Humza Yousaf DESTROYED for 'outrageous ATTACK on Scottish people' with draconian hate speech laws

Good evening, it's called Devolution and what it means, of course, is that administrations, whether Scottish, Welsh or local authorities, will take what the national government does and take it even further and in this context today The Hate Crime and Public Order Act became law. Scotland 2021 now, in a sense, we've had

hate

crime legislation since 1986, what's the point? It's been good to stop the incitement, to stop the language that could encourage behavior that would be genuinely dangerous. That has always been the obstacle. My concern with this legislation. contains words like you probably know that what you have said is likely to call someone to be seriously hurt, whether physically or emotionally, and we have even lowered the bar so much that terms that are insulting could be included within this legislation by the way in which The maximum penalty if you violate this law is incredible years in prison.

I'm not quite sure what this means for JK Rowling, who clearly says that trans women are not real women, will she be one of the first victims of this? I just don't know if we want to live in a civilized society with each other, and while I think we all understand that incitement is genuinely dangerous and wrong at every level, this is my real concern about this legislation, let's say two

people

. having a failure in a Fallout could be in a business it could be within a family it could be an argument in a pub and someone can go and make a complaint to say that you have said something absolutely scandalous and deeply unpleasant without any proof of it continue with a police file, the police look at it and say there is a lack of evidence and yet that will be recorded by the police as a non-criminal

hate

incident and even though you have done nothing wrong, you are just the victim of a humiliating

attack

that will be on your record forever and that to me is a very dangerous slippery slope.

I love your thoughts. You agree with me? Am I perhaps getting too paranoid about this? Tell me I'm wrong. Is this farage dangerous? atgb news.com and I am joined in the studio by FY farat, senior legal consultant at gulbankian andonian solicitors and veteran LGBT activist, Peter tatel F. Let's start with you, this lowers the bar, don't you know that in the past? the hate legislation, the race relations act etc, the public order law we've had, this legislation has been there for 40 years, uh, you had to say something that clearly and unequivocally expressed hatred against the group and such maybe even incitement, this has lowered the bar considerably that's right, so in the past we have had, I mean, there has always been a criminal offense of inciting hatred or in reference to race that has always been in the Law of Law Public 1986, this goes further by expanding or including. all the projected character characteristics, so now we have an age, disability, transgender identity, and other, well, the various protected characteristics, so it goes further in that sense, but it also eliminates the current structure by which you have to have the intention to do so. an intention is not the only thing that can constitute a criminal offence, it is whether what has been said or done is likely to be probable which is a very subjective judgement, yes that has raised concerns that you are criminalizing not just what believe, but you could be criminalized for what you are perceived to believe, which are two completely different things.

So what happens if there is a 17-year-old and he or she has gotten into a fight with his or her parents, something quite common in most families? Can they report her parents? In theory, yes, the only distinguishing feature there is. I suspect that because it was in a private setting, there may be no public interest in prosecuting, but that just depends on the prosecutor's decision whether to prosecute or not. necessarily with a has been committed or does not put a lot of power, is it not in the hands of the judges and the courts? Yes, and do you think most of these cases would have a jury trial or not?

No, well, them. they're um, they can go either direction, so depending on um, depending on what was said, depending on the seriousness or if there are aggravating features, you can go to a jury. Yes, there is, although the Scottish Government emphasizes that there is a built-in defence, so there is a built-in defense in reference to freedom of expression, and whether what has been said or done is reasonable in the circumstances in reference to freedom of

speech

. expression, which includes one's right to shock and offend, but of course the line is blurred and a lot of what has been said is, um, if we take transgender issues, the concern that JK Rowling has is, of course , that many of these issues are subject to ongoing public debate or ongoing public discourse, so they are not necessarily resolved, e.g.

Holocaust denial where we have the evidence of history and the full weight of history to know that this happened and other areas are not fully established in public discourse, such as sports and the role of transgender competitors in sports. . the exclusion of transgender

people

, but Beachel's RO, I mean, should JK Rowling be allowed to say that trans women aren't real women? Well, first let me say that I broadly support this legislation, it has a good goal: to protect people from hate. I have several caveats although firstly it extends racial hate

laws

to other protected characteristics but not to travelers or women who are victims of a lot of hate and that is a huge failure now that I know the Scottish Government are planning to introduce a draft misogynistic law. to cover women, but why should they be covered in separate legislation?

They should be covered in the same legislation that separates women, that is not equality, that is segregation. The other issue is, of course, that many of the terms of this bill or this law are open. to subjective interpretation, so what is a reasonable person? A reasonable person may have a different interpretation. There were terms like malice, ill will, prejudice, hatred, none of them are defined, so the question is how they will be interpreted. There are now protections for free

speech

. so he says very explicitly right away that he will not exclude or cause offense if he simply criticizes or discusses a topic, for example saying that if he insults, if he insults well, that's just as well, this is how JK Rowling insults trans women .

In your opinion, well, no, I don't think that falls within the scope of insult under this legislation because you have the protection that it is a valid discussion and criticism, now other people may disagree, but that's what the legislation says it also provides very strong protections for religion, so it says it's okay to argue, disagree, criticize, ridicule and even insult religion, so there are protections for comedians, movies, plays that You can say that religion is something that this is my concern. My concern is you know I mentioned. Before, the vexatious complaint that is recorded as nchi, a hate incident that is not a crime, here's the horrible part: you know, you or I are going to look for a job and our employer wants the enhanced policing rightly and in that enhanced policing will show. that you were reported, an accusation was made, I mean, you know that this could harm people's lives, the lives of innocent people, well, it's going to get worse because, according to this law, the report can be made by centers of third parties, meaning you don't have to be a victim yourself, but someone Joe blogs or Jane blogs can report you, but you can also report anonymously through Crim Stoppers.

These two aspects now open the floodgates to vexatious malicious whistleblowers and could absolutely inundate the police with unfair and unfounded accusations that could tie up police resources. and as you say, when this continues and damages people's lives, let's now show a clip of the Scottish First Minister, hum yusf, speaking just over a year ago in the Scottish Parliament. I really want them both to talk. comment on this here he is Lord President White Mr Justice Clark white all high court judges white Lord Advocate white thinnest general white doesn't seem to like white people much does he? but here's the thing about something that is so subjective.

I mean, you know, some people, Peter, might interpret that as really quite aggressive toward white people in positions of rank and power. Well, of course, I'm sure he wasn't saying that, but still. These things must be considered in terms of context and intention, which is why under the legislation there is no intention clause. Either a person intends or is likely to behave in ways that threaten to be abusive or insulting, interestingly enough a few years ago. the Westminster Parliament removed the Insulting Clause from the Public Order Act on the grounds that it was too broad and broad, yes, and now the Insulting Clause has been brought back because that is what student politics is all about now that there has been a demonstration outside from Scotland Today in Parliament I'm joined from Edinburgh by Alan Miller, co-founder of the joint statement, um, Alan, how big was the protest and what kind of people were there.

Well, it was brilliant, Nigel, it was really big, and a lot of people. From everywhere really there were unionists, there were republicans, there were secular people, there were p speaking, people who were not politically affiliated, there were a lot of United Nations Freedom of Expression activists and academics for academic freedom from Stu, the Scottish Education Union who are very worried. about reporting stations that already exist in universities and other places, over 400 of them where teachers, staff and children of the university can be reported when they say things, this is an atrocious

draconian

act, it is completely despicable in the land that the Scots gave us.

The Enlightenment that James Madison enshrined in the Constitution with freedom of speech, we are now seeing it smothered, it is an

attack

on the Scottish people, no matter what political affiliation you are, because we must remind Nigel that you and I can disagree about things, but we never get clarity in a democracy unless we can bring these things to light and when they say you're stirring up hate, does that mean that someone subjectively just thinks what you're saying is reprehensible? Well, Volter reminded us, didn't he say? we should be able to do it and he would die for the right to be offended by someone else, that is what we need to have in Scotland and that is why together we are here supporting the challenge against him, we are encouraging all our firms and all his viewers Nigel The Election is coming up, this is scandalous and scandalous, well we are not going to get involved in the election because that would be quite difficult, given where we are on the calendar, but there is no Alan, it is really interesting and I will tell you how to file an touch to return to tonight's proceedings I completely approve thank you