Government cannot dismiss growing clamour over hate crime plans
The Scottish Government can no longer ignore concerns over its controversial hate crime legislation following a flood of criticism from experts, campaigners say.
In the last few weeks a broad range of people and groups have voiced objections to elements of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) bill.
Critics include former Deputy Leader of the SNP Jim Sillars, John McLellan, Director of the Scottish Newspaper Society and Roddy Dunlop QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.
The Free to Disagree campaign, which launched on 17 July, brings together some of these voices. Allies include Jim Sillars, The Christian Institute, the National Secular Society and academic Dr Stuart Waiton.
Since launching last week the campaign has accrued 600 supporters and almost 1500 followers on social media. A video marking the launch has been viewed by more than 30,000 people.
Free to Disagree spokesman Jamie Gillies commented:
“A diverse range of groups and individuals have now raised concerns about the Hate Crime bill. Top lawyers, academics, journalists and SNP supporters like Jim Sillars are amongst those who have spoken out. This breadth of opposition suggests there are real problems that need to be resolved.
“Tackling hatred and prejudice is commendable but the Government must acknowledge the danger that its legislation poses to free speech. Proposed ‘stirring up of hatred’ offences in the bill are vague and subjective. Unless these are revisited they could catch speech by citizens that is merely offensive to some people, and curb debate around contentious issues.
“Free to Disagree would urge MSPs to think carefully about the potential unintended consequences of the Hate Crime bill. We trust that they will respond to the concerns of citizens in the months ahead.”
Stephen Evans, CEO of the National Secular Society and an ally of the Free to Disagree campaign added:
“The significant groundswell of concern over the free speech implications of this Bill should prompt a rethink from ministers.
“The introduction of vague new stirring up of hatred offences risks harming social cohesion whilst undermining freedom of expression and Scotland’s wider commitment to civil liberties.
“We appeal to the Government to look again at this legislation, to strike a better balance between respecting freedom of speech and tackling the serious social problems that it seeks to address.”
Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute, another ally of the campaign, added:
“Ministers can no longer deny that there are serious problems with their Hate Crime bill. There’s a growing clamour of opposition to the plans by experts in various fields and across the political spectrum. It’s time for the Government to admit there are issues with this policy and endeavour to fix it. Failing to do so could have serious consequences for everyone.”
Free to Disagree identifies five specific problems with the draft offences:
The term ‘hatred’ is subjective and difficult to define, especially when it relates to hatred being ‘stirred up’ in other people. How can police, prosecutors and judges know this? They cannot make windows into people’s souls. The criminal law should focus on concepts that are demonstrable and easily defined.
People can commit a stirring up hatred offence without intending to do so, and without actually having done so, if the court feels their actions were merely ‘likely’ to stir up hatred. This lack of mens rea – mental culpability – drastically widens the reach of the offence.
Public order laws like these would normally include a defence for words spoken in the privacy of your own home and not heard or seen by anyone outside. The Hate Crime Bill contains no such defence, making it possible for people to be prosecuted over remarks made at the dinner table.
The proposed stirring up hatred offences would criminalise ‘threatening or abusive’ behaviour deemed ‘likely’ to stir up hatred. While threatening behaviour is wrong and clearly understood in case law, the term ‘abusive’ is vague and open to interpretation – especially in the absence of mens rea, or any objective definition of hatred.
Free speech provisions in the Bill only protect the ‘discussion or criticism’ of religion and sexual orientation. While the presence of any free speech clause is welcome, these apply to just two grounds and only go so far. The terms ‘discussion’ and ‘criticism’ are academic. There is a risk this would not protect forthright speech and debate by ordinary people on contentious issues like religious belief and morality.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
The Free to Disagree campaign is supported by:
- Jim Sillars, former Deputy Leader of the Scottish National Party;
- The National Secular Society;
- The Christian Institute;
- Dr Stuart Waiton, criminologist, Abertay University;
- Madeleine Kearns, journalist.
For more information visit: www.freetodisagree.scot
Issued on behalf of Free to Disagree by Tom Hamilton Communications. For media enquiries, contact:
Tel: 0141 639 8355
Mob: 07836 603977