Big Issue article – Hate crime

I became politically active slowly and gradually, but the campaign which really energised me and got me serious about it was Section 28. As a youth worker supporting lesbian gay and bisexual young people, I was all too aware of the level of harassment, bullying and violence they were experiencing.

The ?Keep the Clause? campaign formalised and legitimised this kind of bigoted behaviour, and I know that at least some young people were hearing its slogans used as bullies? taunts in the playground.

I too was feeling pretty bullied by the media?s handling of the issue. Many papers were carrying articles which would have been illegal to print had they targeted an ethnic group instead of a sexual one. But incitement to hatred laws did not cover my community, and nor did courts recognise hatred in offences of violence and harassment.

Now these things may be about to change. After much work by a group of campaign organisations, police and justice experts, and the Scottish Executive?s civil servants, the issue of Hate Crime is out for consultation.
This goes far wider than harassment against sexual minorities ? this affects women, men, old people, young people, groups defined by race, religion, disability, and perhaps more besides.

It?s about acknowledging when a crime is motivated by bigotry and hatred of a social group, and making sure that sentencing takes account of this. I?d be disappointed if this just led to longer sentences ? I?d rather it led to offenders having their prejudices challenged in a constructive way, for example through educational measures or community sentences to overcome the ignorance which lies at the heart of much prejudice.

There will be those who argue that new laws are not way forward ? that we should simply try to apply the laws we have now in a better way, for example through training people who work in the justice system or by doing more research. This will be important of course. But I?m not convinced that it will go far enough. Courts already have the discretion to take aggravating factors into account when dealing the kind of offences we?re talking about, so we have to ask why it?s not happening.

I think it?s inevitable that leaving this much flexibility in the system leads to decisions on a ?judge-by-judge? basis, not just a case-by-case one. Some people will decide whether or not a case is a hate crime based on their own attitudes to the groups affected ? asylum seekers, HIV positive people, homeless people, drug users ? all these groups experience negative attitudes from the establishment, not just from individuals.

So I think we need to be explicit about recognising hate crimes, and I think we need to send clear instructions to our courts about how to deal with them.
Rather than creating new ?hate crime? offences, legislation should ensure that existing offences can be viewed as ?aggravated? if they are motivated by hate. This is the best way to get results ? it doesn?t risk seeing an offender walk free simply because the motivation wasn?t provable, and it can be applied to a wide range of offences, including generic harassment offences if they are to be created.

An inclusive and compassionate society which is at ease with its diversity would not fail to recognise hatred and bigotry when they occur ? these diseases can and must be treated.

The consultation paper published by the Working Group on Hate Crime is available on the web, or by phoning 0870 606 55 66.

The consultation period lasts until April 30th, so please feed your views and comments into the process, by contacting hatecrimeviews@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or Hate Crime Consultation, Justice Department, The Scottish Executive, St Andrew?s House, Edinburgh.

Read Patrick Harvie every week in the Big Issue in Scotland.

Big Issue article – ID Cards

The recent carnage in Madrid has fuelled debate on all those ?War on Terror? themes. Who?s going to be next? How can we prevent it? Does standing up to terrorism make us more of a target? Does looking for causes equate to excusing the outrage?

Perhaps most chillingly for those of us who fear Britain may be the next target, how can we achieve security in our daily lives, and how many of our freedoms are we willing to sacrifice to do so?

As someone who campaigned against the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and against the ?War on Terror?, the easy thing would be to fall back on a few well-worn slogans or glib phrases to remind us of old arguments. Yes, I do believe that the actions taken by the governments of the US and UK have made matters worse. I?d even go so far as to say that they were never designed with world stability or an end to terrorism in mind, but looking at the images from Spain it seems a bit self-righteous.

Even the most pacifist among us must recognise that what has happened has happened, and that there is a real danger of a similar attack here.

I?d love to think that we?ll have more success than we?ve seen so far at changing our Government?s policy on issues of global importance like Israel/Palestine, international justice, democracy in the UN, and the vicious arms trade. I won?t stop campaigning on them, and nor will millions of others who share the values of real progress.

But the kind of change we?re working for isn?t round the next corner. A terrorist attack might be.

One way in which I?d guess the Government will want to respond is with ID cards. It?s an issue which has cropped up from time to time for as long as I can remember, and a system is being piloted at the moment. Although the decision about whether to make them compulsory has been deferred until 2013, a government with an increasing fear of terrorism may raise it up the agenda again.

I?ve always said I?d oppose the introduction of ID cards, and refuse to co-operate in a scheme if it was introduced. Many others would take the same view. But in light of the very real fear which many people will be feeling after Madrid, I found myself re-evaluating this position, and asking myself if the case in favour was growing stronger.

Compulsory ID cards are an infringement of civil liberties, there?s no point denying it. I have a license to drive a car, and I don?t object because cars can be dangerous machines and it?s right that the state should regulate who can drive them and who can?t. It should be able to keep track of people?s record behind the wheel, and remove the right to drive from those who?re a danger to others. But I need no license to simply live ? to walk the streets or take part in ordinary life. To require us to carry identification removes our right to live as we wish with respect for our privacy. The question is whether it?s a sacrifice worth paying to prevent death and destruction such as Madrid experienced last week.
I have to accept that it might be. But that leaves us with the question of whether it would work.

This will be the important area of disagreement if the Government does speed up its proposals ? how will it work and how much security will it genuinely offer?
And this is why I will still challenge any proposals to introduce ID cards ? not because of the infringement of liberty ? but because of the unavoidable fact that they didn?t work for Spain.

Read Patrick Harvie every week in the Big Issue in Scotland.

Antisocial Behaviour

Last week the Communities Committee agreed its Stage 1 report on the Antisocial Behaviour Bill, a piece of legislation which has come in for serious criticism from a wide range of organisations. I beleive will disappoint communities all over Scotland, and I felt unable to sign up to most of the report.

I thought it was important to explain why. You can read my position paper here:

asb_paper.rtf