Backlash over SNP’s threat to free speech
Religious groups and women’s rights campaign join outcry
THE backlash against the SNP’s hate crime Bill picked up momentum yesterday as a host of voices joined the campaign to protect free speech.
Ministers are proposing legislation that could criminalise causing offence, even if unintentional, and the possession of ‘inflammatory material’.
Critics, including a UN legal expert, have warned of a ‘chilling effect on society’ by stifling debate and freedom of expression.
Others, including politicians and religious groups, have joined the outcry, amid concerns the law could be used by extremists to shut down moderate organisations.
Stephen Evans, of the National Secular Society, claimed it would ‘enable the weaponisation of taking offence’ while ‘undermining and limiting debate’.
‘Disempowering ordinary people by restricting their freedom of expression is likely to antagonise, rather than create social harmony,’ he said.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has described the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill as an ‘important milestone’.
The proposed legislation widens the definition of hate crime to include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity, as well as race.
But crucially, people could fall foul of the law if they are perceived to be ‘stirring up hatred’ by causing a third party to feel insulted, even if there is no intent.
It will also become an offence to possess ‘inflammatory material’.
Lois McLatchie, who works with the UN Human Rights Council, has said the Bill would create a culture of silence more commonly seen under despotic regimes.
She cited the row over author JK Rowling’s views on transgender rights as proof that ‘cancel culture’ is gaining traction, adding: ‘If the Bill was to pass, it would be the state that gets to decide what is said and what can be said.’
In another case, supermarket worker Brian Leach lost his job at a Yorkshire Asda store after sharing a joke by Sir Billy Connolly, poking fun at religion and terrorists. Asda later reinstated him.
Holyrood’s Justice Committee will examine the Bill in the next stage of its journey through the Scottish parliament and yesterday was the deadline for submissions to a consultation.
In its submission, women’s rights campaign group For Women Scotland said: ‘We are frequently referred to as anti-trans, transphobic, and a hate group... the Bill as it stands is fundamentally flawed and unless amendments are made, is inevitably heading towards charges being brought against women for stating universal truths about sex, science and biology.’
Labour justice spokesman James Kelly said: ‘There is a significant divergence from similar law in England where intent is required for a person to be criminalised for behaviour another finds insulting. Under the proposals, the law here would not require this intent to be present, which sets an alarming legal precedent and could result in the criminalisation of expressions of religious views.’
In its submission the Free Speech Union said the legislation would create a hierarchy of victimhood which would make a mockery of natural justice.
Christian group the Evangelical Alliance said: ‘There needs to be
NEW SNP LAW’S ‘CHILLING’ THREAT TO FREE SPEECH
Yesterday’s Scottish Daily Mail
‘Weaponisation of taking offence’
clarity as to why this Bill is needed and who is currently not protected by existing legislation.’
The Free To Disagree campaign, created to oppose the Bill, has received widespread backing, with supporters including former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars and academic Dr Stuart Waiton.
The Scottish Government said: ‘The new “stirring up hatred” offences will not stifle legitimate views from being offered or seriously hinder robust debate.
‘The Bill continues to allow people to express controversial, challenging or offensive views as long as this is not done in a threatening or abusive way that is intended or likely to stir up hatred.’
A LEADING QC. A human rights lawyer. A former deputy leader of the SNP. The range of voices against Humza Yousaf’s Hate Crime Bill is a testament to the threat it poses to freedom of speech and conscience in Scotland.
The Justice Secretary says the sweeping law is necessary to clamp down on prejudice but its critics say it is too broad and will criminalise people for expressing their views about religion, morality and politics.
Thomas Ross, QC, fears it will prevent debates taking place. Jim Sillars warns of a ‘deadening effect upon intellectual life’.
Lawyer Lois McLatchie, who advocates at the UN Human Rights Council, says the Bill would even make JK Rowling subject to prosecution for her opinions on transgender identity.
Scotland could jail the world’s most successful author for saying that biological men are not women.
Mr Yousaf means well but good intentions can make bad laws.
Part I of the Bill, which provides for tougher penalties for hate-motivated crimes, is reasonable. Part II will make Scots liable for prosecution even if their words or actions unintentionally ‘stir up hatred’ or are deemed ‘likely’ to.
This has no place in a free country. It’s a censor’s charter – a thought crime law.