Thread by @mbmpolicy

Our latest blog considers discussions about freedom of expression protections in the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill which are taking place behind closed doors: murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2021/02/15/fre…

The Hate Crime Bill extends the existing offence of “stirring up hatred” in relation to race, to a wider range of characteristics. We have written previously about the need for a bespoke protection for stirring up hatred on basis of transgender identity. murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2021/01/31/hat…

The Justice Committee agreed with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 2 February to commence a new programme of work, to create a general provision intended to strengthen the protection in the Bill for freedom of expression across all characteristics, other than religion.

We have serious reservations both about the decision to abandon tailored freedom of expression protections for each characteristic, as included in the equivalent legislation for England and Wales (the Public Order Act 1986), and as recommended by the Bracadale Review.

We're also concerned about attempting to do this from scratch at such a late stage. Nearly two weeks on, no proposal has been made available for public scrutiny or discussion, and the plans for bringing any discussions out from behind closed doors are unknown.

It is unclear whether this issue will be debated on the public record during the Justice Committee's final Stage 2 session tomorrow morning. There is no specific agenda item relating to the FoE amendment. parliament.scot/S5_JusticeComm…

Despite the Cabinet Secretary's promise that he would "continue discussions with a wide range of stakeholders", neither we nor @ForwomenScot have been approached to meet with Scottish Government officials to discuss this aspect of the bill.

We and they were among the witnesses to the Committee who raised particular concerns about the Bill’s implications for anyone who wishes to argue for the continuing relevance of sex to law and policy-making. Our concerns were set out in this letter: indexoncensorship.org/2021/02/letter…

In the absence of receiving any approach, we last week submitted the briefing paper posted at the top of this thread to those members of the Justice Committee who, from the debate so far, seemed most likely to subject any government proposal to critical scrutiny.

The paper considered how the most value might be gained from a general protection. It was provided without prejudice to our strong view that the approach recommended by Lord Bracadale, of detailed tailored amendments for each characteristic on the model of the 1986 Act, is needed

Only this approach can provide clear points of reference on what the law is not intended to do, for those involved in the criminal justice system and also, equally importantly, for individuals and organisations who may be threatened with legal action, or fear such threats.

If the Parliament is nonetheless determined to pass a law including only a single catch-all protection, we argue that it should be modelled as closely as possible on the approach now proposed for religion, as amended at Stage 2 by cross-party consent.

Much of the available time since 2 February has already passed, and there is still no clarity about what wider engagement or public process there will be. We are therefore now publishing our briefing here, as a public contribution to the discussion.

The SG amendment appears likely to propose that only “discussion and criticism” will be covered, meaning that only beliefs about religion will clearly be safely open to “expressions of antipathy, ridicule, dislike or insult”.

https://twitter.com/humzayousaf/status/1361736143956570123