Response 574736587

Back to Response listing

Part One – Consolidating and Modernising Hate Crime Legislation

1. Do you think the statutory aggravation model should continue to be the core method of prosecuting hate crimes in Scotland?

Please select one item
Yes
No
No opinion
Please tell us why:
Speech can never be a (hate) crime, let alone one with aggravating factors based on minority groups.

2. Do you think that the language of the thresholds for the statutory aggravations would be easier to understand if it was changed from ‘evincing malice and ill will’ to ‘demonstrating hostility’?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please tell us why:
No, it's going from something narrow and specific to something vague with this wording.

3. Do you think changing the language of the thresholds for the statutory aggravations from ‘evincing malice and ill will’ to ‘demonstrating hostility’ would change how the thresholds are applied?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please tell us why:
No, it's going from something narrow and specific to something vague with this wording.

4. Do you think that variations of sex characteristics (intersex) should be a separate category from transgender identity in Scottish hate crime legislation?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please tell us why:
There should not be any category at all.

5. Do you think that the terms used in Scottish hate crime legislation in relation to transgender identity and intersex should be updated?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please tell us why:
They should be removed, it's 2018. Stop eroding society with laws that no one asks for.

6. If you think that the terms used in Scottish hate crime legislation in relation to transgender identity and intersex should be updated, what language would you propose?

Please tell us why:
The terms should be removed. Speech is not a crime.

Part Two – New Statutory Aggravations

7. Do you agree with Option A to develop a statutory aggravation for gender hostility?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
There is no such thing as "gender hostility" besides actual physical violence like rape.

8. Do you agree with Option B to develop a standalone offence for misogynistic harassment?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
If you agree, please tell us why and provide examples of the types of behaviour that could be captured by this offence.
Harassment is harassment, regardless of sex.

9. Do you agree with Option C of building on Equally Safe to tackle misogyny (this would be a non-legislative approach)?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
If you agree please tell us why.
You know who is doing the actual crime, focus on them. Scotland's police statistics are open to you.
Please provide examples of the types of behaviour that could be captured by this offence.
Actual physical (kinetic) violence is the only behavior that should be included.

10. Do you agree with Option D of taking forward all of the identified options? (This would include development of a statutory aggravation based on gender hostility (Option A); development of a standalone offence relating to misogynistic harassment (Option B); and work to build on Equally Safe (Option C)?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

11. Do you think that a new statutory aggravation on age hostility should be added to Scottish hate crime legislation?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
You don't need more complicated laws for actual discrimination, it is already outlawed.

12. Do you think there is a need for sectarianism to be specifically addressed and defined in hate crime legislation?

Please select one item
Yes
No (you may wish to go to Question 16)
Unsure
Please give your reasons for your response
You know which "sectarianism" is hurting society but you refuse to address it. You can already do so under existing law.

16. If you disagree with the Working Group's proposed definition of sectarianism, what do you believe should be included in a legal definition of sectarianism?

Please give your reason for this
If you mean what is described here: https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0054/00543054.pdf

It is completely unclear. Even the 2015 definition was better. You want a catch-all solution for a non-existing problem.

17. The Scottish Government recognises that legislation on its own will not end sectarianism. What else do you feel could be done to address sectarianism?

Actually improve Scottish living conditions and stop trying to babysit the population.

18. Do you think that a new statutory aggravation on hostility towards a political entity should be added to Scottish hate crime legislation?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
You are not above criticism, and such legislation will only be used to stifle criticism.

19. Do you think that a new statutory aggravation should be added to Scottish hate crime legislation to cover hostility towards any other new groups or characteristics (with the exception of gender and age)?

Please select one item
Yes
No
No Opinion
Please provide details:
There are no other groups. There is age, sex, disability and race discrimination, and those are already covered.

20. Do you think that the religious statutory aggravation in Scottish hate crime legislation should be extended to include religious or other beliefs held by an individual?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
Because everyone will be able to cook up an excuse to get away with anything that way. Remove religious protections, especially those of foreign religions.

21. Do you think that the statutory aggravations in Scottish hate crime legislation should apply where people are presumed to have one or more protected characteristic?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
There should be no protected characteristics, Scotland is already egalitarian in every facet of society. Expanding items like this will only hurt freedom of association.

22. Do you think that the statutory aggravations in Scottish hate crime legislation should apply where people have an association with that particular identity (relating to religion, sexual orientation, age, gender, race, disability, transgender identity and intersex)?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please tell us why:
As with 20; Because everyone will be able to cook up an excuse to get away with anything that way. Remove religious protections, especially those of foreign religions.

Part Three – New Stirring Up of Hatred Offences

23. Do you agree with Lord Bracadale’s recommendation that stirring up of hatred offences should be introduced in respect of each of the protected characteristics including any new protected characteristics?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
"Stirring up hatred" is just a term to silence whoever you don't like in today's climate.


Actual hatred results in violence, and is extremely rare.

24. Do you agree with Lord Bracadale’s recommendation that any new stirring up hatred offences should require that the conduct is ‘threatening or abusive’?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
If not, what do you think the threshold should be for the offence to be committed?
Threatening is a non-definition now, because people are already threatened by their own shadow nowadays. This will be used to silence people they disagree with.

25. Do you think that the existing provisions concerning the stirring up of racial hatred should be revised so they are formulated in the same way as the other proposed stirring up hatred offences?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
See 24.

26. Do you agree with Lord Bracadale’s recommendation that there should be a protection of freedom of expression provision for offences concerning the stirring up of hatred?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
If you answered yes to the previous question, do you have any comments on what should be covered by any such ‘protection of freedom of expression’ provision?
Freedom of expression is not protected well enough in Scotland/UK at all. People of all walks of life are already prisoners of their own mind.

27. Do you agree with Lord Bracadale’s recommendation that no specific legislative change is necessary with respect to online conduct?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
If anything, it should be rolled back.

Part Four - Exploitation and Vulnerability

28. Do you think a statutory aggravation (outwith hate crime legislation) should be introduced that could be applied when a perpetrator exploits the vulnerability of the victim?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
Depends on the situation. You can't just tack that on because it will be used by political agitators to silence others. Who defines when "vulnerabilities" are exploited?

29. If you think a statutory aggravation (outwith hate crime legislation) should be introduced that could be applied when a perpetrator exploits the vulnerability of the victim, please provide details of the circumstances that you think such an aggravation should cover?

Unsure, so cannot answer.

Part Five – Other Issues

30. Do you think that Section 50A of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 about racially aggravated harassment should be repealed?

Please select one item
Yes
No
No Opinion
Please provide details.
Excellent idea. It is a political bludgeon right now.

31. What do you think the impact of repealing section 50A of the Criminal Law (Consolidations) (Scotland) Act 1995 about racially aggravated harassment could be?

Nothing, in today's social media climate has already drastically curtailed itself due to fear of shame.

32. Do you think that courts should continue to be required to state in open court the extent to which the statutory aggravation altered the length of sentence?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
Of course. If they are not done away with that is.

33. Do you agree that no legislative change is needed in relation to the support given to victims of hate crime offences?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
Real "hate crimes" are very rare. There is more than enough support for the few cases in which it happens, if anything you can use discretionary spending from the department if need be.

34. Do you agree that no legislative change is needed in relation to the provision of restorative justice and diversion from prosecution within hate crime legislation in Scotland?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide details:
These programs usually serve as nothing more than to indoctrinate perpetrators with fake science. Expanding it would be a disaster, if anything there should be a full repeal.

35. What else do you think the Scottish Government could include in its proposals to update Scottish hate crime legislation?

A full retraction + pivot back to common sense anti discrimination and full freedom of speech laws would be a good start.

About you

What is your name?

Henry Goldfarb

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Individual
Organisation