Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Hate Crime Bill: Humza Yousaf concession a ‘step in the right direction’

Humza Yousaf.
Humza Yousaf.

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has admitted a controversial Hate Crime Bill could lead to “self-censorship”, as he announced the bill will now only prosecute those who intended to stir up hatred.

Against mounting pressure from a range of organisations including the Law Society of Scotland, Scottish Catholic Church and the Scottish Police Federation, Mr Yousaf said he had “reflected carefully” on the concerns the proposals could stifle freedom of speech.

Speaking in the Scottish Parliament, the SNP politician said he recognised there was a “perception” the new offences may be used to prosecute “entirely legitimate acts of expression”, which could lead to “self-censorship” as an unintended consequence.

The hate crime bill, if passed, would extend the offence of stirring up hatred, which currently offers protections based on race, to cover age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variation in sex characteristics.

Under the initial draft plans, individuals could be prosecuted even if their actions were only deemed “likely” to stir up hatred.

However, Mr Yousaf confirmed to the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday, that he would move amendments, as the bill makes its way through parliament, making it necessary to prove intent.

After arguing there were a number of “protections” built into the existing bill, he said: “Having heard the views expressed both by this parliament and by a range of key stakeholders, I recognise that even with those protections, there is a real risk that if the offences don’t require intent to stir up hatred there could be a perception, and indeed uncertainty, that the operation of this aspect of the offences may be used to prosecute what are entirely legitimate acts of expression.

“This in itself may lead to an element of self-censorship. This is not the aim of the legislation.”

He added that the bill does “not seek to to stifle robust debate or discourse or artistic freedoms”, but to “offer greater protection” to those who suffer from hate crime, while also respecting freedom of expression.

However, the Scottish Conservatives, who this month brought forward a debate to scrap the bill in its entirety, said the “minor” amendments to the bill “do not go anywhere near far enough”.

Liam Kerr.

Liam Kerr, the party’s justice spokesman and north-east MSP, said: “The most controversial piece of legislation in Scottish Parliament history won’t be fixed by tinkering around the margins.

“Our fundamental right to freedom of speech remains under threat.”

Step in the right direction?

Jamie Gillies, spokesman for the Free to Disagree campaign – a coalition of civil liberty groups and free speech proponents set up to oppose the stirring up hatred provisions – agreed the move was a “step in the right direction” but failed to resolve other “seismic issues” with part two of the bill.

Jamie Gillies, spokesman for the Free to Disagree campaign.

He added: “There’s still too low a threshold for offending, the wording is hopelessly vague, free speech provisions are inadequate, there is no ‘dwelling defence’ (to protect remarks made in the privacy of the home) and people outside Scotland could be caught.

“Withdrawing the stirring up offences wholesale is the only way to resolve these complex issues and ensure that other, vital civil liberties are upheld.

“The fact that the government hasn’t done this means opposition to the bill will continue for months to come. It’s a missed opportunity.”

Scotland’s new Hate Crime Bill: Sending a strong message to perpetrators or stifling free speech?

The draft laws have succeeded in uniting both religious and secular organisations in criticism over the potential consequences for freedom of speech.

The Scottish Catholic Church has welcomed the proposed change to prove intent but still has “outstanding concerns” around the potential for “misinterpretation, appropriate defences, and the lack of equity in relation to the freedom of expression provisions”.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, said the proposed amendment “doesn’t go far enough”, stating that the stirring up offences “remain unnecessary and excessive” and would “unacceptably erode” freedom of expression in the absence of “more robust” freedom of expression safeguards.

However, some other high-profile organisations that have criticised the bill believe the Scottish Government has listened to their concerns.

David Hamilton, chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, said: “We really welcome that change in policy and I think that will allow the bill to progress quickly and we will look at the later stages as it develops.

“That was the main concern we had and it’s good to see the justice secretary listened and took on board our comments and feedback.”

Roddy Dunlop QC.

One of Scotland’s leading QCs, Roddy Dunlop, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, a high-profile critic of the bill, previously said the draft laws would curb freedom of expression, giving the example it could criminalise comedians who tell the “Scottish, Irishman and Englishman go to a pub” joke. 

In response to Mr Yousaf’s announcement, Mr Dunlop, said the organisation welcomed the amendment, as the lack of intent in the initial proposals was one of their “primary concerns” with the legislation.

But he added: “It does not address all of the Faculty’s concerns about potential impact on freedom of expression, and Faculty will continue to work with Government to address those other concerns.”

Meanwhile, the Law Society of Scotland welcomed the Cabinet Secretary’s “willingness to listen” and respond to their “genuine concerns”.

Amanda Millar, president of the organisation, said she believes the amendment will alleviate concerns that offences could be committed by people expressing “controversial views” where they have no intention of stirring up hatred.

The Justice Secretary also told MSPs he was “open” to continued dialogue on the bill, including considering “further reforms”.

Kate Wallace, chief executive of Victim Support Scotland, said she hopes the changes will “ease concerns” about the implications of the bill.

“It should allow a renewed focus on its overall purpose: to tackle offending behaviour, and to give the necessary protections for some of Scotland’s most vulnerable people and groups.”