HUMZA Yousaf has defended the controversial Hate Crime Bill, saying the Scottish Government is determined to “try and strike the right balance between protection for victims and freedom of expression”.

Writing in today’s The National, the Justice Secretary urges opponents of the prospective legislation to put the voice of victims at the centre of their scrutiny.

His comments follow a difficult day for the legislation at Holyrood’s Justice Committee, where there was a mixed view of Yousaf’s recent concessions over plans to make it illegal to “stir up” hatred.

Instead of comments “likely to” stir up hatred being prosecutable, it will now only apply to comments where there is “intent to” stir up hatred.

That was welcomed by most of the religious leaders at the Justice Committee yesterday.

However, Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council for Jewish Communities (Scojec) warned MSPs this could be a free pass for holocaust deniers.

He said: “I think that the amendment that was announced by the Cabinet Secretary is retrograde, it essentially provides a get out of jail free card for something that you’ll see very often in hate-filled posts on the internet.

“That people having posted their hatred will end their comments with ‘just saying’ or ‘just asking’.

“They are now given a get out of jail free card because they could just say ‘oh we didn’t intend to cause offence, we were merely asking a question about whether the Holocaust happened’.”

He added: “Unfortunately anti-Semitism is very much on the rise these days and I take the view, therefore, that it’s the victim who needs protected.

“Yes, freedom of speech is important. But there’s a balancing exercise that needs to be done, the right to free speech is not unqualified.”

Isobel Ingham-Barrow, head of policy at Islamic rights lobby group Muslim Engagement and Development (Mend), had her doubts too. She said: “There have only been a handful of cases successfully prosecuted in England and Wales since ‘intent’ was brought it for religiously aggravated offences.

“That is unfortunately, in large part, due to how difficult it is to prove someone’s intent in the court of law, which puts the threshold unworkably high and renders much of the benefit this bill will bring redundant.”

Hardeep Singh, deputy director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, said the “modifications” had “allayed a lot of our fears”.

He added: “However, there are still a lot of concerns around free speech . . . the bill could be weaponised to persecute political opponents or opponents in any area.

“This is particularly bad at such a politically volatile time. Vexatious claimants and offence archaeologists will benefit from this, as will some lawyers who will further line their well-upholstered trouser pockets.”

Anthony Horan, director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office, said he had problems with the bill’s criminalising the “possession of inflammatory material”.

He warned that certain religious texts could lead to malicious complaints.

“We’ve given the example before of the Catholic understanding of the human person and the belief that gender is not fluid and changeable.

“And that might be something that could be considered inflammatory by some people and lead to a police investigation.”

In an earlier session, John McLellan, director of the Scottish Newspaper society, warned that the legislation was still too heavy-handed.

He said: “I still think there is a significant danger that it will make institutions like ours and everybody else involved in communication still open to investigation and action.

“Even if those actions were subsequently unsuccessful, the process of investigation and all the consequences of that are as serious as being convicted.”

Yousaf said the evidence at the committee hearing highlighted the breadth of opinion on the bill.

“Amid this scrutiny, we have to remember the core purpose of this legislation – protection for victims of hate crime,” he wrote.