EPA
NOS Nieuws•vandaag, 22:31
After the introduction of a new law against hate speech, Scots have already made more than three thousand reports to the police in just a few days. The law, which came into effect on Monday, prohibits incitement to hatred against all kinds of groups. But a significant number of reports are “false and vexatious”, says Scottish Secretary of State for Security Brown. And a series of controversial tweets from Harry Potter author JK Rowling does not appear to be punishable.
The new law makes insulting people based on age, religion, disability or sexual preference a crime, just like insulting or threatening trans people and intersex people. The Public Prosecution Service does not have to prove that such an act was intentional; it is sufficient to show that it is likely to be perceived as insulting or hateful. It carries a maximum prison sentence of seven years. Racial hate speech was already banned in Scotland.
According to the Scottish Secretary of State, the many nonsense reports to the police as a result of the new regulations are the result of “misinformation”. She says to the BBC that a false complaint was even made under her name.
The majority of the reports concern a statement by the current Scottish Prime Minister Humza Yousaf, who said in a speech four years ago that many top positions in the country are held by white people. A clip on X owner Elon Musk called Yousaf a racist in response to the fragment.
The Scottish police previously ruled that Yousaf’s words were not punishable. Moreover, the new law cannot be applied retroactively.
‘Look forward to being arrested’
There has been criticism of the law from various quarters for some time. Author JK Rowling, who lives in the Scottish capital Edinburgh, immediately put the new rules to the test on Monday by sending a series of tweets in which she deliberately referred to well-known trans women as men.
She also wrote that the anti-hate law “comes at the expense of the rights and freedom of real girls and women.” With the help of the legislation, activists could silence others, Rowling argues. According to her, people would no longer be able to speak out against, for example, gender-neutral toilets and the participation of trans women in sports competitions or other types of competitions.
“Opinion and freedom of expression are doomed in Scotland if accurately describing one’s biological sex is made a criminal offence,” the author said. She said she looks forward to being arrested “if what I have written here is an offense under the new law.”
The Scottish police announced yesterday that Rowling’s tweets are not punishable and that no prosecution will take place. The police had received reports about the tweets.
Secretary of State Brown emphasizes today that the bar for actually prosecuting people is “very, very high”. “We are very clear in the law that it is not about restricting freedom of expression. It is about protecting people.”
Enforcement
Yet the Rowling case has some Scots wondering whether the anti-hate law is useful and can be enforced. A Conservative MP criticizes the BBC about the extra workload that the new rules place on the police. “Their time is spent assessing reports that are completely silly for the same amount of money. (…) I would be surprised if even one of the reports leads to prosecution.”
Others believe the law is incomplete. For example, feminist groups are critical because gender-based insults are not specifically mentioned in the law. The Scottish Government has promised to introduce a separate law against misogyny later.
Correspondent Arjen van der Horst:
“Scotland’s anti-hate law has been controversial from the start, with criticism coming from both the left and the right. The main criticism is that the new law undermines freedom of expression and stifles open debate on controversial topics.
Supporters point out that the anti-hate law explicitly protects ideas that ‘offend, shock and cause a stir’, or in other words: according to them, freedom of expression is guaranteed, even for ideas that are controversial.
But that is also the Achilles heel, because this principle conflicts with another pillar of the law. After all, Scottish prosecutors only have to demonstrate that a statement is considered an insult or a threat experienced. This leaves a huge gray area: when is an insult legally protected and when is it prohibited?”
2024-04-03 20:31:25
#Scottish #antihate #law #leads #thousands #reports #Rowlings #tweets #punishable
