be aggravated by racism etc

and the lazy “ offends the gammons “ chat is tiresome .

the big group against this are women’s rights advocates , feminists and lesbians.

 

[Bender]

https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1774771831175528705?s=20

 

I see this doing the rounds today but I'd love to know the context in which this speech was given before deciding if it's something to question. Can anyone shed some light on what drove this? 

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

3 minutes ago, Bender said:

https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1774771831175528705?s=20

 

I see this doing the rounds today but I'd love to know the context in which this speech was given before deciding if it's something to question. Can anyone shed some light on what drove this? 

 

 

It was driven by Humza's personal ineptness, stupidity and intolerances. Imagine his, and his supporters outcry, if a white person had substituted black/coloured/Asian/African (insert other terms as required) and made that speech. 

 

[Bender]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

It was driven by Humza's personal ineptness, stupidity and intolerances. Imagine his, and his supporters outcry, if a white person had substituted black/coloured/Asian/African (insert other terms as required) and made that speech. 

 

 

I'd still like more context beyond "Humza hates ole whitey" though. I doubt anyone would be allowed to make such a speech like that because it was driven by racial hatred. I just can't be bothered looking back to 2021 to understand what the speech was actually about.

[doctor jambo]

10 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

I'd still like more context beyond "Humza hates ole whitey" though. I doubt anyone would be allowed to make such a speech like that because it was driven by racial hatred. I just can't be bothered looking back to 2021 to understand what the speech was actually about.

Getting his excuses in early.

” If I fail it’s because you are all racist”

[Lone Striker]

7 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

I'd still like more context beyond "Humza hates ole whitey" though. I doubt anyone would be allowed to make such a speech like that because it was driven by racial hatred. I just can't be bothered looking back to 2021 to understand what the speech was actually about.

His speech wasn't actually about hating white folk. It was highlighting the lack of non-whites in senior Govt and govt agency positions.     What made it a bit ridiculous was the Census figure of around 96% for the proportion of Scottish residents identifying as "white".  His list of senior jobs numbered between 20 & 30, so hardly a surprise that the most senior leader was white.       From memory, he was using his own election by SNP members to the highest job in Scotland (as well as Anas Sarwar for Labour)   as a contrast to all these other senior jobs.   

 

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Gundermann said:

Deserves a thread on its own due to the cross-party support for it.

 

In short, haters will hate. It's like Fred West objecting to Planning Permission for Patios.

 

Adam Tomkins, Tory:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/24198760.hate-crime-act-might-yet-success-focus-means/

This is really important. Offensive speech is not criminalised by this legislation: the only speech relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability outlawed here is speech which (1) a reasonable person (2) would consider to be threatening or abusive and which (3) was intended to stir up hatred and (4) was not reasonable in the circumstances. Just because you feel offended by what someone has said does not make it a hate crime - at least, not if the subject of what you feel offended by relates to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability.

Under the Hate Crime Act the threshold of criminal liability is not that a victim feels offended (a subjective test), but that a reasonable person would consider the perpetrator’s action or speech to be threatening or abusive (an objective test). Moreover, the Act specifies that “discussion or criticism” of matters relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability, is not to be taken as threatening or abusive. For example, asserting that sex is a biological fact or that it is not changed just by virtue of the gender by which someone chooses to identify is not and never can be a hate crime under this legislation. As such, the new law is going to disappoint those transgender activists who think all acts of misgendering are instances of hateful transphobia, just as it is going to disappoint those culture warriors whose nightmarish vision is that the new law poses the greatest threat to free speech since the abolition of the Licensing Act.

It is different again for religion. It isn’t just “discussion or criticism” of religion which is permitted under the Act: it is also “expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult”. It is an offence intentionally to stir up hatred on religious grounds, but the threats or abuse you would need to indulge in would have to be truly outrageous before the criminal law was interested. If all you were doing was ridiculing or even insulting someone’s religion, that might be unwelcome, but it would not be criminal, not under the Hate Crime Act at any rate.

If we focus on what the Act actually means, rather than on what intemperate voices on both the left and the right are falsely claiming it means, we might yet make a success of it.

 

Andrew Tickell, lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University:

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24190310.ignore-falsehoods-hate-crime-act-plenty-safeguards/

MSPs deserve credit on a cross-party basis for their work on fixing up the bill. Having contributed in a small way to securing these meaningful improvements, I’m not prepared to pretend they haven’t happened or to indulge folk who’d rather object to what they imagine the legislation says rather than its actual content.

Let’s come down to brass tacks. The first part of the legislation codifies how crimes can be aggravated by prejudice, the second consolidates new offences of “stirring up hatred” against minority groups.

 

Take aggravators first. We’ve had ­aggravators on the law books for decades. Before, they were scattered all over the Scottish statute book piecemeal – which is why Lord Bracadale recommended codification was needed.

 

Aggravators don’t create any new ­offences or make any conduct which is currently legal illegal. As the name ­suggests, they’re attached to existing crimes like assault, vandalism or breach of the peace – are recorded, and reflected in sentencing.

Contrary to what’s been asserted last week, the Act does not say that offences are aggravated by hatred just because the victim feels that way.

For an aggravation to be charged, Scottish prosecutors will have to demonstrate that “at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates malice and ill-will towards the victim” based on their age, disability, race, sexual orientation or transgender identity. Under the old and new law, this will almost always be based on what the perpetrator said.

I don’t know about you, but if a knuckle-dragging bigot spits on a priest while ­gobbing up anti-Irish and anti-Catholic slurs, I have no problem with ­classifying that as a hate crime. If you daub a ­synagogue in antisemitic graffiti, most folk wouldn’t see it as state overreach to ­classify that offence as aggravated by ­prejudice.

 

And if white ­nationalists descend on ­communities distributing ­leaflets for ­“punish a Muslim day”, I’ve no issue with the ­police investigating and ­executing ­warrants against them for it. Describing ­provisions like this as “­madness” is just lazy sloganising.

The law's an ass.

[John Findlay]

35 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

It is interesting that they pushed this through without there being an amendment including misogyny.

Or misandry.

[Jim_Duncan]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

Or misandry.

Not interesting, that one. Just entirely predictable. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Don’t encourage him folks 

 

This.

[Ked]

1 hour ago, Gundermann said:

 

I quoted Tomkins and Tickell who are both law academics.

 

No, not involved. Though, where I work, we have been duty bound to record any hate-incidents amongst young people for as long as I can remember - chiefly racist or homophobic "incidents", even if just a stupid joke from a bairn.

 

I rarely contend with folk on the trans issue - it's a complex debate and I don't know enough about it. Suffice to say, I don't think on the scale of world problems just now that trans people are at the top.

 

I'm also more than happy for those trans-obsessives like Oor Judy and JK Rowling to spout as much shit as they want. I don't want them gagged. Far from it.

JK Rowling being dismissed as obsessed.

Could not make this shite up.

 

[Bender]

15 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

His speech wasn't actually about hating white folk. It was highlighting the lack of non-whites in senior Govt and govt agency positions.     What made it a bit ridiculous was the Census figure of around 96% for the proportion of Scottish residents identifying as "white".  His list of senior jobs numbered between 20 & 30, so hardly a surprise that the most senior leader was white.       From memory, he was using his own election by SNP members to the highest job in Scotland (as well as Anas Sarwar for Labour)   as a contrast to all these other senior jobs.   

 

 

I kinda gathered his point was about the number of white people in senior positions but I still don't want to make out like he's said something racially offensive. If his point was that there's a lack of diversity in positions of power, he possibly has a point. While the strength of the candidate is the most important thing, let's not pretend there's no 'jobs for the boys' situations going on.

[Taffin]

Culture war gubbins. 

[Jim_Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

I kinda gathered his point was about the number of white people in senior positions but I still don't want to make out like he's said something racially offensive. If his point was that there's a lack of diversity in positions of power, he possibly has a point. While the strength of the candidate is the most important thing, let's not pretend there's no 'jobs for the boys' situations going on.

I have it on good authority that, shockingly, there are no Buddhists in senior roles within the Muslim Council of Scotland. 
 

In further developments, it has been reported that there are no intelligent people with STs at Easter Road. Not one! 
 

The lack of diversity in various Scottish institutions shows that we are a country riven by hatred and division. 

[Lone Striker]

7 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

I kinda gathered his point was about the number of white people in senior positions but I still don't want to make out like he's said something racially offensive. If his point was that there'sr, a lack of diversity in positions of power he possibly has a point. While the strength of the candidate is the most important thing, let's not pretend there's no 'jobs for the boys' situations going on.

But a lack of diversity in positions of power doesn't automatically mean a white conspiracy to  ensure it stays that way.     We don't know how many of the 4% non-whites had the qualifications / experience to merit any of these 20-30 senior jobs. Or indeed how many even applied for these jobs.      A cynic might interpret his speech as some  "positive discrimination"  being needed in order to "tick a box"  - which in the context of the census figures would seem ridiculous.   

[doctor jambo]

14 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

I kinda gathered his point was about the number of white people in senior positions but I still don't want to make out like he's said something racially offensive. If his point was that there's a lack of diversity in positions of power, he possibly has a point. While the strength of the candidate is the most important thing, let's not pretend there's no 'jobs for the boys' situations going on.

Not really , there is an over representation of gays at the top level of  politics, try substituting the word “gay” for “white “ in his speech and see how far that gets you.

[Bender]

Just now, Lone Striker said:

But a lack of diversity in positions of power doesn't automatically mean a white conspiracy to  ensure it stays that way.     We don't know how many of the 4% non-whites had the qualifications / experience to merit any of these 20-30 senior jobs. Or indeed how many even applied for these jobs.      A cynic might interpret his speech as some  "positive discrimination"  being needed in order to "tick a box"  - which in the context of the census figures would seem ridiculous.   

 

No, I'm not saying there is anything like a white conspiracy because saying something like that without evidence to back it up would be bat shit crazy. There may some credence to the thought the country isn't ready for a Sikh chief of police or an African health minister because the UK, in general, still has a serious race problem. 

 

It seems like I was right to not label the speech as an outright hate crime, more a politician struggling to put his point across without sounding silly.

[Bender]

10 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

I have it on good authority that, shockingly, there are no Buddhists in senior roles within the Muslim Council of Scotland. 
 

In further developments, it has been reported that there are no intelligent people with STs at Easter Road. Not one! 
 

The lack of diversity in various Scottish institutions shows that we are a country riven by hatred and division. 

 

Sadly Scotland isn't as progressive as some would like to believe. Although this is absolutely not restricted to Scotland, the way some people speak about the Mayor of London is testament to that.

 

3 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Not really , there is an over representation of gays at the top level of  politics, try substituting the word “gay” for “white “ in his speech and see how far that gets you.

 

What level of over representation are we talking about here? I personally don't care about the background of any politician, I'm more interested in what they achieve (or not) while in office.

[Jim_Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

Sadly Scotland isn't as progressive as some would like to believe.

Sadly you’re right. As can be seen by the current FM’s focus on skin colour/race in his hate speech. 

[Ked]

4 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Sadly you’re right. As can be seen by the current FM’s focus on skin colour/race in his hate speech. 

Ye cannae go wrong playing the race card.

Or so he thought.

Trouble is for him and thankfully for us  he's in Scotland so everyone knows he's talking shite.

SNP are done .

[doctor jambo]

6 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

Sadly Scotland isn't as progressive as some would like to believe. Although this is absolutely not restricted to Scotland, the way some people speak about the Mayor of London is testament to that.

 

 

What level of over representation are we talking about here? I personally don't care about the background of any politician, I'm more interested in what they achieve (or not) while in office.

Off the top of my head, leaders

wendy alexander

kezia dugdale

anabelle goldie

patrixk harvie

? Nicola sturgeon 

that must be ? 70% of party leaders in last decade- so about 7x representation expectation 

nobody cares when minorities are over represented is my point .

like now 

Tory- white male

labour - Bame

SNP- BAME

LIBDEMS - don’t know

greens - white gay

 

that is not at all representative of the country , if it was they would all be white , straight male/female

[Hmfc1965]

5 minutes ago, Ked said:

Ye cannae go wrong playing the race card.

Or so he thought.

Trouble is for him and thankfully for us  he's in Scotland so everyone knows he's talking shite.

SNP are done .

Aye right enough.  There's no racism in Scotland.

I've always thought it would be interesting to see Scottish attitudes if our population mix in cities was like some English cities.

[Bender]

1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

Off the top of my head, leaders

wendy alexander

kezia dugdale

anabelle goldie

patrixk harvie

? Nicola sturgeon 

that must be ? 70% of party leaders in last decade- so about 7x representation expectation 

nobody cares when minorities are over represented is my point .

like now 

Tory- white male

labour - Bame

SNP- BAME

LIBDEMS - don’t know

greens - white gay

 

that is not at all representative of the country , if it was they would all be white , straight male/female

 

So four? Hm, doesn't seem to be much of an over representation. Not that anyones sexuality really matters. Boris Johnson is a straight, white male and he was a terrible Prime Minister. 

 

Maybe I'm in a tiny minority here, but I'd trust a South Asian, BAME or Latino to represent my interests as much as I would a straight, white male/female.

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, Hmfc1965 said:

Aye right enough.  There's no racism in Scotland.

I've always thought it would be interesting to see Scottish attitudes if our population mix in cities was like some English cities.

Not sure , but my kids friends are nearly all BAME.

I like it, but then their parents aren’t anti white 

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, Bender said:

 

So four? Hm, doesn't seem to be much of an over representation. Not that anyones sexuality really matters. Boris Johnson is a straight, white male and he was a terrible Prime Minister. 

 

Maybe I'm in a tiny minority here, but I'd trust a South Asian, BAME or Latino to represent my interests as much as I would a straight, white male/female.

Me too, but it’s a shame our FM quite clearly has an issue with us.

Reminds me of Amer Anwar.

 

[Hmfc1965]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

I've read a few people complaining about what they describe as "the police putting a hate crime report on someone's record, whether there's a conviction or not" (I'm paraphrasing there).  How does that work?  Bear in mind that I haven't read the Act, so I've no idea.  I'm not asking what people think about it; I'm asking what the legal provision is and how it is carried out in practice.

 

Some elements of the legislation depend on the term "reasonable person".  Is that term defined in the legislation, or will it rely on the "reasonable person standard" normally used in English and Scottish courts?  I'm assuming it's the latter, but not having read the Act I don't know.

I've no idea where that came from.

It isn't in the Act.

All I can think is it refers to "non conviction information " recorded on some PVG records.

In my experience that is limited and unlikely to be used I  these circumstances.

[Ked]

Just now, Hmfc1965 said:

Aye right enough.  There's no racism in Scotland.

I've always thought it would be interesting to see Scottish attitudes if our population mix in cities was like some English cities.

Didn't say that.

And I agree with what you say.

We can't even get along with white Christians.

He still spraffed shite though.

Blamed race doesn't acknowledge the growing attainment gap which no doubt his well educated etc etc kids benefit .

Scotland has a dark side like any other.

And Humza slivered pish like any other politician 

Seems daft but it's another glaringly obvious sign that we as a country need to grow up and govern ourselves.

Playing at being a leader with no real consequence leads to the nonsense we are going through .

We either are or we are not.

 

[Hmfc1965]

1 minute ago, Ked said:

Didn't say that.

And I agree with what you say.

We can't even get along with white Christians.

He still spraffed shite though.

Blamed race doesn't acknowledge the growing attainment gap which no doubt his well educated etc etc kids benefit .

Scotland has a dark side like any other.

And Humza slivered pish like any other politician 

Seems daft but it's another glaringly obvious sign that we as a country need to grow up and govern ourselves.

Playing at being a leader with no real consequence leads to the nonsense we are going through .

We either are or we are not.

 

I'm not denying he was talking shite.

I doubt though that more responsibility in the shape of am independent Scotland would make him less of an arsehole.

[Gundermann]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

His speech wasn't actually about hating white folk. It was highlighting the lack of non-whites in senior Govt and govt agency positions.     What made it a bit ridiculous was the Census figure of around 96% for the proportion of Scottish residents identifying as "white".  His list of senior jobs numbered between 20 & 30, so hardly a surprise that the most senior leader was white.       From memory, he was using his own election by SNP members to the highest job in Scotland (as well as Anas Sarwar for Labour)   as a contrast to all these other senior jobs.   

 

 

Too much common sense here. He was merely giving an account of his observations. He may or may not be correct with stats but to say he hates whites is ludicrous. Some on here are very thin skinned. Nowt to do with pigmenation, likes.

[Gundermann]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Thanks for posting.  The legislation probably merits its own thread on here, because people seem to feel strongly about it and it isn't just relevant to threads about particular political parties.

 

I must admit it's a topic I usually avoid.  I find that expressing any view online about any aspect of this issue is an open invitation to someone to screech at you.

 

But a couple of questions crossed my mind when reading your posts, so I'll ask them.  By the way, I'm not necessarily asking them as some kind of challenge to anyone's opinion; they're just thoughts and questions that have occurred to me.

 

As far as I can see, most opposition came from the Conservatives (and Reform).  Does that mean they'd seek to repeal the legislation or some of its provisions if they were in office?  Would any other parties in Scotland seek to change the law?

 

I read somewhere that this Act was passed two years ago, in April 2021, but I don't recall the same amount of noise and heat about it at the time.  Did I miss something?

 

Will adding misogyny (or passing similar legislation in respect of misogyny) improve the legislation or make it worse?

 

If the Labour Party goes down the HCA route in England, will they get support from the likes of the Greens and the Liberal Democrats?  Would the Conservatives and Reform see things the same way as their Scottish counterparts?

 

Is anything like this on the political agenda in Wales? 

 

I've read a few people complaining about what they describe as "the police putting a hate crime report on someone's record, whether there's a conviction or not" (I'm paraphrasing there).  How does that work?  Bear in mind that I haven't read the Act, so I've no idea.  I'm not asking what people think about it; I'm asking what the legal provision is and how it is carried out in practice.

 

Some elements of the legislation depend on the term "reasonable person".  Is that term defined in the legislation, or will it rely on the "reasonable person standard" normally used in English and Scottish courts?  I'm assuming it's the latter, but not having read the Act I don't know.

 

I'm not sure Wales has the legal powers though the Senedd is keen to use existing powers as much as possible. Our new HCA just seems to be building on existing legislation.

 

Tories, no suprise there, knocked back the proposed misogyny bill in England and Wales so Scotland will probably be the first to bring one forward. Not sure why it wasn't included in the HCA but that act deals with minorities. Women are not that but obvs experience a tide of hate and violence daily.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/government-christine-jardine-home-office-misogyny-liberal-democrats-b2326445.html

 

Anyway, I guess it only leave the haters to vote for Lozza Fox. The Tories probably would repeal it, though some of them have argued for it, but are also in the awkward position of saying "We'll defend women!" while also opposing a misogyny bill. Labour, Lib Dems and Greens, both here and UK will support it bar the odd member abstaining.

[Ked]

1 minute ago, Gundermann said:

 

I'm not sure Wales has the legal powers though the Senedd is keen to use existing powers as much as possible. Our new HCA just seems to be building on existing legislation.

 

Tories, no suprise there, knocked back the proposed misogyny bill in England and Wales so Scotland will probably be the first to bring one forward. Not sure why it wasn't included in the HCA but that act deals with minorities. Women are not that but obvs experience a tide of hate and violence daily.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/government-christine-jardine-home-office-misogyny-liberal-democrats-b2326445.html

 

Anyway, I guess it only leave the haters to vote for Lozza Fox. The Tories probably would repeal it, though some of them have argued for it, but are also in the awkward position of saying "We'll defend women!" while also opposing a misogyny bill. Labour, Lib Dems and Greens, both here and UK will support it bar the odd member abstaining.

The haters.

Ffs .

 

[doctor jambo]

6 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Too much common sense here. He was merely giving an account of his observations. He may or may not be correct with stats but to say he hates whites is ludicrous. Some on here are very thin skinned. Nowt to do with pigmenation, likes.

He was inferring that in a 96 % white country , there were (shockingly ) huge numbers of white people in senior positions . Which seemed to anger him.

He made a racial generalisation, which is , well, racist

[Ked]

13 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Too much common sense here. He was merely giving an account of his observations. He may or may not be correct with stats but to say he hates whites is ludicrous. Some on here are very thin skinned. Nowt to do with pigmenation, likes.

It was him who vented .