Scotland's Hate Speech laws

Im not sure if anyone follows this guy on youtube called Count Dankula
well he got into a bit of bother for a joke where he pretended he had trained his dog to give the nazi salute and mimic saying
gas the jews.
The guy is a bit of a joker so he does use comedy as a vehicle to prove a point, the point being that the left / social media world would eat him alive for making such a joke.

He has now been charged with hate crime
the crown wish to prosecute him for inciting hate.

Now currently Scotlands hate speech laws do not define exactly what hate speech is , so its extremely vague and open ended.

here is how the Scottish government explain it

What do we mean by hate speech

Scottish criminal law currently includes statutory aggravations based on: race: section 96 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 religion: section 74 Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 disability: section 1 Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 sexual orientation and transgender identity: section 2 Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009

paying special attention to this section

offences under sections 18, 19 and 23 Public Order Act 1986 which prohibit the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words, behaviour or written material which will stir up racial hatred. For example, there have been successful prosecutions under these provisions in relation to the publication of material relating to Holocaust denial

At present the law itself states that it is based on the perception of the offended victim who then raises charges against the offending person or entity.
So anyone can say they are offended by "hate speech" and raise charges

here are some police stats on hate crime from 16/17
showing charges raised on various different forms of hate speech or prejudice

hate crimes scotland 2016/17


Now my point in all of this and the hate speech legislation , is that it is based on a logical fallacy , that if a person or entity says A,b,or c then another person or entity can become offended and also that this offensive speech can lead others to do x,y or z !

the slippery slope has been used to create an open ended vague piece of legislation which allows anyone taking offense to claim it as hate speech and press charges. Not only is this legislation absolute trash based on logical fallacy but its could potentially cause many problems for the UK justice system and also put a great deal of pressure on police and the cost of courts would sky rocket.

This legislation is contradictory to our freedom of expression.

Now we live in a world where words can get you imprisoned based on the victims perception of the offending words!

your thoughts ?

Also Lord Barcadale has been asked to weigh in on the Hate speech laws

there is a PDF of the review I will post once I find it again

here is the review of hate speech by Lord Barcadale
Independen t review of hate speech laws in scotland

here is Count Dankula's response to the governments response on freedom of expression

All the bag-pipes and men in skirts is bound to make some people crack.

a reply to: skunkape23

heheheh !

gid yin !

The reason im bringing this up is because we all know how much governments love to restrict or impede our rights or straight up remove them over time.
What is to stop government from branding political discourse as hate speech , or criticism of the government as hate speech.

We only have history to back us up here , and we have seen how oppressive governments have done this before all over earth

a reply to: sapien82

Keep the heid!
Whit’s fur ye’ll no go by ye!

a reply to: sapien82

You need a wealthy person to bring charges on any politician saying something they dont like.

Id be offended at lies and raising taxes

If anyone won a lawsuit against me for hate speech id sue the judge for offending me with his hateful spech during the verdict

Yeah they can be a bit messy.

I think it’s good that we have these kind of laws but at the same time they do go a bit too far at times.

In my experience they are used sensibly for the most part but stuff like this is a bit extreme.

I still feel like I can say whatever I want, I think a lot of the time it depends though on how it’s being said and what platform is being used.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yeh mate you are free to say whatever you like , until someone else is offended and reports you to the police at which point then if the government dont like you arent free to say whatever you like!

a reply to: sapien82

I see where you are going, and it is quite logical reasoning there.

Though.... as a child of generations involved in some form or another with sectarian issues....

When hate speech leads to the willful assault and murder...

I cant really see this going well for the comedians , or battle rap culture in the UK
as I have lost count of the number of times ive heard nazi/ jew , holocaust reference in battle rap , how many times ive heard offensive jokes I cant keep count .

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yeh mate you are free to say whatever you like , until someone else is offended and reports you to the police at which point then if the government dont like you arent free to say whatever you like!

I have got into many heated debates about issues and caused offence and never had the coppers at my door.

I think it’s like most things you hear about it in strange cases like this.

When I was at uni I caused offence by declaring I was against gay marriage and adoption, some would fine that offensive yet I was not sitting in a cell.

Look at all these groups like the SDL, national front and so on, most of there members are very offensive yet very few of them face any kind of action and can demonstrate all tehy like despite offending entire communities.

Like I say I think it’s a issue that is exaggerated

I feel like I have as much free speech as anyone else in the world

a reply to: auroraaus

I understand this , however it has to be directly linked to the hate crime and that the person committing a criminal act would need to be directly influenced by that person. However it is a logical fallacy
and also the law itself requires "the act" and injury loss or harm to the person, entity , properties or their rights .

I still think that for one person to have freedom to express themselves and their opinions , should be free to do so in public and regardless if another person acts on their words should be free from the consequences of the other persons actions.
as they did not directly commit a crime.
Someone reacted to those words and then chose to act on those words , it is their responsibility and they suffer the consequences not the person who was free to speak their mind.

There is a difference between," I hate fascists they should all die "
and " I hate fascists they should all die , can someone please go around randomly killing right wing people for me that would really make my day?"

In any case , this law is based on logical fallacy and shouldnt have ever been enacted and should be repealed until a better legal framework has been presented and one which does not rely on logical fallacy and "peoples perceptions of reality" compared to objective facts !

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

if that is the case , why is this guy in court for his dog giving a nazi salute and jokingly getting his dog to say "gas the jews"

and somehow this is him spreading palatable nazi propaganda through his dog !

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

if that is the case , why is this guy in court for his dog giving a nazi salute and jokingly getting his dog to say "gas the jews"

and somehow this is him spreading palatable nazi propaganda through his dog !

That’s what I am saying on the whole they work well enough but the press are always going to publish the stories like this.

You might also find that there could be more to it than meets the eye.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Yeah they can be a bit messy.

I think it’s good that we have these kind of laws but at the same time they do go a bit too far at times.

In my experience they are used sensibly for the most part but stuff like this is a bit extreme.

I still feel like I can say whatever I want, I think a lot of the time it depends though on how it’s being said and what platform is being used.

Man...thats hard to get my head around.

Next thing you know theyll make it illegal for birds to chirp.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

yeh , i understand there are arseholes out there that do want to spread hate , but this guy is a joker , he doesnt take himself seriously and oftens takes the piss out of himself anyway so I think he is a comedian or likes to make jokes which do provoke responses from the social media left.

as for more than meets the eye ! I mean I do believe that his dog is a nazi and has brain washed him into spreading nazi propaganda and he has simply taken the fall for him!

jokes aside, I think he is being hung out to dry as an example to freedom of speech advocates

a reply to: sapien82

For argument's sake - could offense be construed as "harm"? As in some sort of psychological injury?

For example if someone proclaimed death to all people from a certain country that has had people flee from serious persecution, and/or had in that country suffered torture or arbitrary killings or whatever, and a person from that country who had fled was nearby, and suffered from a flashback or something or rather after hearing it?

Maybe? Can you see what I am saying?

I am super sorry I am not much more succinct, been one of those weeks and one of those days.

a reply to: auroraaus

I understand exactly what you are saying and that is what this legislation is designed to prevent widespread hate and harm to the public

but its the way they have written the legislation and left it open ended.

One person should not be held to account for the actions of others, unless they directly had a hand in influencing them ,, and by influencing I mean specifically targeting them and grooming them etc, ala charles manson , hitler giving orders etc

that is just like me posting a video of a game I play "arma 3 , vietnam war mod , and some veteran sees me playing it on youtube and has a flashback and then shoots up his neighbours house.
One human should not be held accountable for the actions of others , unless it can be specifically linked as such.
In this case though it has been left open ended .

Ok so you were going to college and a guy you know hits on you and you dont like it , he does it often and you ignore his advances until one day you tweet " this guy wont leave me alone he is so annoying I wish he would just dissapear"

then unbeknownst to you a guy who really does like you but is too shy to speak to you but is passionate about you and in love with you then decides to kill the guy for you!

you could then be held responsible for his actions