A MAJORITY of respondents to a Scottish Government consultation do not think there is a need to address and define sectarianism in hate crime legislation.
It sought views from organisations including public-sector bodies and faith groups, as well as from individuals, as the Government considers reforms to hate crime legislation in Scotland.
A total of 1159 responses were received as part of the consultation, which considered a number of aspects to hate crime reform including modernising laws, new statutory aggravations, new stirring-up offences and other related issues.
A majority of 527 respondents (59%) said they do not think it is necessary for sectarianism to be specifically addressed and defined in hate crime legislation.
Some 139 (26%) said sectarianism should be addressed and defined in hate crime legislation, while 77 (15%) said they were unsure.
Some of those who responded “no” or “unsure” argued sectarianism was adequately addressed in existing legislation, while others expressed concern that criminalising sectarian behaviour may potentially restrict freedom of expression.
READ MORE: Football grounds could be closed under new strict licensing
Earlier this week, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said football clubs and authorities are not doing enough to curb sectarianism, with the situation at a “tipping point”.
In March last year, MSPs voted to scrap the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act, which had been aimed at tackling sectarian behaviour at football.
Another key finding from the consultation was that a “substantial proportion” of respondents had concerns about the impact of hate crime laws on freedom of speech and religious expression, and about laws designed to protect specific groups.
The report found many respondents called for the repeal of hate crime laws or at least did not want such laws to be extended.
When asked about legislation around online conduct, the consultation found views were mixed over a recommendation no specific legislative change was necessary.
It found respondents who agreed no legislative change was required mainly thought online conduct was already covered by existing legislation or it would be adequately covered if other recommendations were taken forward.
Among those who thought legislation was required, the consultation found they mainly said online hate was a serious and increasingly prevalent issue which needed a specific tailored response.
Asked what else could be included in an update to hate crime legislation, some respondents called for blasphemy laws to be abolished in Scotland.
Among some of the reasons for doing so, respondents said the current laws are not used and abolishing them would be in line with international thinking.
Yousaf said: “We will consider all consultation responses as we continue to develop our consolidated hate crime legislation to be put before Holyrood during the current parliamentary period.
“We want to modernise and simplify the current law to ensure the right balance between freedom of speech, religious expression and sufficient protection for those who face unacceptable discrimination.”
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