Scotland is poised to implement the new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act on April 1st, amidst a mix of support and controversy. The legislation, heralded by Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf, aims to consolidate existing hate crime laws and introduce a new offence of stirring up hatred against protected groups. This move is intended to offer greater protection to victims and communities from threatening or abusive behavior intended to incite hatred based on characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and others. Notably, the law currently excludes sex as a protected characteristic, leading to demands for a separate bill to tackle misogyny.

First Minister Humza Yousaf has issued warnings against the misuse of the new law, particularly emphasizing the importance of not filing vexatious complaints. He stressed that for an offence to be recognized under the Act, an intention to incite hatred must be proven. Yousaf has dismissed calls for the Act’s repeal and has refuted claims that the legislation would stifle freedom of expression, asserting that it strikes a balance between protecting marginalized groups and safeguarding speech freedoms.

However, the Act has not been without its critics, including concerns from Rob Hay, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, and notable public figures like JK Rowling. Critics argue that the legislation could pressure an already overstretched police force, erode public trust in law enforcement, and potentially silence certain groups, such as gender-critical feminists. There are also apprehensions that the Act could be utilized to attack individuals through anonymous complaints or to settle scores, particularly within the online sphere.

Despite these concerns, both Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf and Police Scotland’s Chief Constable Jo Farrell have assured that the law will be applied judiciously, with a strict threshold for prosecution and respect for freedom of speech. As Scotland prepares for the enactment of the Hate Crime Act, the ongoing debate underscores the complexities of balancing protections against hate speech with the preservation of civil liberties.