MY FAVOURITE news item last week was Facebook founder MarkZuckerberg's declaration that he will only eat meat from animals hehas killed himself. Can you imagine the practicalities? Quite apartfrom deciding how to kill your lunch - captive bolt pistol? lethalinjection? - what do you do with the rest of the pedigree AberdeenAngus once you have carved off a nice sirloin for your steak 'n'chips? Zuckerberg must have a pretty big fridge-freezer.The Facebookfounder was in the news for another reason as well last week. Hepopped up at the G8 summit to appeal to world leaders to go easy oninternational control of the internet. In particular, he urged themto ignore moves by French president Nicolas Sarkozy to establish aglobal system of web regulation to ensure protection of privacy andintellectual property rights.If ever there was a zeitgeist issue,this is it. What is and isn't acceptable in cyberspace? The outingof Ryan Giggs on Twitter, the abuse aimed at Old Firm figures suchas Celtic's Neil Lennon, the socially networked revolutions of theArab Spring, the efforts of China and other states to curb theworld's connectivity - these are some of the key moral questions ofthe age. Into this debate now steps Kenny MacAskill, Scotland'sJustice Minister, with his plan to get tough on sectarian hateonline. And, typical of the man, Kenny is wearing tackety boots.Someof the opposition to MacAskill's initiative is wrong-headed. Inparticular, I disagree with those who argue that existing laws aresufficient to deal with the loathsome expressions of sectarianviolence that are shouted, sung, tweeted or posted on a daily basisin Scotland. Breach of the peace may well cover a multitude of sins,but it is surely a duty of the law to be specific about what doesand does not constitute a crime.Good examples of this principle inaction are two recent pieces of Scottish legislation that tightenedup the law on stalking and harassment. The Criminal Justice andLicensing (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act2009 finally codified into statute the definitions of unacceptablebehaviour in this difficult area, bringing the law up to date withthe ways people communicate online and on mobile phones. The angryjilted lover has no more excuses. He or she now knows exactly wherethey stand.MacAskill is right to seek to close similar gaps thatmight allow 21st-century technology to be used to propagate 17th-century bloodlust. And yes, it's time we got specific about what isand is not an acceptable song to sing, or taunt to shout, or statusupdate to post. How much Fenian blood it is acceptable to want toshed? And what vintage of murderous IRA atrocity is it acceptable tocelebrate? Inciting or glorifying sectarian violence should be aspecific criminal offence.The problem is that MacAskill seems intenton going further. From his comments and those of the First Minister,the SNP seems determined to bring the full force of the law against,in the Justice Secretary's words, "statements that are unacceptableon a religious basis".What on earth does this mean? Scotland, unlikeEngland, has no law on incitement to religious hatred. Is this wherewe are now heading? If it is, then hud the horses. It took theLabour government at Westminster six years to get similarlegislation on to the statute book, fighting opposition the wholeway and only succeeding after significant concessions. And yet thenew Scottish Government intends to have this law in place by thetime Holyrood's summer recess begins at the end of June?To say thevery least, this is undue haste. MacAskill is about to step into oneof the world's most contentious and morally nuanced areas of law - aperfect philosophical storm of internet freedom, religious freedomand freedom of speech. And he intends to have it done and dusted inthe few weeks of parliament that remain before MSPs start packingthe Ambre Solaire and picking up a Jackie Collins to read by thepool? So the law can be in force by the time the Wee Red Book offixtures is published for the new football season?This is not anissue for bish-bash-bosh government. When it strays into thoughtcrime it's debatable whether it should be an issue for government atall. Surely MacAskill has learnt a lesson from the anti-sectarianism summit a few weeks ago, which came up with theunworkable idea of adding football stadium exclusions to thesentencing options for perpetrators of domestic violence on Old Firmmatch days.There have long been sotto voce concerns about the modernSNP's social conservatism. This will be a test of just how illiberalthe party is prepared to be. MacAskill is taking us into a legalquagmire that requires procurators fiscal to have PhDs in moralphilosophy, Irish history and comparative religion. Will there be adifference in law between calling somebody "a bastard" and "a Hunbastard"? Will off-colour jokes about paedophile Catholic priestsland you in the clink? Will liberals be barred from condemningfundamentalist Christian and Muslim attitudes to homosexuals andwomen? Will stand-up comics at the Fringe this summer have copswatching from the wings, Lenny Bruce-style? Do my beliefs, as adevout atheist, carry the same weight as those of a believer, or noweight at all?Freedom of speech is the freedom to hold views othersregard as offensive. It's the freedom to uphold a tenet of religionwhich others regard as an abomination. It's the freedom to challengefundamentalism in all its forms. It's a freedom Kenny MacAskilltampers with at his peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment