Where is William Wallace when you need him?

What the hell has just happened in Scotland? The new hate crime bill that has been passed must be the most ill thought out piece of legislation in British history. I won't bang on about free speech being muzzled because someone will do it better than I and the general public have no idea what it really means to have it or to lose it anyway.

The Great Men of Scotland, Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, Adam Ferguson - the fathers of the Scottish enlightenment, the god damned pioneers of Western critical thinking, they must be positively revolving in their graves this week.

This not so much about free speech as freedom itself. People will talk about hate crimes, offensive language to minorities and the need to legislate against it but the point is, who defines hate speech? There is nothing in this hate crime crime prevention document that tells me what I am allowed and not allowed to say. The legal definition of hate crime is "any crime which is understood by the victim or any other person as being motivated (wholly or partly) by malice or ill will towards a social group."

How can I determine what someone else finds offensive? Why should I have to? Could they make the definition any broader?

Here is what Scotland Police have to say about it

Which groups are covered?

There are five groups or ‘protected characteristics’ covered by the hate crime legislation.

• Disability

• Race

• Religion or belief

• Sexual Orientation

• Transgender Identity The person experiencing hate does not always need to be in one of these groups. We look at why the act or offence was committed and the perceptions of those involved. Hate crimes can be verbal or physical and include:

• threatening behaviour

• verbal abuse or insults including name-calling

• assaults

• robbery

• damage to property

• encouraging others to commit hate crimes

• harassment

• online abuse on sites like Facebook or Twitter

It makes no sense right off the bat: 'Hate crimes can be verbal or physical and include - online abuse' (by definition this is not verbal or physical it is written). And why do we have to have protected groups? Can't we all get protection? (laughably one SMP wanted to get all women listed as a protected group. A 'group' of 50% of the population? And rather ironic when the Scottish Government can't seem to define what a woman is anyway).

But lets take an example here and see how quickly I can commit a hate crime.

'Humza Yousal is an Islamist'. Do I believe this? It doesn't matter because Mr Yousaf could say that this is a hate crime as it would fall under 'name-calling', wouldn't it?

'Name calling'. I mean FFS.

Some ignorant people will say 'well why are you trying to find the boundaries of what is offensive?' I'm not, but if no-one knows where those boundaries are then they are open to interpretation. If they are open to interpretation they are open to abuse. If they are open to abuse then they are open to control. Those who exercise control wield power.

If one person can call the police to say that they have found a joke, a comment, a discussion, an argument offensive then this is not about hate crime, this is a tool to exercise control and ultimately power. State control over the individual, state control over the press, state control over society.

Anyone can say that they found something offensive, you could be arrested for it, convicted for it and it won't matter what the truth or circumstances were after you have a criminal record and appear on a DBS check. Or end up on a likely, soon to be publicly shared 'social register' as a convicted hate crime person so your neighbours can smash your windows in, which will be OK as long as they don't call you 'names' as the bricks sail through.

Most people don't want to be a pariah. They don't want to be on a list because the general consensus has always been and always will be 'there is no smoke without fire'. You don't want to be explaining the ins and outs of your hate crime conviction to the other parents at the school gates. They won't believe you. They will just suspect that you have always been a 'wrong'un' and they will conflate your lazy eye with your newly discovered hate filled character, conjecting that you are a cousin of Nick Griffin.

If I make my previous statement as an SMP and get convicted now Mr Yousaf can say without impunity 'Don't listen to him he has been convicted of a hate crime, he is a criminal' and who wants to take notice of a hate crime criminal? It already sounds bad, it sounds like you wear Union Jack socks inside doc martens and have beaten up a 10 year old immigrant boy.

Silenced. Your voice has been taken away. That is the way it works.

But you don't need a conviction for control. You can arrest people under these laws and release them. No harm done? Most people don't want to be arrested. This is what they call 'the punishment is the process'. You will think twice before getting into a situation like that again - that's called 'Self-censorship'.

We push further into 1984.

This is an inspiring statement form the Scottish Police;

Assistant chief constable Faroque Hussain said the legislation would serve to “bring to justice those perpetrators of hate against protected people and groups”. He added: “Our training package has been developed in close consultation with diversity staff associations to ensure all protected characteristics under the new act are clearly represented and articulated, and that officers are best prepared when they respond to hate crimes and incidents.

I think this is what they call a word salad. Why should your average copper be expected to police in consultation with 'diversity staff associations'. Who are these unelected, sinister sounding organizations that are now 'closely' consulting with the police to decide on how we are policed? I don't the police arresting people for name calling - even if the words are directed at me. I just want them to get involved when it gets to the sticks and stones part.

The Scottish Express have a small but good article on this here, basically highlighting that the way they now prioritize these 'crimes' you won't get a visit from the police if your house has been burgled but you will get one if you have been 'name-calling' your neighbour.

Another excellent article here highlighting the world of hurt you might find yourself in for misgendering someone and the sheer amount of police resources that will be sucked up as every reported 'crime' in Scotland has to investigated.

I don't live in Scotland but these 'progressive' laws have a habit of crossing the border. And more than that, despite being English, with our perceived traditional rivalry, I have no beef with the Scots whatsoever. They are part of the Union, a Union that has been the most successful in the history of the planet and I have nothing but respect for them and their culture. I want to see Scottish culture preserved and I want to see it flourish.

I sincerely hope they throw off the shackles of this wokerized government and get rid of all the imbeciles who voted for this legislation in their parliament at the next election.

Scotland, make a stand while you still can. It's not often an Englishman endorses the words of William Wallace in Braveheart;

'Run and you'll live -- at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!'