MSPS have been urged to back a dwelling defence in controversial new hate crime legislation.
Members of the Justice Committee on Tuesday refused to add the defence to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, which would offer protection to those who use hate speech within their own homes.
Tory justice spokesman Liam Kerr pressed the amendment, which was defeated by seven votes to two.
Some groups have raised concern about the enforcement of the legislation in people’s homes, claiming heated dinner table discussions could be subject to police investigation.
But campaign group Free to Disagree has urged MSPs to reconsider, after the Law Commission abandoned plans to extend hate speech laws into people’s homes south of the Border.
In a 500-page document published this week, commission chairman Lord Justice Green wrote: “The criminal team is looking at alternative ways in which the law might be reformed in order to ensure that these laws, which criminalise only the most serious forms of incitement, are compatible with both the right to freedom of expression and respect for one’s home and private family life.”
Free to Disagree spokesman Jamie Gillies said: “The opinion of eminent figures like Lord Justice Green should be taken into account as MSPs continue scrutiny of the Hate Crime Bill.
“A dwelling defence has existed in public order laws south of the Border for many years and has worked well.
“Now law chiefs have confirmed that it should remain in place in future, if a proposed extension to the hate crime laws goes ahead.
“This safeguard helps provide an appropriate balance between tackling hate crimes and respecting the privacy of citizens.
“The Scottish Parliament must ensure that it is adopted in Scottish legislation.”
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has previously said a dwelling defence could be misused by groups of organised extremists, who can hold meetings or other gatherings in someone’s home and thus be protected from prosecution.
During his appearance at the Justice Committee this week, Yousaf quoted Michael Clancy, the director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland, who told the committee in November: “There is no sanctuary, in that sense, for most aspects of the criminal law and I do not think that there should be a sanctuary when it comes to hate speech.”
The Justice Secretary said of Clancy’s comments: “I very much agree with him.”
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