The “Hate Crime and Public Order Act” was first introduced to the Scottish parliament in 2020 by Humza Yousaf, currently the highest-ranking politician in the Scottish government and leader of the far-left Scottish National Party.
The sweeping legislation, which went into effect this week (on April Fools’ Day, no less), makes it a criminal offense punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment to “stir up hate” against a protected identity group.
Protected characteristics include religion (which feeble carve-outs permit one to “discuss, criticize, ridicule, or insult”), as well as sexual orientation and transgenderism (which citizens are permitted only to “discuss or criticize”).
A single source is sufficient to prove an offense occurred. No specific victim is required. The law gives the police powers of entry, including the seizure of property, against suspects. Citizens disturbed by wrong-think can drop into Stasi-esque reporting sites across the country, which — as if this couldn’t get any more ridiculous — include an LGBT sex shop in Glasgow and a salmon and trout wholesaler on the east coast of Scotland.
The only standard to determine whether a crime has been committed is if the person’s conduct is something “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive, or insulting.”
Too bad there are so few reasonable persons in the Scottish government.
How this legislation is enforced will necessarily depend on the whims of complainers and prosecutors.
For instance, Yousaf said he felt vindicated in his support for the legislation after “racist and Islamophobic” graffiti appeared on a wall near his family home. But after the law passed, Police Scotland received thousands of complaints about Yousaf himself — who, in June 2020, gave a speech in which he appeared to complain that there were too many white people in government.
What one man considers hateful another considers righteous. This goes both ways in any political or religious divide. What are we to do about it? Imprison all those with whom we disagree?
Already, Scottish police are dealing with a new complaint every minute. This is, at best, a giant waste of time, resources, and taxpayer money. Even if prosecution turns out to be rare, the process, as critics have warned, is itself the punishment. The very possibility of police intervention will have a chilling effect on speech. Under the law, citizens could be arrested for offending anyone on social media, at comedy festivals, or even in the privacy of their own homes.
This is especially dangerous regarding contentious public-policy debates. Writing in the Times of London, Ash Regan, a former Scottish National Party minister who is critical of her party’s support for the law, reported that when discussing the new legislation’s guidance, “ministers decided that they would not add clarifying real-world scenarios involving gender-critical feminists as there was nothing to gain, and it would upset the transgender lobby.”
Thank God, then, for J. K. Rowling, who lives in Scotland, and who publicly challenged the law as a test case. After the law went into effect, the famous author posted tweets describing various trans-identifying men as men. She wrote on X: “If what I’ve written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested.” When the police confirmed that, though they’d received complaints about her post, her comments “were not assessed to be criminal,” the Harry Potter author promised to repeat the exact words of any other woman arrested for challenging transgender ideology.
To cinch its incoherence, the final section of the law reads: “The common law offence of blasphemy [1837] is abolished.” The most recent prosecution under this dormant law was in 1843. Meanwhile, the “Hate Crime” Act, which is far wider than its 19th century predecessor, resurrects the pre-Enlightenment assumption that the policing of expression is a legitimate use of state power. Worse, it is intended for use in the 21st century.
In implementing this law, Scotland has turned its back on liberty. It is this legislation, not the free expression of its citizens, that represents a grave threat to democracy.