“CONFRONTING hate crime is central to building the safer, stronger and inclusive Scotland that we all want to see” – so writes Humza Yousaf (To build a safer nation we must confront hate crime, November 11). All well and good but it’s worth reflecting on the anti-racist legislation that has been passed since Powell’s rivers of blood diatribe in 1968. Has any of it worked?
Of course it is impossible to disagree with Humza Yousaf’s sentiments for we all (or maybe not all) want to live in an equitable, anti-discriminatory society. But how do we counteract a former Prime Minister’s hostile environment or a Home Secretary whose immigration policy is racist to the extreme? These types of uncaring, barbarous ideologies stem from government policy which, like that of Trump and co, is aimed at division and a return to – or should I say the creation of – some kind of dangerous, restorative nostalgia that reflects backwards to a golden age that never actually existed and which in the end resulted in Brexit, the Windrush scandal and so on.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf: To build a safer nation we must confront hate crime
It is heartening to see a government minister attempting to address, at national level, the discriminatory aspects of our society. It might well be that some aspects of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill will be very complex to implement, but they should and hopefully will be ironed out.
However, and this is my main point, how does a criminal justice system in its entirety address the very basic necessities of sentencing an offender who has been found guilty of a racially motivated crime? Does the system impose a custodial or community sentence, or a fine? Whichever ruling comes down, if it does not address the opinions that led to the crime in the first place then nothing will change.
In any sentencing scenario, perhaps an order should be imposed to force attendance at an anti-racist/hatred course run by the probation service or some other body set up for exactly that purpose. Now I am aware that many criminal justice staff work within the scenario mentioned, but I feel that in some cases these interventions are ad hoc and of course dependent on the resources available. In order to help change deep-seated discriminatory attitudes, those types of interventions should be systemic. If we don’t do this then how do we create meaningful change in individuals or society in general?
Alan Hind
Old Kilpatrick
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