news-2


Freedom to disagree must be protected, say Scotland’s Bishops

New Hate Crime Bill – the freedom to disagree must be protected, say Scotland’s Bishops 
Wednesday 29 July 2020

The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland has responded to the Scottish Government’s new Hate Crime and Public Order Bill. In a submission to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee the Conference has stated that any new law must be ‘carefully weighed against fundamental freedoms, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.’
 
The bill proposes to modernise, consolidate and extend hate crime legislation in Scotland, including introducing a new offence of stirring up hatred, possession of inflammatory material, and new protection of freedom of expression provisions in relation to religion and sexual orientation. 
 
Commenting on the submission, the Director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office, Anthony Horan said;

“Whilst acknowledging that stirring up of hatred is morally wrong and supporting moves to discourage and condemn such behaviour the bishops have expressed concerns about the lack of clarity around definitions and a potentially low threshold for committing an offence, which they fear, could lead to a ‘deluge of vexatious claims’.” 
 
“A new offence of possessing inflammatory material could even render material such as the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church...inflammatory.  The Catholic Church’s understanding of the human person, including the belief that sex and gender are not fluid and changeable, could fall foul of the new law. Allowing for respectful debate, means avoiding censorship and accepting the divergent views and multitude of arguments inhabiting society.”

Mr Horan added;
 
“The Church believes that fundamental freedoms must be protected, as the right to exercise freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is ‘an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person’ and ‘a right that must be recognised and protected by civil authority, always within the limits of the common good and public order’. The courts have noted that the freedom to shock, offend and disturb, as well as the contentious and unwelcome are protected by the right to freedom of expression, and the bishops have declared that freedom of expression provisions must be robust enough to protect the freedom to disagree.

Mr Horan concluded;
 
“The bishops decry so-called ‘cancel culture’ in their submission, expressing deep concern at the ‘hunting down of those who disagree with prominent orthodoxies with the intention to expunge the non-compliant from public discourse and with callous disregard for their livelihoods’. They say that ‘no single section of society has dominion over acceptable and unacceptable speech or expression’ and urged the law to be proportionate and fair and allow for respectful debate and tolerance lest we become an ‘intolerant, illiberal society’.”

ENDS

Peter Kearney 
Director 
Catholic Media Office 
0141 221 1168
07968 122291 
pk@scmo.org 
www.scmo.org


Note to Editors:

The full text of the submission to the consultation is shown below:




Catholic Church responds to Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill Consultation


Justice Committee – Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill


Consolidation
2.    The Bill brings together the majority of existing hate crime laws into one piece of legislation. Do you believe there is merit in the consolidation of existing hate crime laws and should all such laws be covered?

We agree that there is merit in consolidating existing hate crime laws.




Other forms of crime not included in the Bill
5.    Do you think that sectarianism should have been specifically addressed in this Bill and defined in hate crime legislation? For example, should a statutory aggravation relating to sectarianism or a standalone offence have been created and added?

Existing legislation, including existing statutory aggravations, adequately covers offences relating to sectarianism. 

We agree with Lord Bracadale that the absence of such an aggravation would not leave a gap in the law as both race and religion statutory aggravations can be attached to any base offence if proven.  


Stirring up offences
6.    Do you have views on the merits of Part 2 of the Bill and the plans to introduce a new offence of stirring up of hatred?

As expressed in Lord Bracadale’s report into hate crime in Scotland, criminalising conduct is a serious step that should not be taken lightly. And any new law must be carefully weighed against fundamental freedoms, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

There is no argument with the proposition that stirring up of hatred is morally wrong. Furthermore, there is no argument with the reasonable belief that stirring up of hatred may lead to violence, public disorder, and may incite others to commit offences.

To create an offence whereby this kind of conduct is discouraged and condemned is a positive move. However, this must be balanced against existing legislation. It must also be balanced with fundamental freedoms, and the terminology used in any new law must accurately capture the offending behaviour being criminalised. The law must also be sufficiently clear for society to understand it and for the judiciary to be able to apply it. In terms of balancing fundamental freedoms, we have set out our response in our answer to question 8.

The provisions of the proposed new stirring up offence consist of a two-part test. Sections 3(1) and 3(2) set out that, for an offence to be established, the behaviour or communication must be threatening or abusive (or insulting in the case of race). This is the first part of the test. The second part of the test is that by this behaviour or communication, the person ’intends’ to stir up hatred against a group of persons (with a protected characteristic), or there is a ‘likelihood’ that hatred will be stirred up against such a group. How hatred is defined is not clear which leaves it open to wide interpretation. This could lead to vexatious claims having to be dealt with by police.

The proposed threshold for an offence under the stirring up provisions might also be considered disproportionately low. For example, A might disagree with B’s belief that a biological male cannot become a woman. A might even go so far as to say that B is ‘talking nonsense’ and that he is ‘transphobic’ and say so either in person or on a social media platform such as Twitter. The term abusive includes being offensive or mistreating and B feeling offended against, the first test is met. In terms of the second test, a group of people accompanying B deem the comments to be an intention to stir up hatred against them as a group, and thus the second test is met.

The behaviour of A should not be criminalised and criminal liability should not be determined solely on the subjective. The test must be stronger and allow the law to be consistent and not forever stretched in multiple ways to meet the capricious sensibilities and mores of the current culture and public opinion.

Further, the introduction of an offence of ‘likelihood’ (sections 1(b)(ii) and 2(b)(ii)) removes the mens rea (mental) element; a critical aspect of the common law test of criminal liability in Scots law.

An approach which may strike a better balance between the type of behaviour which ought to be criminalised and the public interest and fundamental freedoms is the ‘hypothetical reasonable person’, as prescribed in section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, and remarked on in Paterson v Harvie.

Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 provides that a person commits an offence if he behaves in a threatening and abusive manner and the behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and he intends by the behaviour to cause fear and alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm.

In Paterson v Harvie [2014] HCJAC 87 it was held on appeal that the ‘essence of the offence under section 38 was that the accused’s conduct was to be judged by an objective test in which the actual effect of the threatening or abusive behaviour on those who experienced it was irrelevant and if the objective test was met the crime was complete if the accused’s behaviour would be likely to cause fear and alarm to the hypothetical [reasonable] person.’ The reasonable person, it is remarked, is ‘someone who is not of abnormal sensitivity.’

This test is both proportionate and clear and thus less susceptible to wide interpretation and a deluge of vexatious claims.

We are also concerned that section 5 of the Bill creates an offence of possessing inflammatory material which, if taken with the low threshold contained therein, could render material such as the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other texts such as Bishops’ Conference of Scotland submissions to government consultations, as being inflammatory under the new provision. For example, in a recent submission to the Scottish Government on proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland stated the Catholic Church’s understanding of the human person, including the belief that sex and gender are not fluid and changeable, and that male and female are complementary and ordered towards the creation of new life. Such pronouncements, which are widely held, might be perceived by others as an abuse of their own, personal worldview and likely to stir up hatred.

We cannot turn to censorship but must instead accept the divergent views and multitude of arguments inhabiting our society on a wide range of issues and allow for respectful debate.


7.    Do you have any views on the Scottish Government’s plans to retain the threshold of ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’ behaviour in relation to the stirring up of racial hatred, contrary to Lord Bracadale’s views that ‘insulting’ should be removed?

Racial hatred is a grave offence that is to be condemned. The equal dignity of all human beings demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions for all people and that every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of race, sex, social conditions, or religion among others, must be curbed and eradicated.

We agree with Lord Bracadale’s conclusion that the stirring up of racial hatred offences be limited to threatening or abusive conduct or material. As outlined in Lord Bracadale’s report, the term ‘insulting’ was removed from an English harassment offence (s5 of the Public Order Act 1986) on the basis that ‘threatening or abusive’ sufficiently covered the type of conduct being targeted. Additionally, it was argued that its removal would not undermine the ability of the prosecution service to bring prosecutions. Removal of the term ‘insulting’ in the Scottish context would also ensure consistency across all protected characteristics.


There is also a danger that the inclusion of nationality (including citizenship) and national origins (section 3(1)) might censor some of the discussions which take place around important constitutional issues such as Scottish independence and exiting the European Union. By definition, insulting behaviour might include conduct which is insolent or causes affront. Constitutional debates are often robust and include a blunt exchange of views, which might be considered an affront by some. Consideration ought to be given to how the freedom to engage in robust and frank debate on political issues such as constitutional arguments can be protected and not fall foul of the provisions of the bill.


Other issues
8.    Do you have any comments on what should be covered by the ‘protection of freedom of expression’ provision in the Bill?

Any new law must be carefully weighed against fundamental freedoms, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right to exercise freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. It is a right that must be recognised and protected by civil authority, always within the limits of the common good and public order.

Importantly the courts have expressly noted that the right to freedom of expression protects facts and opinion; and it protects expression which shocks, offends and disturbs other people. It also protects the contentious and the unwelcome. Freedom of expression provisions must be robust enough to protect the freedom to disagree.

Society must protect the right to freedom of expression across all protected characteristics and avoid singling out specific characteristics and creating a hierarchy of rights and freedoms. The right to freedom of expression is always balanced, and correctly so, against the duties and responsibilities set out in Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

As per our answer to question 6, a recent Bishops’ Conference of Scotland submission to the Scottish Government on proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 set out the Catholic Church’s understanding of the human person, including the belief that sex and gender are not fluid and changeable, and that male and female are complementary and ordered towards the creation of new life. Without an appropriate freedom of expression provision such pronouncements, which are widely held, would not be protected.

Prominent public figures have been accused of hate and of transphobia for making the argument that a man cannot become a woman and vice versa. Many have also been accused of hate for using pronouns corresponding with an individual’s biological or birth sex. The freedom to express these arguments and beliefs must be protected.

The growth of what some describe as the ‘cancel culture’ - hunting down those who disagree with prominent orthodoxies with the intention to expunge the non-compliant from public discourse and with callous disregard for their livelihoods - is deeply concerning.

No single section of society has dominion over acceptable and unacceptable speech or expression. Whilst the legislature and judiciary must create and interpret laws to maintain public order it must do so carefully, weighing in fundamental freedoms and allowing for reasonably held views, the expression of which is not intended to cause harm.

As stated in response to question 6, we cannot turn to censorship but must instead accept the divergent views and multitude of arguments inhabiting our society on a wide range of issues and allow for respectful debate and expect respectful tolerance. This does not mean anything goes. The law must provide red lines, but it must be proportionate and fair. Otherwise we risk becoming an intolerant, illiberal society.



10. What is your view on the plans for the abolition of the offence of blasphemy?

We have no objection to the plans to abolish the common law of blasphemy in Scotland. .



_____________________________
Change email address / Leave mailing list: http://ymlp.com/u.php?id=guumemsg
Powered by YourMailingListProvider

Subscribe to Updates

Subscribe to:
Like   Back to Top   Seen 409 times   Liked 0 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates ?

Subscribe to News updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to News

We never share or sell your email address to anyone.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Bishop calls for Christmas “circuit breaker” in war on COVID

| 5 days ago | Blogging

In an article in the Sunday Times (25 October 2020) Bishop John Keenan has called for a  Christmas “circuit breaker” comprising a 24-hour lifting of restrictions on gatherings and celebrations,  in the war on COVID on Christmas day. The full text of Bishop Keenan's article is shown below:       The recent advice from Scotland’s National Clinical Director Prof Jason Leitch that we should prepare for a “digital” celebration of Christmas, and the idea of a normal Christmas was a "fiction" with "absolutely no question" of a "normal" Christmas being allowed, was dismal news. As it came in the middle of renewed restrictions and talk of even further limitations on how we live our lives in the coming months, it is easy to see why so many people are succumbing to despair.   The government has told us that its latest Covid-19 restrictions are having an impact on the spread of the virus, causing a "deceleration" in the increase of cases. I hope that is true and that it will be possible to ease restrictions rather than tighten them as we move towards the end of the year.   Regardless of what limitations COVID might place on our lives, as Christians we are sure that Christmas will never be cancelled. No matter what difficulties we face, we will celebrate the joy and love, the kindness and good cheer that attend the celebration of the birth of Christ as we always do.   It could not have been easy for Mary and Joseph to celebrate under Roman occupation in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago, for soldiers in the trenches of the First World War or for nations across Europe in the post war privations of 1945, but Christmas happened and millions gave thanks that a saviour was born. Christmas won’t be cancelled.   As Christians, we are people of hope, we live in hope and while we take the national restrictions seriously, we hope and pray that Christmas 2020 can be as normal as possible. We will do all we can even in very adverse circumstances, to focus on the reality of Christmas, hoping that adversity will bring us closer to that reality. Ultimately, our hopes are for love and joy, peace and good cheer in this world, not just the next.   Since the resumption of public worship our parishes have been meticulous in controlling infection to ensure the safety of all those who cross the threshold of a Catholic church.   On that basis, we have every confidence that our parishes will celebrate Christmas full of faith, hope and love. We also have confidence that society will still want to celebrate Christmas and hold on to as many traditions as it possibly can at such a traditional time of year.   We’ve already witnessed so many heroes who’ve emerged from among us. When times are hard, compassion and concern for one another can grow. Our key workers across the country bear living witness to our ability to forge solidarity in the face of adversity. COVID has brought out the best in us, caused us to value all that we have and think more about those who have least.   For all of us Christmas is the one time of year when shopping and all that goes with it is not about buying for ourselves, but about giving gifts to our families and loved ones.   It truly is a time of giving.  Giving time, company and love to others. It is a time when we enjoy being together with friends and family, especially elderly members of our families. We are moved by the joy and love of the season, motivated by the greatest act of love we can imagine, when God gave his only Son to the world.   The prospect of these acts of joy and love being taken from us would be a dispiriting and depressing one. We understand that the comments from Jason Leitch were an attempt to remind people of the sobering reality of a COVID Christmas.     We also know that the government do hope that the situation will improve and what has been described as “a more family Christmas” will be possible.   Yet telling us that "We are not going to be in large f...

Scottish Government urged to follow Pope’s lead and foster “constructive dialogue”

| 13th October 2020 | Blogging

Scottish Government urged to follow Pope’s lead and foster “constructive dialogue” !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?"http":"https";if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+"://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");   Tuesday 13 October 2020   The Bishop of Motherwell, Bishop Jopseph Toal has called on the Scottish Government to act in the words of Pope Francis to “foster encounter and to seek convergence on at least some issues.” Writing in today’s Herald newspaper, Bishop Toal, referring to the recent Encyclical released by the Pope says;   “I hope the government will continue to foster encounter and to seek convergence by listening to concerns raised by many about a piece of proposed legislation.”   The bishop goes on to urge further amendments to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, following the recent decision by the Justice Secretary to amend the Bill so as to raise the criminal threshold of the controversial stirring up offences from a ‘likelihood’ to stir up hatred to ‘intent’ to stir up hatred.    Bishop Toal comments;   “the Catholic Church will continue to argue for further change to this legislation to include; more equitable and robust freedom of expression provisions; greater clarity around the definitions of ‘hatred’, ‘abusive’ and ‘insulting’ which remain precariously vague”   The bishop also calls on the Scottish Government to “address the outstanding concerns of many, that religious texts, books and social media messages expressing certain views could be considered ‘abusive’ under the proposed law and act to protect freedom of expression and people’s right to be themselves and to be different.”   ENDS   Peter KearneyDirectorCatholic Media Office07968 122291pk@scmo.orgwww.scmo.org   Note to Editors:   The full text is shown below.     Pope Francis released a new Encyclical or teaching document last week called Fratelli Tutti, the encyclical is subtitled "on fraternity and social friendship" and is a plea for peace in the world. The title draws its inspiration from the words of St Francis and the life that he proposed for those who followed him. In the document, the Pope encourages us all to find bonds that will unite us in solidarity, fraternity and support for one another, especially as we face the continuing rigours and dangers of the pandemic.   He affirms the simple truth that we are brothers and sisters, living in a common home and sharing a common humanity and reminds us that dialogue should be respectful and strive for consensus, which leads to a culture of encounter. In the Pope’s words, “a country flourishes when constructive dialogue occurs between its many rich cultural components: popular culture, university culture, youth culture, artistic culture, technological culture, economic culture, family culture and media culture.”   The Pope devotes an entire chapter of his document to “A better kind of Politics”, which he describes as striving for “the common and universal good; it is politics for and with the people.” To create an open world with an open heart, it is necessary to engage in politics, which is a noble calling, in which our politicians should always try to achieve the common and universal good.   “Politicians are called to tend to the needs of individuals” the Pope writes and in a statement which could be addressed to our own Scottish Government, he adds; “They are called to make sacrifices that foster encounter and to seek convergence on at least some issues.” I hope the government will continue to do exactly that by listening to concerns raised by many about a piece of proposed legislation.   Scotland’s Justice Secretary recently confirmed that the Government will amend the Hate Crime and Public ...

Bishops say, high standards of infection control mean public worship and parish life can carry on

| 05th October 2020 | Blogging

Scotland’s Catholic Bishops say, high standards of infection control mean public worship and parish life can carry on.   Monday 5 October 2020   In a letter sent to Scotland’s 500 Catholic parishes, the bishops of Scotland urge the catholic community to maintain their “meticulous” infection control and safety measures. The letter points out, that the rate of Covid-19 infections is on the rise across Scotland and public anxiety is increasing, asking priests and parishioners, to “persevere in our efforts to reduce the risk of transmission and to ensure that our parishes and communities adhere to all infection control measures that have been put in place.”   Commenting on the letter, Bishop John Keenan, Vice President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland said;   “The tireless work of priests, parishioners and volunteers have ensured that Catholic churches are among the safest places for people to attend in the midst of this Pandemic. The bishops are urging everyone to redouble their efforts to reduce the risk of transmission and ensure that we all adhere to the infection control measures that we have put in place.”   Bishop Keenan added:   “Although no evidence has emerged of cases or clusters connected to our churches, we have every confidence that, if parishes continue their high standards of infection control, then public worship and parish life can carry on and we will continue to be able to attend to the spiritual welfare of the nation.”   “Among the many terrible effects of this pandemic is a surge in cases of depression, hopelessness and suicide. The loss of normality in all its facets has left many feeling bereft and desolate, in need of spiritual solace, like never before. It is in times of greatest peril that we need the spiritual comfort of public worship most, now, more than ever, our church doors need to be open, so that worshipping in safety can continue.”   ENDS   Peter Kearney Director Catholic Media Office 07968 122291 pk@scmo.org www.scmo.org   Note to Editors:   The full text of the letter from the Scottish Bishops is shown below. Two audio clips (28s and 27s) of Bishop John Keenan commenting on the letter and the church’s position are available on request by emailing: mail@scmo.org Bishops’ of Scotland Message to Clergy and People Let us not grow tired of doing good. (Gal 6:9)   The Covid-19 Pandemic has presented the Church with unprecedented challenges. It has brought about the temporary closure of Churches and, following the resumption of public worship, the introduction of rigorous health and safety measures to prevent transmission of the virus.   Since the resumption of public worship our parishes have been meticulous in controlling infection and ensuring the safety of all those who cross the threshold of a Catholic church. The Bishops wish to commend the work and cooperation of priests, parishioners and volunteers whose extraordinary efforts have ensured that Catholic churches are among the safest places for people to attend in the midst of this Pandemic.   However, we are now at a fragile point. The rate of Covid-19 infections is on the rise across Scotland and public anxiety is increasing. At this critical moment, we ask that we all persevere in our efforts to reduce the risk of transmission and to ensure that our parishes and communities adhere to all infection control measures that have been put in place.   Our discussions with the Scottish Government assure us that Government is aware of our extremely careful protocols and trusts us to see to our public worship and parish life with the discretion of responsible citizens. We, for our part, assure Government that we are employing this discretion for the good of public health in accordance with the law.   On that basis, we have every confidence that, if parishes continue these high standards, public worship and parish life can carry on and we will continue to att...

BCOS Meeting 7 September 2020 

| 21st September 2020 | Blogging

BCOS Meeting 7 September 2020     Conference Report:     The meeting was held over two sessions via Teams. All members of the Bishops’ Conference participated. Sir Harry Burns contributed for a part of the morning session which addressed in detail the implications of the ongoing COVID-19 restrictions on places of worship.    In his contribution, Sir Harry advised that the existing limits on maximum attendance of 50 for Mass and 20 for Weddings and Funerals were without scientific foundation and he could see no logical reason for them. Following a wide-ranging discussion on this, it was clear that this perspective was unanimously held. Sir Harry advised that he would raise the matter with officials and ministers in the coming days and report back to the conference. (Other representatives of the Conference have raised similar points). He also spoke of the possible trajectory of the virus over the next few months, advising that the concerns of the Government’s scientific advisors, were that a rise in positive tests among younger people, who are unlikely to require hospitalisation, at present could in the coming weeks spread to the elderly and vulnerable, with serious consequences for the NHS. He updated the bishops on progress being made towards a vaccine and suggested the timescales involved were likely to mean a viable vaccine could be available by December for use early in 2021.  The bishops thanked Sir Harry for his contributions and advice.    Archbishop Cushley updated the conference on the ongoing discussions about the disposal of assets belonging to ACTS. He described three options which had been tabled at a previous meeting of the successor body to ACTS, the Scottish Christian Leaders Forum (SCLF) after some debate a fourth option was proposed and received wide support, it was that any remaining funds be dispersed on a pro rata basis to the founding members of ACTS. Archbishop Cushley undertook to take this position back to the SCLF.    A discussion on a number of liturgical matters followed, led by Bishop Gilbert and based upon his “Report on Matters Liturgical to the Bishops Conference” which covered: The final stage of proof-reading of the Ordo, the proposal that St Mary of the Cross MacKillop, the first canonised Australian saint, be kept as an optional memorial in the Scottish Proper of Saints, the proposal that, given the devotion in Scotland, the optional memorial of Our Lady of Lourdes, 11 February, be raised to the status of an obligatory memorial. The third change proposed to the Scottish Proper of Saints was the insertion of St John Henry Newman as an optional memorial. All these changes were endorsed.    The conference heard that the next meeting of the National Liturgical Commission will be in the second half of October and the next meeting of ICEL was scheduled for 8-12 February 2021.           Bishop Gilbert proposed that a renewed emphasis on the Eucharist would be opportune. This was agreed with. There was discussion over the modality, timing and preparatory work required for this. A discussion followed on the timing and the detail of such a move with one of the bishops agreeing to prepare a basic initial text on this subject.    Bishop Keenan presented a report on Seminary Provision proposing a range of options to be researched in terms of viability as serious options for the formation of men for the Priesthood. At the November BCOS Meeting each option would be discussed, in the light of the information provided, with a view to discerning the 3 most viable options. There would then be consultation on these options before a final decision is made by the Bishops in February/March 2021. Bishop Keenan also presented a report on Transitional Deacons and led a lively discussion on aspects of the model of priestly formation proposed by the Congregation for the Clergy and the recent Ratio.    On behalf of the Pastoral Ministry Group, Michael McGrath present...