In the great pyramid of liberty and the incremental progression of human enlightenment, freedom of speech is often celebrated as preeminent among civil liberties, but it was preceded by freedom of religion.
In order for the mouth to be free, the mind had to be freed, and so did the heart: the freedom of conscience to believe or not to believe in a particular doctrine of God was the foundational freedom of mankind’s emancipation. You may apportion to Enlightenment Liberalism all the ills of the modernity (and postmodernity), but the individual’s freedom to debate and try to distinguish what may be ‘progressive’ from that which is believed to be ‘regressive’ is the most important freedom of all. We lose it at our peril. There are quite a few ‘freedom wars’ going on at the moment. In academia, there is the ‘de-platforming’ strategy, by which chippy groups of minorities attempt to have a debate or lecture shut down before a word is uttered, simply because the invited expert is deemed to hold (or to have once expressed) views which may be considered ‘offensive’ to some. In the heritage sector, there is an increasing insistence that everything about a famous person or place must now be viewed through the diffracting lens of (for example) racism or slavery, and if anything should be uncovered in history which might not cohere with modern sensitivities, the statue must fall, and the place be subject to ‘special measures’, with some sort of written warning in guidebooks that its sandstone bricks, marble columns or magnificent works of art may be the fruits of a past exploitation and gross injustice. In wider society, the battle against freedom of speech (and expression) continues apace, especially in Scotland, where the SNP’s Hate Crime and Public Order Bill is being steadily chipped away wit amendments to defend legitimate debate on contentious issues and reinforce the freedoms of speech, expression and religion, but it is very hard going. A joint letter from concerned groups and individuals has been sent to MSPs:
Dear MSP,
We the undersigned have serious concerns about Part 2 of the Scottish Government’s Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, and increasingly so in light of recent parliamentary deliberations.O ver the last year, there has been a robust debate about Part 2 of the bill, which outlines new offences on the stirring up of hatred. We all condemn crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice. The difficulty with this Bill, in its current form, is its potential to have a wider, negative effect on freedom of expression in Scotland. When the bill was published last year, the police, the legal profession, academics, civil liberties groups and others cautioned that the offences could catch legitimate debate on a range of issues. The vague wording of the offences and a lack of adequate free speech protections could, they warned, place a chill on free expression in the arts, the media and the public square when it comes to discussions about contentious issues such as religion and trans rights. After a wide and sustained backlash, the Scottish Government announced several concessions. Most significantly, Ministers conceded that offending should be limited to ‘intent’. It also committed to ‘broadening and deepening’ a free speech clause covering religion and inserting a new clause on transgender identity.
Cabinet Secretary for Justice Humza Yousaf lodged amendments to effect these changes ahead of Stage 2 deliberations by the Justice Committee, which began on 2 February 2021. However, the Cabinet Secretary, in agreement with other MSPs on the Committee, decided to withdraw amendments on freedom of expression at the eleventh hour, saying he would seek ‘consensus’ on a ‘catch-all’ free speech clause, to be drafted ahead of Stage 3. This move has, in our view, undermined the whole process of scrutiny to date. Amendments to safeguard freedom of expression on religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity – topics that are subject to strong and often controversial debate – were vitally important and agreed upon by the majority of stakeholders who have engaged with parliament over the last 12 months. Providing separate and robust freedom of expression provisions on these topics was also the approach advocated by Lord Bracadale QC in evidence to the Committee last year.
He said: “Such amendments to the bill would be an expression of the kind of line that we want to identify between ‘offensive behaviour’ on one side and ‘threatening and abusive behaviour’ on the other”.
About The Author
Harrison Okafor
editor
Judith is a believer, a lover of Christ and a Gospel freak person. A passionate gospel blogger and press writer. I work with GospelHitsNaija.net Media, no 1 Gospel music platform.
