Hate Crime Bill

[SteveHFC]

https://twitter.com/scotgov/status/1370104217491415050?s=21

Now in law after today’s vote.

[Berwickhibby]

Legislation the Stasi would be proud of!!

[Hibrandenburg]

Legislation the Stasi would be proud of!!

It's a step in the right direction. What specific problems do you have with it?

[JimBHibees]

Think it is a good thing particularly religious hate which shamefully is still a thing in this country.. Hopefully it can be implemented successfully

[Berwickhibby]

It's a step in the right direction. What specific problems do you have with it?

Any erosion of free speech should not be taken lightly ....certain theatre ... opinions ... stuff posted on this website could be an offence. I don't have a problem with the intention, as with football offences act Scotland which was repealed. It's down to the vagueness and its poorly written.

[Hibrandenburg]

Think it is a good thing particularly religious hate which shamefully is still a thing in this country.. Hopefully it can be implemented successfully

Primarily that and racist and online hate mongering. There's a line between freedom of speech and hate mongering, there will be cases that fall into grey areas but our judicial system should be able to distinguish between them.

[Moulin Yarns]

Any erosion of free speech should not be taken lightly ....certain theatre ... opinions ... stuff posted on this website could be an offence. I don't have a problem with the intention, as with football offences act Scotland which was repealed. It's down to the vagueness and its poorly written.

Would you say that it's an erosion of the right of Tommy Robinson's free speech, or Abu-Hamza?

[Berwickhibby]

Primarily that and racist and online hate mongering. There's a line between freedom of speech and hate mongering, there will be cases that fall into grey areas but our judicial system should be able to distinguish between them.

So if someone discribes a Rangers fan on here a dirty orange twat ...which I have seen on numerous occasions...you would be happy to see that person dealt with by the Justice System? That's how vague this legislation is.

[Berwickhibby]

Would you say that it's an erosion of the right of Tommy Robinson's free speech, or Abu-Hamza?

There is already legislation to deal with Hate Crime especially extremists like those you mention

[Hibrandenburg]

Any erosion of free speech should not be taken lightly ....certain theatre ... opinions ... stuff posted on this website could be an offence. I don't have a problem with the intention, as with football offences act Scotland which was repealed. It's down to the vagueness and its poorly written.

It'll all boil down to intention and I think our judicial system is capable of calling it right. I see it as similar to defamation laws, it has to be vague to cover the wide spectrum of possible offences. Might mean you can't use the word "Snazi" anymore mind you.

[Hibrandenburg]

So if someone discribes a Rangers fan on here a dirty orange twat ...which I have seen on numerous occasions...you would be happy to see that person dealt with by the Justice System? That's how vague this legislation is.

If it also means Rangers fans think twice before calling us dirty taig fenian *******s then yes, I think I could live with that.

[Moulin Yarns]

It'll all boil down to intention and I think our judicial system is capable of calling it right. I see it as similar to defamation laws, it has to be vague to cover the wide spectrum of possible offences. Might mean you can't use the word "Snazi" anymore mind you.

🤣

[ronaldo7]

Government accepts amendments to strengthen protections of freedom of speech.

Passes 82 votes to 32 with 4 abstentions.

[Berwickhibby]

It'll all boil down to intention and I think our judicial system is capable of calling it right. I see it as similar to defamation laws, it has to be vague to cover the wide spectrum of possible offences. Might mean you can't use the word "Snazi" anymore mind you.

You have a higher opinion of our judiciary than I do and I worked within it for 25 years, you will have to explain your insight about legislation which regardless what you submit won’t effect you

[Berwickhibby]

Government accepts amendments to strengthen protections of freedom of speech.

Passes 82 votes to 32 with 4 abstentions.

Needs ripping up and rewriting... if not it will be repealed in a couple of years... I have no qualms with the sentiment.. it’s just to vague

[Hibrandenburg]

You have a higher opinion of our judiciary than I do and I worked within it for 25 years, you will have to explain your insight about legislation which regardless what you submit won’t effect you

I thought you worked in England?

[Berwickhibby]

I thought you worked in England?

I did but working out in Berwick we often crossed the border to assist and vice a versa ... had a few away days to Duns Sheriff court

[ronaldo7]

Needs ripping up and rewriting... if not it will be repealed in a couple of years... I have no qualms with the sentiment.. it’s just to vague

I've not read it. Which are the parts that are vague?

Just looked out a summary of what's gone on.

Hate Crime Bill passed
MSPs vote in favour of milestone legislation.

Victims and communities targeted by hate crime will have greater protection after Parliament voted to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill.

The legislation will modernise, consolidate and extend existing hate crime law ensuring it is fit for the 21st Century. Through its passing, ‘stirring up’ of hatred offences will now apply to additional characteristics listed in the Bill: age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics. These new protections will add to the long-standing stirring up racial hatred offences, which have been in place since 1986 and have been retained in largely the same form within the Bill.

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said:

“Through the passing of this landmark Bill, Parliament has sent a strong and clear message to victims, perpetrators, communities and to wider society that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated seriously and will not be tolerated – I am delighted Holyrood has backed this powerful legislation that is fitting for the Scotland we live in.

“We must remember why this Bill is so necessary, every day in Scotland around 18 hate crimes are committed. The effects of these crimes are felt deeply by those targeted and this prejudice has a pernicious effect on the health of a society and its communities. Not only that, the toll hate crime takes on its victims, their families and communities, is immense.

“The Bill’s passage has shown Holyrood at its very best – a collaborative, diverse and determined Parliament which we should all be proud of. Robust scrutiny has ensured we have met the right balance between protecting groups targeted by hate crime and respecting people’s rights to free speech.

“I look forward to overseeing the implementation of this legislation which will ensure Scotland’s justice system can bring perpetrators to account and provide sufficient protection for individuals and communities harmed by hate crimes.”

Background

The Hate Crime Bill was introduced to Parliament in April 2020 for consideration following the independent review of Scotland’s hate crime legislation carried out by Lord Bracadale which recommended consolidation of all hate crime law into one Bill.

The Bill updates the list of characteristics protected under hate crime legislation and proposes the addition of age to this list – where there is a statutory aggravation for offences motivated by prejudice. The Bill also provides for new ‘stirring up’ of hatred offences that would apply to all characteristics listed in the Bill: age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics. A statutory aggravation, in the hate crime context, is where the offender demonstrated, or was motivated by, malice and ill-will based on a listed characteristic (or characteristics). If the offender is found guilty, the court must take the aggravation into account when determining the sentence. Currently these offences only apply to stirring up racial hatred which has been an offence in Scots law – and the whole of the UK – for decades. The current stirring up of racial hatred offences are in the Public Order Act 1986.

The amendment(s) on freedom of expression answer the calls for more comprehensive freedom of expression provision within the Bill, striking an appropriate balance between providing the necessary clarity and reassurance as to the boundaries of the stirring up hatred offences while not singling out specific communities.

The latest official statistics show Police Scotland recorded 6,448 hate crimes in 2019-20

The Bill also abolishes the offence of blasphemy which has not been prosecuted in Scotland for more than 175 years.

[Rocky]

So if someone discribes a Rangers fan on here a dirty orange twat ...which I have seen on numerous occasions...you would be happy to see that person dealt with by the Justice System? That's how vague this legislation is.

So in a country with a massive sectarianism problem the best example you can come up with to criticise the bill is that you won't be able to use sectarian slurs any more?

[JeMeSouviens]

Legislation the Stasi would be proud of!!

Supported by all parties except the Tories. I don’t know the ins and outs but that sounds like it might be a good thing?

[Berwickhibby]

I've not read it. Which are the parts that are vague?

https://consult.gov.scot/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf

[ronaldo7]

https://consult.gov.scot/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf

Yes, I've just edited my comment. Which part do you think is vague or needs re written?

[Berwickhibby]

My opinion is it poorly written legislation... I will sit back a watch who is prosecuted, it will be easy targets people saying something stupid on Facebook or boards like this.

[ronaldo7]

My opinion is it poorly written legislation... I will sit back a watch who is prosecuted, it will be easy targets people saying something stupid on Facebook or boards like this.

Which parts are poorly written? Can you point me to something that I can have a look at to see where you get your view from. If not tonight, then tomorrow. :wink:

[Berwickhibby]

Which parts are poorly written? Can you point me to something that I can have a look at to see where you get your view from. If not tonight, then tomorrow. :wink:

My final post on this is I have concerns about the potential impact on freedom of speech, with the full implications of this law have not been thought through.

While supporting the principle of protecting people from prejudice, my opinion is that the definition of "stirring up hatred" is too vague and open to interpretation. This is going to make lawyers lots of money with appeals both in civil and criminal court. I thoroughly support the spirit of the act just not the way it has been written to be practical legislation the same as Offensive Behaviour at Football had all the best intentions but poorly written and repealed.

[Colr]

Any erosion of free speech should not be taken lightly ....certain theatre ... opinions ... stuff posted on this website could be an offence. I don't have a problem with the intention, as with football offences act Scotland which was repealed. It's down to the vagueness and its poorly written.

There’s still free speech. There are also consequences when your speexh harms others unfairly.

'Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.'.

[JimBHibees]

Primarily that and racist and online hate mongering. There's a line between freedom of speech and hate mongering, there will be cases that fall into grey areas but our judicial system should be able to distinguish between them.

Exactly these two areas which are currently going through the roof apparently unchecked.

[JimBHibees]

Supported by all parties except the Tories. I don’t know the ins and outs but that sounds like it might be a good thing?

Think the Tories though did contribute to the amendments of some areas of the bill in committees. Sounds like exactly how a parliament should work in a modern society unlike imo some of the blatantly political behaviours of the last month or so. Hopefully this can be implemented successfully and protects the people it is meant to while punishes the ones who need punished.

[Bristolhibby]

Supported by all parties except the Tories. I don’t know the ins and outs but that sounds like it might be a good thing?

This is a good benchmark for my support.

J

[Bristolhibby]

More than happy to give up the right to spout racist and bigoted hate speech.

It’s a right I don’t need. Like owning a gun.

J

[Keith_M]

I just saw an article in the Guardian about Eddie Izzard demanding the right to be referred to as a woman, including referring to him as 'she' instead of 'he'.

Would I be prosecuted if I said that's the biggest load of bollocks* I've read this week?




* Pun intended.

[Hibrandenburg]

I just saw an article in the Guardian about Eddie Izzard demanding the right to be referred to as a woman, including referring to him as 'she' instead of 'he'.

Would I be prosecuted if I said that's the biggest load of bollocks* I've read this week?




* Pun intended.

No, you're expressing an opinion not preaching hate. If you say Eddie Izzard is an abomination of nature, then you're entering a grey area. If you say Eddie Izzard is an abomination of nature and should be (insert something nasty here), then you're in for a leathering.

[Berwickhibby]

I just saw an article in the Guardian about Eddie Izzard demanding the right to be referred to as a woman, including referring to him as 'she' instead of 'he'.

Would I be prosecuted if I said that's the biggest load of bollocks* I've read this week?




* Pun intended.

Possibly yes, bearing in mind Eddie Ezard is now in a protected group, if he or anyone else takes offence of your comments the act creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" against the protected groups - which is defined as "behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicating threatening or abusive material to another person". So using language that is perceived as abusive and communicating this on an public message board. That is why I say the legislation is poorly written and to vague.

Scottish Police Federation has warned that the Act would force officers to "police what people think or feel" which it says would "devastate the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public".

[Keith_M]

No, you're expressing an opinion not preaching hate. If you say Eddie Izzard is an abomination of nature, then you're entering a grey area. If you say Eddie Izzard is an abomination of nature and should be (insert something nasty here), then you're in for a leathering.


OK, I'm going to test that out...


"Eddie Izzard is an abomination of nature and somebody should insert something nasty here"

[Hibrandenburg]

OK, I'm going to test that out...


"Eddie Izzard is an abomination of nature and somebody should insert something nasty here"

Reported.

[JeMeSouviens]

OK, I'm going to test that out...


"Eddie Izzard is an abomination of nature and somebody should insert something nasty here"

You'd maybe have to clarify "here" before we decide to prosecute. :dunno:

[Keith_M]

You'd maybe have to clarify "here" before we decide to prosecute. :dunno:


As Hibrandenburg already pointed out, that would be 'a grey area'.

[JeMeSouviens]

On a more serious note - this is exactly what the whole trans debate needs. A celebrity case that people can talk about to bring all the issues out into the open.

Our parliament is currently making laws about a subject that 2 passionate minorites are at war about while the vast bulk of the public is either blissfully unaware or slightly bemused.

[ronaldo7]

AFAICS the "Stirring up" part of the act has been in force since 1986. It was used in the 1986 act, and referred to racial hatred only. This has now been expanded to include additional characteristics such as, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.

Brings us up to 2021 I suppose.

The 1986 Act makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred in the street or in a public speech. It is also an offence to display, publish or distribute written material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to stir up racial hatred.

[Hibrandenburg]

Possibly yes, bearing in mind Eddie Ezard is now in a protected group, if he or anyone else takes offence of your comments the act creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" against the protected groups - which is defined as "behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicating threatening or abusive material to another person". So using language that is perceived as abusive and communicating this on an public message board. That is why I say the legislation is poorly written and to vague.

Scottish Police Federation has warned that the Act would force officers to "police what people think or feel" which it says would "devastate the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public".

That's the biggest load of bollocks I've read this week.

I feel perfectly safe in expressing the above opinion because it illustrates my opinion towards your opinion and in no way constitutes hate mongering towards you or anyone else.

[Ozyhibby]

AFAICS the "Stirring up" part of the act has been in force since 1986. It was used in the 1986 act, and referred to racial hatred only. This has now been expanded to include additional characteristics such as, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.

Brings us up to 2021 I suppose.

The 1986 Act makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred in the street or in a public speech. It is also an offence to display, publish or distribute written material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to stir up racial hatred.

That was my understanding. It has just brought other minorities in line with laws already in place to deal with race hate. A good thing in my opinion. Of course Tories hate it because it makes it harder for them to marginalise minority groups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

That was my understanding. It has just brought other minorities in line with laws already in place to deal with race hate. A good thing in my opinion. Of course Tories hate it because it makes it harder for them to marginalise minority groups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nail, head and hammer.

[Berwickhibby]

That's the biggest load of bollocks I've read this week.

I feel perfectly safe in expressing the above opinion because it illustrates my opinion towards your opinion and in no way constitutes hate mongering towards you or anyone else.

I will trust my knowledge on law and order and prosecution over someone who the act does not even relate to.

[Hibrandenburg]

I will trust my knowledge on law and order and prosecution over someone who the act does not even relate to.

Like you, I do venture north of the border occasionally, if that gives you a right to consider yourself an expert on Scottish law, then it sure as hell gives me the right to express an opinion on a football internet forum. :faf:

[ronaldo7]

That was my understanding. It has just brought other minorities in line with laws already in place to deal with race hate. A good thing in my opinion. Of course Tories hate it because it makes it harder for them to marginalise minority groups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like Gypsy's(travelling folk) you mean.

[Berwickhibby]

The 1986 Act makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred in the street or in a public speech. It is also an offence to display, publish or distribute written material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to stir up racial hatred.[/QUOTE]

Great piece of legislation...an extension of the Public Order Act 1984 ...I have used it to shut down shops and arrest BNP in London, its based on hard evidence and witnessed by the police. Easy points to prove and get convictions.

[Berwickhibby]

Like you, I do venture north of the border occasionally, if that gives you a right to consider yourself an expert on Scottish law, then it sure as hell gives me the right to express an opinion on a football internet forum. :faf:

I don't venture North of the border...I live in Scotland... majority of criminal Law both North and South of the border are in essence the same.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't venture North of the border...I live in Scotland... majority of criminal Law both North and South of the border are in essence the same.

So basically you're saying where someone lives dictates their right to have an opinion? If so then there's a hell of a lot of Hibbies on here who need to keep quiet.

I'm getting a better understanding now of why you dislike this new legislation.

[Mon Dieu4]

I just saw an article in the Guardian about Eddie Izzard demanding the right to be referred to as a woman, including referring to him as 'she' instead of 'he'.

Would I be prosecuted if I said that's the biggest load of bollocks* I've read this week?




* Pun intended.

Think you get the option of cake or death

[Keith_M]

On a more serious note - this is exactly what the whole trans debate needs. A celebrity case that people can talk about to bring all the issues out into the open.

Our parliament is currently making laws about a subject that 2 passionate minorites are at war about while the vast bulk of the public is either blissfully unaware or slightly bemused.


:agree:

I know I come across as a bit of a d1ck at times (and I suppose I am), but I genuinely thought the Izzard thing was quite a good 'case' to get people's opinions on how the law would be applied... or not.

I think it should re-assure people that we are still going to be entitled to our opinions and that it's only unwarranted personal attacks that will be prosecuted.

There's so much hate being expressed, especially in Social Media, and something really has to be done about it.

[Berwickhibby]

So basically you're saying where someone lives dictates their right to have an opinion? If so then there's a hell of a lot of Hibbies on here who need to keep quiet.

I'm getting a better understanding now of why you dislike this new legislation.

You really post some garbage, I dislike the act as is vague and woolly, it's going to make lawyers lots of money and put some people through anguish, I have no problem and support the spirit of the Act and if it was just to include minority groups then a simple admendent including naming these groups could have been added to the existing legislation. You however can post whatever you want as the legislation does not cover what you write or say as you are not in Scotland. The so called grey areas as you describe could mean an appearance before a sheriff for the author.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is there a review provision for this Act, as there is for many new laws?

[Rocky]

I will trust my knowledge on law and order and prosecution over someone who the act does not even relate to.

No doubt you'll be sharing your views on the trampling of rights under the policing bill in due course also.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/11/silencing-black-lives-matter-priti-patels-anti-protest-law/

[Hibrandenburg]

You really post some garbage, I dislike the act as is vague and woolly, it's going to make lawyers lots of money and put some people through anguish, I have no problem and support the spirit of the Act and if it was just to include minority groups then a simple admendent including naming these groups could have been added to the existing legislation. You however can post whatever you want as the legislation does not cover what you write or say as you are not in Scotland. The so called grey areas as you describe could mean an appearance before a sheriff for the author.

Noted.

[Ozyhibby]

So long as Izzard doesn’t want people to call him funny then I’m comfortable with whatever he wants us to call him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berwickhibby]

No doubt you'll be sharing your views on the trampling of rights under the policing bill in due course also.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/11/silencing-black-lives-matter-priti-patels-anti-protest-law/

Certainly! removing any right to lawful protest should never happen, I am all for democracy

[ronaldo7]

So long as Izzard doesn’t want people to call him/her funny then I’m comfortable with whatever he wants us to call him/her


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FTFY. :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

Possibly yes, bearing in mind Eddie Ezard is now in a protected group, if he or anyone else takes offence of your comments the act creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" against the protected groups - which is defined as "behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicating threatening or abusive material to another person". So using language that is perceived as abusive and communicating this on an public message board. That is why I say the legislation is poorly written and to vague.

Scottish Police Federation has warned that the Act would force officers to "police what people think or feel" which it says would "devastate the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public".

Well done. You called Eddie izzard a 'he' 🤣

[Berwickhibby]

Well done. You called Eddie izzard a 'he' 🤣

🤣🤣 if he/she takes offence and reports me ... does this fall into a grey area ... 🤷*🤷* that’s where I say the act is vague

[CropleyWasGod]

🤣🤣 if he/she takes offence and reports me ... does this fall into a grey area ... 🤷*🤷* that’s where I say the act is vague

If you intended to offend him, then that's an offence.

The problem, of course, is proving intent, but then that's always been the case.

[ronaldo7]

If re-elected, watch out for our new Human rights bill.

Four United Nations treaties will be added to Scots law.

Plans to introduce world-leading human rights legislation have been announced by Equalities Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville.

Subject to the outcome of the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary election, a new Human Rights Bill will incorporate four United Nations Human Rights treaties into Scots Law, including legislation that enhances human rights for women, disabled people and minority ethnic communities. The new Bill, which will be introduced in the next parliamentary session will include specific rights, subject to devolved competence, from:

the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

The National Taskforce for Human Rights Leadership, which was set up in December 2018, have also published their final report. In total 30 recommendations have been accepted by the Scottish Government including measures which will, for the first time, improve equality and human rights on an environmental, social, economic and cultural scale.

The recommendations from the taskforce will help underpin the new legislation and builds on previous ambitious human rights work undertaken, helping to put Scotland firmly at the forefront of Human Rights leadership.

https://www.gov.scot/news/new-human-rights-bill/

#gettingonwiththedayjob

[Hibrandenburg]

If re-elected, watch out for our new Human rights bill.

Four United Nations treaties will be added to Scots law.

Plans to introduce world-leading human rights legislation have been announced by Equalities Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville.

Subject to the outcome of the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary election, a new Human Rights Bill will incorporate four United Nations Human Rights treaties into Scots Law, including legislation that enhances human rights for women, disabled people and minority ethnic communities. The new Bill, which will be introduced in the next parliamentary session will include specific rights, subject to devolved competence, from:

the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

The National Taskforce for Human Rights Leadership, which was set up in December 2018, have also published their final report. In total 30 recommendations have been accepted by the Scottish Government including measures which will, for the first time, improve equality and human rights on an environmental, social, economic and cultural scale.

The recommendations from the taskforce will help underpin the new legislation and builds on previous ambitious human rights work undertaken, helping to put Scotland firmly at the forefront of Human Rights leadership.

https://www.gov.scot/news/new-human-rights-bill/

#gettingonwiththedayjob

Now that's what I call progressive, in my humble, irrelevant and foreigner type opinion if I may say so.

[Berwickhibby]

If re-elected, watch out for our new Human rights bill.

Four United Nations treaties will be added to Scots law.

Plans to introduce world-leading human rights legislation have been announced by Equalities Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville.

Subject to the outcome of the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary election, a new Human Rights Bill will incorporate four United Nations Human Rights treaties into Scots Law, including legislation that enhances human rights for women, disabled people and minority ethnic communities. The new Bill, which will be introduced in the next parliamentary session will include specific rights, subject to devolved competence, from:

the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

The National Taskforce for Human Rights Leadership, which was set up in December 2018, have also published their final report. In total 30 recommendations have been accepted by the Scottish Government including measures which will, for the first time, improve equality and human rights on an environmental, social, economic and cultural scale.

The recommendations from the taskforce will help underpin the new legislation and builds on previous ambitious human rights work undertaken, helping to put Scotland firmly at the forefront of Human Rights leadership.

https://www.gov.scot/news/new-human-rights-bill/

#gettingonwiththedayjob

Certainly looks head and shoulders above the EHRA, which in my opinion was designed by lawyers for lawyers ...in the few cases I was involved with, I could not phathom how barristers and solicitors were making thousands and the plaintiff/victim could only receive a maximum of €10k ...unsure what it is now.

[weecounty hibby]

If re-elected, watch out for our new Human rights bill.

Four United Nations treaties will be added to Scots law.

Plans to introduce world-leading human rights legislation have been announced by Equalities Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville.

Subject to the outcome of the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary election, a new Human Rights Bill will incorporate four United Nations Human Rights treaties into Scots Law, including legislation that enhances human rights for women, disabled people and minority ethnic communities. The new Bill, which will be introduced in the next parliamentary session will include specific rights, subject to devolved competence, from:

the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

The National Taskforce for Human Rights Leadership, which was set up in December 2018, have also published their final report. In total 30 recommendations have been accepted by the Scottish Government including measures which will, for the first time, improve equality and human rights on an environmental, social, economic and cultural scale.

The recommendations from the taskforce will help underpin the new legislation and builds on previous ambitious human rights work undertaken, helping to put Scotland firmly at the forefront of Human Rights leadership.

https://www.gov.scot/news/new-human-rights-bill/

#gettingonwiththedayjob
I heard one of the leads on this talking aboutbit this morning. Cant remember his name but sure he us a leading lawyer. Anyway if thus gets passed it sounds like it will be a bill that Scotland should be proud of, truly international, inclusive and forward thinking by the way he spoke this morning. You would hope that this too would gain cross party support as I struggle to see a downside

[CropleyWasGod]

I heard one of the leads on this talking aboutbit this morning. Cant remember his name but sure he us a leading lawyer. Anyway if thus gets passed it sounds like it will be a bill that Scotland should be proud of, truly international, inclusive and forward thinking by the way he spoke this morning. You would hope that this too would gain cross party support as I struggle to see a downside

I would be interested in how the adoption of CEDAW ties in with the proposals by Ash Denham to further marginalise female sex-workers. But that's probably for another thread if and when it becomes an issue.

[heretoday]

So long as Izzard doesn’t want people to call him funny then I’m comfortable with whatever he wants us to call him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He wants tae get over his/hersel'

[One Day Soon]

As with all legislation one of the interesting things to watch will be how it is used for purposes and in contexts for which it was not originally intended and the ability/requirement to interpret intent will, as BH suggests, provide a potentially very wide catch-all.

The other belting consequence will almost certainly be in among social media - especially Twunter and Facebark and on message boards like these. The potential for reporting and referrals to police from anyone who is offended is quite high and persons previously used to posting whatever label they like, or any perspective on other people and their views that they liked could well find themselves in bother. So all joking aside, .net posters should probably exercise some self censorship on pejorative terms before posting from the date on which this receives royal assent and passes formally into law. Anything after that date will be fair game if it is interpreted as being malicious in intent within the scope of the Act. I'm not certain whether 'intent' also covers terms or language not intended to cause harm but which is taken in that way by the person who hears or reads it?

I'll be surprised if this isn't abandoned, dramatically amended or fallen into disrepute in short order. And BTW this isn't to make a party political point, it received support from most of the opposition parties, albeit not uniformly.

[CropleyWasGod]

As with all legislation one of the interesting things to watch will be how it is used for purposes and in contexts for which it was not originally intended and the ability/requirement to interpret intent will, as BH suggests, provide a potentially very wide catch-all.

The other belting consequence will almost certainly be in among social media - especially Twunter and Facebark and on message boards like these. The potential for reporting and referrals to police from anyone who is offended is quite high and persons previously used to posting whatever label they like, or any perspective on other people and their views that they liked could well find themselves in bother. So all joking aside, .net posters should probably exercise some self censorship on pejorative terms before posting from the date on which this receives royal assent and passes formally into law. Anything after that date will be fair game if it is interpreted as being malicious in intent within the scope of the Act. I'm not certain whether 'intent' also covers terms or language not intended to cause harm but which is taken in that way by the person who hears or reads it?

I'll be surprised if this isn't abandoned, dramatically amended or fallen into disrepute in short order. And BTW this isn't to make a party political point, it received support from most of the opposition parties, albeit not uniformly.

All of which is why I posed the question about whether there was a review built into the legislation. I'm not sure I like the idea of binning it after a few years because of a few high-profile cock-ups. As BH says, the intent is sound, and I would prefer regular amendments to reflect actual experience.

So... does anyone know if there is a review built in?

[Keith_M]

Well done. You called Eddie izzard a 'he' ��


Why not?

As far as I'm aware he's a bloke, whether he occasionally wears (traditionally) women's clothing is neither here nor there.

FWIW, I have no intention of going onto Twatter or Friendface to slag the guy off about his opinion but I reckon I'm entitled to think it's a bit strange.

[One Day Soon]

Why not?

As far as I'm aware he's a bloke, whether he occasionally wears (traditionally) women's clothing is neither here nor there.

FWIW, I have no intention of going onto Twatter or Friendface to slag the guy off about his opinion but I reckon I'm entitled to think it's a bit strange.


Uh oh...

I think she self-identifies as she/her. My understanding is that not referring to her in these terms may be mis-gendering her. Whether that might constitute an offence or whether it would merely be considered offensive is not something I am qualified to determine...

[Danderhall Hibs]

Why not?

As far as I'm aware he's a bloke, whether he occasionally wears (traditionally) women's clothing is neither here nor there.

FWIW, I have no intention of going onto Twatter or Friendface to slag the guy off about his opinion but I reckon I'm entitled to think it's a bit strange.

It’s all change eh - I’m sure I remember Eddie arguing that he (which he was at the time) was a transvestite and not a woman nor did he want to be a woman but he just liked wearing women’s clothes sometimes.

[Keith_M]

It’s all change eh - I’m sure I remember Eddie arguing that he (which he was at the time) was a transvestite and not a woman nor did he want to be a woman but he just liked wearing women’s clothes sometimes.


:agree:


I'm just wondering what he's going to self-identify as next week.

[lapsedhibee]

:agree:


I'm just wondering what he's going to self-identify as next week.

Making a change or two in 60 years isn't exactly presenting yourself differently every week though, is it? :dunno:

[Bristolhibby]

It’s all change eh - I’m sure I remember Eddie arguing that he (which he was at the time) was a transvestite and not a woman nor did he want to be a woman but he just liked wearing women’s clothes sometimes.

Maybe that was her coming to terms with who she is.

Must be really hard being born in the wrong body and hating being in your self.

We should always act with empathy.

J

[Keith_M]

Maybe that was her coming to terms with who she is.

Must be really hard being born in the wrong body and hating being in your self.

We should always act with empathy.

J


How can you be 'born in the wrong body'?

The guy was born with male organs, and presumably all the other physical characteristics of being male (e.g. XY chromosomes).

I get that he has psychological issues, so I'd never in a million years consider harassing him about it, but let's not start pretending that you can just imagine yourself as something completely different and expect everybody else to go along with it.


For instance, what would be the opinion if somebody's child suddenly insisted to everybody that, even though they appeared to be white, their DNA suggested they were white and every known relative was white, they were actually black and just born in the wrong body?

:dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe that was her coming to terms with who she is.

Must be really hard being born in the wrong body and hating being in your self.

We should always act with empathy.

J

Or at least recognise that, if we can't empathise, other people have experiences that are beyond our understanding and allow them to be the experts in their own lives.

[lapsedhibee]

How can you be 'born in the wrong body'?

The guy was born with male organs, and presumably all the other physical characteristics of being male (e.g. XY chromosomes).


Not as simple as XY or XX. Many, many variations and complications possible.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not as simple as XY or XX. Many, many variations and complications possible.

All of which manifests itself in many ways. Sexuality is fluid, a spectrum. Most of us stay in the same place on that spectrum for our whole lives. Many of us move, perhaps permanently. Some of us continually move.

[Keith_M]

Not as simple as XY or XX. Many, many variations and complications possible.


But he presumably has 'meat and two veg', which is usually quite a good deciding factor if you're male or female.

There are a miniscule number of people that were born with organs that could definitely have made that distinction much more difficult, and I'd have a lot more sympathy for them having an issue deciding what gender they describe themselves as. IMHO, that decision would be entirely up to them.

But that really doesn't apply to Eddie Izzard.

[lapsedhibee]

But he presumably has 'meat and two veg', which is usually quite a good deciding factor if you're male or female.

There are a miniscule number of people that were born with organs that could definitely have made that distinction much more difficult, and I'd have a lot more sympathy for them having an issue deciding what gender they describe themselves as. IMHO, that decision would be entirely up to them.

But that really doesn't apply to Eddie Izzard.

You sound as if you know a lot more about Eddie Izzard's genetic constitution than is available publicly. 'fraid I don't know anything about it.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Maybe that was her coming to terms with who she is.

Must be really hard being born in the wrong body and hating being in your self.

We should always act with empathy.

J

Maybe that’s it - he was firm in his opinion about it though. I admit it was a good few years ago so maybe that’s what it is.

It could be like those guys that hate gay people because secretly they are gay and can’t accept it.

[Ozyhibby]

How can you be 'born in the wrong body'?

The guy was born with male organs, and presumably all the other physical characteristics of being male (e.g. XY chromosomes).

I get that he has psychological issues, so I'd never in a million years consider harassing him about it, but let's not start pretending that you can just imagine yourself as something completely different and expect everybody else to go along with it.


For instance, what would be the opinion if somebody's child suddenly insisted to everybody that, even though they appeared to be white, their DNA suggested they were white and every known relative was white, they were actually black and just born in the wrong body?

:dunno:

Like Ali G?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Like Ali G?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Is it 'cos I is.... well a reasonably well off white guy from a prosperous borough of West London, actually.

:wink:

[Bristolhibby]

How can you be 'born in the wrong body'?

The guy was born with male organs, and presumably all the other physical characteristics of being male (e.g. XY chromosomes).

I get that he has psychological issues, so I'd never in a million years consider harassing him about it, but let's not start pretending that you can just imagine yourself as something completely different and expect everybody else to go along with it.


For instance, what would be the opinion if somebody's child suddenly insisted to everybody that, even though they appeared to be white, their DNA suggested they were white and every known relative was white, they were actually black and just born in the wrong body?

:dunno:

Black or white you are still fundamentally a human being.

Being born in the wrong body. Just imagine you had your brain, your mind, your thoughts. But you were in a woman’s body. It’s that simple.

It’s a bit like trying to tell a gay guy to be straight. It’s not who you are.

I guess with psychological issues there’s a fix, or an end game. If you are a woman in a mans body, what’s the end game?

Just to really bake your noodle, there’s Trans women who are quite happy keeping their penises, they don’t want to have the surgery. There’s also Trans people who are inter sex, and identify as both male and female.

History is littered with Trans people, them being revered in some Indian and some Asian cultures.

Trying to understand and not think binary goes part of the way to helping and being an ally.

It’s no surprise that Trans people have a disproportionately high levels of suicide.

Be kind.

J