Nicola Sturgeon once said that independence transcends
everything else. This is the main problem with the SNP. It also explains what
might appear to be otherwise unrelated issues.
Humza Yousaf has explained that he wants to punish Scots for having insulting conversations at home. While we would retain the right to be offensive anyone stirring up hatred against various protected groups will be prosecuted. What this means is that we would no longer be allowed to speak freely in our own homes.
Let's just give an
example, which is intentionally stirring up hatred against Muslims. Are we
saying that that is justified because it is in the home?”
Well it depends on what he means by stirring up hatred.
Let’s say I organised a terrorist group with the goal
of bombing and killing Muslims. If I gathered a group of people to carry out that
goal, then clearly our conversations would be stirring up hatred. But the crimes
that we would be committing are already covered by legislation. If I plan any
crime at home, I am liable to get into trouble with the law.
So, if Mr Yousaf does not intend stirring up hatred to
mean planning to commit crimes against Muslims what can he mean?
Mr Yousaf wrote on Twitter
If you invite 10 mates
round & it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you intentionally
stirred up hatred against Jews, why should this not be prosecuted. It would if
you did so down the pub but not in your house?
Well again, if I organised a group to beat up Jews or
burn down their houses this would be stirring up hatred. But this is already
covered by other laws.
Let’s say I invite these 10 friends and we start making
anti-Semitic remarks. Let’s say we describe Jewish people in stereotypical and
offensive ways. Let’s say we single out Israel for particular hatred and blame
Israelis for all the problems in the world. Is this stirring up hatred?
What if these 10 friends didn’t know any Jews and were
simply expressing their ignorance and hatred? What if no Jewish person would ever
come into contact with their hatred? Is that still stirring up hatred?
Well what if I organised a group of people who were hostile
to the Jewish religion. Let’s say that we liked to draw cartoons of Abraham in
a grossly insulting manner. Let’s say we liked to depict Adam and Eve having
sex and made fun of every story from the Jewish Bible. Let’s say we denied that
God existed and depicted Him in an insulting way. Let’s say we made fun of
Jewish religious practices and mocked the ceremonies that took place in Jewish
homes and synagogues. Would that be stirring up hatred?
It’s still hard to see how it could be stirring up
hatred unless Jewish people found out about our group and its actions. I may
hate you, but unless you are aware of my hate how have I harmed you? Or does Mr Yousaf think that it is enough that
I merely think hateful things or feel hatred towards someone for this to be a
crime?
Well what if stage a play based on the Life of Moses.
I might call it the Life of Mo. In this play I might make fun of Moses and the
Jewish people who followed him. I might satirise all aspects of the Jewish
religion and describe it as lies and nonsense. What if some Jewish people came
to my play and found it hateful and said that I was stirring up hatred against
them. Would Mr Yousaf like to put me in jail?
The danger of this is that people from the protected
groups might find it hateful if for instance I suggested that it is as impossible
for a man to become a woman as it is for a cow to become a bull and that if you
cut off a bull’s pizzle you won’t get any milk from it. I might likewise say
that my understanding of the word “marriage” precludes a man marrying a man or
a woman marrying a woman. I might also express that I disagree with the aims of
Black Lives Matter. I can imagine that certain people would find these views
hateful. If so, would I be committing a crime if they found out that I had been
discussing such issues in my own home?
The problem with Mr Yousaf’s views on hate is that it
is entirely unclear where the line is between being offensive and someone else
finding my views so objectionable that they amount to stirring up hatred.
What is he trying to achieve?
At one point or another nearly everyone in Scotland
has said something hateful in private about someone with one of Mr Yousaf’s protected
qualifications. Unless he wants to turn Scotland into a jail it simply won’t be
practicable to punish private conversations. But it also won’t be necessary.
Jewish people would probably not object to a play
about Moses. Christians won’t mind very much if our religion is satirised. Most
people in Scotland won’t mind much so long as I don’t treat them with prejudice
or say horrible things to them in the street. We usually allow people the right
to disagree about controversial issues and few of us would want to convict
someone even if we thought his views were hateful and disgusting. This is
because we come from a country that believes in freedom of speech and freedom
of thought.
But not everyone in Scotland believes in freedom of
speech and freedom of thought. There are some people who think that it is
forbidden to change your religion and that doing so should be punished by law.
There are some people who think that religious law ought to be expressed in the
law of the land. There are some people too who think that their religious books
and the major figures of their religious ought to be protected by the law from
insult or indeed from being depicted at all. Mr Yousaf is appealing to these
people. Why is he doing so. He is doing so to win their votes. He is doing so
because he wants to them to vote for Scottish independence. He is suggesting to
them that an independent Scotland would be a place that better fitted in with
their world view and would indeed protect it. He is doing so because independence
transcends everything including freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
