The Convener
Justice Committee
Scottish Parliament
Holyrood
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP
Dear Convener
HATE CRIME & PUBLIC ORDER
(SCOTLAND) BILL – CALL FOR VIEWS
I am writing on behalf of the
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches – a network of churches across
Scotland (stretching from Dumfries to Lerwick) and representing over 50 local
church leaders.
We would be grateful if the
following comments and concerns on the above Bill were taken into account by
the Committee.
Shared values
The desire to protect the dignity
of every Scottish citizen is one that we wholeheartedly support – indeed the value
and sanctity of every human life is one of our core Christian convictions. In
this regard we support the Bill’s intent to guard individuals from abuse,
harassment and any diminution of their basic human rights through malicious communications.
Concerns
However, we are very concerned
that the Bill as currently drafted could have detrimental effects on the most
fundamental human right of all – Freedom of Speech.
The Committee will be aware that
this concern is shared by both religious and non-religious people across
Scotland– including the National Secular Society, many in the media, the arts,
academia and politicians on all sides. In adding our voice to these many others,
we would highlight the following…
1.
The omission
of a Free Speech Clause on Transgender issues.
We
welcome the inclusion of Free Speech clauses to protect ‘discussion or
criticisms of religion or religious beliefs or practices, proselytising, or
urging of persons to cease practising their religions’, and the ‘discussion
or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain
from or modify sexual conduct or practices’ (Sections 11 & 12).
Such freedoms should not and need not be detrimental to any
individual but are hallmarks of a free society in which all ideologies,
viewpoints and truth-claims are open to reasonable challenge, critique and
questioning.
We are therefore puzzled and concerned that a similar provision is
not included in the Bill to cover such discussion or criticisms that may arise
around Transgender issues. This is a subject of potentially enormous
consequence for many people (including children) and thus one where expression
of alternative viewpoints is all the more important to allow.
We would therefore request that a clause to protect ‘discussion or
criticisms’ in this area is put into any legislation going forward.
2.
Use of vague
terminology
The Bill seeks to criminalise ‘stirring up’ or the likelihood of
stirring up ‘hatred’ (3.1.b.ii.). Such wording seems very hard to define especially
in a culture where disagreement is all too often branded as intolerance or even
bigotry. Thus there is real potential for such ‘open’ terminology to be misused
by groups or persons simply wishing to close down the rights of others to
express opinions.
We would therefore request that such vague and subjective wording
is removed from the Bill.
3.
Creation of a
new ‘Blasphemy’ Law
We have no issue with the proposed abolition of the redundant
Blasphemy Law (unused since 1843). We believe in the free expression of opinion
and ideas – even where those opinions and ideas might be disagreeable to our
own beliefs.
Legislation already exists to protect every citizen from
harassment and personal vilification. It is right that those are applied and
that the Police and Courts protect people accordingly.
However, the current Bill seems in danger of creating categories
of ‘secular blasphemy’ in which certain beliefs and their adherents are privileged
with special protections. As a consequence we fear that many aspects of the
proposed legislation will become not a tool to protect vulnerable people – but
a tool to oppress and silence unpopular or inconvenient viewpoints in society.
Conclusion
As Christians know all too well (often having been the ones at
fault) you cannot bind the human conscience or supress the voices of fellow citizens
without great cost. It is good, although not always comfortable, to live in a
society that allows every belief-system (however cherished) to be openly and
robustly critiqued. History has shown that the alternative, however well
intentioned, does not ultimately soften hearts or attitudes but instead leads
to the incubation of fear and resentment.
Thus we would ask that every effort is made to revise the Bill in
order to ensure that Freedom of Speech is robustly upheld for all citizens.
With grateful thanks for the work of the Justice Committee.
Yours faithfully.
Andrew T. Hunter
Scotland
Director, FIEC
1 comment:
Excellent.
Post a Comment