To say the Scottish Government's new Hate Crime Bill has divided opinion is something of an understatement.
On one side, we have those who believe passionately that the new law, which came into force on Monday, is an assault on free speech. On the other side, its supporters say the law will help protect vulnerable people from abuse.
The law is intended to consolidate existing hate crime laws but also creates a new offence of “threatening or abusive behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred” on the grounds of age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or transgender identity.
These provisions add to longstanding offences relating to stirring up racial hatred, which have been in place since 1986. Humza Yousaf, as justice secretary, helped bring the bill through parliament, under heavy criticism from religious groups, and gender-critical feminists such as the author JK Rowling and SNP’s Joanna Cherry. The MP said the new law will be weaponised by trans rights activists to try to silence women's advocates.
Unlike some other media outlets, The Herald doesn't have an editorial 'line' on the new law. We don't tell our reporters or writers what to write. It's not our job to tell readers what to think. We know you are intelligent enough to make your own minds up and that our job is to provide you with both sides of the argument – and we have been doing so for weeks on this subject.
Writer and legal academic Andrew Tickell argued that the Act has plenty of safeguards. He wrote that it was important to understand what the law actually does.
"The first part of the legislation codifies how crimes can be aggravated by prejudice, the second consolidates new offences of “stirring up hatred” against minority groups. I don’t know about you, but if a knuckle-dragging bigot spits on a priest while gobbing up anti-Irish and anti-Catholic slurs, I have no problem with classifying that as a hate crime. If you daub a synagogue in antisemitic graffiti, most folk wouldn’t see it as state overreach to classify that offence as aggravated by prejudice."
However, a senior police officer warned the legislation risked damaging confidence in the police. Ch Supt Rob Hay, from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, said people would feel "aggrieved" if they are the subject of an investigation resulting from a vexatious complaint.
Read more:
Editor's Pick | From raised in Holyrood to fantastic reader support, our series draws to an end
Former Tory MSP Adam Tomkins said the SNP's Hate Crime Act might yet be a success. The John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, who was convener of the Parliament’s Justice Committee when the bill was enacted, pointed out that in England it has been a crime to stir up hatred on religious grounds since 2006 and on grounds of sexual orientation since 2008.
"Under the Act the threshold of criminal liability is not that a victim feels offended (a subjective test), but that a reasonable person would consider the perpetrator’s action or speech to be threatening or abusive (an objective test). Moreover, the Act specifies that “discussion or criticism” of matters relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability, is not to be taken as threatening or abusive. Asserting that sex is a biological fact or that it is not changed by what someone chooses to identify as is not a hate crime under this legislation."
Get Editor's Pick straight to your inbox every Friday.
Kevin McKenna wasn't convinced. The columnist wrote: "The SNP has been portraying Scotland as the most backward and hate-filled country in the known world for several years. If they’re not wiping us off the soles of their well-shod feet they’re portraying us as Buckfast-swilling troglodytes who must be taxed on their alcohol choices. They also think Scotland is a nation of rampant transphobes. Like much else of the SNP’s claims this gas-lighting of an entire nation turns to dust under the slightest scrutiny."
Perhaps Alison Rowat summed it up best when she wrote it's time for a period of calm and for everyone to steady the buffs, and let us see what happens.
Catherine Salmond will return next week.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel