Let’s not live in fear of expressing views

PA Library filer of : Scene from The Life of Brian. Britain's most successful movie, Notting Hill, has failed to make it into a poll of the top 100 films of all time voted by viewers of BBC1's Film 99. Perennial favourite Star Wars, which topped the Sky Premier Movies of the Millennium poll earlier this year, was again voted best of all time. Monty Python's Life Of Brian is the highest ranked British film at number 18. See PA Story Showbiz Films. PA Photos

Many citizens of Scotland may not appreciate that blasphemy still exists here. Given that even The Life of Brian escaped prosecution 40 years ago, one might be forgiven for assuming that the crime was defunct, a quaint and obsolete relic of a bygone age.

Indeed, some experts do consider that blasphemy is no longer an offence, having become extinct by reason of the principle of desuetude, ie cancellation due to lack of interest; the authorities have not bothered to prosecute anyone for blasphemy since 1843. Quite right too; no religion should thus be shielded. As Salman Rushdie said: “The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.”

The Government clearly believes that blasphemy does still form part of our law, casting a dark shadow of intolerance over multicultural Scotland. After all, the common law offence protects Christianity only.

Andrew Stevenson is Secretary, Scottish Law Agents Society

And so by Section 16 of the Orwellian sounding Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill 2020 it will be abolished. But it would be hard to have chosen an easier target.

Blasphemy in Scotland is an anachronism and an irrelevance. Time would be better spent protesting about the blasphemy laws in countries such as Pakistan, where the result is the persecution of religious minorities, the violation of human rights and the death sentence.

The 2020 Bill is not as benign as S16 suggests. Essentially, the legislation would re-enact blasphemy but on a far wider scope. And, paradoxically, the Bill achieves the not inconsiderable feat of potentially criminalising the expression of key views of both the religious as well as their critics.

If Monty Python felt minded to parody the life of Christ again, lacking the courage to ridicule the founders of other religions, Messrs Palin, Cleese et al. would be well advised to consider Section 3(2) of the Bill. This provides that it is an offence for a person to “communicate ..abusive material to another person and [it is] as a result likely that hatred will be stirred up against … a group”. (including one defined by religious faith). “Likely” connotes the civil, and lesser, standard of proof.

It is not only comedians who would have to worry about a visit from Police Scotland. Religious believers may have to hold their tongues. The Qur’an includes the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Leviticus opines that sexual acts between men are an abomination. The apostle Paul says much the same. Some within our society agree. Most would not. Opinion is mixed.

Yet under the Bill, adherents of the former view may well be committing a criminal offence by disseminating it. The Bill’s sections covering “protection of freedom of expression” are inadequate.

While an assault is fairly easy to identify, insult, abuse, vilification and contempt are far more subjective and nuanced. Some of us are easily offended. Even so, it is reasonable to assume that many people identifying as LBGT+, would find Paul’s sentiments abusive and not merely insulting. Equally, it is unlikely that transmitting these Biblical messages (or hate speech) would engender goodwill towards gay couples. Quite the reverse. Yet suppressing freedom of religious expression is intolerant and illiberal, and it overspills into censoring and silencing general discourse about such topics as same sex marriage and transgender issues.

Outlawing behaviour is not a step to be taken lightly. If done at all it must be in a way that provides reasonable clarity, in advance, as to whether actions, including expressions of belief or narrating religious texts, will be classified as “abusive” or “insulting”, unlawful or not. Nobody wants to be a test case to determine the scope of ambiguous new criminal legislation. A consequence of not knowing the parameters of criminalised conduct is that citizens will avoid public expression of opinions and beliefs that might land them in court. Indeed, even in private it is safer to avoid debate or free thinking and to steer clear of anything potentially illegal. This kind of thought control is redolent of a police state.

Parliament has already enacted a cack-handed criminal statute, The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 (repealed 2018). Let’s not have another.

Andrew Stevenson is Secretary, Scottish Law Agents Society

Let’s not live in fear of expressing views – Andrew Stevenson