More info in Free to Disagree newsletter.
URGE MSPS TO CALL FOR MORE CHANGES TO HATE CRIME BILL
Holyrood’s Justice Committee published its Stage 1 report, which concludes that further changes to the Hate Crime Bill are needed.
MSPs will debate the bill on Tuesday 15th December. Following this Stage 1 debate on the general principles of the bill, MSPs will vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ progressing it to Stage 2.
Ask your MSPs to speak out against the controversial ‘stirring up hatred’ offence by contacting them today.
Encourage your friends and family to write too.
MSPs from nearly every party have expressed concerns that the stirring up offence in Part 2 of the bill is a threat to freedom of expression. Only the Greens remain united behind the bill in its current form.
Use writetothem.com to find out who your MSPs are and to email them.
Write to your constituency MSP first, then choose the option ‘write to all your regional MSPs’.
Tips on what to say
Tell them you’re a constituent (and if you voted for them, say so).
Ask them to raise concerns about the ‘stirring up’ offences in the Hate Crime Bill during the Stage 1 debate on Tuesday 15 December.
Below are some arguments you may find useful. Choose 2 or 3 but please put them in your own words.
Scrap the stirring up hatred offences in part 2 of the bill.
The offences have been highly controversial, with voices from many different backgrounds raising concerns about the potential to stifle free speech.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has announced changes to Part 2. These are welcome, but they do not go far enough.
The best way to protect free speech is to ditch part 2 altogether.
The stirring up offences are not necessary.
The Scottish Government has not been able to give examples of genuine injustices that will be caught by the new stirring up offences that aren’t already caught by existing laws.
The Scottish Police Federation labelled the offences “unnecessary” and “confusing”.
The policy analysis collective Murray Blackburn Mackenzie said the Scottish Government has failed to demonstrate how “expanding stirring up offences will fill a legislative gap on paper, or reduce in practice the number of hate-related attacks on individuals in particular groups”.
Key terms such as ‘hatred’, ‘abusive’ and ‘inflammatory’ are vague and subjective.
These terms have not been clearly defined in the bill, leaving them open to interpretation.
Simply expressing a controversial viewpoint could be labelled ‘hateful’ and risk prosecution.
The Justice Secretary suggested the dictionary definition of the word ‘abusive’ is adequate. But this definition – ‘using rude or offensive words’ – would create a dangerously low threshold.
“Abusive” needs to be clearly defined or completely removed.
Faith groups have questioned whether certain passages in the Bible and other holy texts could be deemed ‘inflammatory’. The writings of gender-critical feminists could also be caught.
Burden on police.
Police Scotland warned that failing to include adequate free speech protections could result in the force “being burdened with vexatious reports of ‘crimes’ which are not in fact criminal in nature but which still require to be recorded and investigated to confirm if criminality is involved”.
The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said “a mature, democratic and truly tolerant society should be able to negotiate robust and even rude and insulting public and social discourse without recourse to the criminal law”.
Chilling effect on free speech.
There is great fear among the public that free speech is being curtailed. ComRes polling in August found 64 per cent of Scots think “people today are too quick to shut down debate”. The stirring up offences would add to this chilling effect on speech.
The Faculty of Advocates warned that the offences could have an unintended “impact on freedom of expression” and cited a potential “chilling effect on legitimate, if controversial, debate and the performing arts”.
The Law Society of Scotland said “the bill presents a significant threat to freedom of expression, with the potential for what may be abusive or insulting to become criminalised”.
Free speech protections need to be ‘broadened and deepened’.
The Government’s pledge to strengthen the free speech clause on religion to allow expressions of “antipathy, dislike, ridicule and insult” is welcome, but it’s not enough. The same free speech protections must be afforded to other characteristics in the bill.
It is especially important to include a free speech clause on transgender issues. Creating new stirring up offences in this very contentious area with no free speech protections whatsoever would be a disaster.
Don’t police speech in private homes.
Public order laws normally include a ‘dwelling 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.
There is widespread concern that people could be prosecuted for remarks made during private discussions in their own homes. There must be a private space in which people can express opinions without fear of being accused of a hate crime.
If a visitor to your home reports you for ‘hate speech’, the police would have to take witness statements from other people present – your friends or family – to try to build a case against you. This is an appalling prospect.