Readers' Letters: The SNP’s Hate Crime Act is worryingly vague

The SNP’s “Hate Crime Act” is worryingly vague. There seems to be no mechanism whereby one can ascertain exactly what is and what is not illegal and that is bad law.

The 'Hate Crime Act' championed by First Minister Humza Yousaf is too woolly, says reader (Picture: Fraser Bremner/Getty Images)

​If I drive my car over a certain speed, I know where I stand if there is a speed limit. If I take drugs which are illegal, then I know the penalty. It is an exact matter, but the very vague definitions in this Act are impossible to quantify. It mentions "ill will", but that is a matter of attitude. What is it? Does it exist in exact quantities? No. Surely, you cannot make “ill will” illegal? We all bear ill will at times, don’t we?

There is nothing that you can lay on a table and say, "that is ill will". If it depends upon membership of a group, would being a member of a political grouping that calls for a ban on men in women's prisons meet that criterion? If so, that is deeply worrying and restricts political choice.

It mentions an offence which is "aggravated by prejudice", but what if the opinion is "postjudice" and based upon previous experience, unlike "prejudice" which describes an opinion formed before any experience has been had. Does that make the offence unpunishable? How do you distinguish prejudice from postjudice?

Confusingly, the Act refers to "Consequences of aggravation by prejudice...where it is 'libelled in an indictment' ". I didn't think that "libel" was a term that existed in Scots Law. If that is so, why is it used in an Act in Scots Law and how can it possibly be defined in Scots Law?

Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

Best interests

It is no coincidence that JK Rowling was joined by Elon Musk and right-wing activists (as seen protesting outside Holyrood) in criticising the “Hate Crime Bill” which extends current protections under the law to minorities. The fact that these critics appear to express little concern for those minorities in their public communications is shameful and seemingly betrays self-centred motives misleadingly disguised as sustaining “freedom of speech”.

It’s also no coincidence that most SNP, Green, Liberal Democrat and Labour MSPs (including the often vocal Anas Sarwar who appears to have coincidentally again lost his voice) supported a bill aimed at protecting the most vulnerable and most abused groups in our supposedly increasingly compassionate society, and that Adam Tomkins, Professor of Law and former Tory MSP who voted against the bill, now also supports it. Those attempting to disingenuously portray the bill as an “SNP Bill” or “Humza’s Bill” are scurrilously attempting to deflect from the fact that MSPs who had time to study the bill in detail overwhelmingly voted it into law.

Of course, simplistic comments criticising the Scottish Government are gorged on by much of the UK mainstream media, including the BBC, especially if they are made by well-known figures or “celebrities”, but readers and viewers should seriously ponder who sincerely has their best interests, and the interests of those without ‘loud voices’, at heart?

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Planning a sequel

Just as the director of a successful horror movie plans a sequel, Humza Yousaf is working on a sequel to the Hate Crime Act. The Scottish government’s ‘consultation’ on ending ‘conversion practices’ has just finished, and it won’t be too long before a bill is before Holyrood.

These ‘conversion practices’ are largely a figment of the imagination of activists.

The real aims of the bill will be to criminalise socially conservative views, silence any criticism of gender clinics and above all prevent parents from protecting their children.

Unsurprisingly, the truth is exactly the opposite of what the Scottish government would have us believe. What gender clinics do is actually conversion therapy. For a few adults, this is probably the best thing. For children who are often on the autistic spectrum or suffering from major mental health issues, and in any case are too young to make life defining decisions, it is not.

Child protection and parental rights must take precedence over fashionable ideology.

Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife

Salmon decline

Your article on the tragic decline of the wild salmon population (at its lowest since records began) and its impacts on rural businesses such as fishing hotels, is moving (“Scotland fishing hotels in north east at risk of closure due to ‘tragic’ decline in salmon population and visiting anglers”, Hay’s Way, 21st March). However, it fails to mention a key contributor to the drop in catch numbers: open-net salmon farming. Studies have proven wild populations that are exposed to salmon farms (with their escapees breeding with wild populations, diseases and parasites) can see a reduction in survival of more than 50 per cent on average. Despite its supposed economic success, the farmed salmon industry, Holyrood, and Westminster appear to be embarrassed by the fact that salmon is farmed.

Earlier this week, DEFRA approved the change of the name of the Protected Geographical Indication from “Scottish Farmed Salmon” to “Scottish Salmon”, despite much opposition from conservation groups. There will no longer be a clear indicator on product labels on whether salmon has been farmed or caught. This approval muddies the water for consumers and seems to be a ‘fishy’ way for the industry to distance itself from its destructive realities. A win for the salmon farming industry and a tragic loss for the wild salmon populations and local businesses.

Amelia Cookson, Industrial Aquaculture Campaigner, London

Unattractive tax

In today’s Scotsman John McLaren asks “Why is Scotland relatively less attractive to migrants than England?”

Notwithstanding our higher income tax rates, declining educational standards and stalled life expectancy - assuming I were a skilled migrant who had made the decision to start a new and better life for my family in the United Kingdom - spending personal time and money to complete the immigration process - why on earth would I then choose to settle in an area of the UK, where the local government is constantly trumpeting its intention to leave the nation that I’ve just spent time and money relocating to?

David Sowden, Biggar

Israeli disaster

As a strong supporter of Israel’s action against Hamas the unintentional death of the aid workers was a disaster for Israel’s reputation and the IDF. However Israel needs to remain strong. Hamas refuses to release the hostages unless Israel agrees to a comprehensive ceasefire. Would any sovereign nation risk the safety of its citizens by acquiescing to such terms . There should be pressure from the international community to demand the unconditional release of the hostages. Failure by global leaders to recognise Israel’s battle against an irrational enemy resistant to conventional diplomacy threatens a surge in global terrorism. The repercussions of a Hamas “ victory “ would extend far beyond its borders with jihadism posing a threat to European nations.

Lewis Finnie, Edinburgh

No rural benefit

Tom Ballantine (letter of March 2) made the claim that “the wider costs and benefits of the higher charges arising from the use of wind farms in place of cheaper fossil fuels for generating electricity” were ignored by those in rural Scotland.

Once more this highlights the divide between residents of Edinburgh plus those in the Central Belt and Scots who live in “the poorest rural area of Scotland” – see press article of March 2. A Parliament described as a place “where affluent elites make laws that only THEY deem to be good for the people” (press article of April 2) is out of touch with the struggles of rural Scots in the poorest rural area of the land in meeting the high cost of energy bills.

That is why such residents ignore the use of a wind energy source that is 300 per cent higher than the energy from domestic gas - especially when considering the unreliability of renewable energy!

Ian Moir, Castle Douglas

Fringe benefit

It's good news that the Edinburgh Festival Fringe is receiving £1 million from the UK government. The economic benefits from the Festival and Fringe to Edinburgh and a wider Scotland are incalculable and any financial support given to the artists and performers from around the world is welcome and necessary. It's concerning that the Scottish government, through the quango Creative Scotland, turned down two applications from the Festival Fringe for funding and yet the same body could quite happily give financial support to the making of a pornographic film. The quango seems to have skewed priorities. At least on this occasion the Scottish government can't blame Westminster for failing to stump up the cash when it's needed!

Bob MacDougall, Kippen, Stirlingshire

Weep for Scotland

I weep for the Scotland I once knew, a country that bred me, nurtured me, and educated me: a country whose people were proud and patriotic but not bombastic, forthright and opinionated but willing to listen to other views, and with educational and social systems of high quality that enabled talented Scots, irrespective of social status, to make their mark all over the world. What happened to it all? How did the country allow itself to be led by a navel gazing government obsessed by perceived victimhood of all descriptions and an equally obsessive hatred of the English. Sure, we all dislike the English but we usually confine it to hoping that the other team will win at football or rugby.

Why, oh ,why are we pursuing the chimera of independence while the economy, social systems, and education crumble around us.

Wilma Haley, Doncaster

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [e-mail] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.