Scotland's new "stirring up hatred" law

[Spooky Owl!]

And modern technology makes it so very easy to do. And people do things because they can. Who needs agendas?
We're bad, we're rotten. We don't need a "theory" to excuse our bad behaviour.

The point is that lifelong trans folks feel they're being damaged in some way by folks with a disingenuous protocol.

But when I say that wokeness has been introduced to undermine the left -- and by design -- you're probably one of those who thinks it's a nutty conspiracy theory.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

you're probably one of those who thinks it's a nutty conspiracy theory.

Well I always say, if it's too nutty to be in a film then it's probably real.

 

[anndra w]

I’m in Scotland so can maybe give my thoughts on the hate crime as I see it. I’m gay so one of the protected characteristics they talk about in this bill. I have to say I don’t think this bill is going to make life better for the groups is covers despite the intention behind this bill being well meaning. The hysteria that has been stirred via misinformation is worrying - that is clear by reading some of the comments on this thread. As is so often the case this bill has been drowned in the toxic debate over trans people and it’s just going to make trans people’s lives more difficult as it’s going strengthen opinion against them. This is a real worry. JK Rowling appeals to a narrow section of society - she is completely obsessed with the issues around gender and trans etc and most of us don’t care about it in the way she and her followers do - but because she is such a big name her views are amplified and it makes the issue bigger than it should be. Instead of bringing in a hate crime bill that could be counter productive I think the Scottish Government, Scottish Labour, Scottish Lib Dems and the Scottish Greens have a bigger job to do in challenging the anti trans hysteria that is being used as part of a culture war by the Scottish Tories. They need to bring society back to supporting the rights of trans people - which we did at one point - but you don’t change minds by changing the law necessarily - it can end up working the other way as we are seeing m. Before the campaign against transwomen was ramped up a majority of Scottish women supported self id etc - that is no longer the case. My feeling is that we could tackle genuine hate crime without this bill being needed and that actually its existence and the ugly right wing misinformation that people fall for will in reality do more harm than good.

I suppose the other way I look at it is people saying homophobic things to me online might be a bit upsetting but it’s not going to make me feel threatened in the way being beaten up by a homophobe would. I’m just not sure that online comments should be criminalised in that way. I would rather defend myself with a robust response than contact the police - but people are using this bill as a way to attack each other. Certain groups are making lists of accounts to report to the police and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the anti trans activists actually reported JK Rowling’s tweets because they are looking to create martyrs to raise their profile and win people who wouldn’t normally care over to their cause - it’s just so counterproductive as far as I can see.

 

[Spells & Karma]

Now in Scotland, just because someone might feel offended by what someone has said it doesn't mean a hate crime has occurred whereas previously it could be considered as such. The new law is would a "reasonable person" think it was hate related which is a standard that already exists in other laws.

Not having studied the new legislation, what I haven't worked out is how this differs from the Equality Act 2010 which covers the same protected characteristics anyway.

Hate crime relating to sex will be addressed in a second bill. Although it is widely being described as an anti-misogyny bill is will be about gender based hate crimes in general.

Yes, even the article I linked back in post #1 described the second part as containing "a separate misogyny law". If the second bill covers both sexes (as it should) then it's horribly misleading.

The reality is that these crimes are overwhelmingly against women so I can see why it has been presented as dealing with hate against women but it will address wider issues relating to hate on the grounds of gender.

I've been watching Judy Justice recently. During case summaries, something she and her law clerk granddaughter frequently discuss is that it's usually women who are taken advantage of financially by men rather than the other way round. They draw this conclusion because this type of case has a disproportionately high number of women suing men (usually ex-partners).

The determination always irritates me because what it actually proves is simply that more women take legal action. Over and above male dishonesty there are many plausible reasons why this might be the case. These range from women so frequently receiving preferable treatment in the legal system, as well as in the eyes of society ("believe all women") to men being characterised as bullies for pursuing exes in this way, to simply men being more inclined to move on.

This philosophy could also be applied to cases based on gender prejudice. There's still a huge societal stigma around men tackling misandrist comments, behaviours and even crimes. To do anything about it, a man risks being perceived as weak, lacking in humour (because we're supposed to laugh such things off) or a bully.

In addition go the legal system's preferential treatment of women and the societal hurdles involved in men reporting , we now have a law created to provide equity between genders being purloined to create inequity and make it even more difficult for men to know they even have any legal recourse.

I'm not disagreeing that women are more likely to be targets, nor am I diminishing how difficult it is for many women to report these crimes. All the same, I do wonder just how overwhelming that gender difference would be if unreported crimes and incidents were included.

JK Rowling appeals to a narrow section of society - she is completely obsessed with the issues around gender and trans etc and most of us don’t care about it in the way she and her followers do - but because she is such a big name her views are amplified and it makes the issue bigger than it should be.

Absolutely.

I also think it's extremely damaging to pick out cases of extreme criminality to prove the point. One can do that for any minority group and we all know that has been done in the past to "other" and vilify some of those groups. And some people, sadly, will read these posts, buy into the ugliness and target all trans people with the same brush.

The Scottish hate crime law is so much more than dealing with transphobia

Yes. As I said in the first post, it's like Brexit and Immigration: people can't see past that one component and it ends up becoming the only thing that is seen or discussed.

I can't imagine that kind of monomania is going to be any more helpful or productive in 2024 than it was in 2016.

 

[anndra w]

Not having studied the new legislation, what I haven't worked out is how this differs from the Equality Act 2010 which covers the same protected characteristics anyway.





Yes, even the article I linked back in post #1 described the second part as containing "a separate misogyny law". If the second bill covers both sexes (as it should) then it's horribly misleading.





I've been watching Judy Justice recently. During case summaries, something she and her law clerk granddaughter frequently discuss is that it's usually women who are taken advantage of financially by men rather than the other way round. They draw this conclusion because this type of case has a disproportionately high number of women suing men (usually ex-partners).

The determination always irritates me because what it actually proves is simply that more women take legal action. Over and above male dishonesty there are many plausible reasons why this might be the case. These range from women so frequently receiving preferable treatment in the legal system, as well as in the eyes of society ("believe all women") to men being characterised as bullies for pursuing exes in this way, to simply men being more inclined to move on.

This philosophy could also be applied to cases based on gender prejudice. There's still a huge societal stigma around men tackling misandrist comments, behaviours and even crimes. To do anything about it, a man risks being perceived as weak, lacking in humour (because we're supposed to laugh such things off) or a bully.

In addition go the legal system's preferential treatment of women and the societal hurdles involved in men reporting , we now have a law created to provide equity between genders being purloined to create inequity and make it even more difficult for men to know they even have any legal recourse.

I'm not disagreeing that women are more likely to be targets, nor am I diminishing how difficult it is for many women to report these crimes. All the same, I do wonder just how overwhelming that gender difference would be if unreported crimes and incidents were included.







Absolutely.

I also think it's extremely damaging to pick out cases of extreme criminality to prove the point. One can do that for any minority group and we all know that has been done in the past to "other" and vilify some of those groups. And some people, sadly, will read these posts, buy into the ugliness and target all trans people with the same brush.






Yes. As I said in the first post, it's like Brexit and Immigration: people can't see past that one component and it ends up becoming the only thing that is seen or discussed.

I can't imagine that kind of monomania is going to be any more helpful or productive in 2024 than it was in 2016.

Yes with regard to picking out extreme cases - there was a case in Scotland where an individual who was claiming to be trans was convicted of rape and sexual assault - as they had claimed they were trans the prison service initially - for a matter of hours - held them in a women’s prison - where he had no contact with any women whatsoever - before placing him in a male prison for the safety of female prisoners. That shows that the safeguards are in place and that where there is a risk to female prisoners from people who are trans or claim to be trans, due to convictions like rape or violence against women, the system ensures they don’t go into women’s jails. This case demonstrates that the system works but that is completely ignored and the focus is on the couple of hours this person spent in transit in a women’s prison - despite there being zero risk to women. I don’t know how you move forward in a situation like this because facts and reality have no impact. The main thing that has come out of that case is that Scotland puts male rapists in women’s prisons - but actually in what is an extremely rare occurrence of a case like this, we do the exact opposite.

 

[anndra w]

Yes with regard to picking out extreme cases - there was a case in Scotland where an individual, Isla Bryson who was claiming to be trans was convicted of rape and sexual assault - as they had claimed they were trans the prison service initially - for a matter of hours - held them in a women’s prison - where he had no contact with any women whatsoever - before placing him in a male prison for the safety of female prisoners. That shows that the safeguards are in place and that where there is a risk to female prisoners from people who are trans or claim to be trans, due to convictions like rape or violence against women, the system ensures they don’t go into women’s jails. This case demonstrates that the system works but that is completely ignored and the focus is on the couple of hours this person spent in transit in a women’s prison - despite there being zero risk to women. I don’t know how you move forward in a situation like this because facts and reality have no impact. The main thing that has come out of that case is that Scotland puts male rapists in women’s prisons - but actually in what is an extremely rare occurrence of a case like this, we do the exact opposite.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

While it's unfortunate that trans issues get most of the coverage, it's the woke and the ruling class that keeps pushing it to the forefront.

Also, "picking out cases of extreme cruelty" is not unique to minorities. White people (particularly cisgender, straight white men) are routinely portrayed as violent, bigoted, and sexist. The "Karen" stereotype is often used to describe any middle-class white woman over 30. I can understand it to a degree. If you're on the receiving end of hate or violence at the hands of someone who fits a particular description, it can lead to prejudice against anyone who fits that description. I'm weary of some of the demands made allegedly in support of trans people, but I don't hate them as a group. I just think this is uncharted territory, and certain concerns (like seeing a "woman's" bulge) are valid.

As for hate crime laws in general, I'm sure they can be weaponized. For example, two men fighting over money can possibly be spun as a hate crime if the victim is gay.

 

[anndra w]

While it's unfortunate that trans issues get most of the coverage, it's the woke and the ruling class that keeps pushing it to the forefront.

Also, "picking out cases of extreme cruelty" is not unique to minorities. White people (particularly cisgender, straight white men) are routinely portrayed as violent, bigoted, and sexist. The "Karen" stereotype is often used to describe any middle-class white woman over 30. I can understand it to a degree. If you're on the receiving end of hate or violence at the hands of someone who fits a particular description, it can lead to prejudice against anyone who fits that description. I'm weary of some of the demands made allegedly in support of trans people, but I don't hate them as a group. I just think this is uncharted territory, and certain concerns (like seeing a "woman's" bulge) are valid.

As for hate crime laws in general, I'm sure they can be weaponized. For example, two men fighting over money can likely be spun as a hate crime if the victim is gay.

I can only apply this to the law in Scotland but two men fighting over money would not be a hate crime unless sexuality came into - that’s quite specific in the law itself.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

I can only apply this to the law in Scotland but two men fighting over money would not be a hate crime unless sexuality came into - that’s quite specific in the law itself.

That's great, but it would be up to the defendant's legal team to prove it. In my hypothetical, I'm referring to a victim who intentionally mischaracterizes the cause of the fight.

 

[anndra w]

That's great, but it would be up to the defendant's legal team to prove it. In my hypothetical, I'm referring to a victim who intentionally mischaracterizes the cause of the

That's great, but it would be up to the defendant's legal team to prove it. In my hypothetical, I'm referring to a victim who intentionally mischaracterizes the cause of the fight.

Our legal system is not so weak that people can make unsubstantiated claims like that and it’s just accepted. The hypothetical situation you describe would be outrageous if it was something that happened but it’s not. It’s not something that we need to worry about happening - but it’s worrying that people are worrying it will happen. It makes folk frightened.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

And modern technology makes it so very easy to do. And people do things because they can. Who needs agendas?
We're bad, we're rotten. We don't need a "theory" to excuse our bad behaviour.

But isn't this how agendas form in the first place? Ideas form and spread via technology, and people adopt them.

I also think it's more than a theory that governments are involved in transmania. Isn't it odd that right-wing institutions like the CIA and the US military suddenly care about inclusivity? Why did the sitting US President host trans activists at the White House and talk about trans visibility day? It's overt pandering that stokes the culture wars. Now why would institutions that rape, pillage, and murder want to do that? Could it be they want this to be election fodder rather than the economy, foreign policy, etc.? I think so.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

Our legal system is not so weak that people can make unsubstantiated claims like that and it’s just accepted. The hypothetical situation you describe would be outrageous if it was something that happened but it’s not. It’s not something that we need to worry about happening - but it’s worrying that people are worrying it will happen. It makes folk frightened.

That's great that there are safeguards. However, human nature being what it is, I think a certain level of concern is normal.

 

[anndra w]

That's great that there are safeguards. However, human nature being what it is, I think a certain level of concern is normal.

Yes I think it's sensible to be resistant and distrustful of authority for sure - but I also think there are forces which want to destabilise our democracy - in the UK the courts have defended the rights of minority groups and the current UK government does not like that and the far right, and their funders, here in the UK really hate it. So as much I think we need to watch we don't give too much power to the police and keep them in hand - I'm also concerned there is a push by the far right to change our society permanently.

 

[anndra w]

While it's unfortunate that trans issues get most of the coverage, it's the woke and the ruling class that keeps pushing it to the forefront.

Also, "picking out cases of extreme cruelty" is not unique to minorities. White people (particularly cisgender, straight white men) are routinely portrayed as violent, bigoted, and sexist. The "Karen" stereotype is often used to describe any middle-class white woman over 30. I can understand it to a degree. If you're on the receiving end of hate or violence at the hands of someone who fits a particular description, it can lead to prejudice against anyone who fits that description. I'm weary of some of the demands made allegedly in support of trans people, but I don't hate them as a group. I just think this is uncharted territory, and certain concerns (like seeing a "woman's" bulge) are valid.

As for hate crime laws in general, I'm sure they can be weaponized. For example, two men fighting over money can possibly be spun as a hate crime if the victim is gay.

I always take the Karen insult personally because how dare they accuse Karen McKenzie of being a Karen!

In the UK young males from a working class background are often portrayed as violent and sexist - there's a class aspect to that. It's not just the white boys but also black and asian lads too. It's frustrating - I worked as a teacher and some of these stereotypes are true but they are not true of all boys. I really dislike the suggestion that because a boy is heterosexual he is automatically toxic - I look at my nephews for instance, they are open, tolerant, intelligent and heterosexual. It angers me when some people who are obsessed with identity dismiss them - it's so divisive and so harmful - equally the boys who are violent and sexist do make life miserable for people - we should be able to challenge the thugs and bullies without dismissing all boys.

With regard to stereotypes - I would say there are stereotypes about gay people as well with regard to being bitchy, and effeminate etc. I'm in my 30s now and I feel like I'm kind of alienated by the LGBT+ community because I'm not effeminate, I'm not into the music or the fashion and I'm not into drag - so it doesn't really offer me much. I do like soaps though so that's pretty gay I guess. However I've noticed that some LGBT+ activists are quite scathing of folk like myself because we don't conform to this very narrow view of what gay people should be.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

Our legal system is not so weak that people can make unsubstantiated claims like that and it’s just accepted.

Yes, I suppose it's different from the "Wild West" and lawsuit-happy American legal system which has become some kind of lottery. An opportunity to become rich or a celebrity.
Having said that, I wonder for how long Europe can maintain it's (relative) level-headedness in these matters as we see more and more American attitudes getting embraced as "the way to do it". Which, btw, would be absolutely fantastic as long as they'd focus on the many great things America has to offer.

Either way, I wonder if this is the reason why we aren't alway on the same wave-length in these kind of discussions.

It’s not something that we need to worry about happening

Right, it's a waste of time (and probably LOTS of money) to focus on overcorrection and things that don't need to be fixed.

However, human nature being what it is, I think a certain level of concern is normal.

I guess that worked for the Brexit.
It is normal to be concerned about terrorism like it was normal to be concerned about The Bomb back in the 1980s.
It is normal to be concerned about guns and crazy mass-shootings.
It's not normal to be concerned about the odd and obscure event of a fake or semi-trans entering a place specifically designed for women. There's no such thing as a flawless system no matter how many new laws you implement.

As for the people who don't belong to the demography that needs to protected, they will only see it as yet another example of being told what they can and can't do, thus increasing the idea of walking on eggshells.
It doesn't surprise me at all that something like this results in aggravation and confusion, and the sad irony is that they could backfire those negative feelings at the people who are supposed to be benefit from the new laws in the first place.

However I've noticed that some LGBT+ activists are quite scathing of folk like myself because we don't conform to this very narrow view of what gay people should be.

Maybe it's time for a Gexit from the LGBT+ Union.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

've been watching Judy Justice recently. During case summaries, something she and her law clerk granddaughter frequently discuss is that it's usually women who are taken advantage of financially by men rather than the other way round. They draw this conclusion because this type of case has a disproportionately high number of women suing men (usually ex-partners).

The determination always irritates me because what it actually proves is simply that more women take legal action. Over and above male dishonesty there are many plausible reasons why this might be the case. These range from women so frequently receiving preferable treatment in the legal system, as well as in the eyes of society ("believe all women") to men being characterised as bullies for pursuing exes in this way, to simply men being more inclined to move on.

This philosophy could also be applied to cases based on gender prejudice. There's still a huge societal stigma around men tackling misandrist comments, behaviours and even crimes. To do anything about it, a man risks being perceived as weak, lacking in humour (because we're supposed to laugh such things off) or a bully.

In addition go the legal system's preferential treatment of women and the societal hurdles involved in men reporting , we now have a law created to provide equity between genders being purloined to create inequity and make it even more difficult for men to know they even have any legal recourse.

I'm not disagreeing that women are more likely to be targets, nor am I diminishing how difficult it is for many women to report these crimes. All the same, I do wonder just how overwhelming that gender difference would be if unreported crimes and incidents were included.

Men are far more likely to be the victims of street crime, workplace deaths, and suicide.

Women receive child custody 85% of the time, regardless of how she may have behaved -- even provably -- during the marriage.

Prostate cancer receives a fraction of the attention or fund drives or donations than breast cancer (even though prostate cancer is slightly deadlier).

Women kill their offspring far more often than men do -- even when the fathers are in the household... In straight households where there is mutual domestic violence, men and women each initiate it about 50/50, knowing they'll get struck back -- but in households with unilateral domestic violence, women initiate it about 70% of the time.

Lesbian couples have the highest level of domestic violence, gay men have the lowest (if you don't count their sex), and straight couples are in the middle.

Even committing the same crime and with similar criminal backgrounds, women are sentenced to only 63% of the punishment as men -- and that's only after a legal process which is already more lenient towards women in terms of being arrested to begin with, being charged more lightly, etc...

Nobody cares. These things can't even be discussed publicly. Any conversation not exclusively about women and women's needs is in itself considered "misogyny."

Women, certainly western women, assume their needs and concerns -- valid or not -- will be dealt with. And discussed ad nauseum. That's how oppressed they are.

Some feminists have actually said that male disposability -- when she's even willing to admit it exists -- is actually part of male privilege.

But then women, arguably, have been running the patriarchy for eons. And this is what happens.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

I guess that worked for the Brexit.
It is normal to be concerned about terrorism like it was normal to be concerned about The Bomb back in the 1980s.
It is normal to be concerned about guns and crazy mass-shootings.
It's not normal to be concerned about the odd and obscure event of a fake or semi-trans entering a place specifically designed for women. There's no such thing as a flawless system no matter how many new laws you implement.

Do you think saying "a certain level of concern" means I'm implying that people should be panicking in the streets? I think you're the one blowing what I say out of proportion.

It's precisely because there's no such thing as a flawless system that people should have their guard up (at least to some degree.)

As for the people who don't belong to the demography that needs to protected, they will only see it as yet another example of being told what they can and can't do, thus increasing the idea of walking on eggshells.
It doesn't surprise me at all that something like this results in aggravation and confusion, and the sad irony is that they could backfire those negative feelings at the people who are supposed to be benefit from the new laws in the first place.

Yes, I'd say that sums it up.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

people should be panicking in the streets

I'd love to see that.
Invasion Of The Semi-Trans Aggressors, complete with a cheesy and gaudy film poster.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

like it was normal to be concerned about The Bomb back in the 1980s.

Oh, people weren't really -- not like it was in the '50s and early-'60s.

In the '80s, the Reagan-Russian saber-rattling was just a sexy media story. One we were supposed to care about but nobody really did anymore.

But then, the '80s desperately wanted to be the '60s.

 

[Spells & Karma]

I would say there are stereotypes about gay people as well with regard to being bitchy, and effeminate etc. I'm in my 30s now and I feel like I'm kind of alienated by the LGBT+ community because I'm not effeminate, I'm not into the music or the fashion and I'm not into drag - so it doesn't really offer me much. I do like soaps though so that's pretty gay I guess. However I've noticed that some LGBT+ activists are quite scathing of folk like myself because we don't conform to this very narrow view of what gay people should be.

Absolutely. While connection based on commonalities can be a good thing, the problem with people getting hung up on belonging to "communities" based on one aspect of who they are is that it excludes so many others. Worse still is when well meaning people start speaking out on behalf of the *blah* community, giving the impression that the stereotype is real and all people who are *blah* are one big homogenous mass with a single mindset and shared views on any social or political subject.

Men are far more likely to be the victims of street crime, workplace deaths, and suicide.

Women receive child custody 85% of the time, regardless of how she may have behaved -- even provably -- during the marriage.

Prostate cancer receives a fraction of the attention or fund drives or donations than breast cancer (even though prostate cancer is slightly deadlier).

Women kill their offspring far more often than men do -- even when the fathers are in the household... In straight households where there is mutual domestic violence, men and women each initiate it about 50/50, knowing they'll get struck back -- but in households with unilateral domestic violence, women initiate it about 70% of the time.

Lesbian couples have the highest level of domestic violence, gay men have the lowest (if you don't count their sex), and straight couples are in the middle.

Even committing the same crime and with similar criminal backgrounds, women are sentenced to only 63% of the punishment as men -- and that's only after a legal process which is already more lenient towards women in terms of being arrested to begin with, being charged more lightly, etc...

All very true indeed.

On the subject of street crime, I recently visited a town where I noticed a "refuge point" in the centre: basically a big button that activates CCTV and phones through to the police.

It was the first time I'd seen such a thing (I wasn't sure whether to be comforted or reassured) and I did a quick search on it afterwards. Sure enough, I found an article on the installation which led by saying it was there "with a focus on women in particular" and was intended to improve safety and increase confidence "especially among women and girls".

Ironically, a suggested article alongside it was about a man in a town nearby being hospitalised after an attack by a gang of four.