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 485 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

Bishops urge politicians to put human life at centre of Scotland’s political discourse

| 2 days ago | Blogging

Sunday 11 April 2021 Bishops urge politicians to put human life at centre of Scotland’s political discourse.   Scotland’s Catholic Bishops have released a pre-election Pastoral letter, urging Catholics to play their part “in putting human life and the inviolable dignity of the human person at the centre of Scotland’s political discourse” and to warn politicians against imposing “unjust restrictions on free speech, free expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.   In a 1,000-word letter distributed online and via Scotland’s 500 Catholic parishes, the Bishops ask Catholic voters to give consideration to six key areas, when selecting a candidate:   Beginning and end of life Family and Work Poverty, Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery Environment Free speech, free expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion Catholic schools   Pointing out that “society relies on the building block of the family to exist and flourish” the bishops add; “government should respond to this reality with policies creating economic and fiscal advantages for families with children.”   Voters are also urged to visit the website rcpolitics.org and to use the resources there to help them consider a range of election issues and to question candidates.     ENDS   Peter Kearney Director Catholic Media Office 0141 221 116807968 122291 pk@scmo.org www.scmo.org     Note to Editors:   The Election resources are available here:  https://rcpolitics.org/scottish-parliament-election-2021/   The full text of the Pastoral Letter is shown below:       Scottish Parliament Election 2021 - Putting Human Life and  Dignity at the Centre   A letter from the Catholic Bishops of Scotland   Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,   This election presents us with an opportunity to play our part in putting human life and the inviolable dignity of the human person at the centre of Scotland’s political discourse. As Catholics we have a duty: to share the Gospel and to help form the public conscience on key moral issues. It is a duty of both faith and citizenship.  This election is an opportunity to be the effective witness our Baptism calls us to be.  The new parliament and government will be tasked with leading the recovery from the damage wrought by the current health crisis and to tackle the significant impact it has had on many aspects of life including health care, mental health and wellbeing, religious freedom, and care for the poor. It must also build on the positives arising from the Pandemic, including caring for the most vulnerable, and a renewed sense of respect for human life, human dignity, and the value of community.   These are some of the issues you may want to consider in the forthcoming election:   Beginning and end of life It is the duty of parliamentarians to uphold the most basic and fundamental human right to life. Elected representatives ought to recognise the existence of human life from the moment of conception and be committed to the protection of human life at every stage. Caring for the unborn and their mothers is a fundamental measure of a caring and compassionate society; a society which puts human dignity at the centre.   We ought to be mindful of a further attempt to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland, likely to happen in this parliament. Legalising assisted suicide or euthanasia suggests that some lives are not worth living, contrary to the Christian belief that every life has equal dignity and value. It is incumbent upon our parliamentarians to show compassion for the sick and dying. This is not achieved by assisted suicide or euthanasia but by ensuring support is provided through caring and attentive politics, including investment in palliative care.   Family and Work Society relies on the building block of the family to exist and flourish. The love of man and woman in marriage and openness to new life is th...

Return to Worship in time for Easter

| 01st March 2021 | Blogging

Return to Worship in time for Easter 1 March 2021 Responding to last week’s statement on the reopening of Places of Worship by the First Minister, the Catholic Bishops of Scotland have issued a statement welcoming the move and calling for a removal of the cap, which limits the number of people who can attend. Instead, the bishops maintain congregation size should be calculated in accordance with the size of each church, a system similar to that used in the retail sector, which still maintains social distancing regulations.   The full text of the statement is shown below. ENDS Peter Kearney Director Catholic Media Office 0141 221 116807968 122291 pk@scmo.org www.scmo.org     As Scotland’s Catholic bishops, we welcome the recent announcement by the First Minister foreseeing a return to our churches for the most important celebration of the liturgical year at Easter. We also welcome the recognition of the status of public worship implicit in this decision. The Catholic Community recognises the seriousness of the pandemic and is committed to working with others to avoid the spreading of infection. At the same time, we anticipate ongoing dialogue with the Scottish Government regarding the requirement of a numerical “cap” on the number of worshippers. As we continue to observe social distancing  and the protocols on infection control and hygiene formulated by the Bishops’ Conference working group under the leadership of the former Chief Medical Officer Sir Harry Burns, we maintain that it would be more appropriate for each church building to accommodate a congregation in proportion to its size rather than on the basis of an imposed number. We echo here the timely words Pope Francis addressed to the representatives of countries to the Holy See on the 8th February 2021: Even as we seek ways to protect human lives from the spread of the virus, we cannot view the spiritual and moral dimension of the human person as less important than physical health. The opening of churches is a sign that the sacrifices endured so far are bearing fruit and gives us hope and encouragement to persevere. We pray that the Risen Christ, for whom we long during this holy season of Lent, will bless and bring healing to our nation.  ...

Church leaders urge withdraw of controversial section of Hate Crime Bill

| 12th February 2021 | Blogging

Church leaders urge withdraw of controversial section of Hate Crime Bill to allow “adequate consideration”   Friday 12 February   An unprecedented alliance of Catholic and Evangelical church leaders are urging the Scottish Government to drop part of its proposed Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill to allow time for “detailed consideration of crucial provisions.” The Bill, which would potentially criminalise any criticism of Transgender ideology has been criticised by the Catholic Church, the Free Church of Scotland and the Evangelical Alliance.   In a letter addressed today (Friday 12 February) to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice Humza Yousaf, the church leaders call for greater protections for freedom of expression and say:   “We believe that people should be completely free to disagree with our faith in any way, including mocking and ridiculing us. We are convinced that our faith is true and has a sufficient evidential basis to withstand any criticism, we therefore welcome open debate.”    By contrast, concerns are raised that any disagreement with or criticism of Transgender identity could fall foul of the new law, if passed in its current form. The church leaders point out, that “Transgender identity has been subject of extensive and emotional public discussion. Such free discussion and criticism of views is vital as society wrestles with these ideas.” They warn however, that they “cannot accept that any position or opinion at variance with the proposition that sex (or gender) is fluid and changeable should not be heard.”   The letter marks the first time Catholic, Free Church and Evangelical Alliance leaders have jointly petitioned the Scottish Government and sought a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Supporting “open and honest debate” the letter ends with an assertion, that “A right to claim that binary sex does not exist or is fluid must be matched with a right to disagree with that opinion; and protection from prosecution for holding it.” As well as a warning that: ”The Parliament now has approximately four weeks to complete the passage of the bill. This is extraordinarily tight and risks inadequate and ill-thought through legislation being passed. No workable solutions to issues of freedom of expression have so far been suggested. If no such solutions can be found we hope the Scottish Government will now consider withdrawing the stirring up hatred offences in Part 2 of the bill to allow more detailed consideration and discussion and to ensure freedom of expression provisions, which enshrine free and open debate, are afforded the scrutiny they require.”   ENDS   Peter Kearney Director Catholic Media Office 5 St. Vincent Place Glasgow G1 2DH 0141 221 116807968 122291 pk@scmo.org www.scmo.org     Notes to Editors:   The full text of the letter is shown below. Humza Yousaf MSP Cabinet Secretary for Justice The Scottish Government St. Andrew's House Edinburgh EH1 3DG   Friday 12th February 2021   Dear Mr Yousaf,     Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill – Stage 2 amendments   We are writing to you as representatives of three communities of churches in Scotland in relation to the progress of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) bill at Stage 2 and to ask if we may be able to meet with you in the coming days in relation to this.   As you know we have engaged extensively throughout the bill process including a number of meetings with you and your officials, and all gave oral evidence to the Justice Committee on 10th November. In all of this we have sought to play a constructive role. We recognise the sensitivities involved in this bill, have sought consensus, and looked to help play our part in protecting vulnerable communities from hate crime whilst at the same time protecting fundamental freedoms on which we all depend for our common life. Our approach has never been to just narrowly consider...

FUNERAL MASS FOR BISHOP VINCENT LOGAN 26 JANUARY 2021

| 26th January 2021 | Blogging

FUNERAL MASS FOR BISHOP VINCENT LOGAN 26/01/2021 It seems almost a cliche to say it, but every human person is a mystery. It’s not surprising though, as it is in God ‘we live and move and have our being’ and he himself is the ultimate mystery, and we have our origin in God. The Catechism reminds us that ‘we are most like unto God in our soul’, and since each one of us is unique in every way, to say we are a mystery seems almost like an understatement. And this mysteriousness is at so many levels. From the biological point of view, we are a mystery because we are formed by the mixing of our parents’ genes and by the environment in which we are planted. From a psychological point of view, we are formed by our parents by our families, by our siblings, friends and relations, by the circumstances of our lives and our loves, our knocks and our disappointments. Most of us have had the good fortune to have been conceived in love and nurtured and nourished in love. Others, though, regrettably haven’t had that great start. And often, for those who are fortunate, there is one great thread of God’s goodness that powerfully shapes us. For most of us, this powerful goodness originates in the Faith passed on to us from our parents, a thread which runs throughout our lives and more than any other influence, arguably, shapes and guides the direction of our lives. Also, for those of us fortunate enough to be baptised, as well as inheriting the common humanity into which we are created in the image and likeness of God, our baptism in Christ also confers on us divine filiation - sonship and daughtership in God - enabling us, as St Paul says, to call God, Abba, our Father. And we spend the rest of our lives on earth finding out what are the consequences for us of this wonderful gift: we never stop learning how to become a better son or a daughter of God. All of this is true of Vincent Paul Logan. Vincent was born on 30th June 1941 to Joseph and Elizabeth Logan (nee Flannigan) into a committed Bathgate Catholic family and - like all Bathgate Catholic bairns – Vincent, together with their other four sons, inherited a strong faith from them. Of Vincent’s brothers James, John, William and Joseph. Only James now is still alive. Later also, Vincent’s four married brothers’ spouses (Esther, Maeve, Grace and Celia) and subsequently their families – nephews (Vincent and Joseph here today), Gerard and Edward, also Paul, now deceased, who like Bishop Vincent, tried his vocation also at Drygrange Seminary, and nieces Elizabeth, Margaret, Lisa and Anne-Marie - All members of this great extended family had their influence on Bishop Vincent throughout his life, just as today they mourn for him, assisting him by their prayers and Masses on the cleansing road to the Heavenly Kingdom. But for a baptised Catholic man, who has in addition received a vocation from the Lord to priesthood, it is also his special relationships, outside the family - school friends, close friends met on life’s journey, fellow seminarians, priest friends and the pastoral and personal relationships a priest makes through his pastoral work, also continued to shape Vincent, up until almost the moment of his death. From his earliest days, Vincent Paul Logan wanted to be a priest. His desire to attend and serve Mass daily, as a young boy with his mother and brothers after their dad went off to work, of course pointed him in the direction of a vocation to priesthood. As a committed Altar Boy, Vincent’s first desire to put himself forward as a candidate for priesthood resulted, as he says himself, in ‘being chased’ in 1952 by Canon Davitt his parish priest because he was too young - only 11. A year later 1 though, in 1953, he went to Blairs, our National Junior Seminary, at 12 and his journey to priesthood began in earnest. Drygrange, the seminary for the Archdiocese of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh was the next step towards priesth...