►
From YouTube: Ministerial Statement: Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill - 23 September 2020
Description
Ministerial Statement: Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill
A
The
next
item
of
business
is
a
statement
by
hamza
youssef
on
the
hate,
crime
and
public
order.
Scotland
bill
the
cabinet
secretary
will
take
questions
at
the
end
of
his
statement,
so
there
should
be
no
interventions
or
interruptions,
and
I
call
on
hamza
youssef
for
up
to
10
minutes.
Please
cabinet
secretary.
B
Thank
you,
president
officer.
Two
weeks
ago,
I
promised
that
I
would
return
to
this
chamber
to
outline
changes.
I
would
look
to
make
to
the
hate,
crime
and
public
order,
scotland
bill.
These
changes
are
in
response
to
the
very
genuine
concerns
I
heard
from
a
number
of
state
stakeholders,
and
indeed
members
across
the
chamber
over
the
past
few
months.
B
This
is
something
that
members
two
weeks
ago
overwhelmingly
voted
for,
and
it's
something
that
as
parliamentarians
we
promise
to
work
together
on
to
achieve.
We
can't
let
down
victims
of
hate
crime.
We
must
take
forward
our
plans
to
legislate
in
order
to
ensure
that
hate
crime
legislation
is
fit
for
the
21st
century
and,
more,
most
importantly,
afford
sufficient
protection
to
those
who
need
it.
B
I
highlighted
in
this
chamber
two
weeks
ago
how
hate
crime
remains
a
significant
issue
that
we
must
tackle.
There
were
more
than
5
600
hate
crimes
reported
to
the
crown
office
and
procreator
fiscal
service
last
year,
and
this
is
only
the
tip
of
the
iceberg.
As
we
know,
much
hate
crime
is
not
reported
at
all,
so
we
cannot
afford
to
be
complacent.
B
Having
effective
hate
crime
legislation
makes
it
clear,
makes
it
clear
to
victims
perpetrators,
communities
and,
of
course,
to
wider
society
that
offences
motivated
by
prejudice
will
be
treated
seriously.
I've
listened
to
the
voices
raising
concerns
on
the
bill.
I
have
reflected
on
our
agreement
in
this
chamber
to
seek
common
ground
and
to
seek
compromise.
B
B
A
number
of
those
in
the
creative
industry
and
a
range
of
equality
organizations,
including
many
others
as
well-
I
thank
them
all
for
their
time,
but,
most
importantly
for
their
trusted
advice.
I'm
also
mindful
of
the
request
from
a
number
of
those
across
the
chamber.
I
think
a
point
made
in
particular
by
the
liberal
democrats
that
any
proposed
change
or
changes
the
government
was
willing
to
make
should
be
announced
as
soon
as
possible
to
give
committee
time
for
due
consideration.
B
The
operation
of
the
new
stunning
up
hatred
defenses
has
raised
concerns
that
the
offences
can
be
committed
where
behaviour
is
likely
to
start
up
hatred,
whether
or
not
the
accused
intended
to
stir
up
hatred.
Standing
up
hatred
defenses
are
not
new
and
for
race
have
existed
across
the
nations
of
the
uk.
For
decades,
the
bill
introduces
new
offenses
of
starting
up
hatred
that
cover
the
characteristics
of
age,
disability,
religion,
sexual
orientation,
transgender
identity
and
variation
in
sex
characteristics.
B
We
must
recognize,
as
many
stakeholders
do
why
the
bill
provides
for
additional
offences
of
starting
up
hatred
in
the
first
place.
Behavior
that
stirs
up
hatred
is
corrosive.
It
can
incite
people
to
commit
offences
against
individuals
in
the
targeted
group
and
also
contribute
to
an
atmosphere
in
which
prejudice
and
discrimination
is
accepted
as
normal.
It
can
leave
entire
communities
feeling
isolated,
feeling
scared
and
vulnerable
to
attack.
In
the
most
serious
cases,
it
can
directly
encourage
activity
which
threatens
or
endangers
life.
B
This
parliament
should
protect
people
from
this
distinct
harm
by
legislating
for
new
offenses
of
stirring
up
hatred.
I
have,
however,
reflected
carefully
on
the
operation
of
the
new
offences
and
in
particular,
that
the
new
starting
up
hatred
offences
do
not
require
that
the
accused
intended
to
start
up
hatred.
People
are
concerned.
The
offences
could
be
committed
by
people
expressing
controversial
views
where
they
have
no
intention
of
stirring
up
hatred
against
any
group.
B
The
bill
does
contain
some
protections
against
this,
and
the
offences
themselves
do
set
a
significant
threshold
for
criminal
sanction.
Behavior
must,
of
course,
be
threatening
or
abusive.
Such
behavior
must
be
likely
to
start
up
hatred
and
not
merely
dislike
disapproval
or
disrespect,
and
there's
a
defense
that
the
accused
behavior
was,
in
the
particular
circumstances,
reasonable.
B
This
in
itself
might
lead
to
an
element
of
self-censorship.
That
is
not
the
aim
of
the
legislation.
The
bill
does
not
seek
to
stifle
robust
debate,
public
discourse
or
artistic
freedoms.
Instead,
the
bill
seeks
to
offer
greater
protection
to
those
who
suffer
from
this,
particularly
damaging
type
of
offending
behavior,
while
respecting
freedom
of
expression.
B
I
want
people
across
this
chamber
and
across
scotland
to
come
together
so
that
we
can
ensure
hate
crime
law
can
deal
with
the
problem
of
stirring
up
hatred
in
an
effective
and
appropriate
way.
That
is
why
I
think
it's
important
to
put
the
concerns
over
the
question
of
the
operation
of
the
new
offenses
beyond
doubt.
B
I
hope
this
fundamental
change
will
provide
necessary
reassurance
that
the
new
stirring
up
patriot
defenses
strike
an
appropriate
balance
between
respecting
freedom
of
expression,
while
protecting
those
impacted
by
people
who
set
out
to
stir
up
hatred
in
making
this
change.
I
will
maintain
the
distinct
approach
that
the
bill
the
bill
currently
adopts
in
relation
to
the
racial
stirring
up
of
hatred,
offences
which
will
continue
to
apply
as
they
do
at
the
moment
and
as
they
have
done
so
for
the
last
34
years.
B
Racial
stirring
up
hatred,
offences
in
the
form
they
are
in
this
bill
have
existed
across
the
uk,
including
in
england
and
wales
for
decades,
and
I
see
no
reason
to
fundamentally
adjust
what
is
a
long-standing
approach
and
protection
that
has
worked
well
in
practice.
I
would
be
concerned
about
community
cohesion
through
any
weakening
of
the
existing
protection
in
relation
to
race.
B
I'm
open
to
consider
further
reforms,
such
as
the
operation
of
the
reasonableness,
defence
and
the
provisions
concerning
freedom
of
expression,
in
light
of
my
intention
to
bring
forward
amendments
to
make
the
new
offences
intent.
Only
I'm
committed
to
engage
with
this
parliament,
and
indeed
stakeholders
as
the
bill
undergoes
the
scrutiny
process
to
consider
whether
further
amendments
should
be
made
in
these
ancillary
areas.
B
There
is
one
further
specific
area.
We
want
in
particular
to
hear
parliament's
voice
through
the
scrutiny
process,
and
that
is
the
use
of
modernized
language
within
the
bill.
In
the
area
of
statutory
aggravations
contained
in
the
bill,
there
has
been
support
to
look
again
at
whether
the
test
of
convincing
malice
and
ill
will
could
be
changed
to
the
test,
as
recommended
by
lord
bracodeo,
namely
to
demonstrating
hostility.
B
This
is
an
area
I'm
also
committed
to
engaging
or
on
further
in
order
to
consider
the
effect
those
changes
would
have
and
whether
those
changes
may
be
maybe
beneficial
at
stage
two
in
conclusion,
presenting
office,
I'm
very
aware
there
are
other
views
and
concerns
expressed,
and
I
think
an
effective
scrutiny
process
will
ensure.
These
are
all
aired
during
healthy
and
robust
pro
debate,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
parliament
was
advised
in
good
time
of
the
scottish
government's
response
to
the
key
concerns
expressed
about
the
bill,
presiding
officer.
B
I
know
that
hate
crime
is
an
emotive
subject.
I
I
know
all
too
well
that
it
is
a
deeply
personal
one
too.
I
want
to
give
this
criminal
law
legislation
the
best
chance
of
affording
the
protection
to
those
that
need
it.
I
look
forward
to
working
with
members
in
the
bill.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
stakeholders
that
I
have
engaged
with
to
allow
me
to
make
this
announcement
today.
B
I
also
want
to
reiterate
that
if
I
have
to
appear
in
front
of
committee
or
parliament
during
the
recess
I'll
make
myself
available
on
weekends,
whatever
it
takes,
I'm
happy
to
do
so
because,
as
I
say,
this
bill
is
needed
in
terms
of
the
protections
for
those
who
are
vulnerable
to
the
stirring
up
of
hatred
and
any
attempts
to
filibuster
or
delay.
This
bill
should
be
thwarted.
B
I
just
want
to
finally
mention
the
misogynistic
harassment
working
group.
I
want
to
reassure
members
that
this
remains
a
priority
and
we
and
we
will
be
sending
our
plans
for
the
working
group
next
month.
I
have
taken
numerous
bills
for
this
parliament.
I've
always
been
a
believer
that
the
legislation
can
only
be
strengthened
by
scrutiny.
B
I
hope
I've
demonstrated
our
willingness
to
listen
on
act
where
there
are
concerns-
and
I
reiterate
there
will
be
other
areas
of
the
bill
where
there
are
undoubtedly
concerns,
and
I
will
continue
to
listen
to
members
and
key
stakeholders
throughout
the
parliamentary
process.
I'm
confident
that
going
forward
the
debate
around
the
bill
will
help
to
build
consensus
on
how
we
effectively
tackle
hate
crime
and
how
we
keep
working
together
on
building
an
inclusive
and
just
scotland
for
all.
C
Thank
you
presiding
officer.
I
thank
the
cabinet
secretary
for
advanced
site
for
statement
and
for
coming
forward
with
this
statement
today.
We
now
know
that
the
hate
crime
bill
has
received
more
written
responses
than
any
other
bill
in
scottish
parliament
history.
Scottish
conservatives
warned
about
the
avalanche
of
opposition
in
our
debate
recently
and
I
remain
really
worried
about
the
issue
of
the
rest
of
the
bill
not
being
given
sufficient
scrutiny
because
of
the
controversial
part
two
to
ensure
his
words.
It
is
fit
for
the
21st
century.
C
Now
the
amendments
proposed
by
the
justice
secretary
today
do
not
begin
to
go
far
enough
and
respondents
will
note.
He
hasn't
actually
admitted
that
the
first
draft
is
a
threat
to
free
speech.
He
makes
no
mention
of
the
threshold
for
criminality
with
regards
to
threatening
or
abusive,
which
represents
a
significant
difference
to
the
legislation
south
of
the
border.
There's
still
no
protection
for
anything
said
in
the
privacy
of
your
own
home
and
the
vague
clauses
on
inflammatory
material
are
not
mentioned.
A
B
Yourself,
forgive
me,
I
thank
liam
care
for
for
his
questions.
What
I
think
dealing
with,
I
think
effectively
the
new
stirring
up
offences
by
changing
them
to
intent
only
will
actually
mitigate
and
ameliorate
the
vast
majority
of
concerns
expressed
by
a
number
of
stakeholders.
So,
for
example,
a
number
of
the
stakeholders
that
I
referenced
in
my
opening
remarks
told
me
that
if
we
made
the
change
to
intent
only
then
that
would
mitigate
the
vast
majority
of
their
concerns,
because
you
know
the
reasonableness.
B
B
I
think,
having
made
this
change
now,
we
can
concentrate
on
some
of
the
other
areas
of
the
bill
that
the
member
raises,
such
as
the
freedom
of
expression
clauses
such
as
part,
one
such
as
the
the
statutory
aggravations
in
terms
of
other
other
other
areas
of
the
bill,
freedom
of
expression,
the
private
dwelling
clauses.
These
are
all
things
that
we
should
be
capable
of
discussing
taking
evidence
on
bringing
forward
amendments
if
necessary
at
stage
two
as
parliamentarians
and
as
legislators,
we
should
be
capable
of
doing
that.
B
I
have
said
in
my
opening
remarks
that
I
will
make
myself
available
if
necessary,
to
work
over
the
recess.
I
would
hope
others
would
equally
be
willing
to
work
as
hard
as
we
possibly
can
to
to
to
bring
this
legislation
forward
and
the
very
final
point
I'd
make
to
liam
care.
Simply
scrapping
the
stirring
up
offenses
for
me
is
not
an
option.
B
These
stirring
up
offenses
are
corrosive
in
society.
Victims
support
scotland
rightly
said
a
fortnight
ago
that
those
who
are
the
targets
of
hatred
cannot
afford
to
wait
years
and
years
for
the
vital
protections
they
require.
The
statutory
aggravations
already
exist,
with
the
exception
of
the
one
that
we're
adding
for
each.
It
is
the
stunning
up
of
fences
that
are
particularly
corrosive
in
society,
and
we
should
not
shy
away
from
that
vital
protection,
roger.
B
Thank
rhoda
grant
for
the
tone
of
her
question,
as
well
as
the
substance
of
those
questions
in
terms
of
the
direct
question
question
that
she
asked
about
freedom
of
expression
clauses.
The
short
answer
is
absolutely
yes.
The
number
of
stakeholders
did
raise
that
concern
from
the
catholic
church
to
the
equality
network
and
many
in
between.
So
that
is
an
era
that
I
will
give
some
further
consideration
to.
B
I
should
say
next
month
on
that
she
may
have
seen
that
the
law
commission
has
produced
in
england
and
wales
that
has
produced
some
work
today,
it's
around
about
500
pages,
but
has
what
produced
some
work
on
the
issue
of
this
very
topic
and
I'll
be
looking
at
that
as
well,
but
I
should
come
back
or
at
least
be
able
to
update
members.
I
should
say
next
month
on
that
vital
piece
of
work.
E
Advanced
site
of
the
statement,
but
the
statement
doesn't
deal
with
the
fundamental
challenges
of
proving
intent,
and
I
ask
the
cabinet
secretary
why
he
hasn't
chosen
to
take
a
similar
approach
to
that
taken
in
the
public
order
bill
in
relation
to
starring
up
racial
hatred
where
intent
or
likelihood
are
both
covered.
Their
intent
is
not
proved
it's
a
defense
that
the
accused
was
not
aware
that
their
behavior
might
be
threatening
or
abusive.
E
B
I
thank
patrick
harvey
for
his
question
and
can
I
put
on
record
his
steadfast
support
in
relation
to
tackling
hate
crime
in
all
its
forms?
Can
I
say
to
patrick
harvey
the
concerns
that
he
articulated
are
the
very
concerns
that
I
had
at
the
beginning
of
this
bill
process
that
if
we
were
to
create
the
new
stirring
up
offences
as
intent,
only
then
a
simple
defense
for
the
accused
would
be
that
I
didn't
intend
to
do
x,
y
or
zed.
B
So
it
is
not
simply
the
case
that
an
accused
could
say
I
did
not
intend
to
do
that.
An
intent,
of
course
has
to
be
proven
in
in
a
number,
if
not
most,
offences
as
well.
So
I
do
accept
the
point
that
patrick
harvey
is
making
that
we
have
to
give
confidence
to
those
who
will
be
affected
by
the
news
stirring
up
offences
and
that
they
are
still
significant
and
that
they
can
be
prosecuted
and
I'm
more
than
happy
to
work
with
patrick
harvey
on
that.
F
Thank
you,
presiding
officer
in
the
cabinet
secretary's
statement.
He
reminded
members
of
the
key
underlying
principles
of
the
bill
tackling
hate
crime.
I
wholeheartedly
agree
that
we
should
not
lose
sight
of
this
aim.
Does
the
cabinet
secretary
agree
that
we
now
owe
it
to
victims
of
hate
crime
to
work
together
to
create
world
leading
legislation
that
we
as
a
parliament,
can
all
be
proud
of
hams.
B
In
short-
and
I
think
it's
really
it's
a
really
important
question
that
ronald
mccain
asks,
because
we
do
sometimes
forget
that
it's
not
always
the
loudest
voices
that
are
the
ones
that
we
should
only
be
listening
to.
We
should
be
listening
to
those
I
think
in
this
bill
who,
of
course
raised
their
concerns
around
freedom
of
expression.
B
I
think
that's
legitimate,
and
these
are
concerns
that
clearly
have
demonstrated
we're
listening
to,
but
we
must
also
listen
to
those
that
who
are
the
most
affected,
the
most
at
target,
the
most
vulnerable
when
it
comes
to
hate
crime
and
therefore
we
should
not
delay
this
bill.
We
should
not
attempt
to
to
thwart
it
in
any
way.
B
We
should
work
hard
as
hard
as
we
possibly
can
between
now
and
the
end
of
the
parliamentary
session
to
make
sure
we
have
an
absolutely
effective
piece
of
legislation
that
protects
the
most
vulnerable
in
society
and,
at
the
same
time,
gives
people
absolute
confidence
in
relation
to
the
freedom
of
expression.
The
two
are
not
mutually
exclusive
and
I
have
every
confidence
we
can
do
that.
G
Thank
you,
deputy
president,
obviously
to
thank
the
cabinet
secretary's,
fairly
excitedly
statement
and
indeed
for
responding
positively
to
my
call
earlier
this
month
for
par.
The
proposed
changes
to
part
two,
the
bill
to
be
brought
forward.
Well
ahead
of
the
committee
beginning
our
stage,
one
oral
evidence
as
he
says,
the
proposed
stirring
up
offences
to
this
bill
have
led
to
serious,
widespread
and
legitimate
concerns
about
the
consequences
for
freedom
of
expression
and
the
intent
to
safeguard,
I
think,
is
a
welcome
step
in
the
right
direction.
G
But
given
that
lord
brachadale
said
now
quote
almost
every
case,
which
could
be
prosecuted
as
a
stirring
up,
offense
could
also
be
prosecuted
using
baseline
offence
and
an
aggravation.
Can
the
cabinet
secretary
offer
examples
of
behavior
that
would
be
caught
by
a
stirring
up
offense,
but
wouldn't
be
caught
by
the
bill's
aggravation.
B
So
again
he
will.
If
he
refers
back
to
my
statement.
I
made
the
point
that
it
is
important
that
the
criminal
law
appropriately
prosecutes
legislation
and
records
it
in
a
way
that
I
think,
gives
confidence
to
the
public.
So
you
know
he's
absolutely
right.
There
are
a
number
of,
I
think,
the
number
of
pieces
of
legislation
that
could
be
used
to
prosecute.
B
It
could
be
an
entire
community,
the
muslim
community,
the
gay
community,
the
people
who
are
who
have
disabilities.
It
could
be
in
a
community
that
is
affected
by
starting
up
events,
whereas
the
aggravators,
the
statute
aggravators
in
part,
one
of
the
bill
generally.
As
far
as
I
know,
but
I
will
look
at
this
in
more
detail,
of
course-
are
our
offenses
that
are
attached
to
an
individual,
and
so
that's
why?
B
I
think
it's
really
important
that,
although
behaviors
related
to
starting
up
of
hatred
may
well
be
able
to
be
prosecuted
in
some
other
way.
It's
really
important
that
they
are
recorded
in
the
correct
way,
not
just
for
the
purposes
of
this
bill,
but
I
hope
to
to
give
confidence
those
communities
that
are
targeted
by
that
hatred.
H
Presiding
officer,
I
welcome
that
the
scottish
government
have
listened
to
voices
who
raised
concerns
on
this
important
bill
and
that
they've
acted
as
the
cabinet
secretary
mentioned.
The
law
commission
in
england
and
wales
has
published
a
report
on
hate
crime
reform
today
and
not
their
proposal
in
terms
of
stirring
up
hatred
that
the
focus
should
be
on
deliberate
incitement
of
hatred,
providing
greater
protection
for
freedom
of
speech.
Where
no
intent
can
be
proven.
Can
I
ask
the
cabinet
secretary's
response
to
the
report's
recommendations?
Please,
I'm.
B
Sorry,
you
said
just
give
me,
as
I
say,
I
think
the
law
commission
report
is
near
enough
500
pages
or
maybe
just
shy
of
it
and
I've
just
seen
and
skimmed
the
brief
headlines
of
it,
and
I
will
take
time
to
look
at
it
tonight
and
over
the
coming
few
days,
but
in
general,
on
the
point
that
ruth
mcguire
raises,
I
hope
I've
been
able
to
address
that
that
we're
moving
to
for
the
new
offenses
of
standing
up
hatred
to
intent
only.
I
think
that
will
help
to
give
some
reassurance.
B
I
think,
to
the
concerns
that
she
raised
around
about
a
fortnight
ago.
I
think
she,
if
I
remember
correctly,
specifically
highlighted
the
concerns
of
the
human
society
and
they
were
one
of
the
one
of
the
organizations,
the
stakeholders
that
I
engaged
with,
and
they
were
I'm
sure
they
were
articulate
this.
If
asked,
they
were
very
positive
about
that
change
coming
forward.
I
Thank
you.
Could
I
ask
the
cabinet
secretary,
if
he's
now,
confirming
that
he
recognizes
that
there
are
serious
flaws
in
several
key
sections
of
this
bill,
including
wording
which
is
open
to
misinterpretation
and
that,
notwithstanding
what
he's
announced
today,
he
will
address
these
other
concerns
before
the
scrutiny
of
the
justice
committee,
so
that
there's
no
hint
of
us
making
bad
law.
B
The
characterization
from
liz
smith-
I
don't
accept
that
there's
key
fundamental
flaws
in
the
bill.
I
think
there
are
proposed
amendments
that
we
should
look
at,
that
all
of
us
have
the
responsibility
of
parliamentarians.
Liz
smith
been
a
parliamentarian
for
longer
than
me,
has
no
doubt
scrutinised
bills
over
the
years
and
done
so
very
effectively.
B
We
should
be
able
to
do
that
as
a
parliament.
Actually,
the
change
that
announced
to
intent
only
will
have
an
ancillary
effect
on
a
number
of
other
areas
of
the
bill,
and
I
think
I
will
give
that
consideration,
as
I
mentioned
in
my
in
my
remarks,
but
it's
incumbent
on
each
of
us
as
parliamentarians,
whether
you're
opposition
or
me
in
government,
to
make
sure
that
we
engage
in
this
process.
B
I
think
not
just
constructively
but
with
an
open
mind
and
of
course,
if
there
are
changes
that
are
proposed,
then
then
I
will
listen
to
them
with
an
open
mind,
as
I
have
done
thus
far,
but
I
do
not
think
that
they
are
fundamental
flaws
in
the
bill.
I
think
if
there
are
concerns
they
can
be
addressed
with
the
normal
parliamentary
process.
J
Thank
you,
president
officer
ken.
The
county
secretary
will
recall
my
concerns
specifically
about
the
terms
sitting
up
in
hatred
offences
without
the
necessity
of
intent
or
menswear,
for
which
there
is
a
plethora
of
case
law.
Can
I
therefore
welcome
the
measured
move
requiring
intent
on
menswear,
which
for
me
endeavours
to
strike
the
balance
in
freedom
of
speech
and
expression,
which
is
not,
of
course,
absolute
and
incitement
to
criminal
acts.
B
Sir
thanks
christine
graham,
she
has
raised
this
issue
with
me,
of
course,
publicly
in
the
chamber,
but
also
privately,
and
I
appreciate
her
experience
and
knowledge
of
the
law
in
this
regard
and,
as
I
say,
I
think,
for
a
number
of
people,
there
was
very
key
and
genuine
concerns
around
the
offences
being
intent
and
likely
to
start
up
hatred
and
pleased
by
moving
to
intent.
Only.
B
It
certainly
seems
to
me
that
a
number
of
stakeholders,
and
indeed
members
across
this
chamber,
will
have
not
just
greater
confidence
in
this
legislation
moving
forward,
but
hopefully
we'll
be
able
to
strengthen
this
bill.
So
it
gives
the
protections
we
all
want
it
to
to
the
most
vulnerable
in
our
society.
B
Again,
my
answer
will
be
similar
to
to
the
one
I
gave
to
liz
smith
that,
yes,
of
course
the
government
will
keep
an
open
mind,
as
I
have
done.
I
mean
I've
taken
numerous
bills
through
this
parliament.
I
think
the
last
bill
I
took
was
the
I
accepted
every
single,
every
single
opposition
amendment
in
terms
of
the
biometrics,
commissioner,
I
can't
promise
I'll
do
exactly
the
same
for
this
bill,
but
I
will
approach
it
with.
B
With
that
mind
being
open-minded,
I
take
very
seriously
what
the
faculty
of
advocates
have
to
say.
It's
why
I
went
back
to
the
faculty
before
making
this
statement
to
take
a
view
from
them
and
they've
been
hugely
helpful.
The
dean
and
the
vice
dean
and
who
are
both
new
in
their
roles
have
been
exceptionally
helpful,
and
I
thank
them
for
that.
L
Thank
you,
deputy
presiding
officer.
Can
I
refer
to
my
register
of
interest.
As
a
member
of
the
faculty
of
abacus,
as
a
cabinet
secretary
will
be
aware,
the
references
to
freedom
of
expression
in
sections,
11
and
12
are
controversial
because
they
only
refer
to
two
protected
characteristics:
sexual
orientation
and
religion.
Why
is
that?
And
what
is
his
response
to
the
faculty
of
advocates?
Who
say
that
the
current
wording
does
not
appear
to
afford
any
significant
protection.
A
B
I
thank
donald
cameron
for
for
his
question.
I
think
it's
a
very
important
one
if
I
can
give
him
some
reassurance
that
very
point
that
he
made
around
the
very
specific
nature
of
the
freedom
of
expression
clauses
was
mentioned
to
me
by
the
equality
network
was
mentioned
to
me
by
the
faculty
mentioned
to
me
by
the
catholic
church
mentioned
to
me
by
the
scottish
council
of
jewish
communities,
and
the
answer
I
gave
to
them
was
that
I
will
absolutely
look
again
at
the
freedom
of
expression
clauses,
as
I
articulated
in
my
statement.
B
Can
we
look
at
a
more
general
freedom
of
expression
clause?
Can
we
look
at
reinstating
the
freedoms
people
have
under
echr
article
10,
for
example?
These
are
all
considerations
that
I
will
look
to
make.
So,
in
short,
my
answer
to
them
is
yes,
we
will
look
at
those
the
reasons
why
they
were
so
specific
was
because
these
were
specific
freedom
of
expression
clauses
that
were
asked
by
particular
stakeholders
at
the
time
when
we
were
in
consultation
around
the
bill,
whether
it
was
our
road
shows
or
the
consultation
that
the
government
did
at
the
time.