CONFRONTING hate crime is central to building the safer, stronger and inclusive Scotland that we all want to see.
A Scotland that is free from hatred, prejudice, discrimination and bigotry.
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill looks to consolidate and reform existing hate crime law ensuring it is fit for the 21st Century, giving sufficient protection to those who need it.
In recent weeks, the Justice Committee has taken evidence from a number of organisations as they progress their important scrutiny of the legislation This bill raises issues relating to freedom of expression which is a fundamental right for us all – but that does not mean people can say or do whatever they want.
There should be limits, including when hateful speech is used to incite criminal behaviour motivated by prejudice.
Recent discussion has focused on the “dwelling defence” and whether hateful views intended to stir up hatred expressed in the home should be exempt from criminal law.
It would be very challenging for someone to be able to stir up hatred in their own home.
However, if someone does manage this by behaving in a threatening or abusive way with the intention of stirring up hatred in others (and that intent must be proven beyond reasonable doubt), why should the criminal law provide an exemption when the same conduct on, say, the street, in a pub or in your front garden would be subject to criminal sanction?
On this particular issue, I welcome the evidence from the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates, with Michael Clancy of the Law Society observing: “The dwelling is no sanctuary for most criminal law and I don’t think there should be a sanctuary when it comes to hate speech.”
I have acknowledged concerns over freedom of expression as we seek to find the right balance – protection of freedom of expression and protection of victims of hate crime are not mutually exclusive things.
In September I announced the Government’s intention to lodge stage 2 amendments to make the bill’s new stirring up hatred offences “intent only”.
This fundamental change provides necessary reassurance and, as I made clear to the Justice Committee last month, I am open-minded as to the need to consider further changes and I am sure the Justice Committee’s robust examination will help inform consideration of such changes.
Yesterday’s session saw much debate on artistic, journalistic and religious freedom of expression with the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities voicing concern that moving to “intent only” for the new stirring up offences may have gone too far.
This highlights the breadth of opinion on the bill and we will continue in our efforts to try and strike the right balance between protection for victims and freedom of expression.
Amid this scrutiny, we have to remember the core purpose of this legislation – protection for victims of hate crime.
Hate crime has a corrosive and insidious effect and makes people – either individually or those who are part of racial, religious or other groups – feel worthless and frightened.
As views are being offered on the content of the bill are expressed, I will continue to listen to victims and ensure their voice is at the centre of the process of making this Hate Crime Bill an essential part of the approach in Scotland to tackling hate crime. I call all those scrutinising the bill to do likewise.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel