Christian homes need to beware of the hate police.

        AN Englishman’s home is his castle. In 1763 prime minister Pitt the Elder stated, ‘The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter.’ Not so for the Scotsman of today if the separatist SNP have their way.
        Humza Yousaf, Justice Secretary in Scotland’s increasingly authoritarian SNP government, intends to clamp down on hate speech within the confines of private homes under his sinister proposed legislation, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill. In ‘hate’ legislation elsewhere in the UK there can be a ‘dwelling defence’ which protects speech within the home from police intervention. Not so for Scotland if Yousaf has his way. Responding to questions from the Holyrood parliament’s Justice Committee, which has the responsibility of scrutinising proposed legislation, Yousaf refused to provide a ‘dwelling defence’, insisting that ‘hateful speech’ in the home deserves to be criminalised. The proposed legislation criminalises hate speech relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics. ‘Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive, which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims? Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home? . . . If your intention was to stir up hatred against Jews . . . then I think that deserves criminal sanction,’ Yousaf told the committee. During the debate Conservative MSP Adam Tompkins, convener of the committee and a law professor at Glasgow University, asked Yousaf how it was possible to commit an ‘offence of public order’ in private, to which Yousaf replied that if the intent to stir up hatred is present in a private dwelling, that deserves criminal sanction. However, in today’s victim culture open debate can too easily be construed as the result of an intention to ‘stir up hatred’ by some who find their particular worldview being rejected.
         Yousaf’s proposed Hate Speech Bill has met opposition from a broad spectrum of opinion including the National Secular Society, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation. It is rare to find the Catholic Church and the Humanist Society of Scotland lining up alongside each other in the culture war trenches. This Bill is of deep concern to Christians. Concerning its effect on free speech including preaching, the Free Church of Scotland said: ‘We do not consider the protections to free speech offered in the draft in any way strong enough to prevent a major erosion of this fundamental tenet of a democratic society. Too many people automatically view disagreement as hatred rather than engaging in civilised debate over differing opinions.’ That this alarming legislation is wide open to abuse has already been made clear. In August, Ian Stewart, head of Atheists in Scotland, said that he looked forward to the passing of the Bill, which could be used to ‘enable the prosecution of all Scotland’s religions and their holy books for spreading hatred’. Under this law the Bible could be at risk of being considered offensive material. The Scottish Catholic bishops stated that 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.’
        It is the proposal to police what people say in their own homes which is most chilling. Lord Bracadale, one of Scotland’s senior judges whose review of hate crime legislation led to the Bill, told the committee that he did not recommend removing the ‘decree against hate speech’. Which definitely means police involvement if the bill is passed into law.

About The Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.