I have only had the briefest glimpse of it on TV but I understand that while Age is included as a hate crime, both Misogyny and Misandry are not, though the former will have a separate law later.
Does this mean that an old man, or woman, just north of the border can be insulted by another a few feet away to the south with impunity? 
Will an application for deportation be possible? 
This is what happens when you let the lunatics rule the asylum.
Utterly unenforceable and a waste of police resources,
Just seen a remark on an American forum about a friend who can’t make up his mind up about the way to restore an old lorry. Do you think that might infringe a future misogyny law, or even a current one.? 
Seems he changed his mind again about the truck…. ( god must have made him with leftover girl parts )…. So now it’s disassembled again….
Given the way JK Rowling and other TERFs have been made targets by some, and the normal police tendency for backside-covering, I suspect PS will be kept very busy with this.
PS have said they’re not going to investigate JK Rowling (and thereby saved themselves a lot of grief 
)
Sensible decision as Rowling never ‘promoted hate’, she merely upset some people with a well-argued and well-publicised series of critical distinctions.
I’m not sure if you are aware but a similar law already exists in England. Perhaps not let your thoughts get shaped or have your prejudices reinforced by a press that thrives on engendering hate. The law is there to protect not to persecute. Wealthy Rowling is quick to mobilise her legal team against anyone who attacks her views. It seems odd that she’d object to a law that gives everyone protection.
English law here
Sorry, but I think one needs to be able to draw a distinction between ‘hate’ and valid ‘disagreement’ with some positions adopted by some members of the trans community.
Here’s the views of a Barrister
This invitation to the Police could be taken up,this would be quite amusing.
There’s a substantial difference between the two provisions.
The English law provides for an additional penalty (in effect) if the offender was motivated by, or demonstrated, hostility towards the protected group.
The Scots law includes such additional penalties, but goes considerably further, in criminalising insults Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021
What the critics of Scotland’s new act say is that it’s pointless, and/or contradictory. Worst of all, if it is effective, it’s repressive of freedom of expression.
Listening to that I’d say Jakie Rowling has inadvertently helped highlight that only those most the deserving of prosecuting can expect to be prosecuted and the overwhelming majority will retain the right to speak their feelings.
I’m sure she knows what the law is about and I’m equally sure she’ll tailor her bravado accordingly. Like i said she’s a wealthy woman with a legal team on retainer.
If they weren’t critical they wouldn’t be critics. Everything has critics. Everything is controversial. Don’t believe for one second that the majority of this legislation have women’s or gay rights at the top of their agenda. If you are Scottish, as your name might suggest, you’ll know hate in Scotland goes much deeper than that. Most critics want to retain the right to hate Catholics or Protestants. For the Protestants haters that’s not enough, Irish, blacks, asians, immigrants, republicans and independence supporters.
I saw what you did there . . . . . .
I think that you can be insulted, but not if hate is behind your speech.
The real problem is that it is the Police who have to decide what you were thinking when you made the remarks.
Craig Murray explains the implications of this bizarre law.
It’s the third item on his site).
You’re quite right, of course, @Jane_Williamson : for each of the offences, you have to prove an intent.
But the intent usually goes hand-in-hand with what’s said. The Muslim extremists who were responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attack would have said that the publication was abusive towards Islam - it was - and that the intention was to stir up hatred towards Islamist fundamentalists.
On the face of it, then, the SNP was legislating as if they were Islamist terrorists.
I thionk the most likely explanation (given the history) is that this was yet another of Nicola Sturgeon’s grandstanding, performative pieces of legislation.
Thanks.
Im too good for this audience.
Apparently Police Scotland have already had 3,800 complaints …bet they’re thrilled 
Stating facts should never be a crime.