The avalanche of opposition: Now BBC joins the war on Hate Crime Bill
Ministers face new pressure in free speech fight
TOP Scottish judges, police chiefs and the BBC have formed an ‘avalanche of opposition’ to the SNP’s controversial hate crime plans.
Dozens of organisations yesterday joined the backlash against the planned Bill, which includes jail terms of up to seven years for those who ‘stir up’ hate or have ‘inflammatory’ material.
The BBC said it ‘strongly’ shares concerns about the effect on freedom of expression, while the Association of Police Superintendents warned that officers would regularly need to be ‘arbiters of relatively minor social disputes or expressions of opinion’.
The Senators of the College of Justice – which represents the country’s most senior judges – highlighted ambiguity in the wording of the Bill. A Holyrood committee is due to begin taking evidence on the proposals – and has been besieged by nearly 2,000 responses from various bodies and members of the public.
Scottish Tory justice spokesman Liam Kerr said: ‘The volume, weight and content of these criticisms represents a devastating blow to the SNP’s controversial Hate Crime Bill.
‘Serious organisations such as the BBC, police chiefs and judges have now joined the vocal opposition to key elements.
‘Many of these consultation responses share our view that this Bill, as currently drafted, will curtail our fundamental right to freedom of expression.
‘[Justice Secretary] Humza Yousaf must heed this avalanche of opposition and think carefully about the most appropriate way to take this forward.’
It is extremely rare for the BBC to express an opinion on government legislation.
BBC Scotland referred to concerns raised by the Scottish Newspaper Society, which said that the Bill represents ‘a considerable threat to freedom of the press’, and writers’ group Scottish PEN, which said writing and performance deemed by some to be potentially abusive could be criminalised. In its submission, BBC Scotland said it ‘strongly shares the concerns expressed by the Scottish Newspaper Society as to the impact on freedom of expression of this Bill and would align itself with that submission’.
It added: ‘Having now had the benefit of advanced sight of PEN Scotland’s submissions on the Bill, BBC Scotland respectfully also endorses the concerns expressed in them.’
The Senators of the College of Justice highlighted that the Bill refers to ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’ behaviour in relation to the potential for ‘stirring up hatred’, and suggests the wording should only be ‘threatening or abusive’.
It follows numerous concerns that people who unintentionally offend someone could be prosecuted under the proposals.
The Sheriffs’ Association – which represents the country’s next tier of judiciary – also spoke out, warning that the ‘stirring up’ provisions could lead to problems in the legal process.
It said: ‘Any criminal offence requires to be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the use of the word ‘likely’ requires the decision-maker to carry out an exercise akin to the balancing of probabilities. It will be exceptionally difficult to direct a jury on these matters.’
The Association of Police Superintendents urged ministers to learn lessons from the Football Act, which had to be repealed, saying there are ‘clear lessons to be drawn from the practical experience of operationally applying unclear and subjective legislation’.
The association added: ‘We have some concerns that the enactment of this Bill may regularly situate police officers as the arbiters of relatively minor social disputes or expressions of opinion, a circumstance which neither the public nor the Police Service would likely welcome.’
The News Media Association queried part of the legislation that states a court can order material be ‘disposed of in such a manner as the court may direct’. It said: ‘This is another dangerous principle with echoes of darker times. Would this extend to books?
‘It would presumably cover back copies of newspapers and magazines but could also relate to deletion of material from the internet, which we know is impossible to guarantee.’
Jamie Gillies, spokesman for the Free to Disagree campaign group, saidsaid: ‘These submissions add more fuel to the fire raging beneath the proposals.
‘Even the BBC – which tends to stay out of political disputes – has recognised the danger these plans present to fundamental freedoms. It’s also notable that Scotland’s top legal minds have entered the fray.’
Mr Yousaf said: ‘The Bill does not seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate in any way but aims to achieve the correct balance between protecting those who suffer from the scourge of hate crime while respecting freedom of expression.’
STAND UP FOR FREE SPEECH
ALARM bells rang even louder over the SNP’s Hate Crime Bill yesterday.
The Association of Police Superintendents, the Senators of the College of Justice and even the BBC joined the varied spectrum of sceptics and critics of this chilling law.
No legislation in the 21 years of devolution has attracted such broad and deep opposition, but then no legislation has so openly targeted centuries-old liberties.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has previously deployed terms such as ‘extreme right-wing’ to caricature opponents of his Bill. Are Scotland’s senior police extreme right-wing? Are our judges? Is the BBC? or has he simply been caught trying to force through an authoritarian clampdown on free expression?
Mr Yousaf is out of touch and out of his depth. And the fact that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has begun making conciliatory noises around freedom of speech confirms that she knows this. The Bill is simply not fit for purpose.