Happy Hate Crime Day - part two

Like many working in business, I have to read and attempt to understand legal documents from time to time. Usually I’ll raise concerns if a document is vague and unclear, or if it fails to apply to the stated purpose. Yesterday I published my first analysis of Humza Yousaf’s Hate Crime Act. What is the stated purpose of the Act? Well, presumably to crack down on hate. Yet why can’t we hate? Humza Yousaf appears to hate White people. He is certainly furious that so many of us have top jobs in White dominated Scotland. It’s almost as if Humza is racist. I hate all manner of things. Any kind of music that has a deep bass beat that penetrates walls and keeps me up at night. Raw sewage. Spiders. Maybe that last one is not quite true. I used to have arachnophobia. I still dislike spiders, but maybe no longer hate them. It didn’t even take a seven year prison sentence handed down by Humza’s totalitarian police state.

I want to continue reviewing the Act and make a few more comments.

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.”

As many people have pointed out with similarly insidious laws, the process is often the punishment. Most of us have neither the resources or the time to defend ourselves. And so all of us are threatened by this law which may in itself be abusive. And as I posted yesterday, who gets to decide what is reasonable or not? Can we have confidence in the impartiality of the judge – who may be in the first instance a police officer who only had a couple of hours online training in how to apply this law? I have my doubts.

“For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person’s behaviour—

(a)includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does,

(b)may consist of—

(i)a single act”

Behaviour of any kind… Just how broad is that statement? Things a person says… Things a person communicates, perhaps by wearing a T-Shirt that states Women: Adult Human Female, well that is considered abusive, threatening and insulting by seemingly large sections of those who identify as trans. And I’m aware that those who identify as trans take particular offence at being described as person who identify as trans rather than, say, O glorious master, I will do all that you command. And all it takes is a single act. Say one wrong word, do one wrong thing and…

“A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).”

Are you Yes yet? Welcome to Scotland 2.0. Where they got rid of blasphemy law but introduced Salem’s Lot where any person at any time can be accused for:

“For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by—

(a)displaying, publishing or distributing the material,

(b)giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person,

(c)making the material available to another person in any other way.”

And for avoidance of doubt, this encompasses pretty much all ways of communicating. It is reasonably clear that #ScotGov does not want us speaking or communicating in any way other that that which they approve. And since we will not know whether they approve it or not until after we’ve been arrested, or cautioned, the implication here is that we should not communicate at all, just hide in our homes, switch off our mobile phones and Internet routers, and hope and pray someone votes out the SNP/Green alliance and repeals this awful set of laws.

“Powers of entry etc. with warrant

(1)A sheriff or justice of the peace may grant a warrant under this section authorising a constable to enter premises if the sheriff or justice of the peace is satisfied, by evidence on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting—

(a)that an offence under section 4 has been, or is being, committed at the premises, or

(b)that there is evidence at the premises of the commission of an offence under section 4.

(2)A warrant granted under this section remains in force for a period of 28 days beginning with the day on which it was granted.

(3)A warrant granted under this section may authorise a constable to—

(a)enter the premises by force if necessary,

(b)search the premises and any person found in the premises,

(c)seize and detain any material found on the premises, or on any person in the premises, if the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that it may provide evidence of the commission of an offence under section 4.

(4)A constable who is authorised by a warrant granted under this section to seize and detain material may, if the material is only capable of being looked at, read, watched or listened to (as the case may be) after conversion from data stored in another form, require that the material—

(a)be converted into such a form in a way which enables it to be taken away, or

(b)be produced in a form which is capable of being taken away and from which it can be readily converted.”

Evidence on oath is maybe some saving grace here. If it means what a reasonable person would hope it means – that the person giving evidence on oath is not anonymous, the evidence is recorded, the accused has the right to hear the evidence and defend against it. Yet again though, the process is the punishment!

The threat of force implies to me also the threat of violence. What right do any of us have as citizens to repel or block a constable who attempts to force their way into our home? I am reminded of the story of Esther and the king’s command that citizens could defend themselves and their homes with violence against the police of that time. Do we need a similar law today, to allow us to defend ourselves against the police in order to prevent, well hopefully not a genocide which was what Esther was trying to prevent, but prevent a descent into rule by totalitarian decree and a Soviet style imprisoning of all who dare to question the State. Have you read The Gulag Archipelago? (In all fairness and for transparency I have so far only managed to listen to the first two chapters and that has enough to allow me to see parallels between what they experienced in the Soviet Union and we might be about to witness in Scotland. All laws are legal, even the ones that are utterly evil.

““premises” means any place and includes any—

(i)land or building,

(ii)vehicle, vessel, trailer, aircraft or hovercraft,

(iii)tent or moveable structure.”

I note they didn’t include campervan but did include hovercraft. Someone’s been watching too much James Bond.

“Recording conviction for offence under section 4”

And this implies that this now criminal offence will be there, waiting for each and every employer or organisation to discover and potentially cripple many careers. For what? Because someone felt insulted. Because they felt threatened. They perceived behaviour as abusive. While I have been on the end of both abusive and threatening behaviours, I’m quite wary of demanding that each and every occurrence be recorded as a Hate Crime. A key part of Christian teaching is forgiveness and reconciliation. If we lose that, I can see society descending into a culture of revenge and betrayal. Can you see how dangerous that would be? How secure are you that everyone loves you, that no-one finds anything you do or say objectionable? If the test is only that a “reasonable person” would find your behaviour abusive, threatening or insulting, what assurance do you have that those being asked are indeed reasonable? Might you find to your shock that a number of people consider themselves and their views reasonable, while you find those views most unreasonable. Yet they might take it on themselves to judge you and then where will you be?

I am inclined to catastrophise. I know this. Yet just because I can catastrophise, does not mean this law is not a catastrophe. The paranoid individual may indeed have justification to be paranoid. In China, in North Korea, in Iran, people have very good reason to be paranoid. The State and the rats that enable the State are indeed out to get them. Is it to be this way now in Scotland?

“Forfeiture and disposal of material to which offence relates

(1)Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 4—

(a)the court may order the forfeiture of any material to which the offence relates, and

(b)the court may order that any of the forfeited material be disposed of in such manner as the court may direct.”

It is reasonable to include a statement that material which relates to an offence be destroyed, however, given the broad and vaguely defined nature of Hate Crime, it seems likely that if this law is ever enforced, that material which most reasonable people would consider innocuous, will be destroyed at potentially great loss to some otherwise completely innocent people. I would like to see Humza Yousaf prosecuted under this law. Perhaps we could see all laptops, mobile phones, and computer servers belonging to the Scottish government destroyed since this law is a Hate Crime, threatening, abusive or insulting to each and every Scot that still has at least half a brain. And maybe then, with the technological apparatus of government destroyed, the rest of us Scots could be allowed to get on with our lives in peace, occasionally saying things or doing or communicating things which are perceived to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and yet which are called out as such and either apologised for or the individual shunned for having breached etiquette.

There already is another law which allows police to intervene when someone is threatened. But isn’t that mainly to be applied for physical violence, not just hurty words. Most of us grew up at some point. Learned to shrug off insults and even abuse and threats, unless actual violence was indicated. But this law says nothing about violence. It is all about perception and opinion and is wide open to abuse by people reacting like an offended toddler

#HateCrime #racism #Scotland #HumzaYousaf #HateMonster #GULAGARCHIPELAGO #AleksandrSolzhenitsyn