A leading Scottish lawyer has warned that proposed hate crime legislation in Scotland is so poorly drafted that it could inadvertently suppress free speech and lead to prosecutions for unintentional remarks. Thomas Ross, QC, criticised the Scottish Government's Hate Crime Bill, arguing that its vague language makes it impossible for ordinary people to know if they have committed an offence.
Mr Ross, who practises with Benchmark Advocates, said the Bill's failure to properly define key terms such as 'stirring up hatred' and 'inflammatory material' could have a chilling effect on public debate. He warned that individuals might avoid discussing controversial topics for fear of prosecution, even if they have no intention to cause offence.
The QC also raised concerns that the legislation could result in serious offenders being acquitted if jurors find the law too complex to apply. He noted that existing laws already cover hate crimes, and the new Bill's complexity may lead to conservative verdicts, such as 'not proven', in cases where the law is unclear.
Critics, including lawyers, politicians, campaigners, and religious groups, fear the Bill could enshrine 'cancel culture' into law. They point to examples such as author JK Rowling and historian Neil Oliver, who faced online backlash for their views. The Bill could also criminalise the possession of 'inflammatory material', including books, blogs, or social media posts, and those who share or forward such content.
Mr Ross emphasised that if the Scottish Government intends to create an offence that can be committed unintentionally, the legislation must be crystal clear. He said the current draft fails to meet that standard, risking both the stifling of legitimate debate and the unfair prosecution of innocent people.
