A Bill so bad that even authoritarian Labour can't support it......

Well, the SNP Government's bill to tackle sectarianism really can't have much going for it.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats and Greens opposed it from the start, even before the measure attracted criticism from across Scottish civic society.

I thought it was a good sign when Alex Salmond decided not to rush the Bill through before the Summer recess, but, sadly, the Government has not listened to the criticism that has been resoundingly heaped on the measure.

You would expect the Liberal Democrats to stand up against anything that could have implications for freedom of speech, but Labour love creating new offences and infringing people's civil liberties. I mean, when they were in Government at Westminster, requesting a vegetarian meal on a plane could be enough to have the security services giving you a second glance, taking a picture of a building could have you stopped by the Police and walking through Parliament Square could have you stopped and searched under Section 44 of their Terrorism Act. The fact that they are opposing this Bill speaks volumes.

Of course, the SNP will complain that it's just everyone else ganging up against them. That might have some traction if the Bill hadn't been so resoundingly criticised during the consultation. The most articulate opposition I've seen comes from a nationalist, the fabulous Lallands Peat Worrier. My learned friend won't be invited round to Kenny MacAskill's for egg nog this Christmas, that's for sure, as he has been scathing about the Bill and the quality of the scrutiny it's given from SNP dominated committees which he describes as "embarrassingly craven and intellectually sloppy".

Of course sectarianism needs to be tackled. As a highlander, I grew up blissfully unaware of such bigotry in my country and it came as a shock when I encountered it for the first time. This bill is not the way forward, though. There is much that can be done under existing laws, but the key is effecting cultural change by education. There is a whole load more the football authorities should be doing, too. Why doesn't the SFA tell clubs that if they don't get their fans in order, they'll be playing games behind closed doors? I'm sure the loss of the gate money would concentrate their minds.

I'm glad that the opposition parties in Holyrood have decided to work together to oppose this Bill. From my point of view, it's confusing, I'm not convinced that criticism of religion won't be penalised. I'm not in the business of hating anyone but I reserve the right to question, politely and rationally, their religious beliefs if they impact on mine or anyone else's freedoms. There are just too many potentially unintended consequences of this legislation as it stands and it really should be withdrawn.And if the SNP listens, and does withdraw it, they should be commended, not slated for a U-Turn. This issue is too important for childish point scoring.

Alison McInnes, the Scottish Liberal Democrats' Justice Spokesperson said:

“While it is clear that sectarianism needs to be tackled in Scottish society, it has been plain from the outset that this Bill is ill-thought-out, rushed and will do little to address the underlying problems associated with sectarian behaviour.
 “The SNP Government have not made the case for this Bill and the lack of any kind of consensus should act as a very clear warning sign that the Bill is seriously flawed.
 “The First Minister should not have charged ahead with this Bill and he must now withdraw it.”

 

Grown up politics all round as Salmond delays the Anti-Sectarianism Bill #sp4

I am heartened today that it's clear that the SNP bulldozer can choose to bring itself to a halt. It's a good thing that the First Minister has announced that the Sectarian Bill will not be rushed through in the next week after widespread criticism of such a quick timetable. Instead, the Government will extend the timetable to allow for greater scrutiny.

Alex Salmond could have ignored the wishes of football clubs, churches and lawyers, and the rest of the Parliament. After all, he has a parliamentary majority and can do what he likes.

I had started to write a post this morning, which I never got round to finishing, which basically asked how could Alex Salmond get himself out of the corner he'd painted himself into without losing face.

That needed the co-operation of the other parties in the Parliament.

You see, our political culture demands that if someone, most especially a Government minister, changes their mind, it's a sign of weakness and they must be attacked for U-turning. That certainly is what happens at Westminster, where the Labour Party have been sure to pounce on any change of heart by the coalition government.

What happened today was that the other parties in the Parliament gave Alex Salmond wiggle room, and heaped praise on him for his decision to delay the Bill. Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Willie Rennie all used variations of the words mature and sensible and thanks. Willie said:

When politicians change their mind we must welcome that consideration and reflection and not complain and criticism. Can I offer my thanks to the First Minister for listening on the Sectarian Bill?

When it came to the actual Stage 1 vote on the Bill, the SNP and Labour voted for it, the Tories and Greens abstained and the Liberal Democrats voted against. That was a lot less stark than it could have been.

Given Labour's illiberal track record in recent years - who can forget their shambolic justice policies developed by Richard Baker - I was surprised that they spoke out so strongly against the Bill.

I would have hoped that the Greens would have joined the Liberal Democrats in voting against the legislation in principle at this stage. I don't believe the case has been made to justify why it's needed, and whether in fact the Government has the powers it thinks it has on the internet. Instead they joined the Tories on the fence.

Now, before you say anything, I know that our parliamentary group has abstained on things, namely budgets, over the years. Abstention is a pet hate of mine. I kind of like to see people make their bloomin' mind up.

The liberal position is that there has to be a very good reason to interfere with freedom of expression and that the case had not been made for this Bill. There were too many doubts that it would limit things it really had no business limiting. It also seems to be a quick fix, totally contrary to the quest for long term solutions to problems that Willie Rennie is so keen on. Voting against is a natural conclusion for us at this stage. That's not to say that we won't listen to the arguments made, but we'll take some convincing. That is as it should be and what I expect of a liberal party.

Willie said after FMQ:

“It is good that the First Minister has listened. He should be commended for his change of mind.
 
“It shows that our strong Liberal voices count in this Parliament. “Scores of questions still remain over the Bill and we will work constructively with the Scottish Government to explore these issues.
 “We believe that voluntary action and community measures need to be fully exhausted first before resorting to further law making.” 

Don't rush sectarian bill - Lib Dem Alison McInnes

Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Alison McInnes has warned of the dangers of rushing to pass Alex Salmond's anti-sectarianism bill without giving proper time for scrutiny. The SNP Government wants it to become law by the time the football season starts at the end of July. The parliamentary recess takes place from the beginning of July until the beginning of September. You do the maths.

I have been concerned about this legislation, because it has knee jerk reaction written all over it. We need to be sure that the measures contained within the legislation are liberal, fair and necessary. It's very important that the laws are properly scrutinised for unintended consequence. Religion should not be immune from robust criticism and rational debate and it would be wrong for Parliament to pass a law which, for example, forbade me from saying that I felt any Church leader's stance on or treatment of gay people was wrong.

Two weeks is simply not enough time to properly scrutinise a measure and I think that it would be best left until after the Summer.

Alison addressed this in her speech this afternoon, saying:

....we want to see action on sectarianism. Let us be very clear.  Sectarianism has no place in our society.  Every single one of us in this chamber agrees that any discrimination based on religion is unacceptable; any threatening behaviour based on religion is wrong; and any acts inciting violence because of religion must not be tolerated. However, I think that the Government are naïve if they believe they can solve a centuries old problem by rushing through new legislation in the next fortnight. Just this weekend, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business wrote of how he would like to see more pre-legislative scrutiny in Parliament.  Can I say now, that, for once, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Crawford.  The Government are talking about introducing two entirely new offences onto the statute books.  Surely it is right that Parliament – that the people of Scotland – are allowed the time to study the proposals, take evidence, and try to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, no collateral infringements on law-abiding citizens’ liberties?  Oh, and to ensure that the new law actually does what it is intended to. There are many questions that any Government should have to answer before they can introduce a new law.  And any responsible Parliament cannot – or at least, should not – pass a law until all such questions are answered. This proposed new law is no different.  And the first – and most fundamental – question asks whether a new law is actually needed? The Cabinet Secretary tried to answer this very question on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago.  He said there are gaps in current Breach of the Peace definitions, meaning that “in some instances” there could be difficulties in prosecutions.  He might be right, but I say to him – we need to see the evidence.
 Are there gaps?  Well, just under a month ago, the then Solicitor General Frank Mulholland issued a press release welcoming “the high prosecution rate for crimes of religious prejudice.”
 If there are gaps would the new law close them?  Well, I await sight of the Bill with interest, but I can guarantee we won’t be able to adequately answer that question in two weeks with no chance to take expert evidence. I would also say this.  In England and Wales in the three years to 2010 since the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was enacted, there were 36,763 completed prosecutions of offences that were racially or religiously aggravated.  In that time, exactly one person was charged with an offence that had been introduced by the new Act.  He was acquitted.
 The Racial and Religious Hatred Act is a solid law.  It was debated in depth.  Expert evidence was taken over many days and weeks.  And it has made zero difference to convictions for religiously or racially motivated crimes. I am not saying that a new law will not work.  I am asking the Government to take the necessary time to consider all possibilities.
 Is it that offensive chanting is already covered by Breach of the Peace, but is simply hard to police because of the number of people involved? Is it that sending bullets through the post is actually already covered through anti-terrorism legislation?
 Is it that sending death threats via the internet is already covered by the UK Communications Act? And is it that the sectarian aspect of all these crimes is already dealt with by section 74 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, and it just needs to be enforced better? These are the questions the Government should be asking before it introduces legislation.  And it should be giving Parliament time to find the answers. 

I think that the most important thing in dealing with sectarianism is education. I remember a boy from my primary school nearly getting expelled for thumping a boy from the Catholic school down the road "because he was a Catholic." The entire school was summoned to the hall and I swear the head teacher didn't draw breath for 10 minutes as she rightly told us how awful it was to hit someone because of their religion, and how important religious freedom was.The boy concerned was eventually allowed to stay, but he was made to suffer first. The fear of Mrs Mackintosh which was much, much worse than any deity could ever offer. I'm fairly certain he's never done anything like that since.

I think actually modern education is much better at teaching messages of tolerance.

Two weeks is no time to properly scrutinise a piece of legislation. Let's hope that the Parliament realises this and asks the Government to wait until August. As my Granny used to say, if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well.