Hate Crime Bill passes as Yousaf tells of first bout of racism
The Scottish Government’s Hate Crime Bill has finally been passed in Holyrood after months of controversy about its impact on freedom of speech.
The Bill which consolidates previous hate crime laws and adds new offences of “stirring up” hatred against protected characteristics of religion, age, disability and transgender identity, was passed with 82 votes in support, 32 against and four abstentions.
The vote had been delayed by 24 hours after a furious debate in Holyrood as both Scottish Labour and Conservative MSPS attempted to amend it, to include sex as a protected characteristic and to insert a “dwelling defence”, so conversations in the home could not be prosecuted.
However, the amendments fell, and the Bill has now passed with just an addition to the free speech defence to include a reference to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which "allows for the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb” as well as for discussion and criticism.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf, said the debate had seen “parliament at its best” and as a result the new law “protects the most vulnerable in our society”.
He also recalled the first time he was made aware of the colour of his skin, when he was just six-years-old. “In primary two, my best friend said to me one day, completely out the blue, “I can’t be your friend anymore”. I remember being stunned and asked why and he said “because you’re a Paki”.
“I didn’t understand what had happened. I went home and asked my mum if I was a Paki? She was visibly upset and said very rude people sometimes make fun of us for the colour of our skin, but I had done nothing wrong.
"Not a day goes by,” he said, “That I’m not conscious of the colour of my skin. The first thing people see and notice about me is the colour of my skin, and they probably form a judgement about me in relation to it, sometimes consciously sometimes unconsciously.”
He added: “You don't have six year old racists, he undoubtedly learned that at home from a parent or older sibling.
"There are some people who believe that racism, intentionally stirred up, using threatening or abusive language which takes place at home with a child present, should not be prosecuted. My contention is the impact is the same whether it’s in the home or outwith the home.
“So let’s assume that phraseology is used today after the Bill passed. Even the use of that language in that scenario, whether at home or public, which I suspect we all agree is racist, would not be prosecuted under new stirring up of racial hatred offences because the threshold of offences is so incredibly high.”
Mr Yousaf said this proved that people who worried they “may accidentally fall foul of the law because they believe sex is immutable or they campaign for the rights of Palestinians or proselytise that same sex relationships are sinful" would not.
He said: “None would fall foul of the stirring up of hatred offence for stating their belief."