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.
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