Pressure on to axe hate law as 87pc of Scots back free speech
THE SNP’s controversial Hate Crime Bill has been overwhelmingly rejected by the public, who have emphatically backed protection for freedom of speech.
A poll highlights widespread concerns over the Scottish Government’s plans to crack down on language that is considered likely to incite hatred.
It follows opposition from police, politicians, lawyers and celebrities and heaps pressure on Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf.
Last night, the Scottish Government promised to ‘seek common ground and compromise’, but refused to bow to demands to scrap the Bill. The poll, commissioned by campaign group Free to Disagree, found almost seven in ten people agreed there must be a ‘proven intention’ to stir up hatred for it to be considered a criminal offence.
Under the proposed Bill, comments deemed ‘abusive and offensive’ and ‘likely’ to stir up hatred would be criminalised – regardless of intent.
The poll also found that nearly nine in 10 Scots, 87 per cent, think free speech is an ‘important right’, 63 per cent believe disagreement and debate ‘benefit society’, while 73 per cent think disagreement is not a sign of hatred.
Free to Disagree’s Jamie Gillies said: ‘This poll confirms what we’ve long suspected. The majority of Scots strongly support freedom of speech and are very doubtful about the more controversial aspects of the Hate Crime Bill.
‘Pressure is mounting on the Government to scrap the proposed “stirring up of hatred” offences.’
Critics have cited comments on transgender issues by JK Rowling as the kind of speech that could be criminalised.
The Scottish Government said: ‘The views offered on the Bill will be considered carefully and we will seek common ground and compromise, where necessary.
‘The Bill does not seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate in any way, people can 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. The Bill includes provisions on protection of freedom of expression.’