Why is the Scottish government's proposed Hate Crime Bill such a threat to free speech? @ALLIANCELGB has written directly to every MSP in advance of today's Stage 1 debate in Holyrood to highlight our two main concerns. /1
First, we believe the new offence of ‘stirring up hatred' is defined so vaguely it's open to wide misinterpretation and potential abuse. Every attempt by the Justice Secretary to clarify or amend it has added to the confusion. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla… /2
Each time concerns have been raised, he has fiercely defended his Bill, only to be forced to amend it. This contributes to a sense the whole exercise was badly thought through from the start. But he hasn't solved the biggest problem of all. eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/… /3
The biggest fear is allegations of hate crime will be used to silence opponents. We're told this is a baseless fear. Yet accusations of 'hate' are already being used to try to restrict debate, and the lengths some will go to are sometimes extraordinary. Take @MrJohnNicolson /4
Our briefing to MSPs highlights just a few of the many examples where he has maligned organisations including us. It started when we opposed gender self-ID (which allows anyone to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis). He called us a 'hate group'. We're not. /5
He claimed we’re funded by the Far Right. We're not. He said we’re transphobic. We're not.He asked Police Scotland to investigate us. They didn't. He & his staff appealed for our funding sites to be closed down. They were. What could he & his allies do with a Hate Crime Bill? /6
Ever since our founding a year ago Nicolson and others who disagree with us have tried in various ways to silence us. For them the Hate Crime Bill could be like cream for the cat. This recent article details just some parts of the campaign against us.👇 spectator.co.uk/article/the-di… /7
Some say a prosecution wouldn't succeed. But even being reported for a hate crime would place burdens on civil organisations. Venues might cancel or suppliers refuse to supply if we were ‘under investigation’. But would someone make such a serious accusation without evidence? /8
On 27 November Mr Nicolson retweeted baffling allegations that we were somehow behind a ‘conspiracy’ to swing the SNP’s NEC elections. We were described as 'entryists' who were secretly trying to destroy the SNP. The language was incendiary.
https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1332472730055282695?s=20/9
Over 24 hours we were called 'vile', 'hateful', and far right. The truth was we knew nothing about any slate and the only evidence he cited was that we shared a web server with a group who WERE advocating for a slate of candidates- as do 12 million people including celebs. /10
If such lack of judgement is apparent now wouldn't this Bill add fuel to the fire? @KirstySNP has even accused us of ‘rejecting the existence of trans people'; an astonishing claim. Together might claims like this add to a clamour for prosecution?
https://twitter.com/KirstySNP/status/1335531987596161025?s=20/11
Imagine the police faced with accusations of hate crime from multiple politicians with an axe to grind - They might be tempted to allow the courts to decide. Small groups like us might be bankrupted before we got a chance to prove our innocence. /12
Perhaps we'd be less concerned if the Bill wasn't couched in suspect language. Our second concern is the Bill undermines the meaning of the word 'sex' as it's been understood for millennia. Yes, the same word debated at Holyrood earlier this week. 👇 /13
Our rights as LGB people are enshrined in law in the Equality Act (2010) as based on our sexual attraction. The Act (and therefore the protections it offers) are based on there being two sexes, male and female. Yet the Bill does not use this language. /14
Instead it has adopted controversial language, which would be entirely novel in Scottish law. It refers, for example, to heterosexuals not as people attracted to the opposite sex, but to ‘a different sex'. A Hate Crime Bill is not the place to rethink the word 'sex'. /15
Our concern is by changing the wording from 'opposite sex' to 'different sex' the Scottish govt is implying there are more than two sexes. There aren't. When asked to justify this change Mr Yousuf said it was in order to cover non-binary people./16
But in a recent FOI request the Scottish govt admits it "does not have an official definition of non-binary." So the Scottish govt is intending to insert into our law a term it doesn't know how to define? How can you protect the indefinable?👇whatdotheyknow.com/request/708948… /17
The Scottish govt pointed to a definition of non-binary in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. You won't guess how the same dictionary defines ‘heterosexual’ - Yes, as attracted to the opposite sex. This Bill doesn't even use its dictionary definitions consistently. /18
This Bill was sold to us as an attempt to make law more consistent and coherent. That was a laudable aim. This Bill doesn't do it. Instead it will lead to a restriction of debate, give ammunition to the malign and introduce badly or indefinable language into law. /19
If you'd like to read our original submission to the Justice committee you can read it here. lgballiance.org.uk/hate-crime-and… /20
This is a story about a small organisation that defends the interests and rights of a minority. But what could happen to us could also happen to thousands of other groups and individuals. That’s why the Hate Crime Bill should be rejected. It’s a threat to all our rights. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
