The act criminalizes utterances deemed to be “aggravated by prejudice” against any protected identity group (including race, religion, or transgender status) with up to seven years in prison. How exactly any of this is defined is not clear. Private speech, even within privates home, is not protected. Indeed, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has argued that it absolutely “must be prosecuted.” A child’s report to a teacher of what a parent said at home will be sufficient. The Act specifies that it is immaterial “whether or not there is a specific victim of the offence,” and that “evidence from a single source is sufficient to prove that an offence is aggravated by prejudice.” In fact, “stirring up hatred” is now a criminal offense in Scotland – exactly the same all-purpose legal term so often put to use to punish dissent in the People’s Republic of China, including as the offense under which many of those pesky Hong Kong pro-democracy protestors were convicted.
I should emphasize I don't know how reliable this source is, or if the bill was substantially altered before it became law. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364... states some changes have been made, but is very vague in describing them. The criminalization of speech within private homes remained:
Yet even with that scrutiny, concerns remain. Offences can now be committed even in private, an abandonment of an earlier "dwelling defence" in race hate law.
No offence to you or anyone else in this thread but why not just look up the law? Scotland is an English-speaking country and their laws are public. I saw a similar thing with the protests in Canada here on HN. Multiple people speculating as to the contents of the Emergencies Act there, often incorrectly.
Is it difficult to find without specialist knowledge? I took some law in university and maybe that's why?
> Is it difficult to find without specialist knowledge?
It's not _easy_ to find but I don't think that's the problem.
There are a few problem that expertise probably solves.
There are often exceptions throughout such laws so it's less simple to say what the law covers than it is to give an example and test if the law covers it.
There is often a lot of seemingly subjective legalese in law that is actually an objective term. Like, "may", "can", "should" that has to be understood.
Then there is language that is actually subjective that laypeople often get wrong because they push those words to extremes to create an absurd example. It's unclear to a lot of people if it's legally okay to do that. Most of the time, that's what a judge is for and that's why different judges give different interpretations. Lay people have a hard time defining the edges off "(practically) all judges would interpret this way" and "(practically) no judges would interpret that way".
The linked article is intentionally misleading. Why would anyone take seriously the idea that the courts in Scotland regard "stirring up hatred" as the same thing as the courts in China? If that is the standard for criticism for every law in the west then throw the baby our with the bathwater, it is all useless. Why waste one's time with this disingenuous claptrap?
The piece breathlessly describes the West as literally Stalinism. Is anyone being arrested in the middle of the night on trumped up charges? Or are democracies passing laws making it harder for bigots to openly be bigots, and giving them due process when they break the law?
Nobody claimed democracies will pass laws you have to like, it turns out bigotry is wildly unpopular and hard to defend, so without a First Amendment, free speech tends to become circumscribed. Democracies can pass awful laws, yes. But what is the breathless author presenting as an alternative?
Edit: and here come the downvotes by people who believe I’m committing wrongthink by pointing out its mostly bigotry being targeted.
> Nobody claimed democracies will pass laws you have to like, it turns out bigotry is wildly unpopular and hard to defend, so without a First Amendment, free speech tends to become circumscribed. Democracies can pass awful laws, yes. But what is the breathless author presenting as an alternative?
You said it in the first sentence quoted: a First Amendment.
In this case, of course, a Fourth Amendment and a Fifth Amendment also help a great deal.
This may be pedantic, but the author did not present the First Amendment as an alternative, and in fact excoriated America as an authoritarian state no better than China.
China has a first amendment very similar to America’s. However, they don’t have rule of law or an independent judiciary so its constitution is less meaningful than the USA’s.
What's happening is the average person's quality of legal life is falling. Most people are not terrorists, they are spied on as such. Most people are not abusive partners, they are taught wild sex ed. Most people are not racists, the nanny state is handling us as such.
Your mistake was falling for the virtue signalling and forgetting it's about state control. And yes, Scotland wants to put people in jail for saying words out loud (trumped up charges) purely out of hearsay (stalinism).
> it turns out bigotry is wildly unpopular and hard to defend, so without a First Amendment, free speech tends to become circumscribed.
So is being a jerk. Want to criminalize it? Oh, and I get to define what 'jerk' means, and against which groups acting as one is not allowed. We'll call them 'protected groups', for brevity.
The history of laws passing in democracies is largely that of jerks getting told they can't do some jerky thing anymore. A semi-recent example would be sexual harassment. It used to just be considered normal, then it became kind of a "jerk" behavior, but has since become criminal. Norms evolve.
Last week on hacker news we had a headline stating young people are having less sex than ever. And people were right, a lot of youngsters are afraid of all the overblown drama. Is kissing sexual harassment? Sexting? Having sex without written consent?
Non-trivial jerky behavior is completely contextual on a per community basis, and a government could not and should not act on that. Out of scope.
Your hypothesis is it’s because of government regulations. I doubt it. It probably has a lot more to do with the smart device in their pocket. Sex is a form of entertainment and all forms of entertainment are struggling for our attention. Also services like OnlyFans are encouraging women to monetize their sexuality and young men tend to be cash poor. That’s my hypothesis anyway.
Other question would be whether enforcement could be automated, perhaps via alexa attached to an aws service which could predict whether one would speak in such a manner, allowing for the prosecution of thought crimes
Brilliant idea. Let us start with microphones everywhere, then AI to predict wrongthink. We might as well put e-collars on people so that they can be punished instantly -- it's more economical that way. And/or you can freeze people's bank accounts for wrongthink.
Ah, we're at the dawn of a new age in freedom. Freedom from bad thoughts. There will only be good thoughts. And the primary good thought will about our leader's greatness.
Why go with a collar when you can go with a direct brain implant? We shant need to punish someone for thinking incorrectly, we can prevent the thought from ever occurring in the first place.
And bank accounts? Where we are going, we won't even get to choose what to eat for dinner (for climate and equality reasons), let alone have private resources.
In USSR the children who told on their anti-Soviet parents were celebrated. Piercing the family wall is the key feature and enabler of the brave new world.
The SNP pursued the Named Person Scheme for years, which would have essentially institutionalised this; I wonder if developments in technology have led them to aim for the same objective from a different angle.
No the natural progression is that if Daddy attacks a disabled person in the street and the kids affirm that daddy was always on about how disabled people should be culled from society that daddy gets a much longer sentence for the crime.
Hello, you seem reasonable so I'd like to take the risky step of engaging with you 4 levels deep in an HN politics thread.
So, let's keep the scope of this to disabled people. Let's also both assume we're decent, non-evil people who are steadfastly against the assault of innocent disabled people on the street.
Why is it worse to attack a disabled person because you hate disabled people, than any other reason? I'm assuming you think it's worse to attack a disabled person from a place of anti-disabled hatred, than it would be attack a disabled person for a host of other reasons (ie, they were viewed them as an easier target, or they just happened to be closest to someone having a violent outburst).
I take the view that assaulting innocent people in general is unacceptable, and don't attach a large amount of weight to the motivation. On what basis does hatred of the disabled deserve special consideration, in your view?
It shows motive and potential for more victims in future, while as if for example that particular disable person say picked their pocket and they overreacted in a violent way or for other reasons you listed would show a different motive entirely.
This also dips into premeditated, especially if there is a pattern of that attitude and motive.
So, the problem with committing a crime animated by hatred of a group rather than just the victim is that you might justify committing crimes against more victims. That is a bad thing. The issue here is not with aggravating circumstances -- the issue is with non-aggravating private speech.
I think that the motivation is of interest because we take motivation as a moral element of any crime - the killing of another person is judged more harshly when it is pre-meditated, less if just intentional, less still if accidental but reasonably foreseeable.
I think that in particular there is merit to the idea that someone that commits a crime motivated by an ideology is more dangerous, they are motivated by a belief about the world that is more durable than other circumstances in which a crime might be committed. Such a person needs to spend more time either away from society or restricted in ways that keeps society safer from them for longer.
Also we want to live in a society where visible minorities of any sort do not feel a particular fear of being targeted. Laws that make it clear that targeting is a particular moral failing send the message that society stands with those people, and that is a good thing. Doing more to protect vulnerable people in the first place is the ideal option, but increasing the punishment on the backend is at least something.
In the specific scenario you mentioned I would hope that someone attacking a disabled person because they were viewed as an easier target would also be grounds for a worse punishment. Violence motivated in such a way should be rightly viewed as far more dangerous and unacceptable than violence that is a product of a violent outburst - and I believe the law mostly works that way.
On the broader point I will say that I would love to live in the perfect world where every crime was some platonic ideal of an infraction that could be judged in some kind of void but the justice system as a whole does also need to operate in a manner consistent with the public's idea of what justice should roughly resemble. It is certainly the case that you can make the argument that hate crimes as a category are more "public relations" than real criminal law. I don't think any jurisdiction has, in the real practical application of the law, met the threshold to be considered cynical public relations. Democracies largely have human judges that do their best to be reasonable, "thoughtcrime" and modifiers to sentences for "thoughtcrime" haven't really been a thing. And once you are at the point where the judges themselves are really off the rails it won't much matter if you are quibbling about the sort of details that alarmists are getting worked up about here. I am aware of the concerns, I even share them, but the laws in question would need to be a lot more explicit to be of real concern.
I agree with you, and I think the inverse of your argument might be this--
that treating racially motivated crimes differently than just crimes... draws a line between groups of people that is unnecessary and differentiates people in exactly the way we don't want to.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's a line at which we ban accounts, regardless of what ideology they're for or against, because this mode of using the site is destructive of what HN is supposed to be for.
If you would please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended, we'd appreciate it. That means curious conversation on a diverse range of interests—not doing battle with enemies. Curiosity is the first casualty when the threads go that way.
Why doesn't it make sense? I believe emotions do play a role in the courts. A criminal doesn't get punished for nothing, they get punished _so they don't commit the same crime again_.
Judges take emotions into account to determine how likely the criminal is to repeat the offence. Was this a one-off incident, or are you ready to start assaulting disabled people again the moment you get out of jail.
You mean intent? Planning? Having pictures of disabled people with darts on them? Or do you mean dismissive emotions like racism? Bigotry is passive, behavior is active. Courts judge your intent to repeatedly break the law, not your whims and biases.
Indeed, it is not just about that, but that is the principle element of the law at issue. It is certainly also true that if you were to host a race-based violence promotion party in your home you might be subject to prosecution.
It is also clear under the law that if you hosted a "race X is inferior" party at your house you would not be in violation of the law.
But if you had the "race X is inferior" party and then assaulted a member of race X you'd face a longer sentence for that assault!
> that is the principle element of the law at issue
All elements of the law are equally enforceable, so singling out some as 'principal' is not a license to ignore others.
> It is also clear under the law that if you hosted a "race X is inferior" party at your house you would not be in violation of the law.
What are you basing this interpretation on? Couldn't that be construed as "stirring up hatred"? What about "race X is the primary perpetrator of such and such historical crimes, and is still guilty by way of their accumulated benefit"? Or "race X commits a disproportionate amount of violent crime"? Objectively, those could "stir up hatred" - as I'm sure many judges would agree.
I think that if your family members are avowed violent criminals committed to attacking people based on their being a member of a group that is clearly discernible in society their confession to you of that fact should be admissible in court.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's a line at which we ban accounts, regardless of what ideology they're for or against, because this mode of using the site is destructive of what HN is supposed to be for.
If you would please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended, we'd appreciate it. That means curious conversation on a diverse range of interests—not doing battle with enemies. Curiosity is the first casualty when the threads go that way.
Heh...the wiki article says this bill abolishes the offense of blasphemy, while also simultaneously instituting a secular version of the exact same crime. Quite the feat if you think about it.
It's more focused on aggravating offenses if they were motivated by hatred of what they define as protected classes (age / disability / race / religion / sexual orientation / trans identity). It removes the 'blasphemy' laws from the books and adds a "stirring up hatred" component.
The 'stirring up hatred' section requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and enshrines a few fairly broad free speech categories that wouldn't be included as 'illegal';
> For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom 25 of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.
and
> For the purposes of section 3(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes—
(a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to-
(i) age,
(ii) disability,
(iii) sexual orientation,
(iv) transgender identity,
(v) variations in sex characteristics,
(b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or
insult towards—
(i) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,
(ii) religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice,
(iii) the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,
(c) proselytising, or
(d) urging of persons to cease practising their religions.
The relevant part is not about aggravating circumstances of other crimes. It's about private speech, and it is quite broadly defined. Broadly defined == it will be abused.
I guess we'll see? It doesn't actually read like it's that broadly defined -- they explicitly allow e.g. ridiculing religion and trying to get people to stop practicing their faith and it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is a fine antidote for bad laws if you believe most people are reasonable.
It's been ~a year with no controversial applications yet so perhaps it's fine?
what's going on with this recycled article? It's showing in archive.is multiple versions going back 2+ years.
I think I see that it's recently been made law (?)
Good lord, some day come and crack a beer on my porch and ask me something controversial. Guess I'm public enemy #1, lol. I wonder sometimes of the length and girth of the stick that's up some peoples' butts.
It seems stupidly arbitrary to include (in the group characteristics that, if you offend against someone and are partly motivated by ill-will against that characteristic, you get extra time for) 'age' (so "ok, boomer" is extra jail time) but not say marital status or lack thereof, height, attractiveness. All of those things have been shown to be biased against to make you less likely to get hired etc. It also doesn't include economic status. "Hang the rich"? ... that's fine
How did they end up here. How did they justify punishing people for 7 years without any actual victims. And finally, if there are countries already prosecuting private speech, what is next. Where do we go from here.
This headline is a ridiculous caricature of the content of the bill as I understand it.
The bill as I understand it is largely about adding a modifier to a sentence for an actual crime committed that might be motivated by hate. So the folks quoting 1984 need to maybe reconsider..
The specific "hate talk in homes" talking point seems to just be related to an amendment that wanted to make a exception so you could incite violence against particular groups in your own home without concern of prosecution. I feel like inciting violence is bad, even at home?
Words have typical meanings and then they have legal meanings, you can look at the details of the first conviction under the law and draw conclusions about the threshold for "stirring up hatred":
https://www.report-it.org.uk/three_men_convicted_in_first_pr...
It is very clear to me that the Scottish courts regard stirring up hatred to mean a specific threat of violence but YMMV.
Of course it's bad. The question is what's worse: that, or an overbearing government that's in the business of thought control, telling people what they are and aren't allowed to say and think in their own homes.
I have my opinions on the matter, and it's clear that Scotland has other opinions: it neither has freedom of speech and of conscience, nor wants it, and neither, it seems, do you.
And if you are upset at this "caricature" of the law and its intent, maybe you should tell Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf, who proposed it, that he ought have shut up about its explicit intent. He has been abundantly clear that it must be enforced against all utterances in the home, not just a few extreme cases where some deranged madman happens to be inciting violence from his home. The Justice Secretary specifically identified that a child’s report to a teacher of what a parent said at home should be sufficient to prosecute.
>This headline is a ridiculous caricature of the content of the bill as I understand it.
Of course it is. At this point these types of claims can just be assumed to be detached from reality and instead serving the goal of chilling speech/action.
"It was my little daughter," said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride. "She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh? I don't bear her any grudge for it. In fact I'm proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway."
It's not intended to be flame bait. If someone were writing new material today which contained similar messages it would easily run afoul of current hate speech regulations. It would be interesting to investigate further inconsistencies in enforcement of the laws.
Intention also isn't enough when it comes to avoiding flamewars on the internet. What matters is the effect a post has on the thread, and in the case of a provocative one-liner like the GP, the effect is pretty predictable.
"Catholic bishops fear Scotland's hate crime law could criminalize Bible and Catechism." I hope you will forgive me if I imagined that you could have guessed, with some reasonable degree of accuracy, from the presence of a URL which says 'catholic news agency dot com'.
> I find it rather astonishing works like the Bible and Quran are allowed to exist in places with such stringent hate speech laws.
You jest, perhaps, but there was an interesting case in India about this very thing four decades back.[1] But governments and the legal system are often terrified of resulting violence. So they tend to actively prevent real debate on these issues.
> Chandmal Chopra tried to obtain an order banning the Quran, by filing a Writ Petition at the Calcutta High Court on 29 March 1985. The petition claimed that Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code were often used by Muslims to ban or proscribe publications critical of Islam, and stated that "so far it had been the privilege of the Peoples of the Book to ban and burn the sacred literature of the Pagans." Chandmal Chopra thought that the Quran "on grounds of religion promotes disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and incite people to commit violence and disturb public tranquility..."
> Chandmal Chopra also included a list of several dozens of Quran verses that "promote disharmony" in his petition. The book claims that these Quran verses embody one of the main themes of the book: "Nor have these passages been culled at random from different chapters of the Quran with a view to making the book sound sinister. On the contrary, they provide an almost exhaustive list of Allah’s sayings on a subject of great significance, namely, what the believers should believe about and do to the unbelievers..."
And violence did erupt in parts of India and Bangladesh.
> The Statesman reported that "at least 12 people were killed and 100 wounded all are poor Hindus" in a border town of Bangladesh during a demonstration of 1000 people. In Dhaka, at least 20,000 people demonstrated against the petition. The demonstrators were trying to storm the office of India's High Commission. Other riots followed in Kashmir and Bihar.
Anglosphere countries didn't have this problem even just 6 years ago, and the last time it had something like it was the 1950s American McCarthyism. This Scottish law is the same project using the same tactics as they did in the 50s and 60s. Sometimes I think the people who make these laws and policies just hate themselves and the world, and they need for someone else to destroy them - so they do things like this that push and push and inevitably end in suffering and/or bloody revolt. One cannot pass legislation like that without an underlying desire for that outcome. Scotland isn't the only one, but it's all running the same game.
