There are deep concerns among academics and researchers at Scottish universities regarding the impact the country’s new Hate Crime Act will have on free speech and academic freedom on campus, writes Romina Frohar for the Spectator.
Scotland’s Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act was activated on April Fool’s Day, and broadens the offence of ‘stirring up racial hatred’, extending it to the protected characteristics of disability, religion, sexual orientation, age, transgender identity and ‘variations in sex characteristics’ (but not biological sex).
Putting aside race (which is handled slightly differently to the other protected characteristics) committing the ‘stirring up’ offence requires:
1) Behaviour or communication to another person of material that a “reasonable person” would consider threatening or abusive; and
2) Intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons defined by a protected characteristic.
As per the legislation’s protections for freedom of expression, it will not be deemed “abusive and threatening” to engage “solely” in “discussion or criticism” about age or any of the other protected characteristics.
Scots are also expressly permitted to voice “antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult” for religion.
However, that carve-out does not apply to the legislation’s other protected characteristics, raising serious free speech concerns, not least for academics and higher education professionals.
“I’m an international student from the US and my research looks in part at the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution and the mandatory veil law in Iran,” Romina writes. “There could easily be a situation where I end up doing a presentation on campus on these topics. What I don’t know though is whether speaking about them could mean I fall foul of the Hate Crime Act.”
She continues:
If someone is disparaging about the Islamic Revolution, could that be classified as insulting or stirring up hatred? Supporters of the Iranian regime would certainly think so, and they would argue that they are defined under the law as a national or ethnic group. Similarly, criticising the veil could also be seen as targeting a minority group.
So far, academics have been given little clarity about how the Hate Crime Act could affect them. This, in itself, is creating self-censorship and fear.
It wouldn’t be outlandish for university researchers to be targeted by this law. Ahead of the Act coming into force, Police Scotland gave training to its officers which suggested that offenses could take place by email, video, and even during a public performance of a play. If actors and comedians are fair game under the Act, why wouldn’t university lecturers be as well?
At the same time, university students and staff are particularly vulnerable to being accused of stirring up hatred when they discuss sensitive or controversial topics. Student associations wield a disproportionate amount of power on campuses, and they are often dominated by activists who are quick to label any dissenting opinions as hate speech or discriminatory. Only last month, a lecturer at UCL revealed that she had been removed from her teaching course and faced formal complaints after she criticised China in a statistics class. Who knows, if she had taught this class in Scotland, perhaps she would have been reported under the Hate Crime Act as well.
At the moment, the student associations at Scottish universities are mainly concerned with two things: transgender healthcare and Palestine. Any person who dissents from the student view on these subjects will not get a fair hearing, and will now probably be reported to the police if they take a public stand. Universities have become ‘safe spaces’ for these activists, and now they have conquered the rest of society as well.
It seems obvious that all of this is creating a climate of fear and stifling academic discourse.
From now on, academics won’t just have to fear being slated by their colleagues or students if they transgress against the identity politics orthodoxy, they will have to be wary of police prosecution as well. What professor would take on the prevailing academic and activist view on systemic racism, for example, if they could be investigated by the police for stirring up hatred against a minority group? Even if the police decide they won’t proceed with a hate crime allegation, they will likely record it as a ‘non-crime hate incident’ which will stay on that person’s police record and appear on enhanced record checks if they apply for a job in the future.
Worth reading in full.
