Thread by @mbmpolicy

The final part of the Stage 3 debate on the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill has now begun. scottishparliament.tv

Humza Yousaf: the bill shows how parliament can work at its best when we seek consensus.

HY: we can create truly transformative law which protects the most vulnerable in our society.

Elaine Smith: in debating this bill I am now being accused of hate crime.

HY: if you want to see hatred, you can look at my Twitter any day of the week.

HY: I want to share a personal anecdote to show why the bill is needed.

HY: not a day goes by when I am not conscious of the colour of my skin.

HY: some here believe that if racism that is intentionally stirred up, that that should not be prosecuted.

HY: solely stating a belief is not breaching the criminal threshold.

HY: the safeguards of the bill are really strong.

HY: this bill makes clear that we are listening to the victims of hate crime.

Liam Kerr: long and tortuous passage. 2k submissions were received. Given responses and pandemic would have been better to take the bill away and come back with another.

LK: the bill is still fundamentally flawed. There are many voices saying it is not robust. There is a whole group not covered by this bill.

LK: a Savanta poll shows 75% of Scots agree hatred means different things to different people.

LK: the bill contains a FoE clause that many groups remain unhappy with despite reassurances today.

LK: cites evidence submitted by Edinburgh University law lecturer Scott Wortley and Hardeep Singh from the Network of Sikh Organisations.

LK: concern about vexatious reports and weaponisation. Scottish Police Federation has concerns. Must be a risk of a chilling effect.

LK: no defence for private conversations in the home. I cannot vote for that but nor do we need to. Financial Memorandum says conduct in question would already be caught by criminal law.

LK: cites evidence from MBM about the lack of clarity regarding the gap the bill will fill.

LK: cites Lucy Hunter Blackburn who said the people this will be used against are much more likely to be working class.

Neil Bibby: Labour believes hate crime should be dealt with with full force of law. Have been engaging with stakeholders.

NB: increase in hate crime charges in recent years. Welcome new reporting obligations. Lack of clarity disadvantages the victim. Bracadale review found confusion around what a hate crime is.

NB: makes sense to consolidate, modernise and reform Scotland's hate crime laws.

NB: Scotland no different to rest of UK in this regard. Bill necessary to ensure accountability.

NB: we believe sex aggravator should have been included in the bill. Bill is flawed because of this.

NB: we have to recognise bill give important protections to minorities. Hate cannot be legislated out of existence.

Liam McArthur: could not be credibly argued any of debate from yesterday was hate speech.

LM: last summer this was not a bill Liberal Democrats could vote for.

LM: we now have broad and consistent FoE protections.

LM: no-one should be required to hold any particular belief.

LM: want to reflect on non-inclusion of sex aggravator. Concerns have not wholly disappeared. Convinced by evidence from RCS, SWA, Engender and Zero Tolerance.

LM: LDs will support the bill this evening.

John Finnie: seen shameful misrepresentation saying bill has zero regard for FoE. We have seen amendments that would have shamefully airbrushed intersex people from existence.

JF: we (Scottish Greens) won't be bullied with those with mild sounding social media names and agendas.

Rona Mackay: there is a clear need to tackle misogyny. Systemic misogyny needs more than a sex aggravator. Working group led by Helena Kennedy is testament to importance we attach to this issue.

Murdo Fraser: there is much in bill with which we can all agree. But the debate has concentrated on part 2. No surprise we have seen heavily divided opinion on part 2.

MF: broad coalition of groups expressing serious concern about impact on free speech. We know there are those who want to use law to close down debate.

MF: cites debate between trans activists and feminists. Concern bill will be weaponised by those who want to close down debate. Yesterday we heard a chilling contribution by Patrick Harvie to speeches from women MSPs raising legitimate concerns.

MF: it is opinions that are unpopular that need to be protected. Extraordinary that following rejection of Lamont amendments this bill gives more protection to men who dress as women than women themselves.

MF: there is a broader debate about his this parliament functions and how it can hold the executive to account. This is no way to make law. Would have liked to have seen SG withdraw part 2 in its entirety.

MF: we are rushing ahead which may have deeply damaging unintended consequences.

Johann Lamont: from where I sit, this debate may have been interesting, what is left is a sense of grave disappointment. We made the wrong decision yesterday.

JL: I will not be able to vote for this bill at the end of today.

JL: it is because this bill does not address a fundamental problem. As we were debating we heard on news of another victim of male violence. Women took to social media to describe what we do to keep ourselves safe.

JL: I am told that denying a cross dresser the protection of this bill is unacceptable. We know cross dressers say it is a lifestyle choice not a matter of identity.

JL: not saying sex aggravator would have solved everything. We could not even agree on a definition of what sex is. It matters because there is now a live debate about whether there is two sexes or not. Term intersex is offensive to many people in communities of people with DSDs.

JL: the amendment on defining what sex is mattered so much. This is not the job of the working group.

JL: I do not diminish Cab Sec's experiences one bit. I plead with him: if it is reasonable to pause on women why are we not pausing on these other complex areas?

JL: what is behind this? We are dancing on all sorts of arguments here. In our communities now people face discrimination and disadvantage and women are part of that. This bill will fail if we don't go beyond sending signals.

JL: I regret that the end of the day when I vote that this bill does not address these problems, I have no doubt I will be characterised as someone full of hate.

JL: this legislation does not even address the lived experience of the women in this place.

JL: women are telling you what their lived experience is. This parliament needs to tackle these problems. I respect everyone in this chamber and I trust they will respect women beyond this chamber who say this is not good enough.

Shona Robison: I will support Johann Lamont's position on this and would support her if she is attacked for that. I don't believe for a second she is against this bill for any other reasons.

SR: events in recent days remind us of the deep rooted misogyny in our society.

James Kelly: hate crime on rise in Scotland. Robust laws are welcome.

JK: the drafting of the bill was at best clumsy, at worst incompetent.

JK: reflection on debate last night, a lot of MSPs were unclear on interpretation of the law. There remain issues with this legislation.

JK: will be a crucial role going forward in the courts. Test for sheriffs, and police to interpret this law. Crucial law of post legislative scrutiny. Lot of aspects of bill will need to be looked at. May need to be revisited in next session.

Adam Tomkins: it is not longer the grave threat to FoE it once was.

AT: even changes have not quelled fear that stalks this land because of this bill.

AT: people are afraid, in particular women. This should make us all pause. I hope we have done enough to make sure their fears are not realised in practice.

AT: it must be widely understood that just because you are offended, hurt or upset about something someone has said about your identity, it does not constitute a hate crime.

AT: concern about threat to private and family life. Cannot vote for this bill.

AT: matter of deep regret. But when legislating parliament must ensure it respects and does not infringe our human rights. This bill does not meet that test.