Scotland’s Hate Crime Bill is a free speech nightmare

Members of the Scottish Parliament approved the controversial Hate Crime Bill in March by 82 votes to 32. There were four abstentions.

The Scottish government never fails to surprise us in the lengths it is willing to go to blur the lines between the branches of government. The entire government is now becoming a prime example of a system functioning without checks or balances, with the civil service looking like a political arm of the SNP.

With no real Opposition, Scotland is becoming closer to a one-party state where its leaders can get away with anything because they know the consequence isn’t there for them - electorally or otherwise. The Hate Crime Bill is just the latest in the saga, a piece of legislation that should shake anyone that values freedom of expression and the privacy of conversations in the household.  

One of the most concerning sections within the Bill is the introduction of several offences that go further than existing hate crime laws, including ‘stirring up hatred’, which is a very ambiguous phrase that could lead to situations in which offensive speech is censored by police, who will be looking for any excuse to pursue ‘woke’ ideals to bolster their own image. Scots whose behaviour is seen as ‘threatening and abusive’ could face prosecution, which seems unnecessary because genuinely unacceptable behaviour that leads to harm or incitement of harm is already in law.

The Law Society flagged up concerns, as did the National Secular Society and religious groups, who all have a shared fear that this could lead to certain performances or speeches being censored because they may direct offence towards a certain group.

The Public Order Act made sure that words spoken within someone else’s “dwelling”, i.e. home, would not be subject to the same policing as public words. This protection does not exist within the Scottish government’s Bill. Suddenly, ‘threatening’ behaviour as opposed to actually acting out such behaviour is subject to criminal prosecution.

The Scottish Police Federation, who also condemned the legislation, drew focus to provisions that appeared to grant powers of search to members of police staff. This could lead to an overreach of police power, and also take up investigative time that should be put towards tackling crime that is of a much higher priority.

Some minor victories have been achieved, such as the removal of clauses that would have led to theatrical performances being policed - and that includes actors, not just the directors of said plays. The fact this was ever proposed is a worrying sign, clearly there was little need for this legislation and its damaging effects won’t take long to come to light. Vague terms like ‘stirring up hatred’ seem a far cry from the original conception of hate crime laws, which themselves need serious reform to stop social media posts and other communications being vetted so heavily.

Scottish Labour was whipped to vote for it, as was the Scottish Liberal Democrats, which means only the Scottish Conservative Party opposed the Bill. This should not be forgotten. As another government invasion of policing free expression, goodness knows what winding path this will take us down.