Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Holyrood backing for hate crimes bill

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 March 2009
PLANS which could lead to tougher penalties for crimes against gay and disabled people were yesterday backed by a Holyrood committee.
The justice committee gave the go-ahead to a bill by the Green MSP Patrick Harvie which would make sexual orientation or disability an "aggravating factor" in any crime in which the victim was targeted for that reason.

The bill would not automatic
ally toughen penalties but courts would have to take the motivation into account when deciding on a sentence. Racial and religiously motivated crimes are already covered.

Endorsing the bill's general principles, the committee said it posed no threat to the freedom of speech of those holding "traditional mainstream beliefs" about marriage and sexuality.

Another Holyrood committee considered whether the bill should be extended to make a victim's age or gender an aggravating factor.

That committee's members decided against such a move, and the justice committee yesterday agreed.

Bill Aitken, the justice committee's convener, said: "While acknowledging concerns raised by groups about the creation of a hierarchy of victims' rights, (the committee] believes, on balance, it is appropriate to create these new statutory aggravations.

"Although it is already possible under the existing common law to take the motivations of an offender into account when determining sentence, and we know courts do use these powers, we hope the bill will ensure that the existence of any aggravations will be dealt with more consistently and appropriately."

The committee's verdict was welcomed by Mr Harvie.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 March 2009 9:40 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Gay and Lesbian issues
 
1

Jenny C,

06/03/2009 02:10:10
Its about time that homophobic crimes were recognised as such.
2

Davy,

06/03/2009 02:31:28
Green MSP Patrick Harvie
This is a Gay issue; the disabled thing is just a smoke screen.
For Mr Harvie to score some brownie points with the gay community which he is in constant touch.
Why are all the green MPS so vocal about gay issues?
What has that got to do with convincing us that they are trying to save the planet?
3

TheScotsman,

06/03/2009 03:31:15
Sounds like Green MSP Patrick Harvie is a very balanced politician, he has a chip on both shoulders.
I agree with #4, the mention of assaults on the disabled is just a smokescreen.
If a homosexual is assaulted because of his orientation, should the person who carried out the assault be more severely punished than someone who assaults another because of the football team he supports?
Both are mindless acts played out in this country regularly, both should be punished in exactly the same way.
4

,

06/03/2009 07:24:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

redcliffe62,

06/03/2009 07:44:49
do crimes against the snp by the scotsman fit the definition herewith enclosed merely because they hate them, or can we call them hate crimes as they have racist overtones. a moot point perhaps.
6

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 06/03/2009 07:56:42
I hate Marmite. Will I be arrested?

Those that hate Sir Fred, will they be arrested?
7

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 06/03/2009 08:39:50
According to the BBC, this brings Scots Law into line with that in England and Wales, and another 82 countries
worldwide, which also have similar "aggravated" penalties.

8

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 10:47:53
I find this a tough one, despite some years ago having been marginally involved in bringing the original proposal together. We cannot legislate against people's thoughts, and though this law does not do that, it can and will be interpreted as doing that, and that is very dangerous.

There are two arguments in favour of this move that I can identify.

The first, which is pretty weak, is that we have already established that it is appropriate to have statutory aggravations for racial and religious motivations. If that is appropriate then so is this. My problem with that argument is that it isn't clear that the original statutory aggravations were appropriate, and the argument can become circular.

The second, which I think is a stronger argument, is that society is damaged more by violent crimes of hate than by other violent crimes.

Any violent crime does society harm in the form of a) the harm to the victim, b) the harm to the confidence of all others to act freely, and c) the harm resulting from the costs and effects of justice and incarceration.

Violent crimes of hate add to those harms with d) focused harm to the confidence of that community to act freely and engage with the rest of society, and e) deepening of divisions between groups in society.

In all honesty I am not completely convinced that any statutory aggravations are necessary; but there is a benefit to this in any case, as it sends a much needed message of moral leadership from Parliament telling people that gay people deserve to be treated fairly.
9

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 06/03/2009 11:05:29
"The second, which I think is a stronger argument, is that society is damaged more by violent crimes of hate than by other violent crimes."

Possibly Dunc, but the people with potential "hate" or grievances need to be able to express those thoughts of hate to prevent them being expressed as violence.

I believe you have hinted at that already in your comment. What to do? Allow "I hate Gay Men (as an example)" groups to form in the public and police eyes and allow them to express those thoughts and feelings of hate in safe environments i.e.a form of therapy?


10

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 11:24:16
#12 I don't think expressing those feelings of hate is very helpful, and frankly there are already plenty of organisations in which anti-gay views can be safely expressed - political parties, religious groups, etc. There is no shortage of outlets for hate speech.

Hate expressed alone does nothing. What is needed is dialogue and education. Much homophobia is based, for example, on gross misunderstandings or misconceptions of what homosexuality is. The idea that gay people are a threat to children, for example, cannot be logically supported, so education can address it. The idea that gay people are unnatural is also quashed by learning that homosexuality exists across nature in most species.

We don't need more groups focusing their hate speech - we need more truth being spoken and education being made available.
11

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/03/2009 11:39:51
How about addressing the issue of hate crimes against smokers as well? There is plenty of that about---perpetrated by the government.

If they treated blacks, lesbians or gays in the same way as they treat smokers then there would be a public outcry. If they are going to preach equality and fairness (which I agree with) then they should extend it to include EVERYONE, not conveniently leaving a particular group outwith the protection of their umbrella so that they can spread their lies about tobacco.
12

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 11:55:03
#14 "If they treated blacks, lesbians or gays in the same way as they treat smokers then there would be a public outcry."

What, you mean not allowing them to pollute other people's air? I believe that is a restriction placed on all races and sexualities. The minute you spot a gay man giving off a carcinogen you should ring the rozzers.

Honestly, the smoking ban a hate crime? You need to experience what hate crime really is, sunshine. Though I honestly hope you never have to.
13

im brian and so is my wife,

edinburgh 06/03/2009 11:59:34
will this go some way in stamping out hatred to minorities and others?
we are all supposed to be equal, like 14 where do you say that 1 is more equal than another
14

Jenny C,

06/03/2009 12:04:16
#14
because asking smokers to stop spreading toxic chemicals around public places is soooo comparable to a gang of gay-bashers beating up anyone they think is gay.

Smoking is a choice, being black, gay, disabled etc aren't choices. Smokers aren't banned from places, it is smoking that is banned, and there are plenty of places you can go and have a cigarette without causing harm to others.
15

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 06/03/2009 12:59:34
"The idea that gay people are unnatural is also quashed by learning that homosexuality exists across nature in most species."

Very true Dunc, I managed, somehow, to procure a gay ram for my flock. He's a fine looking animal (straight acting) but he is simply not interested in my ewes, who, in the main are very pretty and sweet natured.

He likes the boys and unfortunately has only one exit strategy (unless you want him?)!

Thank goodness we don't treat homosexuals like livestock (mind you, been to a gay club before many moons ago and oh boy! Definate cattle market)!

;-)
16

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 06/03/2009 13:06:16
"The idea that gay people are a threat to children, for example, cannot be logically supported, so education can address it."

So this is a rarity? (don't get angry Dunc, just opening the debate up...please come to Barra sometime for a celeidh)

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Court-told-man-cried-over.5046366.jp
17

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 13:15:08
#17 Straight acting, eh? They're the worst.

And I know what you mean about a cattle market; I was in a straight club once - hormones dripping from the walls and practically full sex on the dancefloor. It was enough to give you the dry boak.
18

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 13:21:06
#18 Do you have any reason to think it isn't a rarity?

That case is going to do damage to the hard work that gay groups have done to assuage the fears and prejudices of society; it is right that the despicable, criminal acts alleged to have occurred are condemned, but when straight men commit similar acts against young girls it does not become a reason to disparage all straight men. Similarly this case should not become a reason to disparage all gay men.

The vast majority of sexual crimes against children are perpetrated by men who identify as straight, just as the vast majority of men in society identify as straight.

Gay people are as disgusted by sexual crimes against children as straight people.
19

Brian the Barbarian.,

the slums 06/03/2009 13:24:37
So endeth the great Scottish tradition of slapping some F aggot who has run over your foot with his wheel chair then ? eh , eh eh ?
20

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/03/2009 13:49:02
Duncan:

The smoking ban IS a hate crime... along with all the other propaganda directed specifically at vilifying, ostracising and marginalising smokers as well as encouraging discrimination.

If you don't believe me then I suggest you attend one of those "equality & diversity" lectures that are so prevalent nowadays. Behaviour specifically identified as being discriminatory (and other things) within the bounds of the "E&D" thing is encouraged and officially supported against smokers. It is about time it stopped.

The only reason why some people believe that "passive smoking" exists is because of the extended campaign of lies bt the anti-smokers. It does not exist and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it might.

Seeing as the smoking ban was originally justifed by this falicy, it should be scrapped NOW.
21

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 06/03/2009 13:54:46
Dunc @19

Probably went to the same straight club then, last one I was at, it was frightening! Must be an age thing....

20

Well one would hope that it's a rarity, just as it's a rarity amongst hetro men too. However, the media will have it that there is a hetro sexual offender on every street corner and I'm hoping, due to positive discrimination, that they are NOT burying stories like the one I linked (now yer gonna really not like me for writing that but I'm speculating).

Marty had a little Ram
It's fleece was white a snow
Down on all fours Marty Went
To give that Ram a blo.........
22

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/03/2009 13:58:31
Jenny C:

"Smoking is a choice, being black, gay, disabled etc aren't choices..."

Being gay IS a choice. So is following a certain type of religion---and I never mentioned the disabled. However, you miss the point I am making.

Discrimination of and general nastiness towards smokers is actively encouraged. If the same activites were directed at an other collective group (whether or not it is their choice to be so or not) it would be deemed unacceptable.

Maybe race was not a good example to cite here, but there are plenty of other collective groups where it is a matter of choice to be a "member", although increasingly (and incorrectly) it is assumed nowadays that people are "born like it" rather than actively making the choice to follow a particular path.

All this vilification and discrimination is a vary basd thing. Have you not noticed that since the nazis introduced the smoking ban, there is a lot more active "anti" plans taking shape? The smoking ban paved the way and even now, people are too stupid to see what has been done.

Just you wait. They are coming for you sometime soon.
23

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 14:02:51
#23 I would hope the media aren't censoring anything too, Dave, but sadly there are people who think that certain things shouldn't be mentioned for fear of offending. Nonetheless, I'm sadly confident that if this trial should end in convictions for any of the accused, the commentary floodgates will be opened, there will be plenty of coverage in minute detail and tabloid style, and many folk will draw unwarranted generalisations as a result. I, and many others, are dreading that moment, because we know the torrent of hate that will be unleashed. I don't think you need to be concerned that anything of this is going to be "buried".
24

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 06/03/2009 14:05:06
Antidisestablishmentarianism has been done already High Octane, in one form or another.

With smokers, what will happen is that when the last village pub shuts it's doors in this fine and free country of ours, they will relax the rules. But only after the last pub is shut. In the mean time, we will lurch from one cause to another until the sanctity of our very homes will be regulated.

I have some accord with what you are saying.
25

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 06/03/2009 14:08:03
Dunc @25. Good point Dunc. I didn't see it from that perspective. Now that is a b0llox for yourselves, but will blow over eventually I hope.

Those rabid gay haters will remain even if you live the perfect angelic lives they so desire you do.
26

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 14:12:51
#22/24 Petrolhead, you are wrong in so many different ways, it's almost too much effort to point them all out. Almost... :-)

1. The smoking ban is a piece of primary legislation which has been passed by the Scottish Parliament. It cannot be a "crime", of hate or otherwise. It is marginally possible for the act of enforcement of a law to be a criminal act under a different law (e.g. the Human Rights Act) but this one isn't, because it was passed by the Scottish Parliament which is bound to adhere to the Human Rights Act in everything it does (unlike the UK Parliament). The smoking ban was audited for compliance with the ECHR, as are all SP Acts, before it was able to be passed.

2. The reason I know passive smoking exists is that when I am in a room with a smoker, I feel the effects immediately on my throat. I'm not saying that passive smoking is medically harmful (though there is plenty of evidence that it is) but simply that it exists - I am directly affected by secondary smoke, and you cannot deny that.

3. Being gay is not a choice. Engaging in certain sexual acts is a choice, and it would certainly be possible for a gay man to engage solely in sex with women. But he would still be a gay man. Sexual attraction, at the heart of sexual orientation, is not a choice. Our response to it is. Hence churches are perfectly right to say it is possible for gay people to decide to live a lie - they are just morally reprehensible for suggesting it.
27

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 14:18:45
#22 Further to my comments above - please note that should someone approach you in the street and say "I hate you, you filthy smoker" and then punch you to the ground, *that* would be a hate crime motivated by prejudice against smokers.

If you can come up with any evidence that such a crime has ever taken place, you would be able to argue for a statutory aggravation in law for it.
28

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 06/03/2009 14:25:04
Yup, but some men just want to watch the World burn meaning they exist to hate and will hate a person for the obvious (yer gay, yer black, yer a smoker etc) but not actually be homophobic, racists etc. Just violent.

What about, Dunc, Rangers fans hating Celtic fans and fighting because of that? Theres plenty of evidence (and we're not talking about sectarianism here, between other clubs too) on tape etc.

I think this is where High Octane is coming from with regards hate crimes. Where do you draw the line?
29

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 14:36:15
#30 I don't know, Dave. Any action like this ends up shifting the goalposts for other actions. It could be argued that had the statutory aggravation for race and religion not been introduced, there would never have been a push for statutory aggravations for sexuality and disability.

One the one hand, there is already a statutory aggravation for crimes motivated by religious hatred, and if we're honest that is what Celtic/Rangers is about.

On the other hand, it is possible for any aggravating factor to be reported to the fiscal - it doesn't have to be a statutory one - and the fiscal can attach that to the charge. So that could be applied to any competing football teams, etc.

The problem with non-statutory aggravations is that there is no consistency across forces or courts services, and so one crime might be far more harshly punished in one area than in another.

But is it beneficial to extend the statutory scheme to all possible aggravations? Probably not. Do we have to agree an imperfect middle ground? Probably. Are we there? I don;t know.
30

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 06/03/2009 14:38:30
Ok, well in that case Dunc, lets go for a dram while we can still afford it!
31

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 14:40:39
#32 Hehe, indeed! A fine new whisky shop has opened just up the road from my house. If I had some serious money I could easily spend it all in that shop! As it is, one bottle at a time, there's some crackers I'm going to work my way through...
32

Geomac 1,

Scotland 06/03/2009 19:05:24
I had hitherto thought that we were all equal under the law? Hmmm - seems not? I am not gay, I am not of an ethnic minority, but damn it all I have been known to like an alcoholic beveridge now and again - so? I don't have a chance! The numpties at Hollywwod seem to be hell bent on responding to those who shout the loudest with no regard to the vast majority.
HELL MEND THE LOT OF THEM!!
33

Tartan Viking,

06/03/2009 19:17:38
#34. One thing they haven't taken (yet) is your right to vote at the ballot box. Remenber this next time you are called upon to put in your X. Hopefully, you won't have a long wait till it happens.
34

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 20:27:33
#34 Which Beveridge is that then? The economist who invented the welfare state, or the footballer who became a minister?

You don't have a chance at what, exactly? In what way are you being held back by this change in the law? What harm is it doing to you?
35

thomasgray,

Edinburgh 06/03/2009 20:40:04
Hate crimes are a ridiculous notion. Crimes are crimes - if you assault someone it shouldn't matter if it's road rage, hate crime or whatever. It's assault. If that person can't ably defend themselves then that should be a mitigating factor in sentencing (so I can kind of see where the disabled thing could be workable); if it's someone who specifically puts themselves in danger to protect the public good (such as emergency services) that the same applies there ... but what does someone's skin colour, religion or sexual preference have to do with it?

If we keep treating people differently, applying different rules for these characteristics in particular, then there's always going to be a fixation upon them and a resentment by certain people. Treat everyone by the same set of rules and sooner or later the problem will disappear.
36

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/03/2009 21:08:41
#37 Much as I appreciate where you're coming from, two points come to mind.

First, this isn't a case of different rules for different folk - it's a statutorily defined aggravation to a charge which allows more consistent and fair handling of aggravated assaults across all force areas, and it changes nothing in terms of how cases are dealt with and justice delivered. So an assault is still an assault.

Second, if only your final assertion were true. Sadly it takes concerted effort to effect change in society - gay right, black rights, women's rights, disabled rights - none of these came about by sitting and waiting for the problem to disappear.
37

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/03/2009 23:47:36
Duncan @ #28:

1. In which case it is LEGALISED crime. In moral terms it is a crime and steps should be taken to eradicate it.

2. So in other words you do not like the smell of smoke. That can be brought about by the subconscious. A decent hypnotist may be able to make you feel the same way about a smell that you currently like, such as that of flowers. Propaganda is designed to act on the subconscious. Even apparently physical symptoms can be controlled by working on the subconscious. If this was not the case, why do they use placibos when they are testing drugs?

3. Being gay IS a choice. You cannot classify someone as gay if they totally abstain from sexual relations. If someone has sexual relations then they CHOOSE what kind of sexual relations they have. I do not discriminate against anyone on the grounds of their choice of sexual preference, therefore I do not expect anyone to discriminate against me because of my choice to smoke.
38

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/03/2009 00:19:53
#39

1. Brilliant. It's a crime if you redefine what the word crime means. In which case it's also a potato.

2. No, I didn't say that I don't like the smell, I said I feel the effect immediately on my throat. If I had meant I don't like the smell I would have said I don't like the smell. As it happens I quite like the smell of some types of tobacco smoke. But the effect on my throat is painful and unpleasant. If you are going to tell me that that is a conditioned response to an effective placebo then I'm going to tell you that once more you are talking the most stupendous variety of nonsense, and that it is, and you are, laughable for suggesting it.

#3 You display a fundamental misunderstanding of sexual orientation versus sexual behaviour. Attraction does not need to be acted on to exist. Plenty of gay people have lived utterly celibate lives thanks to the moralising bigotry of various religions. They are no less gay than I am.

If I stand next to you in a pub being gay, it does not affect you. If you stand next to me in a pub smoking, it affects me.

This is not a hard concept to understand. Your argument is rubbish. You need to find a better one, or give up.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should an inquiry take place into the gay adoption against the grandparents’ wishes?
Yes, the family’s views are the most important thing
No, social services will have been thorough
No, it will only cause more problems for the children

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.