UK Politics V - Have We Got News For You

[Kaitzilla]

On the 1st April in Scotland a new Act will come into force around Hate Crimes.

This article is a bit jumbled but it’s the best I could find of a summary in the press (do let me know if you have a better!)

Hate crime law: Force for good or recipe for disaster?

The new law comes into force next month but already concerns are raised around how it will be enforced.

www.bbc.co.uk

Whatever side of the political debate you’re on, I struggle to see how this is a good idea. In fact I find it fairly chilling as a potential means to shut down debate.
And equally importantly - this for me is the killer line:
Police Scotland has pledged to investigate every hate crime complaint it receives, even though last week the force said it would no longer investigate every "low level" crime in Scotland, including some cases of theft.

What do people think?

On April 1st? heh

There is a lot of criticism of hate crime laws, but every U.S.A. state except 3 of them has some.
So people generally like them anyway.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I believe that if a Scotsman says he hates the English, he would have to try to rely upon:

Section 4 Paragraph 5

For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression
by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.

 

[Nick723]

Certain folk online would have us believe rape allegations are similarly career-ending, and yet in reality they're not. Smears are generally worked out as smears, and only in the case of an excessively high-profile case are you going to see the magnifying effect of the media cause negative ripples.

I keep on using "you" and "certain folk" and honestly this isn't a dig at anyone here on CFC. It's just that the Internet contains multitudes and being Excessively Online, I know from experience that some of those multitudes are, well, bad faith to say the least!

I’m not sure I agree with you that an disproven rape allegation is without consequences, often ‘no smoke without fire’ leads to doubt at least in people’s minds.

However I think a fundamental difference between a rape allegation and a hate crime is the risk to the accuser. Bringing a false rape claim has serious consequences for someone if found out. But a hate crime is entirely at the ‘victim’s perception’ which means it is essentially impossible to bring a false hate crime accusation.

Thus I do this type of legislation as having more impact on openness of debate.

 

[Gorbles]

However I think a fundamental difference between a rape allegation and a hate crime is the risk to the accuser. Bringing a false rape claim has serious consequences for someone if found out. But a hate crime is entirely at the ‘victim’s perception’ which means it is essentially impossible to bring a false hate crime accusation.

Harm to any victim can be measured. Psychological harm included (indeed it's a large component in why rape is so damaging). Being worried about hypothetical bad faith actors is exactly the same narrative that drives fear of false rape allegations, despite statistically these not existing as a problem.

The problem as I see it, is simple. These things need to be catered for under the law. Abuse can and will happen, but should not stop the existence of such legislation in the first place. We're human, we make mistakes. We cannot refuse to codify these issues as issues under the law just because they can be abused. The abuse has to be proven to be greater than the benefit of legislating it. I don't put much stock in hypothetical fears.

I’m not sure I agree with you that an disproven rape allegation is without consequences, often ‘no smoke without fire’ leads to doubt at least in people’s minds.

This would probably need its own thread, but what I'm talking about are legal consequences. If you are found not guilty (assuming the ruling isn't controversial in some way), and yet consequences in some fashion happen on the job, this is discrimination, plain and simple. Companies often like to cut people loose for image-related issues, and this isn't strictly related to rape allegations, real or invented. This is a problem with companies being allowed to let someone go for such flimsy reasons in the first place.

Social consequences are a lot messier, and often apply to the person making the allegations as much as (if not more than) the one allegedly at fault.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The UK is now allowing beards in its army.

Army allows beards as it ends 100-year ban

Soldiers will be allowed to grow beards after the Army overturned a 100-year ban on facial hair, The Telegraph can reveal.

www.aol.co.uk

I could never quite see the point of the ban.

The days when the enemy would likely seize oneself by grabbing hold of one's beard, with
one hand prior to thrusting a sword in one's vitals with the other hand, are long gone.

And I dare say, this change may increase recruitment amongst our islamic citizens.

 

[Senethro]

George Galloway MP accuses UK of involvement in Moscow terror attack

MPs criticised Galloway’s intervention as irresponsible, reckless and playing into the Kremlin’s hands

www.independent.co.uk

Well, he's coming out swinging I guess.

 

[Arakhor]

And he's allegedly a serving MP...

 

[Broken_Erika]

DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson quits after sex offence charges​

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has been charged with historical sexual offences and has quit as Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader.

A 57-year-old woman has also been charged with aiding and abetting in connection with the alleged offences.

They were both arrested on Thursday morning by PSNI detectives and were questioned before being charged on Thursday night.

They are now due to appear in court next month.

In a statement the DUP said: "The Party Chairman has received a letter from Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP confirming that he has been charged with allegations of an historical nature and indicating that he is stepping down as Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party with immediate effect.

"In accordance with the Party Rules, the Party Officers have suspended Mr Donaldson from membership, pending the outcome of a judicial process.

"The Party Officers have this morning unanimously appointed Mr Gavin Robinson MP as the Interim Party Leader."

Police issued a statement on Friday morning, but did not disclose the identity of those charged.

The statement said a 61-year-old man had been charged with "non-recent sexual offences" adding that a 57-year-old woman was also arrested at the same time and charged with "aiding and abetting additional offences".

The statement also confirmed the pair would appear before Newry Magistrates' Court on 24 April.

It is understood DUP officers met on Friday morning after details of the charges emerged.

Sir Jeffrey's social media accounts, including on X, were deleted overnight.

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson was elected leader of the DUP in 2021.

He is also the longest serving MP in Northern Ireland having been first elected to Parliament in 1997.

Sir Jeffrey recently steered his party back in to government in Northern Ireland ending a two year boycott of the Stormont institutions.

The DUP had walked out of government in protest at the Northern Ireland Protocol, claiming the post-Brexit arrangements had undermined their place in the UK.

Sir Jeffrey was first elected to parliament in 1997 as a representative of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).

In 2003, following long-standing opposition to the Good Friday Agreement and the leadership of David Trimble, he announced he would leave the UUP, later joining the DUP.

He was awarded a knighthood in 2016 for political service.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-68686691

 

[Nick723]

You may or may not like people who say racial slurs, but they have great courage to test the boundaries of the law, and for that I commend them.

Or something like that?

Replying here as this has gotten off topic for the LBGT news thread.

Would you mean something like this?

What I am trying to show is that you may assume it is one side of the argument that will fall foul, but these laws will be weaponised by both sides, and not in a good way.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

And of course, you'd never weaponize bad faith beliefs and claims to intentionally harm a vulnerable minority group @Nick723

Unless they're trans

 

[Gorbles]

Replying here as this has gotten off topic for the LBGT news thread.

Would you mean something like this?

I'm not sure thread-hopping after posting a provocative defense of JKR is the best use of your time, but no, I'm simply establishing what you think should be protected under the law.

If your best response is some YouTube channel with an Ancient Roman profile pic going on about Humza Yousaf, I can only assume that you're fine with speech when it aligns with your interests, and you're fine with it being weaponised when it's not.

"these laws will be weaponised by both sides"

What, you mean when JKR did this?

JK Rowling threatens legal action against social media site over 'false claims'

The billionaire Harry Potter author called out Wizarding News on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday night.

www.google.com

(there are other such examples, I even chose a source that I'm pretty sure is friendly to her)

I've been over how things can and will be abused before, in this thread. It doesn't mean that people don't deserve equal protection under the law, and the fact that a known transphobe is mad about transphobic opinions potentially being treated seriously under the law bothers me as much as any racist found racist in the eyes of the law does. That is to say, not at all.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What @Nick723 is trying to say is that it takes alot if courage to hate trans people at the behest of the british government and media, but we can't take any conclusions from that, apparently

 

[Nick723]

@Cloud_Strife I am rather fed up of the personal attacks. Request to play the ball, rather than the man. For the avoidance of doubt:

And of course, you'd never weaponize bad faith beliefs and claims to intentionally harm a vulnerable minority group @Nick723

Correct

Unless they're trans

No

What @Nick723 is trying to say is that it takes alot if courage to hate trans people at the behest of the british government and media, but we can't take any conclusions from that, apparently

Hating trans people is very different from believing that there are some circumstances where someone’s biological sex is more important than their gender identity.

If your best response is some YouTube channel with an Ancient Roman profile pic going on about Humza Yousaf, I can only assume that you're fine with speech when it aligns with your interests, and you're fine with it being weaponised when it's not.

That’s the exact opposite of the point I am making. The most complaints Police Scotland had was about this speech that I linked. Whilst I don’t like the tone of the speech, I hardly think it constitutes a hate crime either!

"these laws will be weaponised by both sides"

What, you mean when JKR did this?

JK Rowling threatens legal action against social media site over 'false claims'

The billionaire Harry Potter author called out Wizarding News on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday night.

www.google.com

(there are other such examples, I even chose a source that I'm pretty sure is friendly to her)

My praise of JKR was in reference to her courage in defying this illiberal law, not the topic by which she was doing so, or anything else she’s done (I don’t follow her closely).

I've been over how things can and will be abused before, in this thread. It doesn't mean that people don't deserve equal protection under the law, and the fact that a known transphobe is mad about transphobic opinions potentially being treated seriously under the law bothers me as much as any racist found racist in the eyes of the law does. That is to say, not at all.

Until you’re the one accused of being a racist / transphobe…

What @Nick723 is trying to say is that it takes alot if courage to hate trans people at the behest of the british government and media, but we can't take any conclusions from that, apparently

It goes without saying that this isn’t what I’m trying to say.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

@Cloud_Strife I am rather fed up of the personal attacks. Request to play the ball, rather than the man. For the avoidance of doubt:

Oh is that so? Well I'm rather fed up of anti trans bad faith actors kramering into threads about the trans community to tell us how brave you're favourite transphobe is being when she attacks us all

Correct

Don't lie to me, I've seen your posts about my community.

No

You specifically want to deny medication to trans kids and only trans kids. You couldn't make it any clearer that you take issue with our existence, to the point where you'd rather withold life saving medication because trans people are icky

Hating trans people is very different from believing that there are some circumstances where someone’s biological sex is more important than their gender identity.

I get it, you think you know better about trans people than they do about themselves, all because you believe in putting one specific characteristic on a pedestal, but if doesn't wash with me.

I am more than my genetics, much more than my birth and i refuse to let some dude with a regressive view of my community dictate how i should view myself and live my life, nevermind the implicit claim that trans people are somehow unaware of their own biology

It goes without saying that this isn’t what I’m trying to say.

We can all read your quote dude

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Personally i don't think it takes any courage to conflate the trans community with pedophiles and rapists but then again i don't hate trans people

 

[Gorbles]

My praise of JKR was in reference to her courage in defying this illiberal law, not the topic by which she was doing so, or anything else she’s done (I don’t follow her closely).

And? This isn't the first time JKR has been the subject of debate here, or you involved in it. Let's not be coy. If you truly want to focus on the argument, don't play defense. You're the one who brought the topic back up. You're the one who posted it in the LGBTQ news thread despite the only attachment to that subject is the existence of JKR, a self-admitted "TERF" and holder of evidenced transphobic opinions. If these are things that you're not aware of, aren't you lucky there are people here to show you the issues?

Your complaint is that people can and will abuse said law. JKR is using the law as-is to legally-crucify people she finds objectionable on social media. Or threaten to, at least, which brings her followers down on whoever she happens to be singling out at the time.

Praising someone just because they do one thing you agree with when they may do others you disagree with in a comparable legal context (which is exactly why I provided the example I did) suggests that perhaps the principle at stake here is pretty one-sided. Otherwise you'd clearly see that JKR is fine with weaponising the legality of speech when it suits her, and dislikes it when it is weaponised towards her (however nominally, as she's rich and can bury people in lawyers for fun - something she has in fact done for her "gender critical" buddies).

Until you’re the one accused of being a racist / transphobe…

There's a difference between an accusation, and being found so in the eyes of the law. The justice system is far from perfect, but the burden of evidence is at least correspondingly higher than whatever accusation you think will make me turn my principles around

Why is this change, specifically, so much worse than anything else we already have codified in law? What makes trans folk, and anyone else nominally covered by this change in hate crime definition, less at risk than demographics already covered by the existing definition?

I'll answer it for you:

Hating trans people is very different from believing that there are some circumstances where someone’s biological sex is more important than their gender identity.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

[Nick723]

Oh is that so? Well I'm rather fed up of anti trans bad faith actors kramering into threads about the trans community to tell us how brave you're favourite transphobe is being when she attacks us all



Don't lie to me, I've seen your posts about my community.



You specifically want to deny medication to trans kids and only trans kids. You couldn't make it any clearer that you take issue with our existence, to the point where you'd rather withold life saving medication because trans people are icky



I get it, you think you know better about trans people than they do about themselves, all because you believe in putting one specific characteristic on a pedestal, but if doesn't wash with me.

I am more than my genetics, much more than my birth and i refuse to let some dude with a regressive view of my community dictate how i should view myself and live my life, nevermind the implicit claim that trans people are somehow unaware of their own biology



We can all read your quote dude

I don’t think we’ll get very far with a tit-for-tat so I’ll leave it there, except to say that you have me wrong.

I’ll try harder to listen to your point of view and understand better in the future

 

[Nick723]

And? This isn't the first time JKR has been the subject of debate here, or you involved in it. Let's not be coy. If you truly want to focus on the argument, don't play defense. You're the one who brought the topic back up. You're the one who posted it in the LGBTQ news thread despite the only attachment to that subject is the existence of JKR, a self-admitted "TERF" and holder of evidenced transphobic opinions. If these are things that you're not aware of, aren't you lucky there are people here to show you the issues?

Your complaint is that people can and will abuse said law. JKR is using the law as-is to legally-crucify people she finds objectionable on social media. Or threaten to, at least, which brings her followers down on whoever she happens to be singling out at the time.

Praising someone just because they do one thing you agree with when they may do others you disagree with in a comparable legal context (which is exactly why I provided the example I did) suggests that perhaps the principle at stake here is pretty one-sided. Otherwise you'd clearly see that JKR is fine with weaponising the legality of speech when it suits her, and dislikes it when it is weaponised towards her (however nominally, as she's rich and can bury people in lawyers for fun - something she has in fact done for her "gender critical" buddies).

There's a difference between an accusation, and being found so in the eyes of the law. The justice system is far from perfect, but the burden of evidence is at least correspondingly higher than whatever accusation you think will make me turn my principles around

Why is this change, specifically, so much worse than anything else we already have codified in law? What makes trans folk, and anyone else nominally covered by this change in hate crime definition, less at risk than demographics already covered by the existing definition?

I'll answer it for you:

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

I agree JKR is completely muddled up when it comes to her criticism of this law.

On one hand she has denounced it as suppressing free speech, whilst also complaining that it isn’t even larger in scope (to cover women as well). This doesn’t make sense.

What I do like that she has tested the boundaries of it and used her clout to do so, so that others might have a better idea of where the line is.

I don’t recall ever raising JKR before (and indeed it wasn’t me who brought her up just now in the other thread) and I genuinely don’t follow her closely (but yes, I am aware she has ‘gender critical beliefs’). From what I have seen, I do think she is unnecessarily cruel at times, and I certainly don’t align 100% with her views.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You don't get it, you've had multiple, much more diplomatic and polite trans people try to explain it to you but in the end only your concerns, only your problems with us matter and our lives, our experiences and what this hostile environment, one that you feel so inclined to defend, is doing to us, doesn't even enter your mind.

This isn't rocket science dude, stop supporting rhetoric, policies and people that want to harm us and you'll get more respect and less hostility

JkR is supporting a hostile environment for trans people and all you seem to want to do is praise her for making our lives even harder than they already are

 

[Gorbles]

What I do like that she has tested the boundaries of it and used her clout to do so, so that others might have a better idea of where the line is.

So you'd have no trouble with people being racist for no other reason than to test the boundaries of a law? Do you think laws around race-related hate speech are (presumably already) too strict?