“Hate speech” laws aren’t about safety; they’re about control

Lucy Connolly, who was previously jailed for an offensive Twitter post, is being threatened with a return to prison for reposting a joke about Donald Trump coming for the UK Prime Minister. Her probation officer is claiming it could “incite violence.”

In the following, Paul Collits discusses “hate speech” laws in the UK and Australia, citing examples of people being prosecuted for their opinions. He argues that such laws are being used to control and suppress dissenting voices, rather than addressing the root causes of problems.

It isn’t about safety. It’s about control, about compelled speech and about controlled speech, he writes. It isn’t about safety. It is about control. It is about compelled speech and it is about controlled speech. Keir Starmer and Anthony Albanese (“Albo”) are simultaneously repressive and incompetent....<<<Read More>>>....

Australia’s proposed “hate crime” bill is not only an attack on free speech; it opens the door to belief-based punishment

"Everybody needs to stand against this. The Australian government is rushing through a new ‘hate-crime’ bill which criminalises association rather than conduct and applies terrorism-law logic to political activism, protesters and online community groups.”—Blair Cotrell on Gab

The “hate crime” bill that is being rushed through by the Australian government is officially called the ‘Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill’. It is a sweeping piece of legislation introduced in response to the December Bondi Beach attack, so it is claimed.

The Bill aims to crack down on “hate speech,” particularly from religious or spiritual leaders (“hate preachers”), with a maximum penalty of 12 years in prison for inciting violence or promoting racial hatred.

“The ban on hate symbols will be strengthened, including by requiring a person caught displaying a symbol to prove that it was legitimate – a reversal of the burden of proof requiring prosecutors to prove a crime occurred,” The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Adding, “Changes to migration law will allow the immigration minister to refuse or cancel visas if a person has associated with hate groups or made hateful comments, including online.”...<<<Read More>>>...

Ex-Met Police Chief Tables Amendment to Abolish Non-Crime Hate Incidents

 The Government could be forced to abolish non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) after a former head of the Metropolitan Police and Toby tabled a widely supported amendment to axe them in the House of Lords. The Times has more.

Lord Hogan-Howe, who led Britain’s biggest police force between 2011 and 2017, and Lord Young of Acton, head of the Free Speech Union, have tabled an amendment to the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill that would stop requiring police to record NCHIs. It would abolish NCHIs as a special category of incident that must be recorded by officers.

The bill is being scrutinised in the Lords. Hogan-Howe and Young’s amendment is understood to have received the backing of dozens of crossbenchers in addition to the Conservatives, which means it has a good chance of succeeding.

If the amendment is voted through the Lords it will force the Government to either accept the scrapping of NCHIs or to use its majority in the Commons to overturn the amendment when it returns from the upper chamber.

NCHIs are supposed to be reserved for incidents that fall below the criminal threshold but help forces to develop intelligence on situations that could escalate into more serious harm or heightened community tensions.

Official guidance tells officers to record incidents that are “clearly motivated by intentional hostility” with a real risk of escalation “causing a significant harm or a criminal offence”.

They were introduced in 2014 after recommendations prompted by the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in London in 1993. However, they have been increasingly used by forces to record petty arguments and trivial online spats. Critics claim they are stifling freedom of speech and wasting police time....<<<Read More>>>...

British Police Order Trump-Supporting Pensioner to Apologise for “Upsetting” Facebook Post or Face Investigation

British police have been accused of a “dystopian” attack on free speech after an American woman was threatened with investigation over a Facebook post and ordered to “apologise”. The Mail has the story.

Footage of the encounter has been seen more than 1.3 million [now 2.8 million] times since it was posted last night and has sparked a furious response from campaigners.

It shows a woman, named as American cancer patient and Donald Trump supporter Deborah Anderson, being confronted in her home by Thames Valley Police.

The MAGA-backing mother-of-two was accused of “upsetting” a person following an alleged “threatening” post she made on Facebook, which was reported to police.

The officer declined to say which of the alleged posts had been complained about.

In the video, “elderly” Ms Anderson then flatly refuses to apologise for her comments online before she is threatened with the potential of a formal interview at a police station.

The incident, filmed in June, prompted an intervention by the Free Speech Union (FSU), who last night claimed Thames Valley Police had since dropped the case. The force today confirmed no further action was taken over the allegations.

It comes as Britain faces fierce criticism over a recent clampdown on free speech, which has seen people being arrested, convicted or jailed over posts made online.

The issue has prompted concern from US President Donald Trump – who is in the UK on his state visit – and warned earlier this month “strange things are happening over there, they are cracking down… I’m very surprised to see what’s happening”....<<<Read More>>>...

Is Hunza Yousaf guilty of “hate crimes” according to his new law?

 On Monday, Hunza Yousaf’s “hate crime” bill comes into effect so it’s a good time to recall some of Yousaf’s rhetoric and examine whether he has fallen foul of his new law.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act extends the offence of “stirring up racial hatred” to disability, religion, sexual orientation, age, transgender identity and “variations in sex characteristics.”

The legislation is part of the legacy of the Nicola Sturgeon era. It was passed by Yousaf when he was justice secretary.

The Act doesn’t just apply to social media posts or newspaper articles. It covers anything said anywhere – even in your own home.

If you live in Scotland, you may have seen the Scottish government’s “Hate Hurts” advertisements. “Words can hurt and can have a detrimental effect on how someone feels about themselves,” the Scottish government’s campaign said.

Below are two of Yousaf’s speeches for us to consider. Has he already committed offences under his own Act?....<<<Read More>>>....