The Press and Journal (Inverness, Highlands, and Islands)
Be careful what you say – and how – when wine gums are focus of criticism
Sir, – I may be alone in having difficulty in understanding this legislation which came into force on April 1 (how appropriate.)
When the Bill was introduced by the now First Minister, he accepted in Parliament, before any debate on it, that the Bill would need to be amended by a committee.
I am not aware of any similar statement having been made by a proponent about a Bill.
Most people in introducing a Bill would wish to avoid looking stupid by accepting that it had not been thought out fully: “Here are the ingredients, you make the cake.”
The delay in bringing the Act into force was down to concerns expressed by Police Scotland about the demands which would be made on them.
There must have been a very significant recruitment of police officers since then, but it seems that the relatively-new chief constable, in her public pronouncements, is not aware of that.
Whatever the strength of the police force, the police will be forced to treat seriously any complaint made under the Act (at present, all 3,000 of them) and investigate it.
Police Scotland has said that it will no longer investigate some minor matters (seemingly due, in part to lack of resources). What irresponsible person said that?
It seems to me that much of what is in the Act is covered by the existing law, and so one reasonable question (at least I think so) would be: “If that is correct, why do we need another Act?”
To digress, the Scottish Parliament passed the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 1995 which, among other things, makes it offence, eg, to assault an ambulance driver.
When I was at university in the 1960s, if I recall, this activity was an offence then and had been from time immemorial. But we needed an Act to spell that out. I will not dwell any further on the stupidity of this type of legislation.
So back to the Hate Crime (Scotland) Act. I do not have, and hopefully will never have, the spare mental capacity to read the whole Act.
Some police officers and practitioners can do that. Lucky people.
Section 4 is what the High Court would describe as a “beezer” as it creates an offence of stirring up hatred.
There is, of course, no definition of this odd, possibly unique, expression, nor any indication of the shops or other outlets from which the spoon or other necessary utensil can be bought or stolen (a minor offence which the police may not investigate if there are no credible witnesses).
To be clear, that has nothing to do with manpower. Police Scotland may have said that, but...
The following example occurs to me and I confess that I am not sure what the outcome would be.
Two people are enjoying a box of wine gums.
One says, “I hate the black ones,” and other laughs. Two others, within earshot, think that this remark is directed at people “of colour”, that the masticators are “stirring up hatred” and so the “over-manned” police get involved.
The masticators protest they were talking about the gums, some of which are gums “of colour”.
As there is corroboration of what was said by the masticators and the other two say and the laughter, this laughter tilts the balance. So, the police decide to report the matter to “over-manned” Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. A complaint is served to be dealt with in the “over-manned” sheriff courts.
The masticators will require to give evidence about their intentions in relation to the wine gums’ comment and the accompanying laughter.
What happens next – over to you, sheriff ? If convicted, the masticators might think that but for laughing, all would have been well.
So they appeal to the “over-manned” High Court. The moral is: Stay away from wine gums, or if you can’t resist, do not comment on the ones you don’t like, if there are witnesses!
You might decide to eat them at home, but that is not a safe place as this Act can penalise comments about wine gums within one’s home. Your hard-of hearing and partiallysighted granny might be a witness for the Crown.