EZRA LEVANT ｜ Thousands of hate speech complaints filed in Scotland after passing of draconian censorship bill
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
156.14522
Summary
Neil Hanvey was one of the first people in Scotland to be hit with the country's new hate speech censorship law, and he's not even the one who got the call from the police about it. You're not going to want to miss this.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Today, a very interesting show. I talk at length with a Scottish member of Parliament who was hit
00:00:06.740
with their country's new hate speech censorship law. Crazy. And these secret complaints and
00:00:15.760
something called a non-hate crime incident or something. Just really, holy moly, is it a
00:00:23.140
cautionary tale. You're not going to want to miss this. But first, let me invite you to get a,
00:00:26.940
what we call a Rebel News Plus premium subscription. It's the video version of this
00:00:33.300
podcast. Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe. You get the video version. Every
00:00:39.040
weekday I do the show and Sheila Gunn-Reed does it every week and you get access to that video
00:00:44.400
version. But more importantly, you support Rebel News because we don't take a dime from Trudeau
00:00:49.060
and it shows. That's rebelnewsplus.com. All right, here's today's show.
00:00:56.940
Tonight, a feature interview with a Scottish MP, one of the first people to be hit with the new
00:01:14.880
censorship law in that country. It's April 9th and this is the Ezra LeVant Show.
00:01:34.460
It seems the whole world is bent on censorship. It's really increasing. Ireland is looking at deep
00:01:40.920
censorship. Of course, in Canada, Justin Trudeau has proposed Bill C-63. Perhaps the most
00:01:47.760
draconian censorship bill in the free world, we see in Brazil, Twitter is being banned and Elon Musk
00:01:56.420
criminalized by a judge who doesn't like the free speech on that platform one bit.
00:02:01.840
Well, same with Scotland. You might recall a video I did a couple of years ago when I went through an
00:02:07.440
astonishing bill championed by the first minister of that country, Hamza Youssef. He's an unusual
00:02:15.720
figure to be calling for censorship of hate speech, given this absolutely bigoted speech that he
00:02:24.440
himself gave, dripping for contempt for what he called white people. Take a look at this.
00:02:30.580
But why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively
00:02:37.120
by those who are white? Take my portfolio alone. The Lord President, white. The Lord Justice Clark,
00:02:44.840
white. Every High Court Judge, white. The Lord Advocate, white. The Solicitor General, white. The Chief
00:02:52.100
Constable, white. Every Deputy Chief Constable, white. Every Assistant Chief Constable, white. The Head of
00:02:58.860
the Faculty of the Law Society, white. The Head of the Faculty of Advocates, white. Every Prison Governor,
00:03:04.900
white. And not just Justice. The Chief Medical Officer, white. The Chief Nursing Officer, white. The Chief
00:03:11.700
Veterinary Officer, white. The Chief Social Work Advisor, white. Almost every trade union in this
00:03:17.600
country headed by people who are white. In the Scottish Government, every Director General is
00:03:23.460
white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough. How can someone who is so
00:03:31.780
clearly driven by racial animus then pass a law that would trap others for what he considers racial
00:03:39.120
animus? Shouldn't he be the one charged under his own law? Or preferably, shouldn't we all be allowed to
00:03:45.460
have freedom of speech? And shouldn't we be able to judge for ourselves what is odious and what is
00:03:50.020
impermissible rather than having the police do so? Well, that's my opinion, but that's not the law.
00:03:55.080
Hamza Yosef's censorship bill is now law in Britain. And wouldn't you know it, one of the first people
00:04:02.260
complained about is a Member of Parliament. His name is Neil Hanvey, and let me read to you a tweet that he
00:04:09.600
published last week. So my office got a call from Police Scotland today advising me that I had been
00:04:16.680
reported for a hate crime based on an undisclosed tweet. Can you believe that? You don't even know
00:04:22.560
the case against you. It's an undisclosed tweet. They had assessed the complaint that were notifying
00:04:27.580
me that they were taking no further action as they did not deem it necessary, but still a call from the
00:04:32.840
police. That's a way of saying, we've got our eyes on you, buddy. Police officers are already under
00:04:38.260
enormous pressure, but now they are having to spend their precious time assessing the perceptions
00:04:42.500
of how offended someone feels over others' lawfully expressed opinions. This is utterly
00:04:49.200
ridiculous, illiberal, wasteful, and unacceptable in a supposedly liberal democracy, where political
00:04:54.740
discourse should be free and open. The tweet continues, I recall when I reviewed this bill a
00:05:00.500
couple of years ago that the police took the unusual step of coming out in public against it,
00:05:06.660
saying that it would stress their relations with ordinary Scots, it would lower the police's
00:05:12.000
reputation in the community, and divert them from more important work. Well, joining us now via Skype
00:05:17.660
from the United Kingdom is Neil Hanvey, the MP who received that phone call from police. Mr. Hanvey,
00:05:25.620
what a pleasure to have you join us. Thanks for taking the time. Thank you, sir. Lovely to be with you.
00:05:31.080
I am not surprised that a political leader such as yourself was one of the first targets of the
00:05:38.540
censorship bill. But in fact, thousands of complaints have been filed in the very first week. Am I right?
00:05:44.200
Yes, you're correct. And referencing your earlier comments about what is commonly referred to as the
00:05:51.940
white speech by Hamza Youssef in the Scottish Parliament, that received the most complaints of those many
00:05:59.460
thousands of complaints. So it's quite interesting that the architect of this legislation has actually
00:06:06.020
ended up being one of the targets in its first week since launch. But yeah, I mean, I was expecting,
00:06:14.020
I wrote about the potential impact of this legislation back in October in a newspaper article setting out my
00:06:21.120
concerns about how it would be used for, say, vexatious purposes to attack political opponents or
00:06:27.120
indeed anyone with whom you disagreed with. And so it has come to pass that I was reported to
00:06:35.320
Police Scotland, who had to waste their precious resource assessing the complaint, contacting me
00:06:42.540
to tell me that I hadn't done anything wrong and that they weren't going to take the matter any further.
00:06:48.860
However, a political opponent of mine, somebody from the Conservative Party in Scotland,
00:06:54.060
Myrtle Fraser, also found out in recent weeks that he has a non-crime hate incident recorded
00:07:01.140
against his name. And so the question I have to ask is, well, what was the tweet? You know,
00:07:07.280
how was it investigated? Who made the complaint? And do I have a non-crime hate incident against my
00:07:13.340
previously unblemished character? That's a great question. I'm so glad you raised it.
00:07:19.520
In Canada, we don't have such a thing as that, a non-crime hate incident. What I think that means,
00:07:27.260
correct me if I'm wrong, is that you've done something, quote, wrong, but it hasn't risen to
00:07:33.240
a level where the police or the prosecutors think there's a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
00:07:39.180
But it's still on your record. So I find this an astonishing thing for police to have
00:07:46.000
at all. It goes on your record, not your criminal record, but a record. And it implies that you're
00:07:52.320
a hater. And in in your case, it sounds like you still don't even know what the complaint
00:08:00.960
That's correct. So the the police have been challenged on these non-crime hate incidents
00:08:07.580
activity. But the the there's a real possibility that members of public, the public, the public,
00:08:13.900
the police have been challenged on these non-crime incidents down south in England and have been asked
00:08:15.900
by the secretaries, the whole secretary rather, to stop that practice because it's deemed to be
00:08:21.020
unlawful and against human rights of citizens. And so the the same argument should prevail in Scotland
00:08:29.020
with this non-crime hate incidents activity. But the there's a real possibility that members of
00:08:36.300
public, the public could have a non-crime hate incident recorded against their name, and that
00:08:41.140
could potentially impact on their employment, their current employment or indeed any future job that
00:08:46.720
they go for. It's a really concerning issue. And the fundamental problem with this is it you
00:08:54.700
mentioned that there needed to be some assessment of whether it reached a criminal threshold. Well,
00:08:59.980
that's not actually the case. It all rests on the person who's offended's perception.
00:09:07.180
And that is the only test that is required for a non-crime hate incident to be recorded against your
00:09:14.700
name. OK, thank you for that information. This is an alien concept here in Canada, even though we
00:09:20.380
inherited so much of our legal system from the UK. Now, let me ask you a personal question before
00:09:26.060
we get back to the law. You said the police phoned you to say, oh, we're not proceeding. But I mean,
00:09:32.940
you're a sophisticated man. You're a member of parliament. You understand laws and police.
00:09:37.340
You're confident. You have a media profile. You're a tougher nut to crack than an ordinary Scott who
00:09:44.540
probably has no interaction with police or lawyers or the court system. And if they got such a phone call,
00:09:50.060
I would suggest it would be terrifying. Even if the official message was, don't worry,
00:09:57.500
we're not coming from you now. The subtext would be, you're on our radar. We know who you are. We
00:10:03.740
know where you are. We know something about you. You better watch your P's and Q's. So let me ask you,
00:10:09.100
do you feel like this phone call to you by the police was a kind of warning or like, I mean, what was it
00:10:15.820
like? Well, the reality was they didn't speak to me directly. They spoke to a member of my team. So
00:10:23.420
the message was relayed to me via a third party. I mean, there's somebody that I absolutely trust. But
00:10:31.340
you know, that in itself is not particularly great practice. But yeah, I mean, I mean, talk about,
00:10:37.420
I mean, that's a confidential matter, you would think. And you would think they would say, may I
00:10:43.100
please have an arranged conversation with Mr. Hanvey directly. That's insane that they were leaking
00:10:51.100
this gossipy, defamatory fact about you. I mean, like you say, you trust this person,
00:10:57.340
but that's sloppy practice. Or maybe that too is deliberate.
00:11:01.580
Well, indeed. I mean, the fundamental issue with the Hate Crime Act as it stands is that
00:11:09.340
the report can be made based purely on perception. And the argument that the first minister has
00:11:15.100
advanced in recent days has been that it's important to get a sense of what kind of hate is out there.
00:11:21.260
And that's why non-prime hate incident reporting and recording of it is important because it helps
00:11:26.780
tell us about the prevalence of so-called hate. But actually, all it does is it tells us how vexatious
00:11:32.780
certain parts of the population are and how many complaints they're prepared to make against an
00:11:37.660
individual. And the first minister has found out on the back of his white speech that the hate can
00:11:44.700
be targeted in that way also. But there's a really important point here with the legislation. So
00:11:51.180
the criminal test is really quite high. And there is a freedom of expression
00:12:01.340
provision within the act. But what there isn't is a detailed explanatory note that gives people
00:12:09.500
information about how that test may be made, met, and what kind of speech would not be classed as hate
00:12:18.060
speech. And that's really important for two reasons. One, there is no carve out for what is generally
00:12:25.020
referred to as gender critical views. And that's not been clarified. Sex is not protected
00:12:33.660
characteristics within the act. So therefore, women's rights are fair game. And those are two
00:12:39.980
significant issues that I'm very concerned about personally. And the reason that those provisions
00:12:47.580
are not there, and this is my view, and the reason that the explanatory notes are not clear, is that it
00:12:53.820
would take someone a very arduous process through a criminal trial to discover that what they did was
00:13:01.180
not criminal and didn't meet the criminal test than what they said was covered by the freedom of
00:13:09.420
expression provision. And the reason, as I said, those clarifications were not there was because it's
00:13:15.740
my belief that the Scottish government had the very clear intention of exerting a chilling effect
00:13:21.660
on the people of Scotland to stop them talking about some of the important political issues that we face,
00:13:28.220
particularly around identity politics. And that chilling effect could have been could have been
00:13:35.260
exerted very powerfully had it not been for people like myself and more prominent people like J.K.
00:13:42.460
Rowling testing the law by making sure that we continue to speak freely and to challenge this regressive
00:13:51.580
illiberal legislation. You're so right. I have been following J.K. Rowling. By the way,
00:13:57.100
she causes reverberations even here in Canada. But in the west coast city of Vancouver, on the Pacific
00:14:05.340
side of our country, a young nurse put up a billboard that just says, I heart J.K. Rowling,
00:14:11.900
and she's been prosecuted ever since for conduct unbecoming. So J.K. Rowling is a fascinating
00:14:20.220
person with such a huge platform, and she exerts herself for freedom. I saw the other day she tweeted
00:14:26.220
that if anyone gets in trouble for, say, misgendering someone, because I think you're right. This is
00:14:32.300
about one of the things they're going to do if they if they're not protecting sex, but they're
00:14:36.940
protecting gender identity. Seems pretty clear to me this is a transgender censorship act. J.K.
00:14:43.260
Rowling said she will re-utter whatever someone who is charged with a hate speech says. She's basically
00:14:50.620
saying, come and get me, pick on someone your own size. And she's got an enormous size in terms of
00:14:57.580
reputation, a following, and of course, money. She won't be as easily picked on as an ordinary person.
00:15:05.580
No, I think what she's she's done is incredibly courageous and really important because she's
00:15:13.980
really called out the chilling effect. And she's made it quite clear that she will stand with anyone
00:15:21.660
who is targeted by the gender ideology mob. And, you know, this is, you know, queer theory,
00:15:30.380
I call them queer theory extremists because they are one strand of the critical social justice
00:15:36.540
movement, which is an inversion of everything that they purport to stand for. And so I think
00:15:44.540
it's incredibly important that people like J.K. Rowling row in behind ordinary citizens. And I certainly
00:15:50.540
have made it absolutely clear that I will not be silenced. I will not be stopped speaking up about
00:15:55.660
child safeguarding, speaking up about women's rights and the protection of LGB people, sex-based
00:16:03.340
rights, which have also been brought into this so-called LGBTQI, et cetera, movement without any
00:16:13.100
sort of consideration of whether we want to participate in this nonsense or not.
00:16:18.140
But isn't that interesting? Because, of course, you as a elected member of parliament
00:16:23.660
government have parliamentary privilege. And what does that mean? One of the things it means is
00:16:29.100
that your speech is protected. It's protected absolutely when you are in the chamber of the
00:16:35.740
House of Commons. That's something that we inherited from you here in Canada. But there's also an argument
00:16:41.740
to be made that what you do in the service of your constituents as an MP, when you make comments on
00:16:48.220
Twitter or outside the chamber, there's an argument that that would have privilege as well.
00:16:53.260
This seems to me to be an attack, not just on ordinary people, but if you yourself have been
00:16:58.300
targeted and if police followed up with a bizarre communication, I wonder if you have ever given
00:17:06.940
consideration to filing a point, to making a point of privilege, a privilege complaint to the Speaker of
00:17:14.460
the House of Commons. That strikes me as you would be one of a small number of people who would be able to
00:17:21.020
do that because you are, you know, an MP. Well, I mean, we do have parliamentary privilege,
00:17:27.500
but it's something that parliamentary privilege is not an absolute right to say whatever you want.
00:17:31.020
Of course, you still have to behave within the rules of parliament. And outside the chamber,
00:17:39.260
you're not covered by some of the protections of privilege. So you do have to be careful about what you say.
00:17:45.340
But the basic position that I've taken is that I will continue to tell the truth. I will continue to
00:17:54.300
speak clearly about my political views, my lawfully held political views about some of the thorny issues
00:18:02.220
that we're dealing with. I will continue to stand up for young people who are being subjected to the
00:18:09.180
most horrific medical and surgical interventions without any proper care or consideration of their
00:18:16.460
rights. And they're accelerated onto these vast track paths into transgender clinics. And, you know,
00:18:24.940
I feel that that's my absolute responsibility to speak loudly and clearly about this. And if the police
00:18:31.660
and the government deem that unlawful and they want to arrest me, then they can do that. But that will
00:18:37.820
open a Pandora's box because, you know, certainly in the last week, we've started a petition, the Alaba
00:18:43.820
Party, my party have started a petition to repeal the Hate Crime Act. And so far, 68% of the Scottish
00:18:51.020
population agree with us. So these these laws are not popular. I'm sure you've experienced
00:18:57.420
this much more profoundly in Canada. You've been on quite a torturous journey under Justin Trudeau
00:19:05.420
over the last few years. And, you know, and I stand in solidarity with, you know, you know,
00:19:11.500
Chris Ensign. I've met Billboard Chris personally. I had a good chat with him last year. But many,
00:19:17.900
many, many campaigners who are standing against this and a liberal movement, which seems to have
00:19:24.140
afflicted governments across the world. And we really must stand united to defeat this liberal
00:19:30.780
movement. Well, that's very interesting to me that you've been following what's going on in Canada.
00:19:35.180
And we know Billboard Chris well, because he's the pointy edge of the spear on that issue.
00:19:41.500
Unfortunately, you're ahead of us in terms of legislation. Justin Trudeau's proposed censorship
00:19:46.700
bill is only just introduced in Parliament a few months ago. Let me ask you one question about
00:19:52.220
going back a bit to the 8000 or so complaints that were filed right away. Yeah. You mentioned that
00:19:58.220
the man who proposed this bill, the first minister of Scotland, Hamza Yousaf, had the most complaints
00:20:03.820
against him. I'm not surprised. But here's my question to you. Who judges whether or not
00:20:11.660
a complaint will get the non-hate crime incident marking, or if it'll be kicked up a notch and
00:20:19.180
actually be investigated and prosecuted by police? Is that a police decision? Is there some hate
00:20:27.180
finder general? Is there some panel of activists? In Canada, different hate crimes have a different
00:20:35.100
answer for that. There's something called the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, et cetera.
00:20:39.340
If they were to proceed against you, who would make that decision? And I guess my follow-up question
00:20:46.220
is, does that mean if Hamza Yousaf appoints the hate finders that they'll never accept a complaint
00:20:55.420
against him? Maybe you can tell us a little bit about how this process works, or maybe it's still
00:21:00.380
a bit of a mystery. Well, it absolutely is a mystery. And that's one of the issues about the position
00:21:07.980
or lack of the legislation, is it doesn't even mention non-crime hate incidents. This is a matter
00:21:15.500
of mystery. And it seems to rest in the hands of whoever the police officer is that is investigating
00:21:23.740
your specific complaint. And what's interesting about non-crime hate incidents and how they will or
00:21:32.380
will not be recorded is that the minister responsible for the legislation, Siobhan Brown,
00:21:38.540
who has done the rounds of the various different media channels in the UK since the bill was
00:21:44.860
introduced, is unable to clarify any of this detail. And there are no planetary notes that set out how
00:21:51.180
this would be recorded and what the threshold is to trigger a non-crime hate incident. So none of that is
00:21:58.220
clear. But what has become clear is that the first minister has stated in the media that neither he
00:22:05.660
nor JK Rowling will have a non-crime hate incident recorded against their name. Now, you know, that is
00:22:13.180
that is simply a question of equity. So if you're a first minister or the most famous author in the world
00:22:21.740
and you don't have a non-crime hate incident marked against your name, then why is a member of the
00:22:28.300
Scottish Parliament able to have one put against his name or indeed any other person in the country
00:22:34.700
without being informed or, more importantly, being able to defend themselves? What happened to a right
00:22:41.580
to the right to a fair trial? Well, it sounds like a prejudgment and a selective enforcement of the law.
00:22:49.900
One of the things about the rule of law is that no one is above the law, no one is below the law,
00:22:55.740
and it sounds like they want to go after the easy pickings. It's very perplexing. Let me ask you a
00:23:02.540
quick question about this non-hate crime incident, just because I'm learning about it really here. I
00:23:07.420
mean, we don't have it in Canada. Can any member of the public access your file to see if you have a
00:23:15.820
non-hate crime incident? Or is it only other police who can? Like, if there's a black mark,
00:23:22.140
is it like a credit rating at a credit bureau that people can check? What happens if you get one of
00:23:27.580
these black marks on your record? We don't know. We really don't know because there's not a piece
00:23:35.340
of legislation that describes how this operates. There's not a published police guideline that
00:23:41.660
explains how this operates. And it's really quite impenetrable, the system, to understand who, how,
00:23:52.300
and why any such stain would be put against someone's name. So as part of my work in my
00:23:59.820
professional life, I've always had what's called enhanced disclosure here. In other words,
00:24:04.060
you have an organisation that goes through any potential criminal record that you might have
00:24:10.220
to give you a clean bill of health for your employment. And I continue to have that because
00:24:15.100
of a relationship I have with an organisation separate to my parliamentary duties. And that came
00:24:21.180
back clean as a whistle, as usual, last week. But prior to that, following Myrtle Fraser's
00:24:26.860
discovery that he had a non-crime incident marked against his name, I submitted what's called a
00:24:33.020
subject access request, which is a request into Police Scotland asking them what data they held
00:24:39.020
on me. So that will establish if one of these non-crime incidents has been marked against my name
00:24:44.940
previously. But it should also uncover if the report that I posted a tweet about last week has
00:24:53.260
triggered a non-crime incident. But, you know, that again, you know, if more and more people
00:24:58.460
who are concerned about this issue start writing into the police asking for a subject access request
00:25:04.460
and which data they hold against that individual's name, then the police will be fighting on two
00:25:10.380
fronts. They'll be dealing with vexatious, thousands of vexatious complaints from people who should have
00:25:16.220
something better to do with their time, frankly. And they'll also be receiving a whole tsunami of
00:25:24.620
subject access requests from people who are concerned that these queer theory activists have decided to
00:25:32.780
pick on them and target them and report them to the police. So, you know, this will just grind the whole
00:25:39.260
police force to an absolute standstill. And of course, that benefits absolutely no one. This legislation is
00:25:46.860
so ill-conceived and badly delivered, so badly drafted. It's an absolute dog's breakfast and it needs to be
00:25:55.420
repealed and there needs to be a fundamental question about how we moderate our language as a society, how we look
00:26:03.260
after each other, but most importantly, how we tolerate and engage in free and open political and social
00:26:13.020
discourse so that we can enhance society and not operate as a totalitarian or a liberal non-democracy.
00:26:24.780
I mean, I think of Scotland. I think of Braveheart. I think of freedom. I think of people who would
00:26:29.980
never allow the government to weigh their words and say, that's hateful and that's done. By the way,
00:26:36.380
hate is a human emotion. You can't ban hate just by passing a law any more than you can pass a love
00:26:43.100
each other law that forces people to feel love. It's, you know, we don't want hate to transform
00:26:49.020
into violence. Of course not. We don't want it to transform into an actual threat. But by the way,
00:26:54.700
you are allowed to have hate in your heart. I mean, it's not a, it's not a pretty emotion,
00:27:01.100
but banning a feeling is even stupider than banning words and even harder to define, I guess.
00:27:08.620
I don't know. It just seems very unscottish to me. Let me ask you a question about that.
00:27:13.900
If I recall the bill, I haven't read the final version that was passed, but I remember when I
00:27:17.900
studied the bill a little while ago, it seemed like it had a special section to deal with playwrights
00:27:23.660
and comedians. Is that still the case that this whole section about, about plays like theatrical
00:27:29.980
plays? And I thought it was very weird. And I don't know, maybe that's not in the final draft.
00:27:35.740
What's that all about? Well, I mean, that's, that's a bit of a legislative hokey
00:27:40.300
cookie. Um, you know, because it was in that it was out, uh, and then it was in again. And last week,
00:27:48.060
it was, what on earth is this all about? Uh, and, uh, what, what has, you know, this, again,
00:27:54.460
the position has shifted from the Scottish government, but yes, uh, if you, uh, perform a
00:27:59.980
piece of satyr or comedy, uh, that is deemed hateful, you're in scope for this, uh, for prosecution
00:28:08.060
under this law. And then he said, Oh no, no, it's not. So again, the, there is absolutely no
00:28:13.500
clarity. The government ministry responsible for the legislation cannot set out the parameters
00:28:20.220
under which this law comes into force. And again, I go back to that point about the provision of
00:28:26.380
freedom of expression that exists within the legislation. The bar, the threshold to reach
00:28:31.260
that is extremely high. Michael Foran, who is, uh, a lecturer in public law at Glasgow University,
00:28:37.980
set out that case, uh, really eloquently last night on, uh, GB news. Uh, and so, uh, you know,
00:28:45.260
the, the score, the Scottish government have done is they've been very cagey with the truth. Uh,
00:28:49.740
they've used, you know, the threat that you might be prosecuted for putting on a play or telling a joke,
00:28:54.540
uh, and that, uh, uh, that, you know, that chilling effect that they've been deliberately pursuing,
00:29:00.060
uh, is really the, the key aim of all of this disinformation that has been allowed,
00:29:07.020
uh, to, uh, pervade Scottish society. Um, but you know, last week on the, the first of April,
00:29:13.980
April fool's day, uh, uh, as we, I don't know if you have that. Yeah, we do. Yeah. So it was the
00:29:20.140
perfect day to launch a fool's bill, uh, uh, our fool's act. Uh, but on that evening, there was a
00:29:26.300
fantastic comedy event put on by Andrew Doyle and comedy unleashed in Edinburgh, uh, effectively to
00:29:33.020
celebrate this nonsense legislation, uh, and to have a great evening and tell jokes that some
00:29:39.340
people might be offended by, but that's part of comedy and part of comedy, the, uh, the element
00:29:46.060
of surprise. And sometimes the element of surprise is offensive. Yeah. Uh, and, and, but that's not hate,
00:29:52.540
you know, and I think we have to rediscover, uh, what it is to be human, uh, and, and allow ourselves
00:29:59.980
the right to express ourselves freely. Uh, as you say, as long as there's no incitement to violence,
00:30:06.140
there's no deliberate attempt to target any specific group, uh, in a threatening or deliberate
00:30:13.340
way, then, you know, what's the harm in speaking freely? Yeah. I, you know, I, I heard of that, uh,
00:30:21.260
comedy show and it's impossible to tell comedy without goring some ox. Um, I, I think it was, uh,
00:30:27.980
Orwell who said every joke is a little, it's a little act of rebellion, a little revolution. Um,
00:30:35.100
I think one of the reasons why comedy is disappearing is that you can't make fun of
00:30:40.540
all the things that normal humans do because if this is politically unacceptable or that,
00:30:44.780
I think that's why woke comedians are so unfunny. Boy, you're right. It touches on so much more in
00:30:50.700
society than just political life. It touches on all life. Let me ask you one last question. You'd
00:30:57.180
be very generous with your time. I really appreciate that. I, I didn't mean to keep you
00:31:00.780
so long, but, but you've said so many interesting things. We care about these in Canada because we are
00:31:06.380
in some way, a daughter of Scotland. Our, our first prime minister was born in Scotland and,
00:31:10.780
and the Scottish people really helped build Canada, but also because the themes that you're going
00:31:16.860
through the same as in Ireland, by the way, they have a censorship law, the same as just into Ardern
00:31:22.220
tried to push in New Zealand. The same as Joe Biden is talking about in America, Justin Trudeau.
00:31:28.060
We've already talked about him. I see this as a global theme and of course, social media. So let me ask you
00:31:35.580
this. Is there a way that this can be legally challenged? I see that the free speech union has
00:31:44.380
hired a law firm on standby to help anyone who's charged. And I'm, I'm by the way, I'm a member
00:31:50.540
of the free speech union, even though I'm over here, but that's just stamping out fires where they break
00:31:57.100
out in Scotland. I'm unfamiliar with your legal constitution. Is there a way to challenge the
00:32:04.220
constitutionality of this right away? Is there a way to go to a high court and say,
00:32:11.100
my Lords strike this down. It is contrary to our basic law, our common law, our constitutional
00:32:17.740
tenets. Does that kind of thing happen in Scotland? Yeah. Well, there's, there's two,
00:32:22.780
two separate mechanisms that you could avail yourself of. The first one, which is open to
00:32:28.700
the Westminster parliament is to issue what's called the section 35 notice, which they did on
00:32:33.420
gender recognition reform legislation from the Scottish parliament. So that blocked that piece of
00:32:38.780
legislation, uh, because it was incompatible with, uh, reserve matters to Westminster.
00:32:45.260
That was the argument that they made and they did that to court and won. Uh, so that's one mechanism.
00:32:50.460
And what, how, what that does is it prevents the bill from becoming law. So it, it denies it royal
00:32:56.700
assent and therefore it, it, it doesn't necessarily nullify it, but it, it keeps it on the shelf. Now,
00:33:02.060
Scottish government have insisted that they will bring this forward again,
00:33:05.740
if a labour government come into power in Westminster after the next general election,
00:33:10.140
and they're likely to support that. So self ID would be delivered to Scotland with a labour
00:33:16.060
government. Um, the other way to, uh, to deal with legislation that's unlawful, and there's been
00:33:21.900
very good examples of that, uh, recently, uh, is to fundraise and, uh, take place legislation for judicial
00:33:29.020
review. Uh, um, and, uh, that would allow you to then challenge provisions within the legislation
00:33:35.500
that you believe are incompatible with, for example, the human rights act or the, uh, European
00:33:41.020
declaration on our convention rather on human rights. Uh, and so there are mechanisms that you can
00:33:47.420
use to challenge legislation, uh, for women's Scotland, which is a feminist, uh, fantastic, uh,
00:33:54.220
feminist, uh, organization that was established in Scotland, um, because of the, uh, march of, uh,
00:34:02.140
the, uh, queer theory lobby under Nicola Sturgeon. Um, they fundraised and they have taken, uh, pieces
00:34:09.340
of legislation for judicial review and they've been successful in some and, uh, not so successful in
00:34:15.340
others, but certainly, uh, on what constitutes the makeup of, uh, uh, uh, a board, uh, uh, a male
00:34:22.620
identifying as a female would count as a female member of that board. That was struck down by the,
00:34:29.100
the courts in, uh, in Edinburgh and the Scottish government, uh, I think last week or the week
00:34:34.060
before, uh, it might have been the week before, uh, had to amend the legislation to correct that
00:34:38.700
anomaly because, uh, I think this fair to say that Nicola Sturgeon has been more on a, uh,
00:34:45.100
uh, uh, a campaign, uh, of introducing queer theory legislation rather than in any way a campaign
00:34:52.300
for independence for Scotland, which is people like me incredibly frustrating because what she
00:34:58.620
effectively did was use the cause of independence to gather enough support to get the members that
00:35:05.260
she had in parliament, but she's used them to repeatedly advance queer theory doctrine through
00:35:11.980
various strands of, uh, legislation. Uh, they, they have been successfully challenged as I said,
00:35:17.740
uh, through a section 35 order and through judicial review. So there are ways and means,
00:35:23.740
but they're protracted, they're expensive. Uh, and what you really want is a government
00:35:27.820
that doesn't make up nonsense laws. Yeah. Very interesting. Well, you've educated me
00:35:33.820
and I think our Canadian viewers, which is most of our viewers will find this fascinating.
00:35:38.460
Uh, I'm glad that you're standing up in Scotland and, you know, I, I've only been to Scotland
00:35:44.940
briefly, but you can feel the history just walking through Edinburgh or Glasgow or Aberdeen.
00:35:50.860
And when I think of the great Scots over the centuries, I can't imagine that they would support
00:35:57.740
a law that would allow police to investigate a joke or a play or even an emotional comment. So I wish
00:36:05.900
you good luck and we'll continue to follow it. And I know that you have a petition at albaparty.org,
00:36:12.540
a-l-b-a-party.org. For those of our viewers who are in Scotland, of course, they should feel free to
00:36:19.340
visit that and sign the petition and the rest of our viewers can visit it just to see what you're doing
00:36:25.100
and learn more. I'm so grateful for you being with us today. You're most welcome actually. I love
00:36:30.300
it's needed. Thank you. You too. There you have it. Neil Hanvey,
00:36:33.660
Member of Parliament. Isn't that fascinating? And very closely tracks what's happening here in Canada.