JIM Sillars's letter (June 2) about the Hate Crime Bill is fundamentally inaccurate. He suggests that, if the bill becomes law, MSPs like Richard Lyle who express views about the Middle East could face criminal prosecution for the offence of stirring up racial hatred.

But in fact, that part of the bill is simply a consolidation of existing law, restating current hate crime law into a single bill. The offence of stirring up racial hatred has existed in Scotland since 1986, and the bill makes no significant change to it. Needless to say, no MP or MSP has faced prosecution under it for expressing their opinion in those 34 years, and freedom of speech and political debate has not been threatened in any way.

Around half the bill re-states law that is already in place, while the rest rationalises hate crime law so that it provides similar protections to a wider range of people who face hate crimes. Those new protections will in fact be somewhat narrower in scope than the long-standing law on racist hate crime, so are even less likely to affect free speech. Contrary to Mr Sillars's assertion, those new provisions do not criminalise insulting language or behaviour.

It is of course vital that the bill is debated fully and openly, including in the letters pages of the press, and that potential amendments are considered. But that needs to be done with some understanding of what new law the bill actually proposes, and not by scaremongering assertions about things that the bill doesn't do at all.

Tim Hopkins, Director, Equality Network, Edinburgh EH6.

THE unintended consequences of the Scottish Government’s Hate Crime Bill are highlighted in Jim Sillars’s lucid critique. How far will its tentacles reach should it enter the statute book? Will a failed attempt at humour lead to jokers being given a criminal record? And will serried ranks of mirthless Gauleiters scrutinise the media in a search for transgressions including, dare I say it, letters to the Editor of The Herald?

The sparing use of a wee jest can help lubricate the squeaky wheels of communication. Sure, this may sometimes fall flat…and regrettably here I speak from personal experience. However, I insist on retaining the right to inadvertently cause offence and in return, on rare occasions, to feel offended.

As adults with opinions, we would do well to remember the quote attributed to Voltaire. “I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Bob Scott, Drymen.

JIM Sillars is right about the Hate Crime Bill but some of his reasoning thereafter is not based on fact.

Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) belong to Israel within the Mandate for the Jewish Homeland created by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922 with the Jordan River as the eastern border. In 1948 The Arab League’s armies invaded Judea and Samaria with the declared intention of driving Israel into the Mediterranean Sea. Although they failed to do so they took over Judea and Samaria until 1967. King Abdullah I forbade the use of the term "Palestine" in legal documents. In 1967 Egypt, Jordan and Syria waged war against Israel with intent to destroy it. Israel’s reclamation of Judea and Samaria during that defensive war was not illegal.

The term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" is not based in law. Judea and Samaria belong to the original homeland of the Jews from the third millennium BC. Abraham, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah are buried in Hebron in Judea at The Tombs of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

Mr Sillars does not acknowledge the distinctive call and positive contribution and suffering of Jews in history because he does not believe in God. By the same argument Mr Sillars does not believe in Jesus Christ, Christianity or Christians. But for us there is continuity in our sense of the call that makes us Christians. There is legal, geographical and archaeological continuity in Judea and Samaria for Jews and there is social, historical and spiritual continuity to this day for Christians.

Rev Dr Robert Anderson, Dundonald.

MAY I remind Jim Sillars that it wasn’t Richard Lyle, but Mahmoud Abbas who stated the words which give Mr Sillars and others such offence. Mr Sillars's letter is clearly a case of shooting the messenger.

M Green, Glasgow G77.