I'd like to report Humza Yousaf for his speech where he said there are too many white people in Scotland, by this law he committed a hate crime in parliament.
That's the point, so you get to supress anything that opposes the narrative. This has been happening for a long time it's just that now people are starting to slowly wake up.
The arbitrariness and capriciousness of the act is intentional, to give politicians, bureaucrats and activists infinite flexibility to crack down on anyone (particularly their political opponents).
@@npcknuckles5887 I think the best thing for the police is to investigate these complaints, gather any evidence and then put the matter before the courts. The police are not judge & jury and this will allow them to avoid being dragged into what is a political issue.
@@davidsmith8728 No, it shouldn't even be treated as a crime, nor should people be subjected to the court system to have to stand up for their own natural rights. The only thing that should happen is that this legislation be struck out completely.
They're not exactly the brightest folk. Look at the copious well-publicised incidents over the last year where police have arrested people who didn''t break the law.
Private conversations are not exempt? What sort of fascism is this? I say things in private conversation with my friends (off-colour jokes etc) all the time that I would never say in public. Is the Scottish government asking citizens to report things said in private conversations? How else would they know what was said? This is garbage and needs to be challenged in the courts and done away with
This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the fascism that exists in the West. Western governments violate our natural rights every single day in countless different ways.
I would love to have asked Humza Yousaf how many white Scots there were in the Pakistani government. That speech of his was one of the most overt racist rants I've ever heard. Including some the rhetoric in South Africa.
Well their ideas are usually pretty stupid and dangerous... and the public rightfully push back on them. So rather than finding better ideas, it's much more expedient to try and shut the public up. Absolute cockroaches in positions of government and the public are rapidly finding nothing but contempt for _all_ of them. Regardless which party - because from where I'm standing they all look like the same party.
They’re not just gonna go around ignoring every other law in order to try and find hate speech, they’ll deal with reports of this crime and if any damages are found they’ll deal with it
@Trainrhys I was indifferent to him until his racist hate speech trying to shame the indigenous people of Scotland for being white and having jobs in the lands of their ancestors. I'm English and it enraged me so much that having been given the honour of being elected he spoke to Scots in that way. Much less than 3000 crimes in the area proposed. Women not included in it. It GETS priority. 60,000+ incidents of domestic abuse alone. Never mind other areas. Women obviously less important than a blasphemy law by the back door. hmmm wonder what religion he is? I now hate him, I don't think anyone has done more to increase hatred in Scotland than Humza.
I hate it when a law references a "reasonable person". If there are such people, they must be very uncommon, since I have never met a reasonable person.
The reasonable person standard is at the very heart of the justice system in England and Wales and Scotland too. It would be difficult to unpick the tradition as it touches such a wide range of legal principles
Being reasonable is a hate crime... please keep up. Hamza, it seems to me that since 98% of Scotland is white, a representative parliament might display a similar demographic. And perhaps if we artificially pull our leaders from 2% of the population we are unlikely to get the best people for the job. Hate crime... lock him up
It just means that the higher court can use their experience to judge if something is reasonable and the lower courts use these decisions as case law. It doesn't mean you have to find a person that is reasonable and ask them what they think
It's been around for so long though, and in so many laws. For example, if you are a juror in jury trial for a fraud case, you have to decide whether or not the person accused of the fraud was intending dishonesty, and that is based upon the whole 'reasonable person' thing. Fraud is such a wide-ranging and complicated subject that there would be no way to accurately define whether something was intentional or not for every case. So they have to rely on the jury. That's logical.
5:39 Forcing tolerance on people with laws like this never works, it will just end up making people less tolerant as people will end up cementing their positions as a counter to what they see as the government telling them what to think.
Never a truer word spoken. If you deal with people in any capacity you understand that there are people who resist more based on how much pressure they perceive they are under. Ignoring this dynamic is deeply impractical and wholly ineffective.
It also works against integration, because certain populations who perceive themselves to be at risk of malicious prosecution using this law when interacting with certain other populations, will choose to protect themselves by simply not interacting. We're already seeing how making talking to women dangerous for men is destroying the dating scene: well watch what happens when we make talking to people of a different skin colour, or religion, or sexuality dangerous too.
The problem with the hate crime act is because it’s so poorly defined it basically gives the police and Scottish government carte Blanche to decide if something counts as a hate crime regardless of the protections in the bill, and makes any prosecution or defence based on the bill a complete coin toss which is going to make enforcement nearly impossible.
@@julianshepherd2038 There was a woman in Liverpool who was arrested and found guilty of a hate crime for posting the lyrics to her recently-passed-away friend's favourite song because they happened to include a no-r version of the N-word. Do you think that constitutes intent to cause offense? As the original comment said by keeping these things vague they can be applied basically whenever there is any form of nuance which is very dangerous.
@@Blondul11 that happens when you dont know better or are not aware. of course this happens. if you believe otherwise, you might need to work in yourself..
No, you can be openly racist if you're not white, that's the clown country we have decided to turn into, the same country that's failing in most metrics compared to others.
Exactly! You could literally replace the word "white" with any other race in any of his sentences and it would be considered racism... Also 95.4% of Scotland's population report as white, so there would be inequality if around 95.4% of the top jobs weren't held by white people
This is authoritarian in every way. Let’s be honest, society’s biggest problems right now is not hate, you’re never going to remove it. The laws already in place were sufficient. You still can’t go around making derogatory comments about any protected groups before this. All this does is regress free speech and that’s what’s intended. I live in Scotland and have not heard of anyone being in favour of this law which brings democracy as a whole into question. It’s just SNP and Humza that are, who treat the police as their own personal security. The laws are purposely vague so that if you make criticism comments regarding Humza for example, he can complain and claim racism (something he’s already done several times). Is Humza’s famous “white” speech mean he’s at risk of arrest? There’s also the matter of the amount of stress this puts on the police as well. When you have to clarify that actors and comedians should be safe, you know we’ve really regressed and our speech is at severe risk. It’s actually had a different effect introducing this law, it’s caused unhappiness, concern and increased criticism and hate.
Humza “white man” speech was intended to store racial division for his own political benefit… when I think about it, it should fall into one of categories of offence in the new law.
Humsa was not in power in 2021. Apart from that, this was passed by 4 political parties in Scotland, not just SNP. The new laws were proposed by Libdems.
@@gordonmackenzie4512 he is in power now. He was justice secretary and was instrumental in bringing the bill forward, he was under Nicola sturgeons iron rule of SNP. The bill was brought by SNP with the vast majority of them being in favour and Humza making many statements in favour it, even recently he backs it fully. Not sure what your point is, read up about it more yourself if you’re confused. The bill was brought to table and was passed with only 32 voting against it Labour endorsed it too, though some did vote against for various reasons however it was majority of conservatives and one reform MSP who voted against it. There’s no information on the Lib Dems being the ones to bring forward the bill. And yes it was scrutinised by 5 parties with 4 of the 5 main political parties being in favour: Labour, Lib Dems, Greens & SNP
"People are allowed to express antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards religion, or religious beliefs" - yeah, we all know which religion that doesn't apply to.
I dislike Islam. I think it's ridiculous, and people who believe in it are ridiculous. And Judaism. Utterly ridiculous, with hundreds of the silly rituals and nonsense rules.
It should be clear that this new act is deliberately made as vague as possible, so people will eventually start to self-censor or keep their mouths shut altogether out of fear for prosecution, especially if they're not even safe anymore in their own homes.
Scotland has the worst health, wealth and security in the UK and tops of the ranks for each in Europe, but the SNP see this as a priority to divide people. It would be cheaper to tell people to grow up and stop getting offended.
I've been a very staunch supporter of them. That's changed. It's amazing because at one point I literally said I don't care how bad they govern the country as long as they continue to support independence... I no longer want independence from England, I want independence from the SNP. We'll deal with national independence another decade... I just want my fucking freedom of expression back.
@@ass640seems to me like the SNP are getting high on their own supply and are using the cause of independence as a shield to pass laws that the majority of the population do not want. I think this will come back to bite them in the election and they could lose seats to Alba and Labour.
Because the average citizens are poorly educated when it comes to comprehending things you know easily manipulated emotional idiots 🤷🏻 see, it's not too hard to express yourself without inciting hatred whilst telling the truth
@@JonoPS yes hate is OK. I hate stepping on Legos.. I hate the tory party.. I hate allot of things. Same as any human. You cannot use intolerance towards speech to make society tolerant. Same as using violence to achieve peace never works..
Free speech law is a very difficult subject who cannot be modified easily even with good intentions. "Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” ― T.S. Eliot
@@squidsquad6286your right to freedom ends where anothers right to freedom begins, everyone should have the freedom to live free of hatred, discrimination and misinformation, these things are immoral and this is why these things must be illegal, now the issue is having a trustworthy authority who truly has good intentions to enact them
@@zeahhhh Thats not how it works. Being offended is a choice. My right to voice my opinion in public must be preserved no matter what it is. If someone is offended by that opinion then that is their choice to be offended and thus it’s their own problem. It’s an incredibly dangerous thought to ban speech that offends people. Who controls what is offensive? Where is the line drawn?
If you criticise mass immigration you get called racist which is illegal. The thing is if you criticise Islam you usually get called islamophobic which is illegal. I'm sure Hamza Yusuf a Muslim man will not use this to his benefit for jailing opposition.
@@kwiatw I think 'safely' is quite naive to place here.. Recent data from the Home Office's hate crime report (2022-23 England and Wales) shows that those who are victims of hate crime and violence are not actually white Christians. I know with the huge media hype about EDI people are thinking that being White Christian man makes one less protected, but numbers are numbers, and numbers show that this category is the most protected and least subject to violence. If I criticise the monarch in a conservative club in the south east of England I would leave the place teethless if not worse :)
A Scottish church munister was recently accused of hate crime for simply telling his congregation what the bible says. Far from being mysoginist, it was the opposite, but someone present had the opposite view. If you think this is ok, think deeper and see how ominous it is.
Still is, it's just also filled with manyn alcoholic drug addict. if governments had kept up with investments and better management, the problem might not be so bad now 🤷🏻
@@otakuofminethat's free speech. Crazy how you can't understand how wrong that is. Is insulting people wrong? Sure, but it doesn't warrant police raids and prison. I left out harassment because that's not protected under free speech even in the United States.
The slippery slope is real. Anyone who takes issue with this should reflect on how they felt about previous legislation that limited freedom of speech.
It's already an arrestable offence to tell offensive jokes or sell stickers that may be seen as offensive. Criticising religion, criticising mass immigration, criticising political opinion, this is what this legislation now bans. The slippery slope is real but this feels more like free falling than being on an incline.
@@WoA596 speech laws are enforced without context. One person's criticism is another's hate. Religions being homophobic, someone unemployed being angry at mass immigration, anyone referencing the Rotherham scandal. Any one of these could be seen as hateful or threatening. There is president for this too, comedians being fined for making jokes, vicar's wives receiving a computer ban for tweeting (while referencing the bible) about trans people receiving computer bans. Do you really think this legislation won't be used to prosecute criticism if that criticism is deemed hateful? Only serious crimes have a jury in criminal court too, so it's literally just the judge that will decide if you're guilty or not.
Did anyone else catch that? There was a critique, that it does not include sex, the reaction was: a law against misogyny. That is just half the theoretical hate crimes regarding sex, what about the other half?
@@JonoPS Does he look like someone who would be in charge of selectively enforcing such laws to accidentally hit political opponents? If no, then they are unnecessary for him.
@@Americanbadashh my answer got deleted, I said no it's not, it's not even a thing, some social media companies will kick you for it tho, but that's it.
@@Americanbadashh No it's not, genius. America is the only nation in the West to not conform to this tyrannical emplacement of dictatorial legislation. And we will fight with guns, bullets and hellfire to keep it that way while the rest of the western world falls under dictatorship.
Who decides what a reasonable person would consider offensive? Surely, a reasonable, fair, and sensible person understands that there are always idiots in the world who spout nonsense, and it's not worth getting upset about? This would put too much power in the hands of the state.
Ultimately, a jury decides what a reasonable person would think, and the police/prosecuting agency collectively decide if they think a jury might agree with them. By that time a jury hears it, at least one person's life is probably significantly impacted, not to mention the expenditure of public resources. If the intent is to prevent inciting violence against vulnerable people (which I have no problem with), I thought there were already laws to do that.
One kind of problem this phraseology and the laws that use it have is the following. What people consider reasonable and by extension, what consitutes a reasonable person, has always changed. Most reasonable people, from the 1400s up to 15 years ago would not have considered Humza yousaf to be a Scot, let alone Scottish enough to be admitted to our public councils. As of the 1st of April, it will be illegal for a Scotsman to express the beliefs that his father and his ancestors considered reasonable.
Even if a reasonable person would consider something offensive, the individual has a natural and unalienable right to be offensive (it's included in the right to free speech/expression).
@@lennydale92 I don't know if this is what you're asking but Scots Law has always been a distinct legal system from England & Wales, even in the years between the 1707 Union and Devolution.
@@thewhitefalcon8539I still find that “a hypothetical person whose character and care conduct, under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy” leaves lots of wriggle room
As a union rep I came across a great rule of thumb for considering new rules/processes etc., bad policy doesn't fix a bad situation. The same thinking can equally be applied to legislation. This feels like a classic example of design by committee that is so focused on being inclusive that every viewpoint has been taken into account, irrespective of merit, making the final result utterly confused, vague and unworkable. Heaven help the police and law courts.
Yes... what you thought our Post-Modern state leadership hated Russia for being authoritarian? No they hate them for being a different brand of Post-Modernism.
Exactly. To have different definitions of what is and isn’t ok is just going to be a constant issue for the courts. Scottish law will say one thing, they’ll appeal citing U.K. law and then they’ll it cause a rift between Scotland and the rest of the U.K.
This is the problem with hate speech laws. The definitions are arbitrary and capricious. It does far more harm to the cohesion of society to police thought and speech than it does to simply tell the people to deal with it on a societal level (leaving the government out of the issue). Hate speech laws are a violation of human rights.
It's comical how someone could go to jail for saying "Every man over 80 is stupid and senile" in Scotland now. Would they get a harsher sentence for mentioning both sex and age? God forbid they add religion or sexual identity.
@@MsJayteeListensif someone felt threatened by it then yes it is true. They may not be prosecuted because old people aren't important enough to the Scottish government but because of the vague wording of the legislation, if this was stated, even in a private conversation this statement would be in breach. It also prevents several political ideologies, such as the pro choice argument, and infringes on religious beliefs such as jedeo-christian beliefs that being gay is a sin. This legislation can be used to prosecute anyone that has made a statement that is hateful even if its not hateful towards the person its being discussed with. That's why so many people are against it. Considering they had to add a clause into the legislation to protect comedians, its clearly over reaching and unbelievably authoritarian
@@jackmarshall2496 if an 80-year-old is threatened by it, and can prove it is true. Why shouldn't that person be protected? It would certainly make people mindful of not treating our elderly with the casual disregard that is proven timing again in care homes around the UK.
My understanding is that if someone reports you to the police for a word they don't like then there is nothing you can say against it, you're stuck with the crime whether you agree with it or not. What the hell kind of law is that if you cannot defend yourself?
Unbelievable, absolutely shocking stuff. I’m speechless. As a former international student in and with a lot of fondness for Scotland, this makes it impossible for me to visit again. Wild to believe this place used to be one of the cradles of the enlightenment 300 years ago, what an insane retrogression. This makes me very sad, even if the law would most likely never be a threat to me or any of my Scottish friends, but with this kind of vagueness it throws judicial safety out the window
@abody499 that's politics mate. Were all entitled to our "whines" about policies that don't personally affect us. I don't live in North korea but you can be sure I take a view on their domestic policies
@lewis123417 the problem with opinions is the experience knowledge and understanding that goes into forming them. there's a reason why no one is taught anything more than a surface level biased account of the subject.
@@abody499 lol of course, us philistine unenlightened plebs could never understand these complex issues - my apologies for the brazen ignorance and will leave these matters to the smart people like yourself. my head already hurts from all the thinking, I think 80 words might have overcooked my frontal lobe. goodnight
See that reply is evidence to support my point. *I didn't at all say* that people "could never understand these complex issues" or that it's only "smart people" who can. I said people aren't taught anything more than a surface level account for a reason. To go beyond, further education level is required, at least bachelor's level. But to elaborate further, everyone is capable. Everyone has the capacity to learn. The problem is what and how they are taught.
Exactly the laws only cut one way. Do you think this will be used to protect, white, male, straight, Christian or any combination of above you're just deluding yourself.
I read the bill a while back, it does deal with misandry and covers whites, heterosexuals and Christians as well. As far as I'm aware it's just the same as the old bill but has a few added bits to cover more people.
@@UdumbaraMusic that maybe true when it comes to wording but not in practice for enforcement. We have had hate crime laws for a while now yet existing case law is entirely used against white people accused by bame people. I challenge you to find an example of a bame person because charged with a hate crime enhancement from a white victim? It's still news when a court sides with a white person for racial discrimination for employment.
There is always freedom of speech (it's part of our nature). It's just that there are tyrannical and rights-violating governments that will arrest you for it.
If you can't criticise something without inciting hatred, you are not making a good argument against it, you are just shitting on it you know, religious discrimination. I fucking hate religion, it uses manipulative and underhanded tactics to indoctrinate people into it. I get that it gives people a reason to not just be hopeless, or tries to control and censure peoples actions towards others (sound familiar?) but when it actively started to medal in peoples lives negatively, it deviated way out of its lane and just became a problem. The one sentiment I agree with Trump about despite his reason probably being pathetic and not actually knowing any quotes, is that religion should be a personal thing, and recruitment into it should be at an age where people can make an informed choice about which one they want, not indoctrinated as a child that has no say. even if you're an atheist, if you were baptised you are claimed by the Christian church, did you know that? of course each God says it is the only one, that's just good business sense, but what if they're all real? You'll be going to hell because you were marked as a baby against your Will 🧐. don't hate or attack religions, but just think twice about who you want to bring into its fold, and if you're against it, petition for policies that protect with arguments like I am instead, there's no reason why religions can't grow, that's exactly what the new Testament is about. hey look! I criticised religion without being an arsehole about it. And it was super easy. people are just lazy and would rather like and share something online without thinking about it, just because it resonates with their emotions instead of their critical thinking skills, no wonder manipulative bad actors have such an easy time playing people like a fiddle 🙄 people complain about a lack of common sense without realising what a hypocrite they're also being.
1.If JKR gets taken to court, transgender ideology will have to face unimaginable levels of legal/public (global?) scrutiny. 2. If JKR does NOT get taken to court, this new law will fall at the first hurdle.
Still amazed at the concept of "hate speech" becoming accepted. Remember when I first heard the word 10 years ago it sounded like an Orwell parody. A term like "doublethink" but too obvious and blatant so it got scrapped from the book. And now I'm supposed to think it's a real thing and it's written into law. Sad times.
@@jeongbun2386 "only I can understand what 1984 is REALLY about" Besides, I didn't say anything about the message of the book. Only that the term "hate speech" sounds like a parody of the newspeak words Orwell invented for that book, which were on purpose written to sound ridiculous.
The issue is the bill is far too vague and open to interpretation. This is by design of course, as the SNP are hoping left-wing judicial activists will interpret previously lawful thought and philosophy as 'hate'. Private conversations not being exempt also harks back to the good old days of Stalin's USSR where snitching on thy neighbour was encouraged.
No, the issue is that it's tyrannical and rights-violating. A "less vague" rights-violation doesn't become a good rights-violation (if ever there could be such a thing).
@@sherpafan033 Why do you assume it wouldn't have passed? The Scottish government is filled with authoritarian tyrant types who would leap at the chance to impose greater tyranny. Do not assume that these people are moral, just and rights-respecting but just led astray by legislative ambiguity.
@@npcknuckles5887 Because passing a clear law on 'hate crimes' wouldn't have been possible as it would conflict with freedom of speech human rights laws already put in place. A vague bill gets around this by not setting the definition of 'hate speech' so that it is up to already established left-wing judges to decide.
@@sherpafan033 The bill/act conflicts with the right to freedom of speech, regardless of whether it's vague or precise, it makes no difference either way. Its ambiguity simply allows the government to more effectively go after a wider range of potential targets. Yes, left wing judges appreciate the ambiguity, because it enables them greater justification for the sentences they will dole out. The bottom line is: It's a tyrannical and rights-violating piece of legislation, and its ambiguity just makes it even more evil than it already is.
so, we should punish murder and theft the same, cause they are both crimes? that is essentially what you are saying plus, hate crimes are often not persucated, thats WHY
@@otakuofmine no I haven't said that at all you've totally strawmanned my point. One of the reasons the first minister gave for introducing this legislation is that there are 18 hate crimes a day. But these 18 hate crimes are already crimes. That's not a reason to introduce more legislation. To use your analogy, it's like saying there are 18 thefts a day so I need to introduce more murder legislation. The sentence just doesn't make sense as a reason to introduce more legislation.
Free speech should be an absolute right just because an opinion or words offends someone doesn't make it an invalid opinion and therefore it shouldn't be restricted
At the same time they’re allowed to be offended, shocked and outraged and should be free to debate, negotiate and counter to protect freedom of expression. Expecting a stiff upper lip limits that, and can further push people out of conversations and social positions they should or would otherwise be able to access. Freedom of speech is an imperative in society, but limiting some speech or at least providing the opportunity to interrogate it, actually makes society more free
@@julianshepherd2038 The third-person effect hypothesis predicts that people tend to perceive that mass media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves, based on personal biases. The third-person effect manifests itself through an individual's overestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on the generalized other, or an underestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on themselves.
Destroying free speech doesn't create tolerance, it just stops people saying they don't like a group. If anything, it will reinforce there being a genuine reason to dislike a group.
@abody499 pmsl love how you mention reform yet they havnt passed an actual bill telling people what they can and can't say in their own homes 😂 people don't take people like you seriously anymore because we know who the actual black shirts are, it's the modern so called progressives
i mean good luck tryna reel in football fans. you’d lose an entire chunk of ur voter base and considering they’ve already been pushed and demonised, i think if they tried using this hate bill to crack down on words of religious hatred they would be seen as out of touch and authoritarian
And I'm told by foreigners and rightoids that Humza Yousaf is supposedly some sort of Islamist Sharia-extremist and not just a malicious anti-White liberal.
Religion is a choice, race or sexual orientation (including being straight) is not. What if my religion tells me black people aren’t human, should religious protections override protections on the basis of skin color? Of course not. Religion is a set of ideological beliefs, race or sex is an innate characteristic. For that reason, religious affiliation should not receive the same protection as things like race etc
So many problems.... 1) The SNP have absolutely no intention of bringing in this fictional misogyny bill, they've had 3 years since hate crime bill and no mention of it since... 2) Both everything and nothing is a hate crime now we live in an age where you will find a group to be offended by everything, the word "reasonable person" just means a person who the police officer at the time agrees with, that is potentially everyone. 3) In the dwelling is a stupid rule that is just going to cause strife, if you are in a house and someone says something you dont like, either make them leave or leave yourself 4) Reality can now be considered a hate crime, i.e. if a transwoman for example tries to enter a womans changing room and is told "no sorry your sex is male", that is potentially a hate crime. 5) It actually dilutes existing hate crime legislation by making a new over-riding bill which is unenforceable and no one understands I don't really understand the purpose of this bill, other then to make something someone else may find offensive a crime. The existing legislation was defined and fit for purpose and enforceable... if it aint broke, dont fix it
Hate isn't a crime it's a motivation, if someone is racist for example and murders someone of a different race it should still carry the same sentence as any other murder! Only authoritarians would try and make an opinion illegal and that certainly seems to be the case with the vague language which can be easily abused, especially when it comes to more divisive topics. You can Police people's behaviour but it's going too far trying to police their thoughts and that's all this law is doing.
Well by modern "logic", by saying that you have racist thoughts, you've making people of other races feel unwelcome and unsafe around you, so off to the gulag you go...
At a time when governments are seemingly ignoring their citizens' own concerns, having more restrictive laws is a recipe for disaster. You'll only diffuse tensions by allowing people to express those concerns. Supressing them can only end badly.
It’s completely hypocritical of the SNP who are so in favour of the European Convention of Human Rights but are effectively infringing on people’s right of Freedom on Speech
In other words, hurting someone's feelings is a crime. Hate speech must be narrowly and carefully defined, or else freedom of expression will be destroyed.
@4:40 If this SNP government is gonna shirk its responsibility so badly regarding this law’s interpretation, do not be surprised if the courts rule it “unenforceable” and throw the whole law back to the Scottish parliament to clarify.
So men are excluded from lawful protection against misandry? Women are excluded from lawful protection against misogyny? Do they not constitute hate crimes?
In that world, there would have to be no conflict or self-interest at all. Otherwise, people would legally use their free speech to threaten and and dox their opponents. In any realistic scenario, there would have to be some laws against threats and infringement of privacy.
Speech should not be a hate crime. Violence against someone because of any of those things can be considered a hate crime. Not speech. Simply being offended because someone said some bs about you should not be criminal.
@@afgor1088 Your dismissal of the well-being of the intolerant (which would include the waves of migrants who hate LGBT) seems like it can create the conditions for political purging. I think you should be charged with inciting violence under this new bill.
One thing the house of parlament has raised, is that all the extra time, effort and resources the scotish police are going to be forced to commit to investigating all these potential emotion crimes, is going to mean they have even less time and money to deal with ACTUAL crimes. (like theft, potential abductions, gbh and assault)
@@abody499 Trust me you couldn't pay me to go to Scotland and they can do what they want since it doesn't affect me. Just pointing out it's a joke to say you have free speech there when you clearly don't.
Fun fact for you. On the international freedom index Scotland places more than 20 places above the US. And for quality of life, it's nearly 30. You're free to your opinion but doesn't mean it's right. @@jvanek8512
The yookay and some other western but non-US countries guarantee a legal right to freedom of speech, but with the consensus that this means you're free to say anything the government allows you to say.
@@finnsimpson5253 Off the top of my head, Count Dankula was arrested and convicted of a hate crime for a stupid joke. In 2021 a UK police officer was arrested and charged for posting an “offensive” George Floyd meme. Two teens were arrested in 2020 for posting a mocking re-enactment of George Floyd to snapchat. 2022 UK man was arrested for posting a Meme that rearranged 4 trans flags to make a swastica (proving the meme right). Just google “UK Arrested Meme” and pick your favorite. UK has no free speech and will arrest you for “offensive” jokes or memes.
"Offense doesn't just need to be intended... a person commits an offence if a person behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive, or insulting..." What is the definition of a 'reasonable' person, and where's the line between being 'reasonably' offended by someone and 'unreasonably' offended by someone? How do you police people 'behaving in an insulting manner' in their own homes? This seems like something you might see in a poorly-written dystopian movie. Not only is it going to be a legal nightmare to enforce properly, it just doesn't make sense. Making it a criminal offence to be considered offensive by someone else is going to potentially see a lot of innocent people punished based on the whims of easily-offended people.
If you actually read the bill, you'd know that there's no talk about misandry OR misogyny. The bill defines sex as a protected characteristic - protections are equal.
@@daeyyron I think the person above is talking about the fact that the government only mentioned misogyny and not misandry as the thing being addressed in the future act. And as TLDR said, sex was specifically NOT included as a protected characteristic in this act.
My real question is, Why? Why is legislation meant to increase hate speech penalties being introduced now? Did something happen in Scotland recently that caused Parliament to consider this? Some huge hate crime or something? Seems a bit out of the blue.
The little that I know about Humza Yousef is that he has a problem with white people holding positions of power in Scotland, (which is 98% white) he doesn't seem very tolerant of the indigenous Scottish people and after a speech like that I'm starting to see why he wants to make laws to make Scotland more tolerant. His persuasive technique failed
Scotland’s politics will never even out until we are allowed to have another referendum. It won’t begin to look any better until we do get another say, even if we vote no again.
“Our training package has been developed in close consultation with diversity staff associations…” Police Scotland to Sky News So, there you have it. The law is so vague its enforcement is being defined by diversity staff associations; let that sink in.
Desperate to feel like victims as to justify their mediocrity? Because a lack of responsibility is always preferable to just shutting up and listening for once.
@@Orei13 Nowhere in polite society is it OK to tell someone to shut up on account of their race or gender, unless it's white men. Fine, then have your law, and see who gets the brunt of it.
Speaking of religion, I read an article about the recent report on the 2021 incident at Batley Grammar School in England regarding the Muhammad cartoon and what happened after.
@Americanbadashh Rubbish. What about sadness, anger, happiness? Let me guess, does happiness promote the patriarchy and class divide and therefore should be criminalised too?
No emotion should be a crime, nor should it be an aggravating factor. The rights-violation itself (i.e. actual physical violence) is what should be the crime. Incitement is just encouragement. Well, why should the one who encourages violence be treated as a criminal? It's the one who does the physical violence who is the criminal. The incitement is just an exercise of freedom of speech.
@@Americanbadashh Hate is an emotion. It doesn't incite crime. I hate Islam. Doesn't mean I'm going to incite violence against Islam. I also hate Nazism. Are you not allowed to hate Nazism?
I'd like to report Humza Yousaf for his speech where he said there are too many white people in Scotland, by this law he committed a hate crime in parliament.
I agree. He is racist and should be prosecuted under his own law.
he wont be arrested because he is the first minister unless prime minister orders it so effectivly he is above the law (for now)
Someone called him a racist for that speech, and was then arrested for it on the premise that they were being racist towards Humza.
@@npcknuckles5887 Really??? Surely not, although it wouldn't surprise me.
Imagine saying there's too much Asians in China.😂
If you can’t define it with a great deal of precision, how can you enforce it equally and rationally?
That's the point. You get to enforce it on a whim.
The whole point is to use it to target white people who are against their replacement.
They will target you if your are against genocide. Because it will be deemed anti semitic to be against genocide. Zios rule the UK parliament
That's the point, so you get to supress anything that opposes the narrative. This has been happening for a long time it's just that now people are starting to slowly wake up.
This isn't hard to police. What a reasonable person is a benchmark of criminal la
If the police don't understand the provisions of the Act, then what chance do the public have?
Thats the point, this isnt for limiting hate, its for limiting public opinion and outcry. Look at the immigration crisis.
The arbitrariness and capriciousness of the act is intentional, to give politicians, bureaucrats and activists infinite flexibility to crack down on anyone (particularly their political opponents).
@@npcknuckles5887 I think the best thing for the police is to investigate these complaints, gather any evidence and then put the matter before the courts. The police are not judge & jury and this will allow them to avoid being dragged into what is a political issue.
@@davidsmith8728 No, it shouldn't even be treated as a crime, nor should people be subjected to the court system to have to stand up for their own natural rights. The only thing that should happen is that this legislation be struck out completely.
They're not exactly the brightest folk. Look at the copious well-publicised incidents over the last year where police have arrested people who didn''t break the law.
breaking news Scotland arrests the entire UK government under new hate crime act
Scotland arrests the entire English population under new hate crime act
Humza Will firstly have to order his own arrest for discrimination against 96% of Scots due to the colour of their skin.
That is a good one :D
Further breaking news. Scottish government arrests itself for breaking hate crime law!
I as a reasonable person feel threatened by this legislation, the MPs that drafted it should be arrested
Private conversations are not exempt? What sort of fascism is this? I say things in private conversation with my friends (off-colour jokes etc) all the time that I would never say in public. Is the Scottish government asking citizens to report things said in private conversations? How else would they know what was said? This is garbage and needs to be challenged in the courts and done away with
It's the Stasi-fication of Scotland.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the fascism that exists in the West. Western governments violate our natural rights every single day in countless different ways.
I would love to have asked Humza Yousaf how many white Scots there were in the Pakistani government. That speech of his was one of the most overt racist rants I've ever heard. Including some the rhetoric in South Africa.
Teenagers reporting their parents
Try not being trash?
They're going to pick and choose when to enforce this law. It isn't about protecting people. It's about domination.
They'll use it to persecute group that aren't fashionable on the woke intersectionality hierarchy
Power hungry tyrants only pretend to care about protecting people. The actual goal is raw power; the ability to dominate one's fellow man.
Well their ideas are usually pretty stupid and dangerous... and the public rightfully push back on them. So rather than finding better ideas, it's much more expedient to try and shut the public up. Absolute cockroaches in positions of government and the public are rapidly finding nothing but contempt for _all_ of them. Regardless which party - because from where I'm standing they all look like the same party.
Correct aka Stasi, NKVD, Gestapo and Kampei Tai
Y’all have such a persecution complex it’s kinda crazy
Nothing at all can go wrong with the police being told to enforce a law they have no idea how to enforce.. Right?
The way it is written it appears that the "victim" decides if the law has been broken. They then tell the police.
Police didn't know how to enforce covid restrictions, but enforced them anyway, to the detriment of us all.
@@markhorton8578 And the police shrug and ignore it.
They’re not just gonna go around ignoring every other law in order to try and find hate speech, they’ll deal with reports of this crime and if any damages are found they’ll deal with it
@Trainrhys I was indifferent to him until his racist hate speech trying to shame the indigenous people of Scotland for being white and having jobs in the lands of their ancestors.
I'm English and it enraged me so much that having been given the honour of being elected he spoke to Scots in that way.
Much less than 3000 crimes in the area proposed. Women not included in it. It GETS priority.
60,000+ incidents of domestic abuse alone. Never mind other areas. Women obviously less important than a blasphemy law by the back door.
hmmm wonder what religion he is?
I now hate him, I don't think anyone has done more to increase hatred in Scotland than Humza.
Hate is an emotion... It's got no place in a law. Common law already covers threats and violent actions.
“I hate porridge!”
“You’ve offended the feelings of those that experience a spiritual journey in porridge.”
@@danporath536 careful Mr Kelloggs is getting rather upset
@@richard-gn3es
Nah, he’s just a flake!
@@danporath536 I hear he is.. Things get tough and he just says "cheerio"
@@danporath536 Porridge can be criticised. Just don't mention Coco Pops.
SNP currently doing the self-destruction speedrun any %
Not as much as the Tories, they hold the record without competition.
@@thatgreypain You are right, competition appears fierce in this race...
Good!
this is an absolutely brilliant opportunity for labour - it'll be good for their optics across the rest of the UK too
@@thatgreypainZERO SEATS! ZERO SEATS!
I hate it when a law references a "reasonable person". If there are such people, they must be very uncommon, since I have never met a reasonable person.
Also “reasonable” force - who is “reasonable” when their person, family or property are under threat?
The reasonable person standard is at the very heart of the justice system in England and Wales and Scotland too. It would be difficult to unpick the tradition as it touches such a wide range of legal principles
Being reasonable is a hate crime... please keep up.
Hamza, it seems to me that since 98% of Scotland is white, a representative parliament might display a similar demographic. And perhaps if we artificially pull our leaders from 2% of the population we are unlikely to get the best people for the job.
Hate crime... lock him up
It just means that the higher court can use their experience to judge if something is reasonable and the lower courts use these decisions as case law. It doesn't mean you have to find a person that is reasonable and ask them what they think
It's been around for so long though, and in so many laws. For example, if you are a juror in jury trial for a fraud case, you have to decide whether or not the person accused of the fraud was intending dishonesty, and that is based upon the whole 'reasonable person' thing.
Fraud is such a wide-ranging and complicated subject that there would be no way to accurately define whether something was intentional or not for every case. So they have to rely on the jury. That's logical.
5:39 Forcing tolerance on people with laws like this never works, it will just end up making people less tolerant as people will end up cementing their positions as a counter to what they see as the government telling them what to think.
Never a truer word spoken. If you deal with people in any capacity you understand that there are people who resist more based on how much pressure they perceive they are under. Ignoring this dynamic is deeply impractical and wholly ineffective.
Then be ready to pay a hefty fine 😁
It also works against integration, because certain populations who perceive themselves to be at risk of malicious prosecution using this law when interacting with certain other populations, will choose to protect themselves by simply not interacting. We're already seeing how making talking to women dangerous for men is destroying the dating scene: well watch what happens when we make talking to people of a different skin colour, or religion, or sexuality dangerous too.
Uk law has been like this for race since 1986.
It works fine.
in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. -Karl Popper
The problem with the hate crime act is because it’s so poorly defined it basically gives the police and Scottish government carte Blanche to decide if something counts as a hate crime regardless of the protections in the bill, and makes any prosecution or defence based on the bill a complete coin toss which is going to make enforcement nearly impossible.
The law does not remotely say that.
That would contravene UK and EU law.
@@julianshepherd2038 There was a woman in Liverpool who was arrested and found guilty of a hate crime for posting the lyrics to her recently-passed-away friend's favourite song because they happened to include a no-r version of the N-word. Do you think that constitutes intent to cause offense? As the original comment said by keeping these things vague they can be applied basically whenever there is any form of nuance which is very dangerous.
@@julianshepherd2038 EU law? WTF has the EU not to do with it?
if you're not racist you have nothing to fear!
@@YourAverageSheepthat case is irrelevant
What a mess of a law.
In their promotion video they say something along the line "you may commit a hate crime unintentionally"... that's beyond ridiculous.
Worth it just to piss off transphobes
Couldn't agree more, pure dystopian authoritarianism. Scottish MPs really need to read 1984. Freedom of speech doesn't exist in scotland.
@@Blondul11 that happens when you dont know better or are not aware. of course this happens. if you believe otherwise, you might need to work in yourself..
Defo agree, basically means that anyone promoting their religions is now spreading hate crime.
Will Humza then be held responsible due to his rant against Scots of the majority demographic holding top government jobs? Or is that acceptable?
ofc he won't as we all know the snats are above the law
depends on the self respect of the scots in these jobs. they might be brainwashed allies
No, you can be openly racist if you're not white, that's the clown country we have decided to turn into, the same country that's failing in most metrics compared to others.
Exactly! You could literally replace the word "white" with any other race in any of his sentences and it would be considered racism... Also 95.4% of Scotland's population report as white, so there would be inequality if around 95.4% of the top jobs weren't held by white people
Stating the fact that non-whites are underrepresented in positions of authority isn't anti-white
This is authoritarian in every way. Let’s be honest, society’s biggest problems right now is not hate, you’re never going to remove it. The laws already in place were sufficient. You still can’t go around making derogatory comments about any protected groups before this. All this does is regress free speech and that’s what’s intended. I live in Scotland and have not heard of anyone being in favour of this law which brings democracy as a whole into question. It’s just SNP and Humza that are, who treat the police as their own personal security.
The laws are purposely vague so that if you make criticism comments regarding Humza for example, he can complain and claim racism (something he’s already done several times). Is Humza’s famous “white” speech mean he’s at risk of arrest? There’s also the matter of the amount of stress this puts on the police as well.
When you have to clarify that actors and comedians should be safe, you know we’ve really regressed and our speech is at severe risk. It’s actually had a different effect introducing this law, it’s caused unhappiness, concern and increased criticism and hate.
Humza “white man” speech was intended to store racial division for his own political benefit… when I think about it, it should fall into one of categories of offence in the new law.
Humsa was not in power in 2021. Apart from that, this was passed by 4 political parties in Scotland, not just SNP. The new laws were proposed by Libdems.
@@gordonmackenzie4512 he is in power now. He was justice secretary and was instrumental in bringing the bill forward, he was under Nicola sturgeons iron rule of SNP. The bill was brought by SNP with the vast majority of them being in favour and Humza making many statements in favour it, even recently he backs it fully. Not sure what your point is, read up about it more yourself if you’re confused. The bill was brought to table and was passed with only 32 voting against it Labour endorsed it too, though some did vote against for various reasons however it was majority of conservatives and one reform MSP who voted against it.
There’s no information on the Lib Dems being the ones to bring forward the bill. And yes it was scrutinised by 5 parties with 4 of the 5 main political parties being in favour: Labour, Lib Dems, Greens & SNP
"People are allowed to express antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards religion, or religious beliefs" - yeah, we all know which religion that doesn't apply to.
I think it's "what's the only religion that *does* apply to?"
For real, it's like the craziest thing I saw about this bill.
JUICE
2:04
I dislike Islam. I think it's ridiculous, and people who believe in it are ridiculous. And Judaism. Utterly ridiculous, with hundreds of the silly rituals and nonsense rules.
It should be clear that this new act is deliberately made as vague as possible, so people will eventually start to self-censor or keep their mouths shut altogether out of fear for prosecution, especially if they're not even safe anymore in their own homes.
Add to that the indoctrination happening in schools. You end up being afraid that your children will report you.
Yes comrade, your children will turn you in.
Hate Thought is now a crime, yes.@@danporath536
Totally!
Vague laws are a recipe for tyranny.
And I thought Canada was bad with this, what a dreadful group of people in the Scottish parliament
It's bad for sure but at least they aren't considering "prescribing" maid for homeless people.
Scotland has the worst health, wealth and security in the UK and tops of the ranks for each in Europe, but the SNP see this as a priority to divide people. It would be cheaper to tell people to grow up and stop getting offended.
Cheaper, but not as useful in terms of asserting absolute power.
They spend more than their entire GDP and are allowed to enforce these draconian laws. They'll still cry about not being "free" tho
Turns out they tried that, people are still bigots that would like to see someone hurt though.
"Why is the SNP polling so poorly" it's a mystery, some unknown we can't comprehend
picking the "scotland is too scottish" islamist man as its leader might have something to do with it
I bet The Scots will vote them back into power again.
I've been a very staunch supporter of them. That's changed. It's amazing because at one point I literally said I don't care how bad they govern the country as long as they continue to support independence... I no longer want independence from England, I want independence from the SNP. We'll deal with national independence another decade... I just want my fucking freedom of expression back.
@@ass640seems to me like the SNP are getting high on their own supply and are using the cause of independence as a shield to pass laws that the majority of the population do not want. I think this will come back to bite them in the election and they could lose seats to Alba and Labour.
Because the average citizens are poorly educated when it comes to comprehending things you know easily manipulated emotional idiots 🤷🏻 see, it's not too hard to express yourself without inciting hatred whilst telling the truth
criticizing politicians is now a hate crime
So, is hate okay or not?
That's my genuine question of the day.
Some people seem to be using examples of this as a reason to an asshole.
@@JonoPS yes hate is OK. I hate stepping on Legos.. I hate the tory party.. I hate allot of things. Same as any human.
You cannot use intolerance towards speech to make society tolerant. Same as using violence to achieve peace never works..
@@richard-gn3es You didn't answer my question.
Is it okay to be racist? Is it okay to hate on others?
Of course it's not!
@@richard-gn3es If you need TH-cam to give you a guide on being a good human being, I honestly feel sorry for you.
@@JonoPS 52% of all violent crime in the us of a is committed by blacks
Free speech law is a very difficult subject who cannot be modified easily even with good intentions.
"Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.”
― T.S. Eliot
I don't believe they had good intentions writing this law.
@@kwiatw
Lots of employment for solicitors is the good intentions.
The only free speech is full freedom to voice opinion in a public space. Hateful or not. Anything else isn’t free speech.
@@squidsquad6286your right to freedom ends where anothers right to freedom begins, everyone should have the freedom to live free of hatred, discrimination and misinformation, these things are immoral and this is why these things must be illegal, now the issue is having a trustworthy authority who truly has good intentions to enact them
@@zeahhhh Thats not how it works. Being offended is a choice. My right to voice my opinion in public must be preserved no matter what it is. If someone is offended by that opinion then that is their choice to be offended and thus it’s their own problem. It’s an incredibly dangerous thought to ban speech that offends people. Who controls what is offensive? Where is the line drawn?
If you criticise mass immigration you get called racist which is illegal.
The thing is if you criticise Islam you usually get called islamophobic which is illegal.
I'm sure Hamza Yusuf a Muslim man will not use this to his benefit for jailing opposition.
That makes no sense.
Also, try spelling his name correctly before inserting it into a sentence.
Well if I call to abolish the monarchy I might end up in jail, so what's your point?
@@thatgreypain the ruling monarch is a white, christian, cis man so you can safely say whatever you want.
@@JonoPS I find that offensive because I'm dyslexic. So go to prison.
@@kwiatw I think 'safely' is quite naive to place here.. Recent data from the Home Office's hate crime report (2022-23 England and Wales) shows that those who are victims of hate crime and violence are not actually white Christians.
I know with the huge media hype about EDI people are thinking that being White Christian man makes one less protected, but numbers are numbers, and numbers show that this category is the most protected and least subject to violence.
If I criticise the monarch in a conservative club in the south east of England I would leave the place teethless if not worse :)
What the fuck is this law?
The Barrister Employment Act
Pretty much the same as the English version.
Its correctly titled "criminalizing criticism of Humza Yusef act 2021"
Tyranny.
@@danporath536 LMAO.
A Scottish church munister was recently accused of hate crime for simply telling his congregation what the bible says. Far from being mysoginist, it was the opposite, but someone present had the opposite view. If you think this is ok, think deeper and see how ominous it is.
Lucky for him he wasn't discussing the conversation that transpired with Pilate in Matthew chapter 27.
What did he say?
Accused 🤷🏻 it didn't go anywhere. because you know, common sense was used.
Scotland used to be a tough old place... where tough, stoic people were built.
Now it's a nanny state... run by a bunch of anxiety filled neurotics.
To be fair that was always true. The good thing about tough stoic people is that they tend not to give a fuck what the nanny state tells them to do
Still is, it's just also filled with manyn alcoholic drug addict. if governments had kept up with investments and better management, the problem might not be so bad now 🤷🏻
Private conversations not being protected is CRAZY
so you want to harass and insult people based on those characteristics in private? got ya
@@otakuofmine so you want to set a precedent for government to scrutinize your private conversations?
Got ya. Not dangerous at all
@@otakuofminethat's free speech. Crazy how you can't understand how wrong that is. Is insulting people wrong? Sure, but it doesn't warrant police raids and prison. I left out harassment because that's not protected under free speech even in the United States.
@@otakuofmineI’ve got a great book suggestion for you it’s called ‘1984’ by George Orwell
@@otakuofmine Found the tankie
The slippery slope is real. Anyone who takes issue with this should reflect on how they felt about previous legislation that limited freedom of speech.
It's already an arrestable offence to tell offensive jokes or sell stickers that may be seen as offensive. Criticising religion, criticising mass immigration, criticising political opinion, this is what this legislation now bans. The slippery slope is real but this feels more like free falling than being on an incline.
@@jackmarshall2496Didn't you watch the video? It specifically calls out that criticising these things is not banned.
hate speech =/= free speech
@@WoA596 speech laws are enforced without context. One person's criticism is another's hate. Religions being homophobic, someone unemployed being angry at mass immigration, anyone referencing the Rotherham scandal. Any one of these could be seen as hateful or threatening. There is president for this too, comedians being fined for making jokes, vicar's wives receiving a computer ban for tweeting (while referencing the bible) about trans people receiving computer bans. Do you really think this legislation won't be used to prosecute criticism if that criticism is deemed hateful? Only serious crimes have a jury in criminal court too, so it's literally just the judge that will decide if you're guilty or not.
@@WoA596if so, then why are police arrested and charge for these things?
Did anyone else catch that? There was a critique, that it does not include sex, the reaction was: a law against misogyny. That is just half the theoretical hate crimes regarding sex, what about the other half?
As far as i remember, feminist interest groups opposed the inclusion of sex as protected category and demanded a "one way" law.
@@richardkrauss80source
Yep. Heard that loud and clear.
😢
"the purpose of a system is what it does"
Oh hey!
More ambiguous and unnecessary laws that can be enforced however the person in power wants to interpret them!
Neat!
Unnecessary to you?
@@JonoPS Does he look like someone who would be in charge of selectively enforcing such laws to accidentally hit political opponents? If no, then they are unnecessary for him.
This is why the first amendment in the US constitution is such a blessing and a genius insertion.
Hate speech is a crime in America too
@@Americanbadashh no it's not, it's not even considered a thing, at max social media companies will ban you.
@@Americanbadashh my answer got deleted, I said no it's not, it's not even a thing, some social media companies will kick you for it tho, but that's it.
@@Americanbadashh It isn't.
@@Americanbadashh No it's not, genius. America is the only nation in the West to not conform to this tyrannical emplacement of dictatorial legislation. And we will fight with guns, bullets and hellfire to keep it that way while the rest of the western world falls under dictatorship.
Who decides what a reasonable person would consider offensive? Surely, a reasonable, fair, and sensible person understands that there are always idiots in the world who spout nonsense, and it's not worth getting upset about? This would put too much power in the hands of the state.
Ultimately, a jury decides what a reasonable person would think, and the police/prosecuting agency collectively decide if they think a jury might agree with them. By that time a jury hears it, at least one person's life is probably significantly impacted, not to mention the expenditure of public resources. If the intent is to prevent inciting violence against vulnerable people (which I have no problem with), I thought there were already laws to do that.
One kind of problem this phraseology and the laws that use it have is the following. What people consider reasonable and by extension, what consitutes a reasonable person, has always changed. Most reasonable people, from the 1400s up to 15 years ago would not have considered Humza yousaf to be a Scot, let alone Scottish enough to be admitted to our public councils. As of the 1st of April, it will be illegal for a Scotsman to express the beliefs that his father and his ancestors considered reasonable.
@@patriarch7237
Does Scotland even have a judicial system? I thought they were more civil law.
Even if a reasonable person would consider something offensive, the individual has a natural and unalienable right to be offensive (it's included in the right to free speech/expression).
@@lennydale92 I don't know if this is what you're asking but Scots Law has always been a distinct legal system from England & Wales, even in the years between the 1707 Union and Devolution.
What’s the definition of:
“A reasonable person”?
same thing it always means in laws
@@thewhitefalcon8539I still find that “a hypothetical person whose character and care conduct, under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy” leaves lots of wriggle room
this is a standard & common term in law.
it means a person of average caution, care and consideration.
Not the lawmakers who came up with this, that’s for certain
As I understand it: That's a primary purpose of juries. _"Reasonable"_ is whatever 12 random people agree is reasonable.
As a union rep I came across a great rule of thumb for considering new rules/processes etc., bad policy doesn't fix a bad situation. The same thinking can equally be applied to legislation. This feels like a classic example of design by committee that is so focused on being inclusive that every viewpoint has been taken into account, irrespective of merit, making the final result utterly confused, vague and unworkable. Heaven help the police and law courts.
It might end up being unenforceable because no two people can decide on what the standard actually means.
I'm sorry are we using Russia as an example of reasonable limits on free speech?
Well, this legislation looks Russian style, so they seem as the right example on analyzing it...
Yes... what you thought our Post-Modern state leadership hated Russia for being authoritarian? No they hate them for being a different brand of Post-Modernism.
I’m a big fan of devolution.
But the SNP do an excellent job at making me reconsider.
Exactly. To have different definitions of what is and isn’t ok is just going to be a constant issue for the courts.
Scottish law will say one thing, they’ll appeal citing U.K. law and then they’ll it cause a rift between Scotland and the rest of the U.K.
@@gameofender4463 frankly I think most of Scotland would be happy with the system simply because they fail on wacky bullsh*t like this.
@@purpledevilr7463 Possibly. As they’d claim it’s unfair watching the Supreme Court overrule their laws.
Devolution was Blair's idea to help the EU break the UK up into regions. Total waste of money. They should all be abolished.
Because Westminster is such a shining example of how to do things better?
This is the problem with hate speech laws. The definitions are arbitrary and capricious. It does far more harm to the cohesion of society to police thought and speech than it does to simply tell the people to deal with it on a societal level (leaving the government out of the issue). Hate speech laws are a violation of human rights.
Seems like that's the plan though doesn't it?
Yes, it's tyranny. Well done on recognising this basic and obvious fact.
It's comical how someone could go to jail for saying "Every man over 80 is stupid and senile" in Scotland now. Would they get a harsher sentence for mentioning both sex and age? God forbid they add religion or sexual identity.
Even you know that isn't what this is. This is about screaming the N-word at people in the street, which white nationalists regularly do.
That isn’t true.
@@MsJayteeListensif someone felt threatened by it then yes it is true. They may not be prosecuted because old people aren't important enough to the Scottish government but because of the vague wording of the legislation, if this was stated, even in a private conversation this statement would be in breach. It also prevents several political ideologies, such as the pro choice argument, and infringes on religious beliefs such as jedeo-christian beliefs that being gay is a sin. This legislation can be used to prosecute anyone that has made a statement that is hateful even if its not hateful towards the person its being discussed with. That's why so many people are against it. Considering they had to add a clause into the legislation to protect comedians, its clearly over reaching and unbelievably authoritarian
@@MsJayteeListens"This isn't true, but even if it was, it's actually a _good_ thing".
@@jackmarshall2496 if an 80-year-old is threatened by it, and can prove it is true. Why shouldn't that person be protected? It would certainly make people mindful of not treating our elderly with the casual disregard that is proven timing again in care homes around the UK.
My understanding is that if someone reports you to the police for a word they don't like then there is nothing you can say against it, you're stuck with the crime whether you agree with it or not.
What the hell kind of law is that if you cannot defend yourself?
Unbelievable, absolutely shocking stuff. I’m speechless. As a former international student in and with a lot of fondness for Scotland, this makes it impossible for me to visit again. Wild to believe this place used to be one of the cradles of the enlightenment 300 years ago, what an insane retrogression. This makes me very sad, even if the law would most likely never be a threat to me or any of my Scottish friends, but with this kind of vagueness it throws judicial safety out the window
Guy claims to be "speechless"
Goes on to make an 80+ word hyperbolic whine about something "most likely" not to affect him
@abody499 that's politics mate. Were all entitled to our "whines" about policies that don't personally affect us. I don't live in North korea but you can be sure I take a view on their domestic policies
@lewis123417 the problem with opinions is the experience knowledge and understanding that goes into forming them. there's a reason why no one is taught anything more than a surface level biased account of the subject.
@@abody499 lol of course, us philistine unenlightened plebs could never understand these complex issues - my apologies for the brazen ignorance and will leave these matters to the smart people like yourself. my head already hurts from all the thinking, I think 80 words might have overcooked my frontal lobe. goodnight
See that reply is evidence to support my point. *I didn't at all say* that people "could never understand these complex issues" or that it's only "smart people" who can. I said people aren't taught anything more than a surface level account for a reason. To go beyond, further education level is required, at least bachelor's level.
But to elaborate further, everyone is capable. Everyone has the capacity to learn. The problem is what and how they are taught.
So, they'll deal with misogyny, but not misandry?
Exactly the laws only cut one way.
Do you think this will be used to protect, white, male, straight, Christian or any combination of above you're just deluding yourself.
I read the bill a while back, it does deal with misandry and covers whites, heterosexuals and Christians as well. As far as I'm aware it's just the same as the old bill but has a few added bits to cover more people.
@@UdumbaraMusicWhen was the last time someone was charged for racial hate crime against white men under those laws?
@@UdumbaraMusic that maybe true when it comes to wording but not in practice for enforcement.
We have had hate crime laws for a while now yet existing case law is entirely used against white people accused by bame people.
I challenge you to find an example of a bame person because charged with a hate crime enhancement from a white victim?
It's still news when a court sides with a white person for racial discrimination for employment.
@@Bacon56ful Around 34% of all hate crime cases, interestingly. I know a girl who got arrested for it.
"Concerns about free speech in Scotland" I think that ship has long sailed, there just isn't freedom of speech anymore.
Really I wrote a newspaper column criticising the Scottish government last week
@@MsJayteeListens write one criticizing that speech your first minister made a while ago.
There is always freedom of speech (it's part of our nature). It's just that there are tyrannical and rights-violating governments that will arrest you for it.
@@MsJayteeListens Really? I'm offended by it. It incites hatred. What's your name?
Manual for enforcing police state, Chapter 1, Sentence 1: Restrict freedom of expression.
you realise that coppers literally spoke against it in the video...?
@@otakuofmine Come back to me when 'coppers' can legislate... 👍
Ministry of Truth, Pre-Crime Division.
Guess what religion you won't he able to criticise. 🤔
The church of American style left-liberalism.
The moon people
@@tomatomi8041😂😂😂
Is that the god that makes 14 year old girls pregnant without their consent?
If you can't criticise something without inciting hatred, you are not making a good argument against it, you are just shitting on it you know, religious discrimination. I fucking hate religion, it uses manipulative and underhanded tactics to indoctrinate people into it. I get that it gives people a reason to not just be hopeless, or tries to control and censure peoples actions towards others (sound familiar?) but when it actively started to medal in peoples lives negatively, it deviated way out of its lane and just became a problem. The one sentiment I agree with Trump about despite his reason probably being pathetic and not actually knowing any quotes, is that religion should be a personal thing, and recruitment into it should be at an age where people can make an informed choice about which one they want, not indoctrinated as a child that has no say. even if you're an atheist, if you were baptised you are claimed by the Christian church, did you know that? of course each God says it is the only one, that's just good business sense, but what if they're all real? You'll be going to hell because you were marked as a baby against your Will 🧐. don't hate or attack religions, but just think twice about who you want to bring into its fold, and if you're against it, petition for policies that protect with arguments like I am instead, there's no reason why religions can't grow, that's exactly what the new Testament is about. hey look! I criticised religion without being an arsehole about it. And it was super easy. people are just lazy and would rather like and share something online without thinking about it, just because it resonates with their emotions instead of their critical thinking skills, no wonder manipulative bad actors have such an easy time playing people like a fiddle 🙄 people complain about a lack of common sense without realising what a hypocrite they're also being.
1.If JKR gets taken to court, transgender ideology will have to face unimaginable levels of legal/public (global?) scrutiny.
2. If JKR does NOT get taken to court, this new law will fall at the first hurdle.
Still amazed at the concept of "hate speech" becoming accepted. Remember when I first heard the word 10 years ago it sounded like an Orwell parody. A term like "doublethink" but too obvious and blatant so it got scrapped from the book. And now I'm supposed to think it's a real thing and it's written into law. Sad times.
Me when I don’t under 1984
And there's a ton of useful idiots in the comments defending it.
@@jeongbun2386 "only I can understand what 1984 is REALLY about"
Besides, I didn't say anything about the message of the book. Only that the term "hate speech" sounds like a parody of the newspeak words Orwell invented for that book, which were on purpose written to sound ridiculous.
@@jeongbun2386
@@jeongbun2386Imagine unironically listening to K-Pop.
The issue is the bill is far too vague and open to interpretation. This is by design of course, as the SNP are hoping left-wing judicial activists will interpret previously lawful thought and philosophy as 'hate'. Private conversations not being exempt also harks back to the good old days of Stalin's USSR where snitching on thy neighbour was encouraged.
No, the issue is that it's tyrannical and rights-violating. A "less vague" rights-violation doesn't become a good rights-violation (if ever there could be such a thing).
@@npcknuckles5887 A less vague bill would never have passed. That's why it is 'vague'
@@sherpafan033 Why do you assume it wouldn't have passed? The Scottish government is filled with authoritarian tyrant types who would leap at the chance to impose greater tyranny. Do not assume that these people are moral, just and rights-respecting but just led astray by legislative ambiguity.
@@npcknuckles5887 Because passing a clear law on 'hate crimes' wouldn't have been possible as it would conflict with freedom of speech human rights laws already put in place.
A vague bill gets around this by not setting the definition of 'hate speech' so that it is up to already established left-wing judges to decide.
@@sherpafan033 The bill/act conflicts with the right to freedom of speech, regardless of whether it's vague or precise, it makes no difference either way. Its ambiguity simply allows the government to more effectively go after a wider range of potential targets. Yes, left wing judges appreciate the ambiguity, because it enables them greater justification for the sentences they will dole out.
The bottom line is: It's a tyrannical and rights-violating piece of legislation, and its ambiguity just makes it even more evil than it already is.
I would love to see TLDR UK have more Scottish, Welsh and North Irish news!
And not English news? ha another moron who thinks uk government = english government.
If 18 incidents called 'hate crimes' are performed every day, the word 'crime' suggests there is already a law to deal with these incidents.
Also, it doesn't feel like that's a super high amount. In England it's probably 200 a day
@@aceman0000099 Scotland only has a population of 5.5 million. London alone has a population of 10 million. So it seems proportionate.
@@corpclarke consider that 5 of those 18 hate crimes take place in my own household
so, we should punish murder and theft the same, cause they are both crimes? that is essentially what you are saying
plus, hate crimes are often not persucated, thats WHY
@@otakuofmine no I haven't said that at all you've totally strawmanned my point. One of the reasons the first minister gave for introducing this legislation is that there are 18 hate crimes a day. But these 18 hate crimes are already crimes. That's not a reason to introduce more legislation. To use your analogy, it's like saying there are 18 thefts a day so I need to introduce more murder legislation. The sentence just doesn't make sense as a reason to introduce more legislation.
Free speech should be an absolute right just because an opinion or words offends someone doesn't make it an invalid opinion and therefore it shouldn't be restricted
You don't have the right to stir up racial violence and hatred in the UK already.
We don't want a bloodbath like the US of A.
At the same time they’re allowed to be offended, shocked and outraged and should be free to debate, negotiate and counter to protect freedom of expression. Expecting a stiff upper lip limits that, and can further push people out of conversations and social positions they should or would otherwise be able to access. Freedom of speech is an imperative in society, but limiting some speech or at least providing the opportunity to interrogate it, actually makes society more free
@@julianshepherd2038
The third-person effect hypothesis predicts that people tend to perceive that mass media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves, based on personal biases. The third-person effect manifests itself through an individual's overestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on the generalized other, or an underestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on themselves.
@@julianshepherd2038 rivers of blood you might say...
@@julianshepherd2038Only racial hatred??So naive and ignorant
Destroying free speech doesn't create tolerance, it just stops people saying they don't like a group. If anything, it will reinforce there being a genuine reason to dislike a group.
fish by name, fish by brain
This law effectively turns the Scottish police force into the SNP brownshirts.
I suppose there needs to be some kind of defence against all the tory labour and reform blackshirts
@abody499 pmsl love how you mention reform yet they havnt passed an actual bill telling people what they can and can't say in their own homes 😂 people don't take people like you seriously anymore because we know who the actual black shirts are, it's the modern so called progressives
The brownshirts ended that Weimar nightmare, call them something else, like the Stasi.
It's clearly intended to prevent a brownshirt (tartanshirt?) uprising against these (neo)liberals.
@@dombam8490 the SS?
Haven’t even read the details but I already smell bullshit. The one thing I envy Americans for is their free speech laws.
Half of this identity politics crap came from America in the first place.
saying hateful things is essential in a free society......I hate the Scotts leaders
Maybe a free one but certainly not a civil society
So the act explicitly says you can express antipathy towards religion, but you cannot towards homosexuality or transgenderism?
i mean good luck tryna reel in football fans. you’d lose an entire chunk of ur voter base and considering they’ve already been pushed and demonised, i think if they tried using this hate bill to crack down on words of religious hatred they would be seen as out of touch and authoritarian
Religion is the biggest scam ever created! Lgtbq are people! Human beings!!
I'm gay and even I agree this is a dangerous bill
And I'm told by foreigners and rightoids that Humza Yousaf is supposedly some sort of Islamist Sharia-extremist and not just a malicious anti-White liberal.
Religion is a choice, race or sexual orientation (including being straight) is not. What if my religion tells me
black people aren’t human, should religious protections override protections on the basis of skin color? Of course not. Religion is a set of ideological beliefs, race or sex is an innate characteristic. For that reason, religious affiliation should not receive the same protection as things like race etc
So many problems....
1) The SNP have absolutely no intention of bringing in this fictional misogyny bill, they've had 3 years since hate crime bill and no mention of it since...
2) Both everything and nothing is a hate crime now we live in an age where you will find a group to be offended by everything, the word "reasonable person" just means a person who the police officer at the time agrees with, that is potentially everyone.
3) In the dwelling is a stupid rule that is just going to cause strife, if you are in a house and someone says something you dont like, either make them leave or leave yourself
4) Reality can now be considered a hate crime, i.e. if a transwoman for example tries to enter a womans changing room and is told "no sorry your sex is male", that is potentially a hate crime.
5) It actually dilutes existing hate crime legislation by making a new over-riding bill which is unenforceable and no one understands
I don't really understand the purpose of this bill, other then to make something someone else may find offensive a crime. The existing legislation was defined and fit for purpose and enforceable... if it aint broke, dont fix it
Moral of the story: There no definitive way to define hate speech
Hate isn't a crime it's a motivation, if someone is racist for example and murders someone of a different race it should still carry the same sentence as any other murder!
Only authoritarians would try and make an opinion illegal and that certainly seems to be the case with the vague language which can be easily abused, especially when it comes to more divisive topics.
You can Police people's behaviour but it's going too far trying to police their thoughts and that's all this law is doing.
I just had a racist thought😮
Oh well to the jail I go 😔
🤣
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Thoughts are not actions.
Well by modern "logic", by saying that you have racist thoughts, you've making people of other races feel unwelcome and unsafe around you, so off to the gulag you go...
Ffs do a little research.
The law does not remotely say that.
That would contravene UK and EU law.
At a time when governments are seemingly ignoring their citizens' own concerns, having more restrictive laws is a recipe for disaster. You'll only diffuse tensions by allowing people to express those concerns. Supressing them can only end badly.
It’s completely hypocritical of the SNP who are so in favour of the European Convention of Human Rights but are effectively infringing on people’s right of Freedom on Speech
how is this not considered fascism?? since when did police scotland turn into the gestapo
What a waste of police time
In other words, hurting someone's feelings is a crime. Hate speech must be narrowly and carefully defined, or else freedom of expression will be destroyed.
Disaster. Get him out
@4:40 If this SNP government is gonna shirk its responsibility so badly regarding this law’s interpretation, do not be surprised if the courts rule it “unenforceable” and throw the whole law back to the Scottish parliament to clarify.
April 1? This isn't a joke, right?
Maybe that's why they did it on this date?
Oh my god, the government is just joking around! They have become cool and relatable
So if someone chants that awful saying ' from the river etc whilst protesting , will they be arrested ? Watch this space
Also known as The Karen Bill.
??
Usually Karens are the ones who perpetuate hate speech.
"Can I talk to your manager"
Give it up, fool.
So men are excluded from lawful protection against misandry? Women are excluded from lawful protection against misogyny? Do they not constitute hate crimes?
Like the laws against controlling behaviour: 100% back door state over-reach, 0% protection of the vulnerable.
In an ideal world, free speech should be an absolute right. No law should limit or encroach upon it.
But we are not ideal beings, therefore we cannot have ideal, absolute rights. We're very selfish and self-oriented beings
In an ideal world hate speech wouldn't be a thing either, so hey...
fascists and other extremist populist groups should not be given a platform
@@xeanderman6688especially when you read these comments calling him a p@ki etc shockin!! Scottish people obviously much more racist than I thought
In that world, there would have to be no conflict or self-interest at all. Otherwise, people would legally use their free speech to threaten and and dox their opponents. In any realistic scenario, there would have to be some laws against threats and infringement of privacy.
Full blown dystopia.
Nope,as a Scottish person I still don't understand it.then I could argue the government offended me.
but if those daily 18 hate crimes aren't covered by current legislation... they aren't hate crimes, are they?
right; that's the point of this law, to my understanding
@@cl8804 I'd say that's the point about the *debate* about this law
You may be able to stop people speaking, but you can't stop them thinking. (yet!) The word 'Freedom' is also the most abused term by politicians ever!
People can be easily manipulated and coerced to change their thinking.
Learn what a "chilling effect" is.
Speech should not be a hate crime. Violence against someone because of any of those things can be considered a hate crime. Not speech. Simply being offended because someone said some bs about you should not be criminal.
why not? speech can create the conditions that allow violence to occur.
i have no interest in the free speech of those who'd destroy our society.
@@afgor1088 That comment sounded pretty violent to me. Very offensive. Off to jail you go.
Emotions should be utterly irrelevant to crime, since nobody is a telepath or empath that can sense emotions.
@@afgor1088 Your dismissal of the well-being of the intolerant (which would include the waves of migrants who hate LGBT) seems like it can create the conditions for political purging. I think you should be charged with inciting violence under this new bill.
@@obligatoryusername7239 don't care what you think, it's not relevant neither are you.
I Hate that Law !
One thing the house of parlament has raised, is that all the extra time, effort and resources the scotish police are going to be forced to commit to investigating all these potential emotion crimes, is going to mean they have even less time and money to deal with ACTUAL crimes. (like theft, potential abductions, gbh and assault)
As an American this Scotland law looks like a joke. In the US you're allowed to say hateful things without government punishment.
well stay there and stay out of other folk's affairs
@@abody499 This video popped up in my recommendations and I watched it and left an opinion. You don't like it that's your problem not mine.
@@abody499 Trust me you couldn't pay me to go to Scotland and they can do what they want since it doesn't affect me. Just pointing out it's a joke to say you have free speech there when you clearly don't.
Fun fact for you. On the international freedom index Scotland places more than 20 places above the US. And for quality of life, it's nearly 30. You're free to your opinion but doesn't mean it's right. @@jvanek8512
The yookay and some other western but non-US countries guarantee a legal right to freedom of speech, but with the consensus that this means you're free to say anything the government allows you to say.
Scotland: we want a more tolerant society, and if you disagree we will throw you in jail.
Yea… “tolerant”
That’s not at all what the bill is like, stop exaggerating and making up scenarios to scare yourself
@@finnsimpson5253 except that it is? UK has already threw people in jail for jokes.
@@tkdmike9345 please list me some examples then
@@finnsimpson5253 Off the top of my head, Count Dankula was arrested and convicted of a hate crime for a stupid joke.
In 2021 a UK police officer was arrested and charged for posting an “offensive” George Floyd meme. Two teens were arrested in 2020 for posting a mocking re-enactment of George Floyd to snapchat.
2022 UK man was arrested for posting a Meme that rearranged 4 trans flags to make a swastica (proving the meme right).
Just google “UK Arrested Meme” and pick your favorite.
UK has no free speech and will arrest you for “offensive” jokes or memes.
"Offense doesn't just need to be intended... a person commits an offence if a person behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive, or insulting..."
What is the definition of a 'reasonable' person, and where's the line between being 'reasonably' offended by someone and 'unreasonably' offended by someone? How do you police people 'behaving in an insulting manner' in their own homes?
This seems like something you might see in a poorly-written dystopian movie. Not only is it going to be a legal nightmare to enforce properly, it just doesn't make sense. Making it a criminal offence to be considered offensive by someone else is going to potentially see a lot of innocent people punished based on the whims of easily-offended people.
5:05 Someone said Hamas is a terrorist group and got arrested. So, It was in London...but, it's the same logic
no talk about misandry just misogony.
Separate act coming.
If you actually read the bill, you'd know that there's no talk about misandry OR misogyny. The bill defines sex as a protected characteristic - protections are equal.
@@daeyyronshhh don’t tell them anything about the bill. Just make them read a fearmongering headline so they can say 1984 and move on
@@daeyyron in theory...
@@daeyyron I think the person above is talking about the fact that the government only mentioned misogyny and not misandry as the thing being addressed in the future act. And as TLDR said, sex was specifically NOT included as a protected characteristic in this act.
So domestic violence isn’t a hate crime but expressing your opinion is ?!
Nice I love the governments way of saying: it’s now illegal to insult lgbtq+, but Religion? Fine we didn’t like those anyways, do your worst.
Yousaf being his usual fascist self.... i hate Sunak but if he blocks this then fair play to him
My real question is, Why? Why is legislation meant to increase hate speech penalties being introduced now? Did something happen in Scotland recently that caused Parliament to consider this? Some huge hate crime or something? Seems a bit out of the blue.
The war in the Middle East. Lots of hate coming from both sides & certain people act on it.
0:27 It's been planned to come into effect now since the act was passed
Yes there was a huge hate crime in parliament about a year ago where some guy got up and went on and on about the colour of peoples skin...
@@monkeynews8311 Lol who was that?
@@soccerguy325Humza Yousef saying there are too many white politicians in Scotland.
Terrible authoritarian law
The little that I know about Humza Yousef is that he has a problem with white people holding positions of power in Scotland, (which is 98% white) he doesn't seem very tolerant of the indigenous Scottish people and after a speech like that I'm starting to see why he wants to make laws to make Scotland more tolerant. His persuasive technique failed
This seems like a big mistake, but I've yet to hear about something that the SNP has done well.
All parties are a dog show rn.
Things the SNP has done well:
* Stealing from tax payers.
* Buying campervans.
Baby Boxes are pretty good tbh
im literally benefitting from free uni and free bus travel, pipe down
Scotland’s politics will never even out until we are allowed to have another referendum. It won’t begin to look any better until we do get another say, even if we vote no again.
“Our training package has been developed in close consultation with diversity staff associations…” Police Scotland to Sky News
So, there you have it. The law is so vague its enforcement is being defined by diversity staff associations; let that sink in.
I hope the law is turned against people who criticize "straight white men" as quickly as possible. That will guarantee a repeal.
Desperate to feel like victims as to justify their mediocrity? Because a lack of responsibility is always preferable to just shutting up and listening for once.
@@Orei13nah, it's kinda the opposite. we are the only group whose elites don't tell us we are v1ktms to justify mediocrity.
@@Orei13 Nowhere in polite society is it OK to tell someone to shut up on account of their race or gender, unless it's white men. Fine, then have your law, and see who gets the brunt of it.
Speaking of religion, I read an article about the recent report on the 2021 incident at Batley Grammar School in England regarding the Muhammad cartoon and what happened after.
18 a day huh? Is that convicted hate crimes or just reported, regardless of merit?
Hate is NOT a crime unless it incites violence, end of.
Hate is dehumanization which incites crime!
@Americanbadashh Rubbish. What about sadness, anger, happiness? Let me guess, does happiness promote the patriarchy and class divide and therefore should be criminalised too?
Stop the boats.
No emotion should be a crime, nor should it be an aggravating factor. The rights-violation itself (i.e. actual physical violence) is what should be the crime. Incitement is just encouragement. Well, why should the one who encourages violence be treated as a criminal? It's the one who does the physical violence who is the criminal. The incitement is just an exercise of freedom of speech.
@@Americanbadashh
Hate is an emotion. It doesn't incite crime.
I hate Islam. Doesn't mean I'm going to incite violence against Islam.
I also hate Nazism.
Are you not allowed to hate Nazism?
War on women
Shameful
Are the Scots going to enforce this law inside of Muslim mosques?
That is an inequality act; some personal opinions are more important than others.