Campaigners have written to MSPs ahead of a parliamentary debate, urging them to oppose controversial aspects of the Hate Crime Bill.
Tomorrow, MSPs will debate a Scottish Conservative motion that highlights “significant and valid concerns” about the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill.
‘Stirring up of hatred’ provisions in Part 2 of the bill have been labelled a threat to free speech by numerous expert groups including the Scottish Police Federation, the Society of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland.
Free to Disagree letter urges opposition to Part 2
A letter to MSPs from the Free to Disagree campaign, sent on Monday, states:
“In the last few months, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Police Federation, the Scottish Newspaper Society, the Humanist Society Scotland, the Catholic Church, women’s rights groups and many others have warned that draft ‘stirring up of hatred’ provisions in Part 2 of the bill threaten freedom of expression.
“They condemn the vague language of the provisions, the fact that people can commit an offence without any ‘intent’ to stir up hatred, and the lack of protection for words spoken in the privacy of the home. Critics also cite a lack of evidence that new ‘stirring up’ offences are necessary, or that they would provide any protection beyond what is already given by existing law.”
“Given the serious risks, the lack of evidence that new ‘stirring up’ provisions are necessary, and the deep unpopularity of the proposals we urge you to oppose Part 2 of the Hate Crime Bill.”
The letter is signed by ten Free to Disagree allies including Stephen Evans, CEO, National Secular Society, Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute, Jim Sillars, former Depute Leader of the SNP and Ruth Smeeth, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship.
Govt doc suggests provisions would make little difference
Free to Disagree has also highlighted statements by the Scottish Government on the ‘stirring up provisions’ which suggest that they would not provide additional protections to victims.
A Financial Memorandum accompanying the legislation states that the ‘stirring up offences’ would “already constitute existing criminal offences such as breach of the peace or threatening or abusive behaviour”.
It states, “it is likely that some of the cases that may be reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) for consideration of prosecution using the new stirring up offence will not be ‘new’ cases, i.e. cases that previously would not have come to the attention of the police, but instead will be cases that are currently reported to COPFS by the police for a range of conduct where different existing general offences”.
The Memorandum goes on to argue that the new provisions are “not likely to result in a large number of additional cases being dealt with” by prosecutors in Scotland.
Commenting ahead of Wednesday’s debate Jamie Gillies, spokesman for Free to Disagree said:
“The Financial Memorandum appears to suggest that the ‘stirring up of hatred’ provisions would make very little difference to the criminal law.
“We disagree with this. The proposals, as drafted, threaten to widen the criminal law significantly. However, the fact that the government states this raises another question – why the mad rush to get these offences passed?
“If Ministers believe the ‘stirring up’ offences will make little difference surely they can afford to put a halt to their proposals? Particularly given the wide and valid concerns over freedom of speech. We call again on MSPs in every party to see these proposals stopped.”
ENDS
Notes for Editors:
Letter from the Free to Disagree campaign to MSPs:
Dear MSP,
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill has been strongly criticised since it was announced by Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf in April.
In the last few months, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Police Federation, the Scottish Newspaper Society, the Humanist Society Scotland, the Catholic Church, women’s rights groups and many others have warned that draft ‘stirring up of hatred’ provisions in Part 2 of the bill threaten freedom of expression.
They condemn the vague language of the provisions, the fact that people can commit an offence without any ‘intent’ to stir up hatred, and the lack of protection for words spoken in the privacy of the home. Critics also cite a lack of evidence that new ‘stirring up’ offences are necessary, or that they would provide any protection beyond what is already given by existing law.
To demonstrate the breadth of concerns we enclose a selection of press articles published between June and August this year.
Given the serious risks, the lack of evidence that new ‘stirring up’ provisions are necessary, and the deep unpopularity of the proposals we urge you to oppose Part 2 of the Hate Crime Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Evans, CEO, National Secular Society; Simon Calvert, Deputy Director, The Christian Institute; Jim Sillars, former Depute Leader, Scottish National Party; Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner; Dr Stuart Waiton, Lecturer in Criminology, Abertay University; Ruth Smeeth, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship; Josie Appleton, Convener, Manifesto Club; Matthew Lesh, Adam Smith Institute; Jamie Gillies, spokesman, Free to Disagree
Issued on behalf of Free to Disagree by Tom Hamilton Communications. For media enquiries, contact:
Jamie Gillies:
Mob: 07761 506 732
Email: admin@freetodisagree.scot