Regular readers will be aware that I have been considering ways to expand my work on behalf of Scotland’s cause. Improvements to this site; experimenting with Substack, starting a podcast and other ideas were all either in hand, in preparation or under consideration. Having read Stu Campbell’s article on Wings Over Scotland, however, I am now having serious second thoughts. If he is even half right about the potential implications of the Scottish Government’s Hate Crimes Act, my online activities could turn out to be very costly indeed.
By no metric is this site comparable with Wings Over Scotland, of course. But that doesn’t make me immune to malicious complaints. And Stu’s account of “process as punishment” is chilling. Especially for someone who considers forthrightness an essential characteristic of their writing. Something Stu Campbell and I do have in common.
It is not merely the threat of arrest, detention and seizure of equipment that worries me. Of at least equal concern is the possibility that I might tend to self-censor. I need not necessarily be aware of ‘adjusting’ my writing style under a subconscious fear of the kind of harassment Stu describes. Which makes it all the more scary. Of all forms and manifestations of censorship, self-censorship is surely the most pernicious. Few things could be better designed to induce subconscious self-censorship than the possibility that even as a person who has committed no criminal offence, I could be obliged to endure punishment by process on a scale that might be considered Draconian had I been guilty.
There are those who would say this is an over-reaction. Andrew Tickell is someone whose opinion on legal matters we would do well to attend to, has written a number of articles attempting to allay what he seems to regard as over-hyped alarm. The titles of these pieces are a clue to the content and speak to Andrew Tickell’s no doubt sincerely held belief that there is nothing to fret about in the Hate Crimes Act.
Ignore the falsehoods, the Hate Crime Act has plenty safeguards
What’s actually in the Hate Crime Bill?
Many critics of the Hate Crime Bill are just chasing phantoms
Even taking due cognisance of Andrew Tickell’s expert opinion, however, I am little reassured. The principal effect – even if not the intended purpose – of the Hate Crimes Act is to create a climate of fear for all who presume to share their opinions and analyses. It may be argued that if fear is warranted at all, only a very mild form can be considered reasonable. Even if that is true – and Stu Campbell’s experience certainly indicates a considerable understatement – it is nonetheless a climate of fear. Even mild fear can be psychologically affecting if it is sustained. The threat posed by mild fear, in sense, worse that that posed by terror. Terror cannot be sustained. Either the victim succumbs, or the terror subsides.
Mild, niggling fear is corrosive. Never more so than when it is a product of state legislation and thus permeates society. Oppressive regimes throughout the ages have been aware of this. Reading Stu Campbell’s article, who amongst us with some sense of history was not put in mind of the Stasi in East Germany or its counterpart in Stalinist Russia or the USA in the time of McCarthyism… or now. Which is not to imply that Humza Yousaf is pursuing some totalitarian agenda. More believably, he is simply oblivious to potential unintended consequences. There’s a video clip circulating on social media at the moment. Have a listen and reflect on whether Yousaf comes across as someone wholly on top of his brief.
I am not at all sure that I want to operate in this climate of fear. Not because I’m afraid of what the authorities might do to me. Because I’m concerned about how it will affect my ability to write and speak in a way that is totally honest. It’s not crossing some arbitrary line and enduring the consequences that worries me. What worries me is the possibility that, subconsciously deterred by some low-level fear, I will shy away from that line.
Peter A Bell 
The hate crime bill is having the desired effect then? WOS maybe closing down, Indy car Gordon has given up, and now yourself expressing concerns. Sad times.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I’m not giving up. I don’t think I could. I’m just wondering about some of the plans I had.
LikeLiked by 5 people
The impact of the Hate Crime Act will be to repress and censor freedom to express thought and opinion for fear of offending the sensibilities of someone somewhere in Scotland.
It’s a Clype’s Charter with no comeback on any malicious reporter(s), vexatiously claiming that they have been insulted, offended or upset by comments and views published or verbally expressed.
Everyone is right to be extremely concerned about this.
LikeLiked by 7 people
The biggest spike in hatred currently available is being caused by this legislation and the dislike for it. This is another completely unnecessary foot shooting exercise by the SNP.
What has happened to them that they are so out of touch with the public?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah wid jalouse fear o’ the Scottish public backlash tae this imminent breach o’ oor richt tae haud an honest opeenion micht be whit is drivin’ the deils oan!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Whether for or against the Hate Crime Act, THIS is something everybody should support, even if it is Murdo Fraser, and perhaps even because it is:
“Tory MSP threatens legal action after police log ‘hate incident'”
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24207820.tory-msp-threatens-legal-action-police-log-hate-incident/
Supported by Joanna Cherry, but opposed if you like, by Adam Tomkins – again “of all people”.
Why should it be supported? Because either Police Scotland totally clarify their position or it ends up in court where it should be, effectively an early judicial review.
Hate Crime Act v Human Rights. That should be interesting.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And by the way, I seem to recall that Police Scotland don’t like the Act. At all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correct!
LikeLike
There is some rubbish about by the way, IMO, unfortunately it doesn’t help you. Clive Thomson may have tweeted in France, but lives in Fife which is in Scotland. He is therefore under Scots Law.
Rev Campbell lives in Bath which is NOT in Scotland, so he is subject to English law (or English and Welsh Law). However, the rest of the UK has its own Hate Act whatever it’s called, which didn’t and doesn’t apply to Scotland. The Scottish Hate Crime Act looks like it goes beyond the English one, but nevertheless, the English one still does exist. if appropriate he would therefore be prosecuted under English law, NOT Scots Law.
Craig Murray lives in Edinburgh which IS part of Scotland.
IANAL
LikeLike
My understanding – subject to confirmation – is that the Hate Crime Act relates to anything which can be accessed in Scotland. Which would be a huge amount of stuff.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s what I have read too. If it can be accessed in Scotland it will be considered to have been published in Scotland, no matter where the author lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, as confirmed by Roddy Dunlop KC:
“Craig is absolutely correct here. If it’s published online and read in Scotland then – in law – it is published in Scotland.”
But that’s not the same as saying it’s a crime, or that the Hate Crime Act relates to it. Or that the Hate Crime relates to the originator, or can pursue it in any way. It’s just a bald statement of fact..
LikeLike
A threat doesn’t have to be real. It need only be credible. If there is the vaguest potential for the Hate Crime Act to be a factor, the effect will be the same as if it definitely is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Think about it. A US citizen living and resident in the USA, tweets something allegedly hateful according to Scots Law, while in the USA, about another US citizen living and resident in the USA – and Police Scotland investigate and it comes before a Sheriff’s Court in, eh, Kilmarnock?
Nope. It’s a question of jurisdiction.
LikeLike
To prevent the courts getting bogged down with HC cases, and prevent the fear of bloggers, writers, artists etc having to self-censor, Our Leader Humza could model his Ministry of Culture on the East German version.
In East Germany before anything could be printed you had to present your work for an authorization from the Ministry; this was called a Druckgenehmigung, and the process was called a Druckgenehmigungsprozess. If you didn’t get that it wouldn’t be printed.
I had a serious wish and plan to return to Scotland next year from Germany, but that desire is fading fast. My late wife went to school in Nazi Germany and was told daily by her parents not to mention anything that had been said in the family home. I have friends who lived in East Germany who are shocked to hear what is happening in Scotland. Who could imagine this happening in our country.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Fear? Fear of what might happen? Even if wholly innocent? This came to mind.
*******************
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has allocated £60.5m for cases in connection to people involves in the acquisition and administration of Rangers Football Club.
A report from Audit Scotland report states: “To date, the [Crown Office] has accounted for £60.5m of unplanned costs in connection with these claims against the Lord Advocate. Some cases have been resolved, with sums paid to the pursuers totalling £51.7m to March 2023 with a further £8.8m provided in respect of cases still to be finalised.”
Administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark were arrested in 2014, with the Crown Office subsequently dropping charges against them and admitting their prosecutions were “malicious”.
Charles Green and Imran Ahmad should also never have been prosecuted. Mr Green received more than £6m in compensation plus legal costs.
Source: https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/malicious-prosecution-scandal-victim-payouts-to-exceed-ps60m
LikeLiked by 3 people
If I am not misunderstanding, there is also a serious concern that something written in the comments, by a potentially unidintifiable anonymous internet poster, could be asserted to have been ‘Published’ by the blog owner.
The complainant could then confect their distress and report the blogger for which the state could then begin the non-crime-process-as-punishment.
Perish the very thought!
Nae cooardly cunt wid dae that tho, wid thei?
😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Something of the kind happened to me some years ago. In fact, many years ago. I was administrator on a hosted forum which had drawn the ire of some far-right individuals and groups – mainly American. I logged in one morning to find the site had been closed down by the hosting company. Somebody had posted a slew of the most disgusting pornographic images imaginable, then reported it. Even if any of the other admins or moderators had spotted it, there was no time for them to remove the images before action was taken. A very effective way to silence opponents.
I had the last laugh, though. Within 24 hours, I had an identical site up and running on my own server space with additional security. It pays to be a stubborn bastard.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I made that point about self-censorship , myself , BTL on WOS , P . You extrapolate on the insidious possible/likely effects of that with your habitual insight n perception .
This must surely be intentional . How much easier for * them * if people are obliged to second guess everything they say and – in your case – write , and as a consequence decide to say , write nothing – at least in public : or they may conclude that what they’re permitted to say/write is so anodyne that it’s not worth the effort .
That this entirely gratuitous piece of legislation has been inflicted on us by the supposed ” Party of Independence ” just grinds salt into * self-inflicted * wound .
Not to excuse Yousaf , in any way , this is his can , and he’ll carry it ; but my suspicion is the seeds of this assault on freedom of speech/thought originated * elsewhere * and were planted in the empty head of H.Y . Planted maybe on one those jollies to the U.S.A funded by shady Anglo-American ” Nothing to see here ” organisations he and many other SNP tabula rasas have enjoyed . See also : Kate Forbes
LikeLiked by 5 people
Okey-doke. Now, we’re supposed to know the law. But we’re not supposed to be legally trained. Therefore there is the requirement to write the law in plain language. But there should also be a requirement that it is written in such a way as it is easy for plebs like me to navigate it. Quite a bit of law is easily written. As a small business owner who can’t afford to pay hundreds of pounds every time I make a business decision or claim on a website, or terms and conditions, I have read (I hope) all the relevant laws. It’s not hard once you get the hang of it and of course it’s relevant to a business purpose which makes it easier as at least you understand the terms.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents
and go for “open whole act” under Opening Options. So, bear with me, I’m getting there.
For the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, you’d expect to find relevant keywords and indeed some kind of user index (we’re all users like it or not) so you can see if it applies to you, and how.
So I’d search for such keywords as scope, jurisdiction, locality, residency, blog, website, forum, comment, “below the line”, social media.
And if you can’t get to the relevant part, then I personally would describe that Act as Incompetent, not fit for purpose, and against the Human Rights (or whatever). And since that law is supposed to relate to me as well as everybody else, my opinion should actually matter.
Do you know how many that “Act” scores out of my 10?
Yup. 0 out of 10, nil, nada, zilch, nichts, nihil, rien de va plus.
It’s a piece of crap. And should be repealed this week.
LikeLike
Just to add to that, it should also be a defence in Scots Law to be able to say REASONABLY “I looked at the Act and tried to understand it, but couldnae make head nor tail of it”. Judge or Sheriff (and Police Scotland): “So did I, I agree, you’re free to go, sorry for wasting your time, here’s a grand for your hassle, have a nice day.”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And one more for luck. Law (criminal) is supposed to be about prevention not prosecution. But if you can’t understand the law, how the fuck are you supposed to follow it?
Hope that wasn’t a hate crime …
LikeLiked by 2 people
That sounds very much like my own process. And it sounds vry much like the kind of legislation I would expect knowing that its principal author was Humza Yousaf – or pretty much any politician you might care to name. Let’s not pick on poor Humza.
Not at all incidentally, for a contrasting example of law so well written as to be almost poetic, look at the smoking provisions of The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 and The Prohibition of Smoking in Certain Premises (Scotland) Regulations 2006. In particular, the definition of an enclosed public space. THAT is how precise and unambiguous all law should aspire to be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Scottish Parliament is not fit for purpose.
It was designed in the late 1990s for two primary reasons: (1) as a vanity project for Donald Dewar, and (2) to stop independence.
Those who claimed it’d stop independence were right. It has stopped indy, albeit at an entirely unacceptable cost.
Anyone who, like me, claimed it’d be a failed experiment based on a flawed concept, flawed design and second-rate politicians, also had a good grip on the trouble in store.
As usual, I blame the SNP. I think they chucked independence away when they started to campaign for devolution away back in the 1970s.
They’ve blown it all away at each and every opportunity. The SNP are an utterly ruinous party and I’m reaching the conclusion, as I think others should be by now, that any attempt to rehabilitate them will only end up repeating the same mistakes all over again.
The Hate Crime Act is just the latest in a long line of appalling legislative initiatives proving that we need to end both the SNP and devolution.
LikeLike