WHILE the Scottish Government is right to defend the principles behind its proposed Hate Crime Bill, it is how the current draconian drafting of the bill would seek to uphold these principles which causes so much concern to a wide cross-section of Scottish society – including many in the wider Yes movement. For the authoritarianism of the Hate Crime Bill is a direct threat to the values which itseeks to defend.
Of course we must be vigilant against hatred in our society, and all elected representatives can give examples of this. When first elected in 2012 I referred a lesbian constituent, and her partner, to the Police Diversity Unit due to harassment. The perpetrator was taken to court and successfully prosecuted.
At the moment I am dealing with another constituent who is suffering constant harassment by a neighbour which is racially aggravated.
What we need to ask is, will the terms of the Hate Crime Bill help or hinder victims of hate crime? My contention is that the bill will cloud rather than clarify the situation because it fails to make crucial distinctions between satire, offence, and hate speech.
The satirical tradition in the English-speaking world, which gained great strength and momentum from the early 1700s onwards, was generally, but not exclusively, aimed at politicians using the tools of parody, sarcasm, and double entendre. Not only is this a vital component of a energised and living literary and artistic scene but of a free society itself.
Does satire sometimes veer into the realm of offence? Most certainly, but so long as that is not its primary aim then maintaining a free society means risking offence to some. Sustained and rabid hate is easily distinguished from satire and mere offence, but the Hate Crime Bill makes no distinction between these.
Little wonder that many independence-supporting writers, such as Val McDermid, have been critical of the Hate Crime Bill.
The bill requires radical amendment by MSPs because part two of the bill, which the Justice Secretary seems to have no intention of amending, seeks to reintroduce the censorship of the stage and theatre which was abolished in the UK by the Theatres Act 1968.
This is of fundamental concern as comedians and satirists would then be working in a culture of fear, like something out of Vichy France, where artists would internalise that fear and simply err on the side of caution.
Recently the BBC Scotland channel repeated a documentary outlining the irreverent views of Billy Connolly on religion as he saw in the 1970s. As it replayed clips from his live performances of that decade the Big Yin took a lance to all religions equally, without fear or favour. With shock I realised that under the Hate Crime Bill his act would probably have been banned.
Whilst the inclusion of the intent to hate by the Justice Secretary is welcome, he must pull back from the blurring of demarcation lines between the public realm and the private realm.
Yes, we must police the streets and the public realm, but we cannot police the minds of individuals in their own private homes as that is the ultimate description of a totalitarian society.
The bill must enshrine satire as protected speech, as is the case in the USA, Italy, and Germany, and become legislation most Scots can be proud of, rather than ashamed of.
Cllr Andy Doig
Co-Founder and Nominating Officer, Scotia Future
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