This article was first published in Scotland on Sunday, 16 August 2020
The people of Hong Kong are experiencing an unprecedented assault on their democratic freedoms. Since 30 June and the imposition of a sweeping new ‘National Security Law’, residents of the region face punishment for any speech or actions which criticise – or are seen to undermine – Beijing’s communist administration.
The legislation foisted on the region by China against the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is truly alarming. It creates a raft of new, highly subjective offences including ‘secession’, ‘subversion of state power’, and ‘colluding with foreign countries and external elements’. Citizens found guilty of these offences face deportation to mainland China and potential life imprisonment.
All of this is profoundly disturbing. Beijing is trampling on every democratic freedom Hong Kongers hold dear. For many years now, Hong Kong citizens have been entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and a fair trial – democratic rights that we in Europe are used to and often take for granted.
Perhaps the most sinister element of Beijing’s National Security Law is its denial of freedom of expression. The Chinese Government, like all authoritarian regimes, is seeking to limit the speech and writing of citizens and crush all criticism of state ideals. Freedom of expression is a threat to authoritarian Governments. Aware of this, Beijing is attempting to snuff it out.
In the UK, we have enjoyed free expression for centuries. The freedom to think what we want and speak what we think underpins our free press, our artistic and cultural institutions and our politics. It allows citizens from all walks of life to participate in the marketplace of ideas, helping society grow and flourish.
And yet our access to this right is by no means guaranteed. Recent years have seen a chill on free speech in the UK. We are now familiar with the terms ‘cancel culture’ and ‘no-platforming’ – the shutting down by angry mobs of those who dare to question certain political ideas. This sinister trend seems to be getting worse year on year.
In Scotland, a new threat to free speech has reared its head in the shape of draft hate crime legislation. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) bill creates a raft of new ‘stirring up of hatred’ offences, covering the speech and writing of citizens. Whilst the intentions of the Scottish Government are noble – it wishes to oppose hatred and prejudice – the wording of its legislation is vague and subjective. As currently drafted the Hate Crime bill risks catching conduct that is merely offensive or controversial.
The wording of the legislation specifies that speaking in an ‘abusive’ manner or possessing ‘inflammatory material’ deemed ‘likely’ to stir up hatred on the grounds of age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity is an offence. This particular wording should set alarm bells ringing for lawyers and prosecutors – indeed it has. Top QC’s and organisations like the Law Society have issued strong warnings in recent days.
The term ‘abusive’ is open to interpretation. Would it be ‘abusive’ for an atheist to ridicule Islam? Or for a Muslim to ridicule Christianity? What about a feminist robustly defend women’s rights in regards to gender recognition reform? These situations are common in our online discourse today.
Given that mere ‘possession’ of inflammatory material is an offence, what does this mean for journalists covering such interactions? Academics studying controversial texts? Or booksellers who stock colourful publications? The fact that these questions have to be asked, and remain unanswered thus far, is a real cause for concern.
There is a defence of ‘reasonableness’ in the bill but again it is uncertain what this means. Who will decide what speech or actions by citizens is ‘reasonable’ and what is not? In our current, highly-charged public discourse isn’t there a danger that prosecutors will follow the prevailing winds and deal harshly with people who express certain ideas more than others? The enshrinement of ‘cancel culture’ on the statue book is not something to be desired.
The free exchange of ideas by speech and writing is what sets Scotland apart from authoritarian nations like China. Scottish citizens are in an enviable position. Because of this, the people of Hong Kong may look to Scotland as a country to find refuge in months to come. How regrettable it would be were these people to arrive in Scotland and find that free speech here is also under threat.
For the sake of Scottish citizens and those who may call themselves Scots in future, MSPs must deal very carefully with the Hate Crime bill. Free speech is a privilege and a vital right. It must be defended.
Jamie Gillies, spokesman for the Free to Disagree campaign