AFTER having a good laugh at the unlovely Murdo’s complaint to Police Scotland I took a moment to reflect on the new “hate” crime law and what it will lead to.
I hate to agree with Fraser – whose politics I detest – but both he and Joanna Cherry are not wrong when they suggest this legislation will open a Pandora’s box of malicious and fatuous complaints to the police.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf hits back at Douglas Ross ‘zero tolerance to hate’ claim
Despite reassurances, I predict that a tiny minority of vocal and aggressive activists will deluge the system with complaints, and that the police, who can’t deal with “minor” crimes, will be investigating each and every one.
I won’t name this aggressive, bullying minority for fear of being the subject of a police investigation myself. That is what this frightening legislation has led to.
Speaking of hate, you do wonder if the thousands who follow Orange marches and sing obscenities about the Pope at Ibrox will be investigated under this new law. That would be a better use of police and court time. Don’t hold your breath.
Jim Butchart
via email
I HAVE no problem with people being upset (to any degree) by hate speech, but I do not see how the upcoming Hate Crime Act will help improve matters. I think that we might be about to see a deluge of “complaints” to the police of a somewhat spurious nature.
READ MORE: Murdo Fraser’s comment about non-binary identity was crass and stupid
I feel that if a complaint is made and is deemed to be at criminal level then it should dealt with under due process, and the complainant afforded anonymity as appropriate. But should the complaint not reach criminal status then the identity of the complainant should be revealed to the subject of the complaint – this to safeguard against petty complaining. Then any matter not deemed to be at criminal level can be recorded but the subject not named in the records. This would allow for trends to be identified that they may be shown as a societal issue which can be addressed over time.
I am of the opinion that there are no rights except equal rights.
M Ross
Aviemore
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel