Scotland's Hate Crime Bill has been universally ridiculed since its launch last week. It's been called 'ridiculous', 'pathetic' and 'totally unworkable' by politicians, celebrities and those on Social Media alike. The Bill is now, and forever will be, associated with JK Rowling and the Trans mob, a convenient distraction from the real purpose of the Bill which is far more sinister in every way.
In the text explaining the new law, missed by almost everyone, is a strange passage that appears to be unconnected to the rest of the bill, yet, there it is, in black and white. Humza Yousaf himself made a point of referring to it in his first tv appearance after its launch. Yousaf made a 'casual' reference to it at the end of the interview, hoping nobody would notice. No-one did, everyone too busy with JK Rowling's online spats with men in frocks to notice anything else.
The clause that everyone missed was this:
Part 4 – Abolition of the offence of blasphemy Section 16 – Abolition of the offence of blasphemy 85. Section 16 abolishes the common law offence of blasphemy.
'The Scottish Government claiming that the reason is because the offence of blasphemy has not been prosecuted in Scotland for more than 175 years.'
Laws in Britain are rarely, if ever, repealed because they're not used any more. Especially those that are long-since forgotten about. Laws are only repealed if the government want to specifically apply a counter-law, and that is what is really at the root of this seemingly innocuous move.
The New Hate Crime law cunningly does not abolish Blasphemy, it abolishes Christian Blasphemy and it replaces it with... Islamic Blasphemy.
The outgoing blasphemy laws were specific to Christianity, created in a time when Scotland was Christian. That blasphemy law has been quietly replaced by the religious ’hate crime’ act which is solely to do with Islam, and it was done whilst everyone was distracted by J.K. Rowling and the Trannies who hate her.
The new hate crime law has an entire section dedicated to protecting religious rights, but we all know what that really means. It certainly doesn't' mean Christianity, that has no protection anymore, whilst Isam now gets its own specific law in its place.
Whilst the old Blasphemy law, which stood for 300 years, gets two lines the new Religious Hate law gets entire pages dedicated to it. Muslims on the other hand, are specifically mentioned, leaving no doubt to the bill's true intentions.
The bill states:
Section 14 (discussed below) sets out relevant definitions for these characteristics. The concept of the ‘group’ refers to a group of people who may never have met one another but who share a listed characteristic. 16. An offence can be aggravated by prejudice under section 1(1)(a) if the offender evinces malice and ill-will towards a victim (of the offence) based on the victim’s “presumed membership” of a group defined by reference to one of the characteristics mentioned above. Here, presumed membership means presumed by the offender (see section 1(5)). For example, if the offender assaults a person (the victim) and in so doing evinces malice and ill-will towards the victim based on the offender’s presumption that the victim was a Muslim, then even if the victim is not in fact a Muslim the offence (assault) may still be aggravated by prejudice.
It goes on:
As the aggravation in section 1(1)(b) does not require there to be a specific victim, this means that the aggravation can be applied even in cases where the malice and ill-will is expressed towards a wider group as a whole, without the need for a specific or individual victim to have been identified. For example, where a church, synagogue or mosque is daubed with graffiti the offender might, in committing the offence of vandalism, be found to have been motivated by malice and ill-will towards people (comprising a group defined by reference to religion) who worship at those places. 21. An offence can be aggravated by prejudice under section 1(1)(a) or (b) in respect of more than one characteristic. For example, an assault may be aggravated by both race and religion. Evidence of each separate aggravation would be required.
Even if a perceived event is not motivated by race or religion but the 'victim' is coloured or Muslim they can still prosecute you under the act as can be seen here:
Section 1(3) provides that the aggravation by prejudice arising either through the operation of section 1(1)(a) or section 1(1)(b) can apply even if the malice and ill-will is based, in part, on other factors. For example, if an offender threatens a person (the victim) and this is motivated in part for reasons unconnected to the victim’s race (such as where the offender and victim worked together and the offender developed an intense dislike of the person), then the aggravation can still apply as long as either the test in section 1(1)(a) or section 1(1)(b) is met.
Section 1(4) provides that corroboration is not required to prove that an offence was aggravated by prejudice. Corroboration will still be required for the purposes of proving the underlying offence.
But we should not worry as we know that Muslims are a laid-back bunch who can take criticism about their religion and love nothing more than a good joke or a cartoon about Mohammed.
The UK Centre for Crime and Justice studies who regularly advise government say that: Blasphemy connotes the insult of God or Prophet Mohammad and other revered figures in Islam, and can be committed by believers and non-believers alike. Apostasy from Islam and blasphemy against Islam therefore remain (and have always remained) unacceptable.
Blasphemy in Islam is extreme. just being a Christian, and believing that God had a son, is Blasphemy punishable by death. Wikipedia states: In Islam, blasphemy is impious utterance or action concerning God,[2] but is broader than in normal English usage, including not only the mocking or vilifying of attributes of Islam but denying any of the fundamental beliefs of the religion.[3] Examples include denying that the Quran was divinely revealed,[3] the Prophethood of one of the Islamic prophets,[4] insulting an angel, or maintaining God had a son.
Until now the Christian ‘blasphemy’ law acted as a counterbalance to all this. Christianity had, in the eyes of Hamza Yosef, an unfair advantage. Islam, which wants to conquer everywhere it goes, has just had specific protection written into Scottish law.
Sharia law cannot sit alongside Christian law, so the Christian law just had to go.
Comments