ONE of the most surreal moments in my time at Holyrood, an incident which has become all the more bizarre since it happened, was Donald Trump’s appearance (before his presidency of course, even before his candidacy) as a witness in a committee inquiry into renewable energy. Hard though it is to believe now, the Tory convenor of the committee wanted to call Trump to give evidence on account of the climate-denier’s campaign against wind power in Scotland.
It was bad enough that this allowed Trump to turn a serious inquiry into an absurd media circus. But when I later used an image from the Python film The Life of Brian to poke fun at Trump’s non-existent evidence, I received a letter letting me know that his highly paid lawyers were trying to have me disciplined on the grounds of blasphemy!
A spurious claim of course, but quite consistent with Trump’s almost compulsive use of litigation to threaten those who criticise him. Fortunately, the offence of blasphemy is so out of date that the Standards Commissioner who handled the complaint dismissed it. So after many run-ins with religious hierarchies over the years, on issues from sex education to LGBT+ equality, I remain the only MSP ever to be formally cleared of blasphemy.
All this could be just one obscure page of Holyrood history, a story that sometimes gets me a laugh in the pub. But I raise it now because the issue of blasphemy has again surfaced in 2018, and deserves some attention. In fact, I think it deserves one final act of legislative tidying up, so that in 2019 we formally abolish this antique remnant of the age before equality or human rights became part of our society’s moral foundation.
To be clear, it’s highly improbable that anyone could bring a successful prosecution for blasphemy in the Scottish courts.
The last time was in the 19th century, and you’d be hard placed to find a legal expert who thinks it would be taken seriously now.
READ MORE: SNP back repeal of Confession of Faith Ratification Act
Yet the offence does still formally exist, and Scotland is increasingly isolated in this. England and Wales repealed it a decade ago, Ireland has done so too, and we are now one of the few European countries yet to follow suit.
Why does it matter, if it’s not being used in the courts? Well apart from the possibility that those with deep pockets could use the threat of an action to intimidate people (fear of the law can be an effective weapon even without going to court) the existence of blasphemy laws in any country can give cover to those around the world who really do use such laws in brutal and authoritarian ways.
The case of Asia Bibi has come to global attention recently as a result of her acquittal after years in prison for blasphemy in Pakistan, a decision which has received a violent backlash from religious extremists.
At last report she remains in custody, and her family have had to move several times to try to stay safe from the threat of reprisals.
This is by no means a unique situation. In her case and in many others, even lawyers and judges are subjected to the threat and the reality of violence merely for doing their jobs.
In some countries blasphemy laws are enforced informally or at a cultural level while national authorities grudgingly ignore the consequences. In others, the state is fully behind this violent enforcement of religious ideology, and the loss of freedom, property and civil rights are meted out by the national courts. In five countries, the offence of blasphemy can result in the death sentence.
So even if such offences would never again be prosecuted in Scottish courts, surely we have a responsibility to lead by example and repeal this unwelcome reminder of the inhumane ideology which once held power here, and still does in other countries today.
We undermine our own ability to argue on the global stage in favour of justice for those who are being persecuted, if we leave this law on our own statute books.
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: SNP are anti-council tax – why haven’t they acted?
The Government’s current consultation on hate crime doesn’t mention blasphemy. Nor did the Bracadale Review, on which it’s based. That’s fair enough, as there are many other issues to address under that heading.
Some of those issues will be polarising, and it will be difficult to encourage people to build consensus rather than dig in their heels.
But surely one small thing we should be able to agree on is this – that the concept of blasphemy has no place in the law of modern Scotland. Let’s put the repeal of blasphemy into the new bill on hate crime, and get rid of this scrap of ancient and barbaric law.
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