Hate Hurts ‘Hate Hurts’

“Cannae say anything these days. It’s bloody wokeness gone mad!” is that classic line I’m sure we’ve all heard, as we awkwardly stare at the ceiling and make futile attempts to change the subject at the occasionally painful family gathering. Debates around political correctness and what can’t be said anymore seem to be an ever-present part of our culture, eternally plaguing our news feeds and our podcasts and our Christmas dinners. But if these discussions (that’s the polite word for them, at least) were already simmering, the latest hate crime law and accompanying campaign from the Scottish Government have turned it into a complete firestorm.

 

The Hate Crime and Public Order Act is a new law from the Scottish Government which aims to provide greater protection for groups which routinely face prejudice. The Act introduces stirring up of hatred offences for various protected characteristics, including age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity. These provisions add to the existing legislation which specifically targeted racial hatred.. Essentially, the law adds additional protections for more marginalised groups by criminalising behaviour that stirs up hatred based on these protected characteristics.

 

This was accompanied by the ‘Hate Hurts’ campaign, which not only educates viewers as to what ‘stirring up’ hatred may entail, but also encourages viewers to report the offence if they see it. The campaign has definitely caught people's attention, just not in the way the Scottish Government wanted.

 

That’s because the law has been at the centre of a political culture war, with strong opinions being flown across virtually all political aisles.

 

One of the biggest contensions of the law is that it didn’t initially state any protections on the basis of biological sex or establish misogyny in the parameters of stirring up hatred. This opened up the always easy-to-discuss and never toxic issue of gender politics. J.K. Rowling, arguably the face of the anti-trans feminist movement, slated the bill, and announced that, due to her highly controversial and widely condemned remarks on trans rights, she was expecting her arrest once the bill passed.

​

Pro-trans movements and Government ministers stood by the bill, arguing its importance in protecting marginalised groups. Scottish Trans, a trans-advocacy group based in Edinburgh, stated in their open letter:

“We all want to live in a society where everyone is safe and free to be themselves, to be accepted and supported by those around them, to be treated with dignity and respect, and to feel welcome in the places they live and work… We welcome the important changes to existing hate crime law that the Act brings.”

​

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen the contentious topic of gender politics come up in Scotland. Not long ago, the conviction of Isla Bryson sent shockwaves across the UK. Bryson’s detention in a female prison startled many, including Rowling, who criticised the Government for the way it handled the case. Following an increase in hate crimes against trans people in the UK and the murder of Brianna Grey, however, there are serious concerns surrounding this discourse and the consequences of not approaching the subject with the respect and intricacy it deserves.

 

Eventually, after taking considerations from multiple sides of the aisle, the Scottish Government added sex as a protected characteristic, protecting both cisgendered women and transgender people from hatred. Everyone’s happy now, right?

 

Think again. The law has also led to debates surrounding free speech, causing the first minister and the Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross to butt heads, with the Prime Minister soon joining in on the fight. Ross deemed the bill an attempt to “curtail free speech” and said the law risks “criminalising people for opinions”.

 

Sunak jumped in to attack the bill , whilst proudly bolstering his own party’s commitment to free speech. Yousaf hit back, saying the law has a “very high threshold” for prosecution and a “triple lock” for freedom of expression.

 

To say this has been chaotic would be an understatement. These debates often reveal the deep divisions we have in Scotland. The clash between protecting marginalised groups and preserving the right to free speech has created a heated battleground, leaving many unsure of where they stand.

 

The question remains: Does the Hate Crime and Public Order Act strike the right balance between protecting vulnerable groups and safeguarding free speech, or does it risk stifling legitimate debate and expression?