During the height of attempts across the UK to control the Covid-19 pandemic, the Scottish Government introduced the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, designed to modernise and extend hate crime legislation there. Organisations as varied as the Law Society of Scotland and the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Scotland have expressed concern that the new Bill could restrict freedom of expression.
Locally, Judge Desmond Marrinan has been leading an independent review of hate crime legislation here, with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland one of over 1,000 contributors to the recent public consultation. That such a review is even necessary is a sad reminder that unlawful activity which seeks to bully and intimidate individuals remains part of our culture. The reported exponential rise of abuse on social media, often experienced more so by women, and the recording of around 2,300 hate motivated incidents and crimes by the PSNI from April 2019 – March 2020, provide further evidence of the scale of this problem in society today.
The task faced by the review team therefore is vast, as is the complexity of taking forward its recommendations due to emerge towards the end of the year. Justice Minister Naomi Long has indicated that any subsequent legislation will not be brought to the Assembly before the end of its current mandate in spring 2022. Scotland’s experience reminds us that the balance between protecting the vulnerable, whilst maintaining opportunities to explore differences of opinion in a constructive way, can be hard to strike.
One aim of the Review team is to officially define the term ‘hate’ and what might constitute a ‘hate crime’. However, creating a definition in itself is not a panacea. The blunt instrument of the law, even as a last resort, is no substitute for the hard, and often challenging, work of transforming hearts and minds.
In its response PCI has cautioned that finding a way forward on hate crime should not become a precursor to curtailing genuine debate. This, for instance, is why PCI has sought clarity that the legitimate use and exposition of scripture is protected and not constituted as a hate crime – something the Catholic Church feels is not guaranteed in the Scottish proposals.
In a world increasingly defined through the lens of individual identity, and choices which we are often told are fluid and non-binary, we risk being left with a binary option which boils down to this – if you are not for me then you are against me, and if you are against me (while of course you have a the right to hold your personal beliefs) there is no place for you to articulate those beliefs in the public square. The place of public debate risks becoming a zero-sum game where if you win, I lose and vice versa.
The public square is changing rapidly, not only becoming more diverse with the rejection of old norms and the promotion of new philosophies and ideas, but conversely getting smaller through this rise of ‘cancel culture’. It is also getting louder with a cacophony of voices readily available at all times through social media and the 24-hour news cycle – all competing to be heard and therefore using more and more extreme and intolerant language. Against this background the challenge to create space for considerate discourse, respectful listening, and agreeing to disagree well is one which we all have a responsibility to grasp.
For many Christians grounding their public conduct in the truth-claims of their faith forms a key element of their religious commitment. Recognising this is a vital part of what it means for a society to genuinely value religious freedom. There must be space within society to express views with which others may disagree, recognising that this works both ways and allows people to express views about religious belief with which we may disagree. After all, the freedom to only express ideas that are popular is no freedom at all.
In a perfect world this type of legislation would be unnecessary. In our imperfect and fallen world let’s make sure we get such legislation as right as possible, achieving a balance which both protects the vulnerable and facilitates respectful debate.
You can read PCI's submission to the Independent Review of hate crime legislation here.
Photo: Karen Jardine, PCI's public affairs officer.